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

[Ed1wolf]

I hope that the biologists that still believe that it is not happiness have retired, as they are certainly not upto date.

How do we know:
We can take a look at the chemicals and brain activity in human beings when they are happy, use large enough sample sizes to be sure.
We can then take a look an animal brains when, for instance when a dog is wagging his tail, are they similar or the same as humans when they are happy.
Dogs are mammals and DNA wise are exceptionally close to us, this gives a very high level of certainty that a dog feels happy and as a result wags his tail.

No, we dont know this for sure. Dog brains are structured very differently from human brains so even though some of the chemicals are the same, we dont really know what those chemicals do to two brains that are very different. It is similar to how facial movements mean totally different things. When humans show their teeth it usually means they are happy, when a dog shows its teeth it means it is very scared or angry.

riv: In your post you seem to be trying to give evolution a personality and a goal, if evolution is responsible for huge pain it cannot really be held accountable, in does not think, it is not self aware it is a process.

No, you are missing my point. If evolution produced us thru a process that is partly based on pain and suffering then how can you say that pain and suffering are bad things? Most atheistic moralities are based on avoidance of pain and suffering at all costs, but without it humans would not exist if evolution is true.

 

[Strathos]

The Theory of Evolution.

ToE is neither theistic nor atheistic. It's a description of nature, just like the theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory, etc.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, if it is based on just another human's moral character then it exists only in human minds, and therefore is not objective but just the subjective code of another human.

ken: Subjective does not only apply to human thought, it applies to any being capable of thought; even God.

In what way?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
God's character exists outside of human minds and therefore is objective relative to humans.

ken: My character exists outside of all human minds except of my own, and is objective relative to all other humans. IOW if you gonna try to make an exception for God, I can make the same exception for myself.

No, you are misunderstanding. Different entities have different characters and natures. For example, a dog has a dog nature and character that is objectively different from human nature and character and exists objectively in relation to humans and other different entities and their nature and character. So it is with God. He has a divine nature and character objectively different from human nature and character. Other humans have natures and characters that are only subjectively different in nature and character from your nature and character. All of yours and their thoughts are human thoughts. And all our characters are human characters and therefore are not objectively different. All your thoughts are just another human's subjective thoughts.

 

[Ken-1122]

In what way?

If morality is objective, all intelligent beings are subject to the laws of morality; no exceptions not even God. Just like with math, God doesn’t have the option to proclaim 1+1=3, if he did he would be wrong; so it is with morality where God doesn’t have the option to proclaim (for example) lying is wrong, abortion is wrong, etc. etc. the laws of morality determine these things. If you want to proclaim God as the moral base for all of morality, that’s fine but that would also mean the laws of nature are subjective to whatever God says thus making morality subjective (to what God says) not objective. My point is, if you are going to proclaim the laws of morality subjective to God’s nature, I can proclaim those laws subjective to my nature; either way morality is subjective not objective.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Usually death and pain go together, especially for higher animals like mammals and birds. So at least for mammals and birds evolution depends on pain and death. You dont think at least sometimes dying produces pain?

ken: I’m saying death doesn’t cause pain 100% of the time; there are may instances of people dying without actually feeling pain.

It doesn't have to be 100% of the time to be a significant part of the time. And it definitely DOES depend on death, remember how I demonstrated that without death, evolution would never occur. So if you believe in evolution and you wanted humans to come into existence then you have to say that death is a good thing.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Many biologists believe that the wagging of the tail and jumping on its master are just instinctive standard greeting behavior among canines. How do you know it is happy?

ken: C’mon get real! Dogs don’t have to speak english in order to let you know when they are happy, scared, angry, or countless other feelings.

In order to know for certain they do. See my post above about how for dogs showing your teeth means that you are angry or scared, but for humans you are happy. While we may think that dogs experience all the same feelings we do, we dont really know for certain because they very different beings with different natures from ours.

 

[Ken-1122]

It doesn't have to be 100% of the time to be a significant part of the time. And it definitely DOES depend on death,

New life depends on death as well!

remember how I demonstrated that without death, evolution would never occur.

Without death, new life could not occur.

So if you believe in evolution and you wanted humans to come into existence then you have to say that death is a good thing.

Going by that logic, if you enjoy living, you have to say death is a good thing. Do you agree?

 

[Ed1wolf]

There are countless examples of evolution being empirically verified.

Provide ONE example.

ken: If you disagree with what is called “macro evolution” this doesn’t dispel the fact that evolution is a reality. If I make the mistake and claim the evolution of aircraft over the years is a part of the theory of evolution, I would be wrong; but my wrong claim does not discredit the theory of evolution in any way; it just shows what I am attempting to put under the umbrella of Evolution as an explanation should not be.

I don't just disagree with evolution, I have provided several evidences that it is unlikely to have ever occurred. See my posts to Rivaga above.

 

[Ken-1122]

Provide ONE example.

*Ever wonder why every year a new flu vaccine is required, that the flu vaccine that worked last year will not work this year? If the flu virus didn’t evolve, the same vaccine would work every year.
*Ever have a doctor stick that stick down your throat to do a throat culture? He is checking to see what extent the infection has grown and evolved in order to know how to treat it.
*Farmers are constantly having to change pesticides because the pests will evolve in a way that renders it useless.

If it wasn't for evolution these problems wouldn't exist. Modern medicine, and even modern agriculture is based on the Theory of Evolution; if Evolution weren't a reality, these things wouldn't work.

I don't just disagree with evolution, I have provided several evidences that it is unlikely to have ever occurred. See my posts to Rivaga above.

If you could prove it, you would be world famous and extremely rich

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, they were not created with a natural desire to embrace Him either. It was a pure free will with no inclination one way or the other. But when their test came (the Tree of All Knowledge) with the serpent tempting them, they chose to rebel against God.

ken: My question was; why didn’t he create them (Adam and Eve) with a natural desire to embrace him. If God wanted his creation to embrace him, he should have created them that way.

God wanted true love from humans not manufactured love. True love was necessary for true spiritual growth and true spiritual growth was necessary to destroy evil forever which was and is His ultimate goal.

ken: And as far as free will, if you provide negative consequences for making the wrong choice, and or positive consequences for making the right choice; by definition you are not providing free will. A robber putting a gun to your head and saying “your money or your life” is not giving you free will.

No, just because you have limited options does not mean you dont have free will. Free will is the ability to make the decision that you want to. So in the scenario that you provide, the question is do you want to live and lose your money or do you want to die. If your will had been programmed to value your money over your life and so you always chose death, then that would mean you did not have free will and vice versa. You have negative consequences for making wrong decisions all throughout your life. Say you choose to be promiscuous, then there is a good chance you will get a STD.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
They were our representatives chosen by the Judge. Just like in a case where you cant afford a lawyer the judge chooses an attorney to represent you.
ken: Except in this case the Judge (God) chooses an attorney he knows (via omniscience) is going to fail at representing us. We would have been better off being allowed to represent ourselves!

Not if it ultimately led to a greater good, ie the destruction of evil forever, and that is what He did.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The power of sin became incorporated into our spiritual "DNA" so it was inherited.

ken: Why would a fair God choose to allow the incorporation of the power of sin into our DNA, then punish us for sinning? Can you see the unfairness of that?

As I stated earlier, in Western judicial and political systems, all kinds of consequences occur to us based on what our representative did. Most people consider western forms the most just in the world. It may seem unfair to you from your personal perspective in the big picture it is the best because it will ultimately produce the greatest good ever, ie the destruction of evil forever.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, it is made up of laws, it was valid even 65 mya. Two dinosaurs could not occupy the same space at the same time, ie the law of non-contradiction and no humans to be found using it as a tool.

ken: Your example of the dinosaurs is based on fact. All facts are logical, but not all logic is based on facts.

Yes, of course, your premises have to be true to come to a true and logical conclusion. This is a basic fact of logic.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, that doesn't make the laws of logic subjective.

ken: So answer the question. What is the most logical way to go from point A to point B?

See my post about the hammer and the house. It depends on what point A and point B are.

ken: Also, what are these laws of logic that you speak of?

Read Aristotle's book about logic.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It is like using a hammer to build a house that you like and then me using the same hammer to build a house that I like. The hammer objectively exists but we each use it for our particular circumstances.

ken: Unlike logic, a hammer does not only exist within the context of human thought.

No, see my example of the dinosaurs, the laws of logic exist independently of human thought. They are how reality works.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So it is with logic. People use it for different things but sometimes when they use for one particular thing that each person is trying to understand, like God,

ken: When people use their logic to understand God, don’t their beliefs, perceptions, and interpretations color how their logic is used?

Sometimes, but that is true of everything even science when trying to understand nature. You just have to try to understand as objectively as you can and of course, God can help you to understand Him better.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
they ignore the logical conclusion if it doesn't fit what they want it to. And try to rationalize, which is not logical, it away.

ken: So you are claiming that only those who share your belief in God are logical. and everyone else is illogical? What do you base this on?

No not exactly, I am claiming that Christianity is the most logical view of reality.

 

[Ken-1122]

God wanted true love from humans not manufactured love.

Are you saying the only way God could create people capable of true love, is to create them with the natural desire to sin and do wrong?

True love was necessary for true spiritual growth and true spiritual growth was necessary to destroy evil forever which was and is His ultimate goal.

Why does evil have to be eventually destroyed? If God is omni powerful, and capable, he shouldn’t have to go through some grand plan to destroy evil, he should be able to immediately think it out of existence! Are you sure getting rid of evil is his ultimate plan? Doesn’t look like it.

No, just because you have limited options does not mean you dont have free will. Free will is the ability to make the decision that you want to. So in the scenario that you provide, the question is do you want to live and lose your money or do you want to die. If your will had been programmed to value your money over your life and so you always chose death, then that would mean you did not have free will and vice versa.

In the scenario I provided, of course we have the freewill to live or die, but the freewill isn’t coming from the person holding a gun to my head; it comes from my ability to choose. My point is; if God provides punishment for those who disobey him, they have freewill, but the freewill doesn’t come from God, it comes from within.

Not if it ultimately led to a greater good, ie the destruction of evil forever, and that is what He did.

The destruction of evil forever? Last time I looked, there is still a lot of evil out there! Evil has not been destroyed my friend.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, of course, your premises have to be true to come to a true and logical conclusion. This is a basic fact of logic.

But just because someone is using logic doesn't mean they are using laws. People use logic all the time, and are still wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

See my post about the hammer and the house.

Your post about the hammer and house doesn’t apply because unlike logic, a hammer and house are physical; not just a series of thoughts.

It depends on what point A and point B are.

Point A and B are locations.

Read Aristotle's book about logic.

How about if you read the book and use the information to answer my question.

No, see my example of the dinosaurs,

Your example of dinosaurs is not logic; it’s an example of a conclusion you’ve reached using logic.

the laws of logic exist independently of human thought. They are how reality works.

Is there logic on the Moon? No. Logic only exists where there are people because logic only exist in the context of human thought.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Since they are both subjective reasoning then neither conclusion is better than the other,

ken: How did you make the leap, that because they are both subjective reasoning that neither conclusion is better than the other?

Because if they are subjective then it is like choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla. It is just subjective preference. Chocolate may be better to you but you cannot condemn someone for liking vanilla.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
so you have no real basis for condemning Hitler.

ken: I do have a basis for condemning Hitler; because I believe his morality is wrong!

That would be like saying that liking chocolate ice cream is wrong and then condemning the person and making laws against people liking chocolate ice cream.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Well for one thing God's feelings are not subjective relative to humans because they exist outside human minds and therefore are objective.

ken; No; they are subjective relative to God because they exist within God's mind and are therefore subjective.

That is not what I wrote, did you even read what I typed? It doesn't matter if they are subjective to God, they are not subjective relative to humans so God's feelings and moral character are objective relative to humans and therefore His moral law is objective relative to humans.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Human morality is not enforced but God's moral law is enforced either in this world or the next.

ken: God’s moral laws are no more enforced than mine.

Actually they are, though sometimes God is gracious and doesn't always punish the person. Such as engaging in promiscuous sex often results in STDs. Committing adultery often leads to the destruction of your marriage, lying on your tax forms can send you to jail, and etc.

 

[Ed1wolf]

ToE is neither theistic nor atheistic. It's a description of nature, just like the theory of gravity, germ theory, atomic theory, etc.

It is not atheistic to all gods but it implies atheism toward the Christian God because it is purely materialistic and makes the Christian God unnecessary. Anything that makes God unnecessary is plainly anti-the Christian God. Christianity teaches that without God NOTHING would exist not even matter.

 

[Strathos]

It is not atheistic to all gods but it implies atheism toward the Christian God because it is purely materialistic and makes the Christian God unnecessary. Anything that makes God unnecessary is plainly anti-the Christian God. Christianity teaches that without God NOTHING would exist not even matter.

And what does that have to do with biological evolution?

 

[Ken-1122]

Because if they are subjective then it is like choosing chocolate ice cream over vanilla. It is just subjective preference. Chocolate may be better to you but you cannot condemn someone for liking vanilla.

How do you conclude that because it is subjective, it becomes meaningless?

That would be like saying that liking chocolate ice cream is wrong and then condemning the person and making laws against people liking chocolate ice cream.

That response is like saying because genocide is an action, and eating ice cream is an action; that eating ice cream is the same as genocide. See how absurd that sounds? C'mon you know better than that!

That is not what I wrote, did you even read what I typed? It doesn't matter if they are subjective to God, they are not subjective relative to humans so God's feelings and moral character are objective relative to humans and therefore His moral law is objective relative to humans.

Just because God’s feelings are different than humans doesn’t mean God’s feelings gets the objective label, where human feelings do not. The definition of Objective does not make an exception for God. That which is objective or subjective is applies the same to humans as it is to God.

Actually they are, though sometimes God is gracious and doesn't always punish the person. Such as engaging in promiscuous sex often results in STDs. Committing adultery often leads to the destruction of your marriage, lying on your tax forms can send you to jail, and etc.

Are you suggesting God occasionally gives people STD's and send them to Jail?

 

[Ed1wolf]

If morality is objective, all intelligent beings are subject to the laws of morality; no exceptions not even God. Just like with math, God doesn’t have the option to proclaim 1+1=3, if he did he would be wrong; so it is with morality where God doesn’t have the option to proclaim (for example) lying is wrong, abortion is wrong, etc. etc. the laws of morality determine these things.

You are right that God cannot go against His moral character which commands that lying is wrong. He can never proclaim that lying is right and He is bound by truth including mathematical truth so He can never proclaim 1+1=3. He is bound by His objective moral character. So then when He created humans in His image they became bound to His objective moral laws with a moral conscience based on His objective moral character but He also gave humans a free will and they chose to disobey His moral law and go against their conscience just as all humans do today.

If you want to proclaim God as the moral base for all of morality, that’s fine but that would also mean the laws of nature are subjective to whatever God says thus making morality subjective (to what God says) not objective. My point is, if you are going to proclaim the laws of morality subjective to God’s nature, I can proclaim those laws subjective to my nature; either way morality is subjective not objective.

No, the laws of nature are objective relative to humans because they exist outside the human mind can be studied within the bounds of the physical universe. God created the objective laws of nature. So it is with God's objective moral laws, they exist objectively in His moral character and can be studied in their objective written form in the Bible.

 

[Ken-1122]

You are right that God cannot go against His moral character which commands that lying is wrong. He can never proclaim that lying is right and He is bound by truth including mathematical truth so He can never proclaim 1+1=3. He is bound by His objective moral character. So then when He created humans in His image they became bound to His objective moral laws with a moral conscience based on His objective moral character

If our moral conscious is based on God’s objective moral character, Why is our moral conscious in a constant state of change?