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

[Ken-1122]

Because I know in advance the kind of answer you would give me. So it's easier to just save time and not go through the whole song and dance like I have with so many other atheists.

Fair enough; I totally understand. Well... its been nice conversing with you my friend!

Peace
Ken

 

[ViaCrucis]

I asked do you know of any facts that CANNOT be demonstrated empirically.
K

If there are facts that cannot be demonstrated empirically how would they be demonstrated? I've already offered a hypothetical fact that can't be demonstrated empirically earlier. I suspect that repeating it would mean going around in circles.

Any number of hypothetical facts could exist that are not now, or may never be, empirically demonstrated; what would make them a fact is that they are congruent with reality.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Ken-1122]

If there are facts that cannot be demonstrated empirically how would they be demonstrated? I've already offered a hypothetical fact that can't be demonstrated empirically earlier. I suspect that repeating it would mean going around in circles.

Any number of hypothetical facts could exist that are not now, or may never be, empirically demonstrated; what would make them a fact is that they are congruent with reality.

-CryptoLutheran

My point is, if a claim cannot be demonstrated empirically, you shouldn't call that claim a fact.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No, we require a chain of reasoning to get from universe to God. Or we need an internal act of faith.

Neither are of those moves are "empirical" - which means presented directly to the senses without additional reasoning.

Do you believe that your great grandfather existed? Do you have direct sensations coming from him?

 

[Ed1wolf]

If his great grandfather is no longer around thus cannot be tested or analyzed, there is no empirical evidence for his grandfather. There may be plenty of evidence that he at one time exited, but not empirical evidence.

Ken

But I am sure he believes that his great grandfather existed, so that just proves he doesn't need empirical evidence to believe something exists or existed. There is no direct empirical observations of dark matter or neutrinos, do you believe they exist?

 

[Ken-1122]

But I am sure he believes that his great grandfather existed, so that just proves he doesn't need empirical evidence to believe something exists or existed. There is no direct empirical observations of dark matter or neutrinos, do you believe they exist?

Nobody is claiming empirical evidence is required in order to believe or even know something; what's your point?

 

[durangodawood]

Do you believe that your great grandfather existed? Do you have direct sensations coming from him?

I was talking about the universe. Not my great grandfather.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Nobody is claiming empirical evidence is required in order to believe or even know something; what's your point?

That is what he appeared to be saying and that there is no empirical evidence for God. But in fact there is. The existence and characteristics of the universe.

 

[Ed1wolf]

I was talking about the universe. Not my great grandfather.

Well we also have direct sensations from the universe that are evidence for God. So in fact we do have empirical evidence for God.

 

[durangodawood]

Well we also have direct sensations from the universe that are evidence for God. So in fact we do have empirical evidence for God.

What direct sensations?

 

[Ken-1122]

That is what he appeared to be saying and that there is no empirical evidence for God. But in fact there is. The existence and characteristics of the universe.

The existence and characteristics of the Universe is not empirical evidence of your God, (unless you worship the Universe) it is only empirical evidence of the Universe.

Ken

 

[quatona]

Well we also have direct sensations from the universe that are evidence for God.

Such as?

 

[stevevw]

I have always found it hard to understand the argument for subjective morality. The very nature of subjective morality is self defeating. As soon as someone says that they disagree with someone who supports objective morality and is giving their argument for subjectivity they are taking an objective position that they have the only correct answer. Subjective morality means that you have to acknowledge and accept other peoples views even if you disagree with them even if you think they are morally wrong. That means someone can take your possessions and justify it as something they believe in as right and you cannot say that they are wrong in their actions. Therefore anything can be justified as being OK including killing. This would be a horrible world and is in fact the world we live in. The 20th century has seen more blood shedding than in all history.

The problem is with subjective morality is that people can intellectually believe that it is OK to allow different views and positions on what is right and wrong but when most if not all people experience injustice they react in a way that shows that we have an inbuilt knowledge of what is right and wrong no matter what we say. Another indicator that we act as though there is objective morality is how the United Nations sets certain standards of what is good and evil for which they expect the entire world to adhere by. If morals were subjective then an organisation like the UN which supports individual and nationals rights would not be forcing groups like ISIS to conform to their views of morality. ISIS may sincerely believe that the world should conform to their views and killing people is justified.

Morals cannot be something that is evolved as it is more than just chemical reactions in the brain. We could argue that evolution caused groups to act morally to maintain peace and give a better chance to survive. But under subjective morality we could argue just as rationally that when it comes down to survival one group taking out another is OK as well if there were limited resources. So subjective morality is what undermines peace and survivability in the end because it does not declare a clear line of behaviour and allows bad and dangerous possibilities. Where if we look at morality through the consequences of our actions we can then judge what is good and bad more objectively. I do not think anyone would disagree that having something taken from you is good and that can be applied in any situation.

The very fact that we say there is good and evil in the world implies there must be a certain standard to be measured by that is outside human views. We know from experience that humans are not good at determining what is good and evil so we cannot trust and rely on our own judgements to set the standards. So if there are moral laws than this implies there is a moral law giver outside of humanity.

 

[durangodawood]

I have always found it hard to understand the argument for subjective morality. The very nature of subjective morality is self defeating. As soon as someone says that they disagree with someone who supports objective morality and is giving their argument for subjectivity they are taking an objective position that they have the only correct answer. Subjective morality means that you have to acknowledge and accept other peoples views even if you disagree with them even if you think they are morally wrong. That means someone can take your possessions and justify it as something they believe in as right and you cannot say that they are wrong in their actions. Therefore anything can be justified as being OK including killing. This would be a horrible world and is in fact the world we live in. The 20th century has seen more blood shedding than in all history.

The problem is with subjective morality is that people can intellectually believe that it is OK to allow different views and positions on what is right and wrong but when most if not all people experience injustice they react in a way that shows that we have an inbuilt knowledge of what is right and wrong no matter what we say. Another indicator that we act as though there is objective morality is how the United Nations sets certain standards of what is good and evil for which they expect the entire world to adhere by. If morals were subjective then an organisation like the UN which supports individual and nationals rights would not be forcing groups like ISIS to conform to their views of morality. ISIS may sincerely believe that the world should conform to their views and killing people is justified.

Morals cannot be something that is evolved as it is more than just chemical reactions in the brain. We could argue that evolution caused groups to act morally to maintain peace and give a better chance to survive because acting bad against the group would cause someone to be cast out. But we could argue just as rationally that when it comes down to survival one group taking out another is OK as well. So subjective morality is what undermines peace and survivability in the end because it does not declare a clear line of behaviour and allows bad and dangerous possibilities. Where is we look at morality through the consequences of our actions we can then judge what is good and bad more objectively. I do not think anyone would disagree that having something taken from you is good or that their partner or family member is abused is OK.

The very fact that we say there is good and evil in the world implies there must be a certain standard to be measured by that is outside human views. We know from experience that humans are not good at determining what is good and evil so we cannot trust and rely on our own judgements to set the standards. So if there are moral laws than this implies there is a moral law giver outside of humanity.

To properly argue that morality is objective, its not enough to just say "we need it". You'd have to show it to us. Thats what objective means. Demonstrable.

So let see it!

 

[durangodawood]

But I am sure he believes that his great grandfather existed, so that just proves he doesn't need empirical evidence to believe something exists or existed. There is no direct empirical observations of dark matter or neutrinos, do you believe they exist?

Yes. I believe my grandfather existed for reasons other than empirical evidence.

 

[Ken-1122]

I have always found it hard to understand the argument for subjective morality. The very nature of subjective morality is self defeating. As soon as someone says that they disagree with someone who supports objective morality and is giving their argument for subjectivity they are taking an objective position that they have the only correct answer.

To believe your moral position is the only correct one does ‘t make morality objective. Subjective morality means you recognize thee are others whom you disagree with that believe their moral position is the only correct one

Subjective morality means that you have to acknowledge and accept other peoples views even if you disagree with them even if you think they are morally wrong.

No it doesn’t mean that; Subjective morality means there are other views that exist.

That means someone can take your possessions and justify it as something they believe in as right and you cannot say that they are wrong in their actions.

No, it means you recognize they might incorrectly believe they are right

Therefore anything can be justified as being OK including killing. This would be a horrible world and is in fact the world we live in. The 20th century has seen more blood shedding than in all history.

The fact that evil men do justify anything; even killing, should tell you that either objective morality allows this as well, old that morality is subjective.

The problem is with subjective morality is that people can intellectually believe that it is OK to allow different views and positions on what is right and wrong

No, subjective morality doesn’t mean different views are allowed, it means different views EXIST

but when most if not all people experience injustice they react in a way that shows that we have an inbuilt knowledge of what is right and wrong no matter what we say.

Everybody has a different view of what constitutes injustice. that is subjective

Another indicator that we act as though there is objective morality is how the United Nations sets certain standards of what is good and evil for which they expect the entire world to adhere by. If morals were subjective then an organisation like the UN which supports individual and nationals rights would not be forcing groups like ISIS to conform to their views of morality.

The UN is based on laws, not morality. Laws are objective, morality is not.

ISIS may sincerely believe that the world should conform to their views and killing people is justified.

It doesn’t matter what ISIS believes is justified; if what they do is against UN law, the UN is supposed to come down on them.

Morals cannot be something that is evolved as it is more than just chemical reactions in the brain.

Morals have not evolved? Then how do you explain what was seen as good, years ago (like human sacrifice to a God) is seen as evil today; and visa versa?

We could argue that evolution caused groups to act morally to maintain peace and give a better chance to survive. But under subjective morality we could argue just as rationally that when it comes down to survival one group taking out another is OK as well if there were limited resources. So subjective morality is what undermines peace and survivability in the end because it does not declare a clear line of behaviour and allows bad and dangerous possibilities.

Society is not ruled by objective or subjective morality, society is ruled by laws.

Where if we look at morality through the consequences of our actions we can then judge what is good and bad more objectively.

We tried that already, it doesn't work because people disagree on what is good or bad through the consequences of actions. Thats why they make laws where everybody has to compromise a little for a greater good.

I do not think anyone would disagree that having something taken from you is good and that can be applied in any situation.

How about paying taxes? Are you suggesting nobody believes paying taxes is a good thing? I bet I could come up with a lot more scenarios where taking from someone is often considered good.

The very fact that we say there is good and evil in the world implies there must be a certain standard to be measured by that is outside human views.

Outside human views? How did you make THAT leap??? Why does the standard have to be outside human views?

We know from experience that humans are not good at determining what is good and evil so we cannot trust and rely on our own judgements to set the standards.

No; that’s your personal opinion. My personal opinion is that I am, along with countless others; more than qualified to determine what is good and evil. As a matter of fact, I believe mankind is more qualified than any being in existence; in such matters.

So if there are moral laws than this implies there is a moral law giver outside of humanity.

There is nothing that we know of in existence that is more moral than mankind. If you disagree, prove me wrong.

 

[stevevw]

To properly argue that morality is objective, its not enough to just say "we need it". You'd have to show it to us. Thats what objective means. Demonstrable.

So let see it!

Not really. You can make a case that it is needed and is a logical conclusion but you do not have to say what that particular set of moral laws is. I thought I just did show why it is important to have objective morality and gave examples. It is like a community acknowledging that they need to set some laws for their community becuase they have concluded that it will make their community safer and give them control over what happens. Then they go about deciding and setting those laws. The problem with objective morality is that people will disagree on what and where that objective morality comes from. A case has to be made for a particular set of morals and that is another issue. Obviously for me it comes from God through Jesus. The other problem is that society is secular and therefore will not allow any particular set of morals to dictate. The beauty of Gods morality is that it is something that is chosen and not forced so we can only say that it is the way butit would not work if we had to make everyone follow it because people have to want to follow it and have trust in it.

 

[durangodawood]

Not really. You can make a case that it is needed and is a logical conclusion but you do not have to say what that particular set of moral laws is. I thought I just did show why it is important to have objective morality and gave examples. It is like a community acknowledging that they need to set some laws for their community becuase they have concluded that it will make their community safer and give them control over what happens. Then they go about deciding and setting those laws. The problem with objective morality is that people will disagree on what and where that objective morality comes from. A case has to be made for a particular set of morals and that is another issue. Obviously for me it comes from God through Jesus. The other problem is that society is secular and therefore will not allow any particular set of morals to dictate. The beauty of Gods morality is that it is something that is chosen and not forced so we can only say that it is the way butit would not work if we had to make everyone follow it because people have to want to follow it and have trust in it.

Well, I actually do think that enduring morality is objective in that its based on the tried and true real-world facts of what makes for good human living and social continuity.

But as for divinely revealed or absolute morality, thats strictly a matter of faith.

 

[Ed1wolf]

What direct sensations?

We have real time empirical observations/sensations that the universe is an effect and therefore needs a Cause.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The existence and characteristics of the Universe is not empirical evidence of your God, (unless you worship the Universe) it is only empirical evidence of the Universe.

Ken

Do you consider dinosaur fossils empirical evidence for dinosaurs? Dinosaur fossils are the empirical effects of dinosaurs having lived and died, so the universe is the empirical effect of having a transcendent personal Cause.