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

[ToddNotTodd]

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

Why is suffering objectively wrong?

 

[durangodawood]

Why is suffering objectively wrong?

Because it makes people feel bad.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Because it makes people feel bad.

Is it still wrong if it saves their life ? Especially if it saves their soul for eternity ! ?

Yes, people must feel bad.... but isn't it sheer marvelous grace that through troubles and fiery trials they might be saved forever ? ! YES !

 

[durangodawood]

Is it still wrong if it saves their life ? Especially if it saves their soul for eternity ! ?

Yes, people must feel bad.... but isn't it sheer marvelous grace that through troubles and fiery trials they might be saved forever ? ! YES !

I'm not saying that feeling good is the highest value of all that trumps every other value at all times. But its a legit value that we objectively share.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Because it makes people feel bad.

Why is making people feel bad objectively wrong?

 

[durangodawood]

Why is making people feel bad objectively wrong?

At some point you hit rock bottom with this line of questioning. And thats where we find values: the things we naturally want as human animals. "Not feeling bad" is among them. Its is an objective fact that humans hold these values.

From these values, then we can build upward to construct moral statements like "its wrong" to do this or that.

 

[BarWi]

I like a challenge

A robust and decent pursuit, to be sure.

 

[BarWi]

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.

Good advice. I've poured myself into this for some years now mostly in a vacuum and tend to assume othersl know intuitively what I mean out of the gate.

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

Again, apologies. I posted a link to a paper I posted on the internet a few weeks ago somewhere in this thread. It's the short version of what I'm getting at. Don't blame you if you don't want to read it--I typically avoid papers others post as arguments, ain't nobody got time for that. Will try to answer your questions as long as we're in a state of mutual civility.

"Good and evil thoughts and act make appearances in the thoughts and act of agents"??

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?

Yes. I mean value is instantiated primarily in circumstances of human thought and actions. I understand value is popularly placed in minds or linguistics, I just approach it differently. In wondering what a world would look like if, as Avicenna and a few others a long time ago thought, truth (value) was a condition of existence in all things, I came to believe that it would look just like the world we live in.

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?

I'm saying value exists in everything from minds to trees to universals on an informational or essence level. For me, information is a union of meaning and existence. By value I mean mostly truth, except accept that humans have the ability to falsify their essence [or information] by our limited power of "free" will. That's why I sometimes lapse into including information or use the adjective "informational". You're right, I should stop doing this.

 

[Ken-1122]

What you are in the business of doing is taking the fact that subjective truth exists and trying to force it on everything.

No, I’ve been very clear; some truths are objective, some are subjective. I’ve been debating with those who claim morality is objective. When I ask them to demonstrate morality as objective, they point to their unsubstantiated Holy text that supports their claim.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

So what is a tribe? Someone who lives in your neighborhood? Someone who shares your skin color? Someone who shares your views on religion? On Politics? You may consider the people in your neighborhood as your tribe, but the racist next door will not consider you a part of his tribe because your skin is the wrong color and would have no problem killing you because he is convinced the less people like you around the better it is for those he consider his tribe!

BTW murder is a legal term. A person could commit a horrible crime, legally get off and the victim of that crime feels justified in killing the criminal. This will be considered murder, yet depending on what the criminal did, many might feel the vigilante’s actions were justified. It’s all subjective.

 

[durangodawood]

No, I’ve been very clear; some truths are objective, some are subjective. I’ve been debating with those who claim morality is objective. When I ask them to demonstrate morality as objective, they point to their unsubstantiated Holy text that supports their claim.

Ha. Not me. I just point to the world around us.

The human animal has natural senses of what it fundamentally likes and doesnt like. Objective morals are the rules for behavior that objectively advance what we like. No holy books involved.

 

[durangodawood]

So what is a tribe? Someone who lives in your neighborhood? Someone who shares your skin color? Someone who shares your views on religion? On Politics? You may consider the people in your neighborhood as your tribe, but the racist next door will not consider you a part of his tribe because your skin is the wrong color and would have no problem killing you because he is convinced the less people like you around the better it is for those he consider his tribe!

BTW murder is a legal term. A person could commit a horrible crime, legally get off and the victim of that crime feels justified in killing the criminal. This will be considered murder, yet depending on what the criminal did, many might feel the vigilante’s actions were justified. It’s all subjective.

Youre overcomplicating this.

The question of who is in your tribe is different than the moral rule: dont murder your fellow tribespeople.

Maybe the former is somewhat subjective where the "gray areas" are concerned. But the basic rule derives from objectively demonstrable facts.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ha. Not me. I just point to the world around us.

The human animal has natural senses of what it fundamentally likes and doesnt like. Objective morals are the rules for behavior that objectively advance what we like. No holy books involved.

What humans like or dislike is in a constant state of change. If morality were objective, it wouldn't change.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Do you have any evidence that Zoroastrianism actually teaches that all humans are spiritually equal?

ken: Just as you attempted to make an argument that your interpretation of Christianity says to treat all equally, (which I disagree with) such a case can be made for Zoroastrianism as well.

No, we know that the document that contains the teachings of Christianity, the bible, actually teaches that. Does Zoroastrian scripture or documents teach it?

ken: But it doesn’t matter what the religion says, what matters is how the followers interpret what the religion says; and Christian people have a long history of treating others unequally.

It does matter what the religion actually teaches, that is what the followers of that religion at least try to live by. And in the case of Christianity, it has had periods where the followers did treat some people unequally (primarily during the period when the leadership was corrupt, the middle ages), but there are periods in its history where Christians treated people far more equally than the surrounding society like the Roman period when women were treated far better than the Romans and the Greeks did in the first centuries of Christianity. They also rescued abandoned babies and ended the gladiatorial fights among other things. And of course, later they ended slavery and the burning of widows in India.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Of course not in all cases. But generally people live according to their beliefs about reality, and if they sincerely and seriously believe that Christianity is true, they are inspired to obey God's moral teachings and live by them.
ken: In Christianity, the details of God’s moral teachings are not agreed upon because they are subjectively interpreted.

No, all churches that believe in the infallible authority of the bible generally agree on the moral teachings.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Give an example of the church being dragged kicking and screaming when forced by scientific facts.

ken: The Copernican Theory

That was only true of the RCC which had erroneously placed Aristotle on equal authority with the bible and so did not accept it until the 19th century. Most of the protestant church had accepted it by the 17th century. Copernicus was a Christian and actually his work was published by Lutheran church members even though Luther did not agree with it at the time.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That is because there is a great deal of evidence that does not support evolution as I have explained earlier.

ken: The only thing you’ve explained is how you don’t know the difference between adaption and evolution

No, I explained that adaptation just allows the organism to adjust to conditions, evolution changes one organism into another. And that has never been empirically observed.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Not really, if there is no God then there is no explanation for why there is an objective reality to study and why the universe operates in an orderly and intelligible way, without which science would not be possible.
ken: There is no God, and there is an explanation for why there is an objective reality to study. You shouldn't assume your inability to see this applies to everybody else.

Ok, why and how is there an objective reality and how do you know there is an objective reality? And why and how can the universe operate in an orderly and intelligible way without an intelligent creator?

 

[Ken-1122]

Youre overcomplicating this.

The question of who is in your tribe is different than the moral rule: dont murder your fellow tribespeople.

Maybe the former is somewhat subjective where the "gray areas" are concerned. But the basic rule derives from objectively demonstrable facts.

If Joe is my tribe person, there will always be a scenario where I might consider it okay to murder Joe. That makes it subjective.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Only to you, not in reality.

Whoever takes another man's life, of him his own life will be required. Not subjective.

 

[Ken-1122]

No, we know that the document that contains the teachings of Christianity, the bible, actually teaches that. Does Zoroastrian scripture or documents teach it?

No we don’t know that; you only claim that the bible says everybody is spiritually equal. There is a reason Christians were able to use the Bible to justify slavery.

It does matter what the religion actually teaches, that is what the followers of that religion at least try to live by. And in the case of Christianity, it has had periods where the followers did treat some people unequally (primarily during the period when the leadership was corrupt, the middle ages), but there are periods in its history where Christians treated people far more equally than the surrounding society like the Roman period when women were treated far better than the Romans and the Greeks did in the first centuries of Christianity. They also rescued abandoned babies and ended the gladiatorial fights among other things. And of course, later they ended slavery and the burning of widows in India.

Christianity does change with the times more than many religions, but that has more to do with the what the people (christians) want to do than what the religion actually teaches.

No, all churches that believe in the infallible authority of the bible generally agree on the moral teachings.

When you look at issues like Gay marriage, evolution vs creation debate, sex outside of wedlock, racism, and countless others, it is clear not all churches agree on moral teachings.

No, I explained that adaptation just allows the organism to adjust to conditions, evolution changes one organism into another. And that has never been empirically observed.

Provide a definition of evolution that supports your claim; otherwise your argument fails.

Ok, why and how is there an objective reality and how do you know there is an objective reality?

Gravity, Centrifugal force, Law of motion, or thermodynamics; these are all objective realities.

And why and how can the universe operate in an orderly and intelligible way without an intelligent creator?

You are the one claiming the Universe operates in an orderly and intelligible way; not me.[/QUOTE]

 

[Ken-1122]

Only to you, not in reality.

Whoever takes another man's life, of him his own life will be required. Not subjective.

Then prove there is truth to that claim.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

No we don’t know that; you only claim that the bible says everybody is spiritually equal. There is a reason Christians were able to use the Bible to justify slavery.

Christians don't have to use the Bible to justify slavery -
besides, there's few Christians as well as few unbelievers who understand it anyway.

Christianity does change with the times more than many religions, but that has more to do with the what the people (christians) want to do than what the religion actually teaches.

Those following Jesus don't change with society or cultural changes.
Perhaps Ekklesia - the ones called out of babylon, saved and born again by Yahweh for Himself, are the ones you could seek , Yahweh Willing.

Yahweh's Ekklesia are born again, not joined to a 'religion',
they/we are alive in Chist Jesus, not members of a social club.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Why is making people feel bad objectively wrong?

Honestly, I'm always amazed when such questions come up in a discussion about morality.

If you really need to ask that question, then I can honestly say that I have no clue what you are talking about when you speak about "morals" or "ethics".

Newsflash: not feeling bad, is preferrable to feeling bad.
Just like not being depressed is better then being depressed.
Just like being healthy is better then being sick.
Just like not being hurt is better then being hurt.

This is why we treat things like wounds, depressions, anxiety,...
This is why we have law enforcement organizations that stop people from hurting or otherwise wronging others.



Sheesh....