The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[Ken-1122]

But similar logic and scientific reasoning is used especially now we have the technology. Medical tests can show when a person is assaulted for example that it bruises and dcuts the body. The fact is when you hit the body the blow will cause damage to the blood vessels and it will bruise or hit hard enough and the skin will tear.

That’s different. What you are describing is physical. Morality is not physical

They will not be that wrong about the effects of certain acts on peoples wellbing today and in the future becuase we have better knowledge and tech. If we are wrong we will find a better answer.

That’s my point! They are always finding what they believe to be a better answer. This has been happening since the beginning of mankind. So the answers today cannot be considered objective if a better one is just around the corner.

Look if you want to believe science is in a position to give moral answers, knock yourself out! Thats your choice. But until you can give scientific moral answers like the ones I’ve been asking you to answer; morality about Nuclear war, abortion, or gay marriage, (answers you tap danced around and neglected to answer because you can’t) your claim will not be taken seriously.

 

[stevevw]

I told you the situation. So answer the question. Do you think science would say what we did was harmful even though we both would say it wasn’t harmful, both at the time and years later?
Suggesting that science can assign harm to someone despite their insistence there was no harm is as ridiculous as insisting that someone is unhappy when they insist they are.
Everyone assigns harm individually. Both whether it occurred and how much. To say otherwise is insanity.
Someone once described Sam Harris as having a PhD in not knowing what “objective” means. Which is, of course, a correct assessment. Seems like you’re in good company...

How can you be so sure by saying "Which is, of course, a correct assessment" of Sam Harris from one person. What evidence do you have that this is a correct statement beside one persons opinion and isn't that an objective claim you are making anyway or is this just your opinion as well. You are using a logical fallacy to say that because some have said that Mr Harris doesnt know what objective morality is, then he must not know what objective morality is. I could say that because most philosophical academics support objective morality then Mr Harris must be right.

When it comes to statutory rape it seems a contradictory statement to leave the assessment of harm up to the individuals involved considering the laws were brought in because young individuals are not capable of assessing the full implications, consequences and "harm" of sexual relationships. It is the very fact that a young person can be immature and blinded by love, naive and easily influenced by an adult that the laws were brought in to protect them.

Let's pretend that you are looking from the outside at two people like yourself and your girlfriend but the female was more immature and was being taken advantage of. Do you think it is fair that we just rely on their word to determine if any harm is being done if the young person is smitten and sees everything through rose coloured glasses? What if the young female ends up in a bad situation. Do you think we have a moral obligation to protect her. How do you think we could determine whether harm is being done and be confident that the real situation has been exposed.

Because morality isn’t objective, correct.

I happen to disagree. Yes, there are subjective views but an objective moral position can be found for each and every moral situation by using scientific reasoning and logic. For your situation, it may well be that you are innocent and no harm was done and the science supports this. But how do we really know if harm is being done or not? Do we line up people down at the courts and ask their opinion as to whether they believe they have done any harm and if they say they haven't we just let them go. That would be a crazy system of deciding innocence or guilt.

What I’m saying now is that even within a subjective moral system, not all moral situations can be objectively resolved. Any freshman ethics class can tell you that.

Actually, as I posted earlier most academics in philosophy which is the most relevant area to assess morality support objective morality so I think they know better than a freshman.
We can individually assess the act and harm done through scientific reasoning and logic. Every individual case of statutory rape can be determined to be causing harm or not by doing a psychological assessment on the couple and finding out their maturity levels emotionally and towards sexual relationships. We have evidence-based diagnostic tools which can determine things like the state of mind, emotional maturity, physical development etc. When it comes to the law you need to be sure.

I mean, what would science say about the various trolley problems...

What is a trolley problem.

 

[Ken-1122]

Actually, as I posted earlier most academics in philosophy which is the most relevant area to assess morality support objective morality so I think they know better than a freshman.

How do you know this? Where did you get this idea that academics in philosophy support the idea that morality is objective?

 

[stevevw]

How do you know this? Where did you get this idea that academics in philosophy support the idea that morality is objective?

It comes from a survey done by a scientific journal. I posted this a couple or times earlier.
The PhilPapers Surveys
The PhilPapers Survey was a survey of professional philosophers and others on their philosophical views, carried out in November 2009. The Survey was taken by 3226 respondents, including 1803 philosophy faculty members and/or PhDs and 829 philosophy graduate students.

Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 / 931 (56.4%)
Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 258 / 931 (27.7%)
Other 148 / 931 (15.9%)
Preliminary Survey results | PhilPapers Surveys

So those who did the survey were the most experienced in the field of assessing morality and should know better than most.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but you didn't create humans in your image so that if they followed your moral laws their life would be more happy and fulfilling.

ken: Neither did your imaginary God. However if you want to believe he did, more power to ya brush; but don't expect anyone else to just take your word for it.

I don't want them to just take my word for it, I want people to be open minded and do research on the evidence for God themselves. Don't just listen to hyperskeptics and their websites and books. Read and look at good Christian websites and books and make up your own mind.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Of course Hitler is going to appear to be nice to the RCC because almost half of his nation is Catholic, any smart politician does this even to groups he hates if he wants votes and support. While rejection of the bible was not the only thing that led to the holocaust, it was a signficant factor.

ken:I disagree! Because the Nazi's didn't reject the bible, they embraced it! I provided pictures as proof that they did this. Do you have anything to back up your claim? Or perhaps anything other than your word to refute anything I've said thus far?

All the pictures showed is that Hitler was a smart politician trying to get the Catholic vote. But if you want to understand Christianity in Germany read Doris Bergen's award winning book, Twisted Cross where she shows that Nazi Christians in Germany rejected anything in the bible they thought was put in by jews. This is a historical fact, you are going to have to learn to face.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't want them to just take my word for it, I want people to be open minded and do research on the evidence for God themselves. Don't just listen to hyperskeptics and their websites and books. Read and look at good Christian websites and books and make up your own mind.

Why would you assume people who disagree with you on religion aren’t open minded and haven’t done any research? Most Atheists I know of (myself included) used to be theistic, and through an honest search for the truth became atheist.

All the pictures showed is that Hitler was a smart politician trying to get the Catholic vote. But if you want to understand Christianity in Germany read Doris Bergen's award winning book, Twisted Cross where she shows that Nazi Christians in Germany rejected anything in the bible they thought was put in by jews. This is a historical fact, you are going to have to learn to face.

If Hitler did all of that for the catholic vote, how come he didn’t pretend to be Protestant? There were far more protestants in Germany during that time than Catholics!

The reality is; those pictures show Hitler was Catholic and many in the Nazi party had dealings with the Catholic church during that time; a fact that you refuse to face because your agenda and your desire to blame the evils of the Holocaust on Atheists is more important to you than the truth!

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
This has been the Christian position for 2000 years.

ken: Then you should have said Christian morality is based on the objectively existing character of God.

No, because there is evidence that Christian morality is THE MORALITY for all of humanity, irrespective of your religious beliefs, remember the Christian God exists irrespective whether people want to believe it or not.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And there is evidence that almost all human societies have similar basic morality to the Biblical God.

ken: They are also similar to the Muslim God, Hindu Gods, and all the other Gods as well.

Yes, though there are some significant differences from the Muslim god especially, but similarities are expected since all these gods were made up by humans who are all created in the image of the Christian God.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
In addition, all humans at least act as if there is an objective moral standard and judge themselves and others by it. So we are hardwired to recognize and desire an objective moral standard.

ken: Acting as if there is an objective moral standard doesn’t mean there is one.

True, but being hardwired for something that doesn't exist is unlikely. All other species are hardwired to avoid predators (that really exist) engage in sex (that really exists), raise young (that really exist) and etc. No other species is hardwired for something that doesn't exist. So why would humans be?

 

[Ken-1122]

No, because there is evidence that Christian morality is THE MORALITY for all of humanity, irrespective of your religious beliefs,

There is also evidence that MY morality is THE morality for all of humanity; irrespective of your religious beliefs.

remember the Christian God exists irrespective whether people want to believe it or not.

Oh so because you say it, that makes it so? I think not. Prove it; otherwise your argument fails.

True, but being hardwired for something that doesn't exist is unlikely. All other species are hardwired to avoid predators (that really exist) engage in sex (that really exists), raise young (that really exist) and etc. No other species is hardwired for something that doesn't exist. So why would humans be?

You can’t compare animals instinct for sex, avoiding predators raising young the same way from generation to generation since the beginning of their time; to the human instinct of morality that has been in a constant state of change from generation to generation since the beginning of our time.

 

[SPF]

You can’t compare animals instinct for sex, avoiding predators raising young the same way from generation to generation since the beginning of their time; to the human instinct of morality that has been in a constant state of change from generation to generation since the beginning of our time.

Can you point to a specific culture that has taught that things like rape, cold blooded murder, and lying are virtuous acts and not vices? Can you point to a specific culture that has taught that things like courage, honor, and faithfulness are vices and not virtues?

I think when one examines history you find that moral principles are very consistent.

 

[Ken-1122]

Can you point to a specific culture that has taught that things like rape, cold blooded murder, and lying are virtuous acts and not vices? Can you point to a specific culture that has taught that things like courage, honor, and faithfulness are vices and not virtues?

I think when one examines history you find that moral principles are very consistent.

Why do you guys with those objective moral opinions always pick easy stuff like cold blooded murder, or rape, as examples? Those aren’t the only things seen as wrong you know!
How about

*Slavery
*Human sacrifice during religious rituals
*A 12 yr old girl marrying a man 3 times her age

Those are issues that have changed over time. How about issues of today?

*The use of Nuclear weapons during war?
*Abortion
*Killing animals and eating their flesh
*Death Penalty
*Corporal punishment of your child

If morality is objective, you should be able to demonstrate the right/wrong of these issues just as easily as you can demonstrate a mathematical equation.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
A one time historical event cannot be disproven, especially if the supernatural exists and there is evidence that it does. The snake may have been possessed by a supernatural being ie Satan, that one time and he made it appear to speak.

ken: By definition, if supernatural event happened, it would no longer be supernatural event; but natural.

In what way? Nevertheless, a one time historical natural event cannot be disproven either.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I provided evidence about the Chinese treasure ships in the middle ages.

ken: They likely used steel reinforcements during that time. Noah didn't have steel

Maybe not, but there is evidence that he had iron. Read about Tubal-Cain.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Worldwide hydraulically caused fossil graveyards at roughly the time period when it occurred plus the disruption of the earths rotation producing an ice age shortly after the time period of the flood, ie 2 mya.

ken: There is no scientific evidence of a world wide flood.

I just provided you some.

ken: It was estimated that in order for the entire world to be covered by water up to the highest mountain, it would require 5 times the amount of water that is currently on earth. So where did all of this water go? Outter space? There isn’t enough water under ground to account for that.

There may have been enough water underground 2 mya and added to atmospheric water. God may have sent it into space after the flood. Or he may have created much more rain than any natural rain would be possible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Studies of the continents have shown that land bridges existed at the time of the flood so they could spread quickly throughout the world so there would be no trail left after 2 million years.

ken: There would still be records of such animals in middle east asia

Not if their populations were small and they quickly immigrated to better ecosystems for their particular characteristics. After 2 million years next to nothing would show up in the fossil record.

 

[Ken-1122]

In what way? Nevertheless, a one time historical natural event cannot be disproven either.


Maybe not, but there is evidence that he had iron. Read about Tubal-Cain.


I just provided you some.



There may have been enough water underground 2 mya and added to atmospheric water. God may have sent it into space after the flood. Or he may have created much more rain than any natural rain would be possible.



Not if their populations were small and they quickly immigrated to better ecosystems for their particular characteristics. After 2 million years next to nothing would show up in the fossil record.

Okay so let me see if I’ve got this straight; you believe 2 million years ago during the Ice ages there was a world wide flood, and people built a wooden boat/ark to house all the animals, and all this is backed up by science?

Look if thats what you wanna believe, go ahead; I ain’t trying to take that away from you, but don’t expect anyone else to believe you.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
There is scientific evidence that relatively minor tweaks to DNA such a thing is possible.
That mammals could live that long? Evidence please!

Studies have shown that reduced supernova activity, less degradation of telomeres, and certain genes appear to activate certain specialized proteins that magnify the longevity enhancement of caloric restriction and consumption of anti-oxidants among other things.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Because no biblical claim has ever been refuted.

ken: Perhaps not to your satisfaction, but plenty of biblical claims are refuted; like the world stopped rotating in order to have the Sun sit still in the sky so Joshua could win a war? Can you imagine the damage momentum would have caused if at 2000mph the rotation of the planet came to a screeching halt?

It would not have had to stopped rotating, it could have just become gravitationally locked. And God could have prevented any ill effects.

ken: Or that the Tower of Babel resulted in the diversity of languages? Look if you want to believe that stuff, that’s fine; I ain’t trying to take that away from you. But there is plenty of evidence for most reasonable people to conclude that many of those bible claims could not have happened.

Actually the great linguist Noam Chomsky believes that all languages are derived from an original prototypical language. Which is what would be expected if the Tower story was true.

 

[Ken-1122]

Studies have shown that reduced supernova activity, less degradation of telomeres, and certain genes appear to activate certain specialized proteins that magnify the longevity enhancement of caloric restriction and consumption of anti-oxidants among other things.

What scientific evidence shows this can happen in a way that results in people living for centuries?

It would not have had to stopped rotating, it could have just become gravitationally locked. And God could have prevented any ill effects.

Gravitational lock would not prevent the Sun from setting.

Actually the great linguist Noam Chomsky believes that all languages are derived from an original prototypical language. Which is what would be expected if the Tower story was true.

We now know building a tower to the clouds will not result in you getting into heaven; so why confuse the languages, when you could just let them fail!

 

[Ed1wolf]

His character is a result of his thoughts. That would be like me claiming my character is not human thus objective morality is based on my moral character.

No, you have it reversed. Your character produces your thoughts, if you have good character you have good thoughts, evil character then evil thoughts. So also is it with God. His morally perfect character produces His morally perfect thoughts.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Look if you want to believe science is in a position to give moral answers, knock yourself out! Thats your choice. But until you can give scientific moral answers like the ones I’ve been asking you to answer; morality about Nuclear war, abortion, or gay marriage, (answers you tap danced around and neglected to answer because you can’t) your claim will not be taken seriously.

Need science give one answer to moral questions?

That would be copycatting faith. Maybe abortion for example is bad for a devout catholic as it causes her so much anguish, and good for a liberal pro-choicer, as it relieved her of an unwanted duty.

If we take well being as that axiom of science, where well being is the intuitively known principal good, we than also possibly acknowledge that well being is personal property - it is the well being of such and such a person, a concrete situated individual in a unique predicament.

Why should such different individuals with unique values and traits etc and have the exact same answer to such complex psychosocial issues?

Genetics, culture and experience format (arrange, pattern, align) people in different ways. Maybe we ought to expect different resolutions to moral conundrums. It could well be anti-science to expect anything else....

Or do we want to homogenize humanity in the name of "the good"?

This solution doesn't make the answers arbitrary, it just means that each personal solution will tend* to be unique in a metaphysical symmetry reflecting that persons objective needs...

*tend towards, approach a given limit, move towards a personalised dynamic signature etc

 

[Ken-1122]

No, you have it reversed. Your character produces your thoughts, if you have good character you have good thoughts, evil character then evil thoughts. So also is it with God. His morally perfect character produces His morally perfect thoughts.

I disagree! Your thoughts don't come from your character, your thoughts come from your brain. If you are unable to think, you have no character, nothing; you are in a vegetative state. The way you think (thoughts) affects the way we behave; this behavior is what is often called our character.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Why would you assume people who disagree with you on religion aren’t open minded and haven’t done any research? Most Atheists I know of (myself included) used to be theistic, and through an honest search for the truth became atheist.

Well, most atheists I have talked to have very superficial understandings and interpretations of the Bible. They usually ignore the context and often interpret verses literally that are not meant to be literal based on the context. Actually very similar to uneducated fundies, but even most fundies are not quite as superficial as most atheists. Maybe you are an exception and if you are congratulations.

ken: If Hitler did all of that for the catholic vote, how come he didn’t pretend to be Protestant? There were far more protestants in Germany during that time than Catholics!

As a famous politician everyone knew he was raised Catholic. Also, given the fact that Roman Catholicism is more international and more influential worldwide, he probably wanted to be more connected to it rather than Lutheranism, especially given his goal of being dictator of the world.

ken: The reality is; those pictures show Hitler was Catholic and many in the Nazi party had dealings with the Catholic church during that time; a fact that you refuse to face because your agenda and your desire to blame the evils of the Holocaust on Atheists is more important to you than the truth!

Yes Hitler was a Catholic by name but not by belief or practice. I provided quotes from his childhood friend that show that he was anti-Christian even as a child. And as an adult, he told many of his closest associates behind the scenes that he hated Christianity. And even in a few public speeches he made some pretty blatant criticisms of Christianity. He said he never believed in an afterlife.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well, most atheists I have talked to have very superficial understandings and interpretations of the Bible. They usually ignore the context and often interpret verses literally that are not meant to be literal based on the context. Actually very similar to uneducated fundies, but even most fundies are not quite as superficial as most atheists. Maybe you are an exception and if you are congratulations.

Most Christians I have talked to have very superficial understandings and interpretations of the Bible. They usually ignore the context, and often interpret verses literally that are not meant to be literal based, and interpret verses as allegory with verses that aren’t meant to be allegory based; they do this to make sense of that which often makes no sense at all. Fundies especially are very guilty of this. Maybe you are an exception; and if you are congratulations.

As a famous politician everyone knew he was raised Catholic. Also, given the fact that Roman Catholicism is more international and more influential worldwide, he probably wanted to be more connected to it rather than Lutheranism, especially given his goal of being dictator of the world.

Yes Hitler was a Catholic by name but not by belief or practice. I provided quotes from his childhood friend that show that he was anti-Christian even as a child. And as an adult, he told many of his closest associates behind the scenes that he hated Christianity. And even in a few public speeches he made some pretty blatant criticisms of Christianity. He said he never believed in an afterlife.

So a childhood friend claims he said this; some nameless guy claims he said such and such in secret when nobody else was around? IS THAT THE BEST YOU’VE GOT?????

I don’t even know if those qualify as rumors! Meanwhile I provide you photos of Hitler praying, photos of Hitler and Nazi elite with Catholic elite, his book Mein Kemph claiming he was doing the lords work by protecting us from the Jews; Newspaper clippings with references to doing Gods work; These are facts. But you would rather believe rumors (if they could be called that) over facts.

My grandma used to say “you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink”. I’ve lead you to the water; the rest is up to you my friend.


Peace

Ken

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, because there is evidence that Christian morality is THE MORALITY for all of humanity, irrespective of your religious beliefs,
ken: There is also evidence that MY morality is THE morality for all of humanity; irrespective of your religious beliefs.

True, as you were raised in a western society and were created in the image of the Christian God your morality is probably quite close to standard Christian morality which is the morality of all humanity.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
remember the Christian God exists irrespective whether people want to believe it or not.

ken: Oh so because you say it, that makes it so? I think not. Prove it; otherwise your argument fails.

I cant PROVE His existence but there is strong evidence for His existence. The BB theory combined with the law of causality, pretty much shows He exists.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
True, but being hardwired for something that doesn't exist is unlikely. All other species are hardwired to avoid predators (that really exist) engage in sex (that really exists), raise young (that really exist) and etc. No other species is hardwired for something that doesn't exist. So why would humans be?

ken: You can’t compare animals instinct for sex, avoiding predators raising young the same way from generation to generation since the beginning of their time; to the human instinct of morality that has been in a constant state of change from generation to generation since the beginning of our time.

No, I demonstrated earlier that almost all societies throughout history have had the same basic morality which is very similar though not identical to the Ten Commandments.