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

[Ken-1122]

It simply shows, as I stated earlier, that if God shuts you out, no one can prove the truth to you.

You haven't proven that your God even exists let alone shut me out; all you've done thus far is make claims.

 

[BarWi]

But an objective truth cannot be falsified. Can math be falsified? Can the effects of gravity be falsified? if something can be proven false, I don't think you can call it objective.

You miss my point. It's not objective truth itself that's falsified. Human essence is falsified resulting in the corruption of our interpretation of objective moral truths.

I contend for two kinds of truth, factual and prescriptive or normative. I agree with you that factual truth (the truth inherent in matter) is not falsifiable. The truth-bearingness of human essence is falsifiable, and this corruption arguably causes defects in cognitive, emotive and psychological states/aspects of the person.

 

[Ken-1122]

You miss my point. It's not objective truth itself that's falsified. Human essence is falsified resulting in the corruption of our interpretation of objective moral truths.

I contend for two kinds of truth, factual and prescriptive or normative. I agree with you that factual truth (the truth inherent in matter) is not falsifiable. The truth-bearingness of human essence is falsifiable, and this corruption arguably causes defects in cognitive, emotive and psychological states/aspects of the person.

I contend the truth-bearingness of human essence (as you call it) is subjective.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Do you know the difference between Earth and the Universe? Planet earth is the only place that supports human life; anything outside of it does not. You were making the claim that they would have left planet Earth and explored the Universe that does NOT support human life. Again; if God intended for Adam and Ever to explore other planets, why didn't he make the rest of the Universe in a way that it would support human life?

No, we know from the Anthropic Principle that humans would not exist if the universe was not exactly the way it is. He made the universe the way He did most likely because it is the only universe you can create that operates by primarily natural law and provides free will for humans.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
So if Jeffrey Dahmer had said that he killed and ate his victims because he loved them he might have been telling the truth?

ken: Yes.

Are you serious? Your definition of love is not held by 99% of human beings and is psychopathic. If someone tortures and kills someone because they love them do you think they should be punished? Because according to gays, they should not be punished for how and who they love. Do you agree?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Love ? W h o e v e r loves the world, or the things (ways) of the world,

c a n n o t be a friend of Yahweh The Creator (God, Father of Jesus).

 

[Ken-1122]

No, we know from the Anthropic Principle that humans would not exist if the universe was not exactly the way it is. He made the universe the way He did most likely because it is the only universe you can create that operates by primarily natural law and provides free will for humans.

If you God can do anything, and created the laws of physics, he would be able to make the universe in a way that it would support human life outside Earths atmosphere.

Are you serious? Your definition of love is not held by 99% of human beings and is psychopathic.

Have you interviewed 99% of human beings and psychopathic? No; that's just your false opinion.

If someone tortures and kills someone because they love them do you think they should be punished?

Such a sick person should be institutionalized

Because according to gays, they should not be punished for how and who they love. Do you agree?

Are you joking? or are you claiming all Gay people think this way.

 

[Ken-1122]

Love ? W h o e v e r loves the world, or the things (ways) of the world,

c a n n o t be a friend of Yahweh The Creator (God, Father of Jesus).

Who are you responding to????

 

[DogmaHunter]

I believe objective morality is derived from one, easy to understand source that should hold in all possible worlds: Truth.

That makes no sense to me.
Truth is amoral. Truth just is. Things are the way they are and not how they aren't.
Truth certainly informs morality, but you'ld have to know about it first.

So a better way to say it, would be that knowledge informs morality.

Truth is intuitively always preferable to the false. Morality is just a word we use to define the tension and resistance the false imposes on the true.

No. Morality is a word we impose on certain behaviours, based on what the consequences, effects and intents of those behaviours are.

Morality is thus derived from a reality of mixed truth and falsity. If one removes the false, morality vanishes. If the false is removed, truth conveys that quality inherent in it: perfection.

The subjective aspects of morality, some of which were offered in the op, are examples of mutable truth--which stands in deference to and is ever and always supervised by Truth [capitalized to indicate the absolute]. This holds for factual and moral existence imo. My two pesos, anyway.

Sounds like word salad to me.

 

[BarWi]

I contend the truth-bearingness of human essence (as you call it) is subjective.

I agree. There's lots of attributive truth hanging around. We attribute value to coins and paper/cloth money. We attribute value to certain laws, even to the color of traffic lights. So what? What you are in the business of doing is taking the fact that subjective truth exists and trying to force it on everything. The truth-bearingness of humans toward normative truths is subjective because humans are fragmentally falsified, which as noted earlier hypothetically "dumbs down" our apprehension of things. Being unsure makes our beliefs mutable. But the jump from this to "every truth is subjective" is a considerable leap of faith. We sense intuitively that absolute truth rules the realm, even though we don't have sufficient capacity to comprehend how it exists or what, exactly, its operating principles consist of.

Technically, truth-bearingness itself can't be subjective, but I expect you meant that folks who possess truth-bearingness, if they do, are nonetheless subjective in their application or use of it, i.e., they exhibit subjectiveness about the truths they hold.

What's more interesting to me is why there are so many arguments that in one way or another seek to escape the idea of absolute truth. There's a lot of it going around. I provide what I believe to be a reasonable suggestion as to why this is so in a paper I wrote recently that approaches the problem from a Christian point of view. Read or not as you wish.
The Mechanism of Value

 

[BarWi]

That makes no sense to me.
Truth is amoral. Truth just is. Things are the way they are and not how they aren't.
Truth certainly informs morality, but you'ld have to know about it first.

No, factual truth is amoral or inert. Prescriptive truth is dynamic. They are two kinds of a single class of quality. If you stop and think about it, truth is the single thing that proves its own unconditional nature. There's no reason one would knowingly or willingly chose the false over the true unless one is 'broken' and thus dispositionally configured to do so.

a better way to say it, would be that knowledge informs morality.[

This is a popular and comfortable position being put forth today.

Morality is a word we impose on certain behaviours, based on what the consequences, effects and intents of those behaviours are.

On this we'll have to disagree. There's a reason we know intuitively that morality has truth content. I believe it's because everything has truth content, from minds to matter to attributes, etc. The interactions of existents depends on the dynamics truth content puts on the table, hence truth in the mind unites with truth in the structure of external (represented) existents. We just happen to call this 'correspondence'.

Sounds like word salad to me.

Maybe you're not used to grappling with ideas that fall outside the norm?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Maybe you're not used to grappling with ideas that fall outside the norm?

Well let's see: You said

Morality is thus derived from a reality of mixed truth and falsity. If one removes the false, morality vanishes. If the false is removed, truth conveys that quality inherent in it: perfection.

The subjective aspects of morality, some of which were offered in the op, are examples of mutable truth--which stands in deference to and is ever and always supervised by Truth [capitalized to indicate the absolute]. This holds for factual and moral existence imo. My two pesos, anyway.

First:

Morality is thus derived from a reality of mixed truth and falsity.

What does it mean to say reality mixes truth and falsity? What is does it mean to say that reality contains falsity? We might have false perceptions of reality but reality contains no falsity. Word salad.

If one removes the false, morality vanishes. If the false is removed, truth conveys that quality inherent in it: perfection.

Morality requires falseness? What? When the false is removed, true is true? Tautological. Word salad.

The subjective aspects of morality, some of which were offered in the op, are examples of mutable truth--which stands in deference to and is ever and always supervised by Truth [capitalized to indicate the absolute]. This holds for factual and moral existence imo.

Declining murder rates are examples of mutable truth? Well, yeah, change is change. So? Truth supervises mutable truth? How does an inanimate concept do anything? Give an example of absolute truth and how it governs a mutable truth.

Yeah, maybe instead of criticizing @DogmaHunter, you should stop dealing in semantic nullities.

 

[durangodawood]

....What constitutes a member of your tribe is subjective; not objective.

Not typically.

Its usually demonstrable to others whether someone is part of your group, band, tribe etc.

Point is, the wise have observed that murder causes suffering. And so dont-murder is an objectively sourced moral.

 

[BarWi]

Well let's see: You said
First: What does it mean to say reality mixes truth and falsity? What is does it mean to say that reality contains falsity? We might have false perceptions of reality but reality contains no falsity. Word salad.
Morality requires falseness? What? When the false is removed, true is true? Tautological. Word salad.Declining murder rates are examples of mutable truth? Well, yeah, change is change. So? Truth supervises mutable truth? How does an inanimate concept do anything? Give an example of absolute truth and how it governs a mutable truth.

Yeah, maybe instead of criticizing @DogmaHunter, you should stop dealing in semantic nullities.

I insulted no one. My usual response to his "word salad" comment would be actually the same I'd make to every one of your comments: Thanks for offering your opinion. Do you have an actual argument to go with it?

Second, we're discussing an abstract entity, value, which makes numerous and constant appearances in material reality. "Word salad", interpreted a certain way, is the only sort of discussions to have about abstracta. I'm surprised you don't recognize this. Can you possibly suppose that your position on value is not word salad?

If you want to discuss intelligently and graciously, let's dance. If not, I'm not interested in your opinions. They're legion, and at least as tiring as legion finds theist views to be.

 

[quatona]

Second, we're discussing an abstract entity, value, which makes numerous and constant appearances in material reality.

Sorry, I don´t understand what you are saying here ("an abstract entity makes [...] apperances in material reality"). Maybe that´s due to different ways you and I use the keyterms that show up in your sentence. Could you clarify?

 

[DogmaHunter]

No, factual truth is amoral or inert. Prescriptive truth is dynamic. They are two kinds of a single class of quality. If you stop and think about it, truth is the single thing that proves its own unconditional nature. There's no reason one would knowingly or willingly chose the false over the true unless one is 'broken' and thus dispositionally configured to do so.


This is a popular and comfortable position being put forth today.

I'ld respond, but I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. It sounds like gibberish to me.

On this we'll have to disagree. There's a reason we know intuitively that morality has truth content.

Off course it has true content.
Here's a couple true statements:

- Stoves are very hot
- Touching hot stoves, causes burns and that hurts
- Getting hurt is not cool. Not being hurt is better.

- grabbing a guy's head and press his face against the hot stove... not cool.

It's pretty simple, when you think about it.
Although it sounds like you might want to tone down on the thinking part.

I believe it's because everything has truth content, from minds to matter to attributes, etc. The interactions of existents depends on the dynamics truth content puts on the table, hence truth in the mind unites with truth in the structure of external (represented) existents. We just happen to call this 'correspondence'.

And we're back to gibberish.​

 

[BarWi]

Sorry, I don´t understand what you are saying here ("an abstract entity makes [...] apperances in material reality"). Maybe that´s due to different ways you and I use the keyterms that show up in your sentence. Could you clarify?

Sure. I'm self-educated, due to lack of a polished education I often stumble with terminology.

Probably wasn't the best phrase to use. By "makes appearances" I only mean the information of value--good and evil thoughts and acts, thoughts and behaviors directed by value (hoarding money, showing contempt for laws one doesn't like, desiring sexual encounters with children, etc.) These "make appearances" in the thoughts and actions of agents, and thus become visible to apprehension of events and circumstances in time and space. Hope this explains.

 

[BarWi]

I'ld respond, but I honestly have no clue what you are talking about. It sounds like gibberish to me.



Off course it has true content.
Here's a couple true statements:

- Stoves are very hot
- Touching hot stoves, causes burns and that hurts
- Getting hurt is not cool. Not being hurt is better.

- grabbing a guy's head and press his face against the hot stove... not cool.

It's pretty simple, when you think about it.
Although it sounds like you might want to tone down on the thinking part.

And we're back to gibberish.​

Maybe you want it to be gibberish so you don't have to connect dots. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, why are you responding to my posts?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Maybe you want it to be gibberish so you don't have to connect dots. If you have no clue what I'm talking about, why are you responding to my posts?

I like a challenge

 

[quatona]

Sure. I'm self-educated, due to lack of a polished education I often stumble with terminology.

Well, for whatever reason I have a hard time making sense of what you say but I try. From my perspective - but I may be wrong - you seem to be using a lot of unnecessary big words which make your sentences confusing at best or unintelligible at worst.
If I may make a suggestion: Try to say it as simple as possible.

By "makes appearances" I only mean the information of value

Hmm, what´s the "information of value"? Could you just say "value" here, or - if not - what does "the information of..." add?

--good and evil thoughts and acts, thoughts and behaviors directed by value (hoarding money, showing contempt for laws one doesn't like, desiring sexual encounters with children, etc.) These "make appearances" in the thoughts and actions of agents,

(emphasis added)
"Good and evil thoughts and act make appearances in the thoughts and act of agents"??

and thus become visible to apprehension of events and circumstances in time and space.

Do you mean "they become visible" (and thus the "to apprehension of events and circumstances in time and space" is redundant - i.e. noise -, or does this latter part have any explanatory content?

If I had to make a guess as to what the core of your idea is: I sense that you are submitting that values exist somewhere out there; they pre-exist thoughts and acts, and eventually manifest in thoughts and acts. Is that about what you are trying to say?