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

[Ken-1122]

Sorry, actually I meant the Chinese treasure ships:
A Chinese treasure ship (Chinese: 寶船/宝船; pinyin: bǎochuán) was a type of large wooden ship in the fleet of admiral Zheng He, who led seven voyages during the early 15th-century Ming dynasty.

The size and dimensions of the treasures are heavily debated. According to British scientist, historian and sinologist Joseph Needham, the purported dimensions of the largest of these ships were 137 m (450 ft) by 55 m (180 ft),[1] which would make them at least twice as long as the largest European ships at the end of the sixteenth century. These dimensions have been challenged on engineering grounds and on the reliability of their sources; some have claimed they could not have been more than 61–76 m (200–250 feet) or that they could only have been used on special occasions in the relative safety of the lower Yangtze River. However, in 1962 a large rudder was unearthed in the Treasure Ship Yard in Nanjing with dimensions corresponding with a 600-ft long ship.[2]

Though the ships were wooden back then; by the 1500’s steel was already being used in ship building as reinforcements. I looked at the links and didn’t see anything suggesting those ships didn’t have steel reinforcements.

No, miracles are very different from magic, magic is deception, miracles are not.

No; illusions is deception; magic is not. Thats why what used to be called "magicians" are now legally required to refer to themselves as "illusionists"

Also, since all of the water used for the flood was fresh, most of the flood waters would be either fresh or just mildly brackish. And after the flood receded, the salt water would be restored over time as the salt washed into the sea from rivers and streams.

What about the rivers and streams that do not run into the Ocean? How come they aren't salty?

The bible teaches that we can learn about God from Nature, ie His Creation, so it is His other "book" metaphorically speaking and it helps us to interpret it correctly.

Again; according to nature, you can’t have an evening or morning without the Sun.

No, prior to day one the atmosphere was opaque, then on day 1 it becomes translucent so that daylight became visible but no heavenly bodies, so that on day 3 enough light was coming thru to allow photosynthetic cyanobacteria and primitive plant life to survive so God created them at this point. But you have to remember there is no Hebrew words for such things so the writer used ordinary plant terms. Then Day four the atmosphere becomes transparent and so the sum moon and stars become clearly visible. And scientists have confirmed that this is the stages of the atmosphere confirmed by cosmologists. This is quite amazing.

Without a Sun, there is no light for day 1-3

 

[stevevw]

The disagreement is due to no agreed upon measure to determine what constitutes best.

If that were the case and people knew that there was never going to be any agreement on what meathod of measurement was best then it would be futile to have the argument in the first place. The thing is becuase people are bothering to argue about which method of measurement is best they are acknowledging " that there is a best way to measure morals". Just because they may end up disagreeing does not mean there is no best way to measure morals. What if one person does convince the other that their method is better does that mean there maybe an even better way out there as well. Besides what method are they using in their argument to measure morals and how is that method substanciated.

Yes! That’s what happens in the real world, where morality is subjective.

Yes this does happen and it is unfortunate that we allow it. The reality is we also stand up and say that some things are not right and the other person is wrong. It is a mixed up world that we cannot ever really know what is best and that we cannot truly say that a person is objectively wrong when we have the ability to do so.

The 10 commandments, and seven deadly sins are religious claims and rules for those of those religions. Again; there are no primary moral actions that all other moral actions are based on; if you disagree, you need to provide evidence to support your case.

I was not intending to use religous examples but just well known examples of a set of moral wrongs. You could probably find similar non religious ones such as in the laws of a society or codes of conduct somewhere or the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. It should be noted that secular laws and codes were based on things like the 10 commandments.

Let's stick with killing and stealing as they are pretty clear. Most nations have these two moral wrongs in their laws so therefore they are recognised as obvious moral wrongs.

Most societies consider murder to be an extremely serious crime, and thus believe that the person charged should receive harsh punishments for the purposes of retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, or incapacitation.
Murder - Wikipedia

Sexual immorality is a common one as well which would include rape, child sexual abuse and sexual harassment. This can also be found in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. sexual harassment is an interesting one because the understanding has been gradually revised as time has gone by and now it is being recognised that even sexual comments that are demeaning to women are wrong.

So this makes a good case for there being a best way to determine a wrong that has always been there but we are now more aware of it. Despite people thinking it was OK years ago it has now been proven wrong despite people thinking it was morally OK. This is supported in our laws and the evidence comes from the trauma and hurt women experience that cannot be denied. It is the same for all morals and if we can't find that best now this doesnt mean there is not a best way to determine a moral being objectively wrong or right.

But depending on the situation, exceptions can be made for these actions making them right. By definition; if these actions were objectively wrong, exceptions could not be made.

The problem is what are the exceptions being measured against if there is not a objective moral there to be used as the standard. The exceptions are rare and normally justified because they involve another moral being breached. But this does not open the door for all sorts of exceptions. People can have whatever view they want and try to justify that as right but whether that truly is is another story.

But that’s the problem with your claim; depending on the situation, they CAN be denied or justified.

But as I said before a justification implies there is a moral objective that needs to have an action justified against. Otherwise why even bother to make justifications and not just say that the act is ok anyway.

If you did do such investigating, you would see there are many reasons various people use birth control; not just a single reason.

I do not think that there are that many reasons and this does not mean we cannot determine if those reasons are good or bad one by one. The hard part is that what we see on the surface of an act is associated within another context that need to be considered and it is not seeing the moral act in isolation. So birth control maybe to do with population control and population control maybe associted with a societies policies on families. It could also be associated with attitudes towards sexual freedom. So all this needs to be considered.

We have looked at that, and not everybody agrees on if it is good for society or bad.

Thats fine but that does not mean that there may be a best moral position. The reason the pill was deemed to be bad in the 50s to 70s was becuase it was medically deterrmined to be bad. This is a good example of how science proves something as bad and it does not matter about whether people disagree becuase anyone who says it was good were proven wrong by the evidenvce from medical science. It is the same for smoking when people use to say that smoking was OK. This is a good example of when a big powerful company can convince people that something bad is good. Then it was medically proven that soking was badfor you but I suspect people already knew from the stuff they coughed up and the breathing problems they had which also goes to show that sometimes people knoew what is wrong but rationalise it as OK.

Whose God? Your God??? You guys can’t even agree on what God wants or says (thus the many denominations) how do you expect us to trust what you say he would say about birth control; something that isn't even addressed in your Bible? No thank-you.

I acknowledge that religion has not given a good name to what is morally good. But I believe thereis a case for there being one truth which means one true God and then establishing the reasoning for Gods morals. But that is a long and complex discussion. I think I posted a link much earlier about this but here it is again.

You’ve contradicted yourself. If killing is objectively wrong, that would mean even under extenuating circumstances like self defense does not make it right. You’ve just made a case for subjective morality.

No if I was making a case for subjective morality then not only self defence but all other claims that killing is justified would be allowed as well. Claims such as blowing up children in the name of Allah is jsutified because westerners are heathen. That killing people who slaughter animals is OK becuase animals have rights, that vigelanti killing of criminals is justified becuase it cleans our streets of bad people who threaten our way of life ect ect. Killing in self defence norammly involves a greater moral of saving precious human life. If the person does not protect and save his family then he is guilty of culpable killing. This is a rare and one off justification and does not open the doorr for all other views about killing being ok.

We already know why people use it and we don’t agree on if it supports human wellbeing.

If medical science can show it is no good like oin the past then this will prove it beyond what people personally think. But medical evidence is not the only way to determine if something is morally wrong. We can also assess wellbeing through psychology, neurology and genetics. For all we know the current forms of birth control maybe no good and in the future we will find out that it was bad. But I am not necessarily saying that birth control is morally bad itself or it maybe an acceptable less optimal choice to avoid a greater bad thing happening. The point is it is possible for all this tobe assessed and determined and there is a possible best moral position to find.

Yes it does! If it were objective, it the answer would be obvious.

Why would the objective moral be obvious. If people in the past thought smoking was OK and now we know it is not why would they not think that some things now are OK when they are not. Why wouldnt people think that their subjective moral views are OK when with more evidence they can see that there was an objective position. If as you said people can be convinced of a better moral position by discussing their differences then they were blind to things. People can rationalise and deny the obvious as well.

Then present this scale; because I’m convinced it doesn’t exist.

[/QUOTE]I already have here it is again.
The Moral Landscape
Science can answer moral questions
The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values[/QUOTE]

 

[Ygrene Imref]

@stevevw

Do you believe it is morally wrong to have sex with your family members? God agrees, but the Royals do not, and neither do their subjects (or, rather, their morality has been defined for them by the royals.)

Do you believe it is moral to enslave certain people, rape them, beat them, and treat them like trash? At one time, this was considered biblical, even though God explicitly laid out the detailed treatment of Hebrew and foreign slaves (it did not include breeding them, raping the or kidnapping them.)

Do you believe capitalism is moral - even though God tell us not to worship Mammon, and other gods of commerce? Do you think it is oral to be charitable, and then write it off on your taxes when God says that we should do these things without expecting reward, and that if we do it thinking about reward, we won't receive the actual reward from God?


Do you believe it is moral that any of us is supposed to be living comfortably while other humans are starving and in trouble - especially in the context of Christ telling us to give up all of our possessions and give it to the poor?

Do you believe it is moral to pray for someone?


Morality has always been a misunderstood, romanticized, sensationalized paradigm of human relationship. If we claim it is objective, that means there is an arbiter of morality.

Who or what is the arbiter of morality? You? Me? Queen Elizabeth II? Trump?

If you say God is the arbiter of morality, then you are confusing morality with Truth by definition. I keep saying morality, by definition, is only for entities that die. The etymology of the word shows this.

If you don't die, how is morality an objective measure of your principles? At best, morality would be fleeting. If you do die, how is objective morality a measure of your principles when your death is neither the same process nor same duration as any other unique individual on this planet. In other words, the determining factors that justify morality for one person is categorically not the same over the spread of the rest of humanity.

Right and wrong is subjective for humans at best, without an Arbiter.

There is only one Arbiter on right and wrong: He is the Truth.

This Arbiter does not use morality, as it were, to judge Creation. This arbiter uses truth.



To me, it is right (and therefore, personally moral) to not wear mixed woolens, not eat pork, and not celebrate certain holidays. I feel doing these things will absolutely affect my mortality, and therefore I base my morality around these things - in order to do in my opinion what will keep me alive the longest. Are these things "life or death" to you? Are they moral imperatives to you as much as they are to me? If you waver in any degree of qualification of importance from me, then you have your "objectivity" answer about morality.

If so, how can you say with a straight face that your set of codes and rules to navigate life are objective, and "more right" than my codes - so much so that you can qualify my morality? Despite the drawing philosophy of an objective morality, the idea is absolutely dangerous to humanity. If you really think about it, it is quite insulting to suggest morality is objective - given the implications of hegemony, dominance and superiority.

The talk of "objective morality" is the same paradigm that - without a bothered conscience - allowed imperialists to "tame" the "savages."

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw

Do you believe it is morally wrong to have sex with your family members? God agrees, but the Royals do not, and neither do their subjects (or, rather, their morality has been defined for them by the royals.)

I think there has to be a certain gap between family members such as otherwise there is the risk of genetic deformities. But there were people who were related in the bible who had relationships and had children at one stage because there was no choice. From the beginning everyone is closely related until there becomes a distance between people over time. But there is no moral law about the current Royal family marrying distant relatives like William and Kate are distant cousins going back 12 generations. It is not as if they are brother and sister which will never happen. I would say there may be quite a few people who are related if we go that far back.

Do you believe it is moral to enslave certain people, rape them, beat them, and treat them like trash? At one time, this was considered biblical, even though God explicitly laid out the detailed treatment of Hebrew and foreign slaves (it did not include breeding them, raping the or kidnapping them.)

That is illogical. If God laid out the explicit detail about how to treat slaves which did not allow rape or kidnapping them then how could Gods people justify rape and kidnapping under the same law. For example the law prevented the Israelite's from kidnapping people for slavery and the punishment was death.
Exodus 21:16 "Anyone who kidnaps someone is to be put to death, whether the victim has been sold or is still in the kidnapper's possession.
God condemned rape regardless of who it was.
Deuteronomy 22:25-27
“But if in the field the man finds the girl who is engaged, and the man forces her and lies with her, then only the man who lies with her shall die. But you shall do nothing to the girl; there is no sin in the girl worthy of death, for just as a man rises against his neighbor and murders him, so is this case. When he found her in the field, the engaged girl cried out, but there was no one to save her.”
The slavery that the Israelite's used was different from the barbaric slavery from the nations around them. This is the problem some people have a misunderstand of the bible or have been led to believe things that are just not true about the bible.

Do you believe capitalism is moral - even though God tell us not to worship Mammon, and other gods of commerce? Do you think it is oral to be charitable, and then write it off on your taxes when God says that we should do these things without expecting reward, and that if we do it thinking about reward, we won't receive the actual reward from God?

You bring up some challenging questions. I am not a bible scholar so I am not sure I am the right person to ask. God says we should count up our riches in heaven. But I also think he realizes the reality that we live in a material world and need certain things to survive ie food, shelter and these things cost money. So as you say it is a matter of what you make your God like money or God.

Do you believe it is moral that any of us is supposed to be living comfortably while other humans are starving and in trouble - especially in the context of Christ telling us to give up all of our possessions and give it to the poor?

I think Christians should be following Christs example and there are many who justify living a comfortable life with all the material possessions is OK. There are many though that do a lot of good work and we do not hear about it because they do not advertise it. In our churches, community centers, lifeline, Salvos, St Vinnies, ect. The bible says those who think they are first now will be last. So many religious people will not be saved.

Do you believe it is moral to pray for someone?

Yes of course. Pray is a powerful tool for helping others.

Morality has always been a misunderstood, romanticized, sensationalized paradigm of human relationship. If we claim it is objective, that means there is an arbiter of morality.

Who or what is the arbiter of morality? You? Me? Queen Elizabeth II? Trump?

If you say God is the arbiter of morality, then you are confusing morality with Truth by definition. I keep saying morality, by definition, is only for entities that die. The etymology of the word shows this.

That's right if there is objective morality then then is a moral lawgiver though some atheists say that objective morality can be supported without the need for God as I have been showing in my posts. An objective position can be shown for morality through scientific reasoning and logic. Just like a pot of water needs heat to boil regardless of some having the view that ice or staring at it can heat it up. Morals can be shown to have a best position just like heat for boiling water and anyone who claims that their moral view is good can be shown to be objectively wrong. But I believe ultimately that Gods morals are the best and a case can be made for why these are as well. The video I posted in my last post gives some support fro this.

If you don't die, how is morality an objective measure of your principles? At best, morality would be fleeting. If you do die, how is objective morality a measure of your principles when your death is neither the same process nor same duration as any other unique individual on this planet. In other words, the determining factors that justify morality for one person is categorically not the same over the spread of the rest of humanity.

I am not sure what you are meaning. I don't know what death has to do with objective morality.

Right and wrong is subjective for humans at best, without an Arbiter.

There is only one Arbiter on right and wrong: He is the Truth.

This Arbiter does not use morality, as it were, to judge Creation. This arbiter uses truth.

The nature of truth demands that there is only one truth. To have more than one truth is a contradiction for the meaning of truth. If there is one truth then that would imply morals being objective in that there is one best position for morals. It also means when two people with subjective moral views are arguing about what is best they are implying that there is a morally best position to take. If one person ends up showing the other that there is a better moral position to take then this implies there maybe an even better one to be found and so forth each time improving our moral position.

Under subjective morality therefore morals can never be improved. They can only be changed. Improving something means making it better and this requires an external standard to measure things against. If a society wanted to improve its morality it would mean changing things to be closer to an external ideal but if there is no such standard with subjective morality then there is no way for the new standard to be better than the original, they can only be different. Yet in reality we are improving our standards of morality all the time.
Moral Truth

To me, it is right (and therefore, personally moral) to not wear mixed woolens, not eat pork, and not celebrate certain holidays. I feel doing these things will absolutely affect my mortality, and therefore I base my morality around these things - in order to do in my opinion what will keep me alive the longest. Are these things "life or death" to you? Are they moral imperatives to you as much as they are to me? If you waver in any degree of qualification of importance from me, then you have your "objectivity" answer about morality.

But if I waver and disagree then we are implying there is some external standard that we can use to see who is right. Under subjective morality no one can really argue as they do not believe there is any independent measure to use, people are just different. So why even argue about what is right or wrong about your moral views or the other persons. But under objective morality there can be a standard we can find and use. Morally best positions can be determined with scientific reasoning and logic rather than peoples beliefs, opinions, traditions, taboos, or superstitions which cannot be measured scientifically.

If so, how can you say with a straight face that your set of codes and rules to navigate life are objective, and "more right" than my codes - so much so that you can qualify my morality? Despite the drawing philosophy of an objective morality, the idea is absolutely dangerous to humanity. If you really think about it, it is quite insulting to suggest morality is objective - given the implications of hegemony, dominance and superiority.

Objective morality does not mean we force others to follow them. It just means holding up a morally best position that is supported through logic and scientific reasoning for what is best for human well-being. To me this is a good thing and as some say can change the way we look at morality. It is actually more dangerous to have only a subjective position as it prevents us from saying that some things are just bad and dangerous and we need to avoid them. This is how extremists and other radicals have crept into the mainstream.

This is how ideas that are unhealthy or bad for our children creep into society. When moral views are based on things like pleasure, what I like, what I want then people can make a case for whatever being good and turn a lie into the truth. For example powerful people with influence and a capacity to manipulate our senses convinced us that smoking was OK when it was bad. They are doing the same with many things like Pot, gambling, porn and a range of other things that maybe too subtle to realize. Money and power corrupts and people have ulterior motives for making things morally OK. We are weak and can fool ourselves and are fallible to making mistakes about what is right and wrong.

The talk of "objective morality" is the same paradigm that - without a bothered conscience - allowed imperialists to "tame" the "savages."

I don't think that happens through objective morality. It is happening today with capitalism and globalization and they certainly don't support objective morality. If anything they support subjective morality because they would like people to think that they are doing the right thing by us and that their products are the best in the world ie MacDonald's, Coke ect. They will push into 3rd world countries and turn kids into overweight takeaway food junkies and then make out they are all good by sponsoring some environmental or disabled group. Corporate propaganda.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

@stevevw I think i realize the problem now: you are calibrating your philosophy to people within a certain sphere - namely, groups of people who are theistic, or part of what one would consider Western civilization.

In that context, I understand where you are coming from. However, you cannot universaly apply this to the entire spread of humanity. This is the main reason why morality is categorically subiective.

Lets take cannibalism, for example. It is not illegal in the States, but certainly frowned upon. However, many other people around the world practice cannibalism as a necessary part of their religion. There are people that use cannibalism for sexual and occult rituals, of which most people have no idea (and if they do, it is considered too crazy to believe.) Incredulity alone handicaps morality, because it causes ignorance of the world in terms of culture and practice.

Now, it seems like you would have a problem with someone eating the flesh of another human - is this true?

Well, that is fine for you and your morality, but you can' say someone who eats the flesh of another is OBJECTIVELY immoral, because that would mean you are setting yourself higher than those persons, and judging them as if your "Morality" is, in fact, a perfectly defensible statute worthy of correcting others - objectively.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Objective morality: Morality is modified by "objective." If morality could stand on its own qualification, it would NOT need such an ironically subjective modifier. Fusing words together does not give it the inherent implicative meaning.

For example:

Moral Truth: truth is modified my "moral". By fusing these two words together, a new definition of "truth" isn't created - because Truth is Truth. The modification of "truth," ironically, injects subjectivity. The truth, contextually, does not need to be modified in order to accentuate its foundation in objectivity.

A similar linguistic faux pas is when people say, "my truth." Truth is truth, and adding the possessive qualifier inject subjectivity - as it breaks down objectivity into personal quality.

This is one of the problems with the philosophy of morality in general: it begins from a linguistically peculiar place from the foundation. Unfortunately, morality for this reason cannot be objective.

There is nothing that you can say that would make morality objective to me, precisely because I don' follow morality at all. How can you hold me to a standard of which I am ignorant, and then claim it is objective?

The Truth is everlasting no matter where one is in time or space. Objectivity is objective no matter where one is in time or space. Truth and objectivity work together to form axioms, but axioms are not in and of themselves truisms, or objectivity. Axioms are simply accepted - those who claim morality is objective are likely arguing axiomatic morality, not moral "truths," as it were.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Nor will the definition have any of the other measures of morality such as if it benefits me. The dictionary meaning does not go into what the values and principles are.

Right, which is the point. Anything outside the definition is... not part of the definition.

I thought by now you'd be making some progress, but it doesn't look like it. I'll try one more tactic and then if that doesn't work call it a day.

*************************

Let's say I employ the moral system "What is right and good is only what benefits me. What's wrong and bad is only what hurts me in some way." This is the system that I use when defining the word morality:

"A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."

Because my system of morals doesn't take into account the well being of anyone else but me, I can ignore that when judging moral actions. In fact, rape and murder would be right and good under my system if it benefits me.

You can objectively test whether any particular moral action taken by me or anyone else is right and good (given my system's definition of right and good), or the opposite. If I murder the only other applicant for a job I want, it can be objectively measured whether the murder benefits me (by whether I get the job or not and also not get caught for the murder). If it does, it's deemed right and good.

Your task is to show that my morality (and the system that I use to define my morality) isn't objective.

If you say "Your definition of morality doesn't take into consideration the benefit or harm of everyone else." I say so what? It's not part of my system and therefore can be ignored when determining right and wrong based on the tenets of the system.

If you say "The well being of others should be part of your system." I say "No it shouldn't. My system of morality doesn't need to take into account the well being of others to work for me and be called objective."

If you say "Your system may work for you, but if everyone adopted your system, there would be chaos and society would collapse." I say "So what? Chaos and stability aren't part of my system and therefore can be ignored when determining right and wrong based on the tenets of the system".

If you say "Your system sounds terrible to me." I say "That's your subjective opinion, and therefore doesn't matter to me or invalidate my system as being objective."

If you think about this for more than a few seconds, you'll see that any argument that tries to invalidate the objectivity of my system can be countered by the system itself, and therefore fails, because you can't define objectivity into existence. At best, you and get into an endless series of "nuh uh" and "uh huh". And since those aren't actually arguments, you can't prove your point.

Face it, there's absolutely no way to show that a moral system is objective, because based on the definition of "morality", there's no specific requirements of any given system.

 

[Ken-1122]

Sexual immorality is a common one as well which would include rape, child sexual abuse and sexual harassment. This can also be found in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. sexual harassment is an interesting one because the understanding has been gradually revised as time has gone by and now it is being recognised that even sexual comments that are demeaning to women are wrong.

So this makes a good case for there being a best way to determine a wrong that has always been there but we are now more aware of it. Despite people thinking it was OK years ago it has now been proven wrong despite people thinking it was morally OK. This is supported in our laws and the evidence comes from the trauma and hurt women experience that cannot be denied. It is the same for all morals and if we can't find that best now this doesnt mean there is not a best way to determine a moral being objectively wrong or right.

dictionary.com defines morality as “a conformity to the rules of good conduct”
I see “good conduct” as subjective. This is the way I see it:

The year 1800 people believed they had morality figured out! It was okay to enslave non white people because they are an inferior race, and human sacrifice is immoral even though in the past, people thought it was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now, and we can even point to scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump 100 years later, 1900 people believed they had morality figured out! among other things, it was okay to spank your kids, race mixing is wrong because God made different races for a reason and who are we to mix all that up? And slavery was wrong, even though they used to think it was okay; they were just wrong back then, but we know better now, and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump 80 years later; 1980 people believed they had morality all figured out! Race mixing is okay, marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and spanking your children is wrong, even though we used to think it was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump to today! 2018 people believe we have morality all figured out! Men with “Gender Dysphoria” should be allowed access to public female restroom and shower facilities as long as he identifies as a woman, and it is immoral to discriminate against same sex couples who want to get married, even though we used to think such discrimination was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs

Now I ask you; if morality is objective, what do you think are the chances that we actually have gotten it right this time? If not now; if through out the history of mankind morality is one thing we have never been able to figure out and get right; perhaps its not there, perhaps not what you think it is!

 

[stevevw]

@stevevw I think i realize the problem now: you are calibrating your philosophy to people within a certain sphere - namely, groups of people who are theistic, or part of what one would consider Western civilization.

In that context, I understand where you are coming from. However, you cannot universaly apply this to the entire spread of humanity. This is the main reason why morality is categorically subiective.

Actually the main support for objective moralitycomes from non religious sources and use science which can be applied to any culture.

Lets take cannibalism, for example. It is not illegal in the States, but certainly frowned upon. However, many other people around the world practice cannibalism as a necessary part of their religion. There are people that use cannibalism for sexual and occult rituals, of which most people have no idea (and if they do, it is considered too crazy to believe.) Incredulity alone handicaps morality, because it causes ignorance of the world in terms of culture and practice.

Now, it seems like you would have a problem with someone eating the flesh of another human - is this true?

Well, that is fine for you and your morality, but you can' say someone who eats the flesh of another is OBJECTIVELY immoral, because that would mean you are setting yourself higher than those persons, and judging them as if your "Morality" is, in fact, a perfectly defensible statute worthy of correcting others - objectively.

Most states have laws that prevent people from tampering with deceased bodies so it is almost impossible to obtain any body matter for consumption. So the ant-tampering law is telling people who think that cannibalism is OK that the human body is to be respected after death. Even so just because some people believe that cannibalism is OK does not mean it is OK.

Objective morality is not my morality, it is no ones morality and stands independent of human minds which may hold beliefs that cause people to think that cannabulism is good. A person has the right to view cannabulism as OK but that does not mean it is absolutely OK. AS I mentioned before there may be scientific evidence that shows certain moral positions are objectively wrong when it comes to human wellbeing. Science and logic will trump personal views because it can be imperically supported just like the laws of physics.

AS stated before with the example of the pot of water only being able to be boiled with heat despite some believing that staring at it could make it boil. Science tells us that only heat can boil water and not staring at it. So despite someones personal view that starring at water boils it science proves they are objectively wrong. So science can tell us certain things which makes certain acts more moral than others when it comes to human wellbeing. It has been discovered that eating humans causes disease. Just like humans cannot eat certain plants, and animal meats becuase they make us sick. So despite some peoples views that eating humans is good it is not good as it causes disease and effects human wellbeing. The beliefs the tribes had that eating humans would make them strong was actually making them weak.
When People Ate People, A Strange Disease Emerged

 

[stevevw]

dictionary.com defines morality as “a conformity to the rules of good conduct”
I see “good conduct” as subjective. This is the way I see it:

Thats fair enough and you have the right to think that. But if one of your views that thought something was right was shown to badly effect others wellbeing would you continue to think it was right. Is it truly right considering it has been scientifically shown your actions are hurting oithers.

The year 1800 people believed they had morality figured out! It was okay to enslave non white people because they are an inferior race, and human sacrifice is immoral even though in the past, people thought it was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now, and we can even point to scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump 100 years later, 1900 people believed they had morality figured out! among other things, it was okay to spank your kids, race mixing is wrong because God made different races for a reason and who are we to mix all that up? And slavery was wrong, even though they used to think it was okay; they were just wrong back then, but we know better now, and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump 80 years later; 1980 people believed they had morality all figured out! Race mixing is okay, marriage should be only between a man and a woman, and spanking your children is wrong, even though we used to think it was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs.

Jump to today! 2018 people believe we have morality all figured out! Men with “Gender Dysphoria” should be allowed access to public female restroom and shower facilities as long as he identifies as a woman, and it is immoral to discriminate against same sex couples who want to get married, even though we used to think such discrimination was okay; but they were just wrong back then, we know better now and can even provide scripture to support our beliefs

Now I ask you; if morality is objective, what do you think are the chances that we actually have gotten it right this time? If not now; if through out the history of mankind morality is one thing we have never been able to figure out and get right; perhaps its not there, perhaps not what you think it is!

May I suggest that the main reason we can show that we got things wrong in the past is through scientific reasoning and logic. For example people use to think cigarette smoking was OK and now we know better through medical science. The scriptures can be misinterpreted and all of the examples you give about the scriptures being support for how we have updated our moral position are wrong. But most important is that all the reforming of morality you speak about is impossible under subjective morality. Reformers are seen as heritics and out of step with everyone else if subjective morality is the only moral position we have.

Problem 1: Moral relativism suffers from what is known as the reformer’s dilemma. If moral relativism is true, then societies cannot have moral reformers. Why? Moral reformers are members of a society that stand outside that society’s moral code and pronounce a need for reform and change in that code. For example, Corrie ten Boom risked her life to save Jews during the Holocaust. William Wilberforce sought the abolition of slavery in the late 18th century. Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for civil rights in the U.S. If moral relativism is true, then these reformers were immoral. You see, if an act is right if and only if it is in keeping with a given society’s code, then the moral reformer himself is by definition an immoral person. Moral reformers must always be wrong because they go against the code of their society. But such a view is defective for we all know that real moral reform has taken place!
Moral Truth

 

[stevevw]

Right, which is the point. Anything outside the definition is... not part of the definition.
I thought by now you'd be making some progress, but it doesn't look like it. I'll try one more tactic and then if that doesn't work call it a day.
*************************
Let's say I employ the moral system "What is right and good is only what benefits me. What's wrong and bad is only what hurts me in some way." This is the system that I use when defining the word morality:

"A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."

Because my system of morals doesn't take into account the well being of anyone else but me, I can ignore that when judging moral actions. In fact, rape and murder would be right and good under my system if it benefits me.
You can objectively test whether any particular moral action taken by me or anyone else is right and good (given my system's definition of right and good), or the opposite. If I murder the only other applicant for a job I want, it can be objectively measured whether the murder benefits me (by whether I get the job or not and also not get caught for the murder). If it does, it's deemed right and good.

Your task is to show that my morality (and the system that I use to define my morality) isn't objective.
If you say "Your definition of morality doesn't take into consideration the benefit or harm of everyone else." I say so what? It's not part of my system and therefore can be ignored when determining right and wrong based on the tenets of the system.

If you say "The well being of others should be part of your system." I say "No it shouldn't. My system of morality doesn't need to take into account the well being of others to work for me and be called objective."
If you say "Your system may work for you, but if everyone adopted your system, there would be chaos and society would collapse." I say "So what? Chaos and stability aren't part of my system and therefore can be ignored when determining right and wrong based on the tenets of the system".
If you say "Your system sounds terrible to me." I say "That's your subjective opinion, and therefore doesn't matter to me or invalidate my system as being objective."

If you think about this for more than a few seconds, you'll see that any argument that tries to invalidate the objectivity of my system can be countered by the system itself, and therefore fails, because you can't define objectivity into existence. At best, you and get into an endless series of "nuh uh" and "uh huh". And since those aren't actually arguments, you can't prove your point.

Face it, there's absolutely no way to show that a moral system is objective, because based on the definition of "morality", there's no specific requirements of any given system.

I think you are misunderstanding me. I am not saying that people cannot have subjective moral views and believe whatever they want including that they don't care about others and their moral view does not take this into consideration.

I notice you snuck a stipulation into your moral system example which implies the person knows there is a risk in their own moral system. That being "if I don't get caught". So the person is acknowledging that their own moral system may break the law or have some negative consequences for them.

The point is that moral acts do not happen in isolation and they always involve affecting another person. Becuase of this their actions are inevitably going to cause problems for others. As you said they would murder someone to get a job and if they are willing to do this then they are willing to do other things that affect people and hurt them. Because of this there is always a consequence whether it is from being arrested or reactions from others and even attacks and retribution. This is a fact of life that cannot be disputed. I mean they would be one of the first suspects in the murder case being one of only two people competing for a job.

So despite you saying their moral system works from them and they choose to ignore all the consequences the consequences will not ignore them and that's how life works in reality. The saying crime never pays comes to mind or live by the sword die by the sword etc. They will get arrested, get hurt, cop abuse from others and get attacked and may be killed themselves as a result. They will not get jobs or keep jobs because if they are willing to kill for a job then they are willing to hurt others in their job and this will be noticed. People are not stupid and will pick up on what people are up to. Their life will gradually become harder to live because of the fact they are always coping the consequences of their behavior.

Your whole premise is based on them not getting caught but not getting caught acknowledges a wrong being done by the person who holds the morals. How realistic is it that they don't get caught. You then have to add all these provisos to create this character because you know that their actions are risky which is then qualifying their whole moral system and nthe you have to set restrictions to their life which is unreal. The character begins to look fictional by not caring and yet having a conscience at the same time which would inevitably affect them.

So the measure of wellbeing can be applied to themselves. It is a scientific fact that doing bad things has a negative consequence for both the doer and the victim. Even if the doer does not care the effects of the consequences will cause the doer problems for them to live with their own moral system that they claim is good and expose them as a hypocrit. This logically shows that it is a contradiction to live by.

But also for someone to not care about all these things including killing points to someone who is not mentally right and may even by a psychopath. It is a scientific medical fact which is supported by a court of law that a person who does not care about all these things has a mental problem with knowing right from wrong. That mental problem often excludes them from being judged in the normal way for moral accountability. Therefore any scenario you want to paint here is not valid for assessing morality because the person needs to understand what morality is in the first place.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Morality by its very name is for entities that die.

No, animals die but they are not moral beings and have no morality.

yi: Do you think God's Morality - that includes not wearing mixed woolens, for example - is universal? Does the world consider wearing polyester and cotton blends a life or death situation?

You obviously have not studied the bible in depth, the rules about types of fabric the ancient Hebrews were supposed to wear are not part of God's moral law. There are three types of law in the Bible, Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. Only the moral law still applies to humanity, the other two only applied to the Old Hebrew theocracy.

yi: However, I know of certain ethnic people for which it is a matter of Life or death - specifically because of the chemical reaction that occurs between the skin and fabric of these people.

Evidence?

yi: Moreover, for entities that die commands like the Leviticus laws are ridiculous. That is categorically because mortals, with respect to life, are abysmally myopic. It is near impossible for a mortal entity to see the urgency in following a commandment like the Leviticus laws because humans cannot see past their own decisions in an immediate setting. We think we are precient, but we change our own moral code for fleeting times of extremity (i.e. TEOTWAWKI.)

The hebrew ceremonial laws that you are referring to were only for the ancient Hebrew theocracy to set them apart from the surrounding pagan nations.

yi: The difference between God's morality, and humanist morality is that God's morality is not morality at all. It is not subjected to change based on circumstances, paradigms, or temporal location. It is the truth.

No, humanist morality is not true morality at all it is just human preferences. God's morality for humans was specifically designed for human progress and flourishing. You are right that Gods moral laws are not based on circumstances, paradigms, or location.

yi: That is why morality can never be objective no matter how people qualify it. I can invent my own morality, and when you or anyone else tells me that I am wrong for what I choose to do based on what I think is necessary to survive - you are telling me you are a better judge than me.

No, it is not me it is God. God has revealed to the morality for human success and survival. God is a better judge than all of us.

yi: Are we seriously arguing which human is better just because of a consensus, or on sensation and pathos?

No, we determine which human is better at following God's objective moral standards. But of course, no one can follow His law perfectly.

yi: You cannot tell adults what to do, or how to think. You cannot say "civilization" is absolutely one way, while at the same time abandoning those same foundations. It is asinine to even notion the possibility of an objective morality when morality, it were, changes every generation.

I cannot you are right, but God can. And He wants what is best for us, and as revealed His laws for our good in this world and the next. Yes, human morality has changed over time, some of that has been in the direction of God good moral laws and sometimes in the wrong evil direction.

yi: Every generation.

God doesn't change. And, we DO die, in fact, the whole point of Christianity is that you are ALREADY dead. You are keeping a rotting, decaying meat suit up by feeding it, washing it and entertaining it. That is it.

No, God wants us to live and live life abundantly and enjoy His good creation, and that can only be done by being spiritually reborn. You are right about unbelievers, they are spiritually dead. But they can become spiritually alive by being changed by God thru Christ.

yi: Even our spirits are dead; we have an on loan spirit from God, but He didnt lie when He said Adam would die. You need Christ to live. You need to live in order to be separate from morality. Otherwise, you are just another dead person with a code on how to prolong your meat suit for as long as possible before it completely decomposes.

No, our bodies are good and amazingly created by God and if you are a Christian then your spirit is already in the process of being re-created. But you are right our bodies have been affected by sin so we will all die physically, but we will also be resurrected physically with bodies similar to the one ones we have now, but changed to be like Christ's.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Actually the main support for objective moralitycomes from non religious sources and use science which can be applied to any culture.

Which is not Truth, it is still axiomatic. That it comes from non-religious or scientific sources (coloquially and erroneously considered "objective,") does not make it objective at all. In fact, it makes it part of an ordered system not necessarily shared by the rest of the world.

Most states have laws that prevent people from tampering with deceased bodies so it is almost impossible to obtain any body matter for consumption. So the ant-tampering law is telling people who think that cannibalism is OK that the human body is to be respected after death. Even so just because some people believe that cannibalism is OK does not mean it is OK.

You didn't answer the question. It isn't that people believe cannibalism is "O.K.," it is that it is a serious part of the culture, religion and or overall progress in life for some cultures and people. How do you reconcile your morality with these types of people? How do you justify telling them with a straight face the practices they have participated in for centuries is "morally" wrong - according to you?

To impose your own set of codes on other people (as if they can be justifiably and demonstrably true and objective for all cases) is the pinnacle of arrogance. Again, this is an imperialist attitude - to heal alleged morally sick persons.

Objective morality is not my morality

There is no such thing as objective morality

it is no ones morality and stands independent of human minds which may hold beliefs that cause people to think that cannabulism is good.

I don't think you realize what you are saying. Nothing stands independent of human minds because humans do not create from thin air: the creative ability of humanity is one that creates and innovates from inspiration from experiences and relationships. This is the the opposite of objectivity. Even 1+1=2 is axiomatic - an accepted operation with an accepted image based on the collection of ideas used to quantify and qualify.

I just told you scores of tribes, people who practice witchcraft and occultology heavily use cannibalism as a method to further what they think is morally and mortally profitable. You can't just say a swath of people are wrong because you adhere to a consensual, axiomatic system of codes that has worked for you and the people with whom you have relationships.

A person has the right to view cannabulism as OK but that does not mean it is absolutely OK.

You, human - or any other human - do not have the authority to tell anyone what is O.K. You can, at best, describe what has been accepted by your culture and through the lens of your morality. That also doesn't make your morality (or any morality) objective. At all.

AS I mentioned before there may be scientific evidence that shows certain moral positions are objectively wrong when it comes to human well-being. Science and logic will trump personal views because it can be imperically supported just like the laws of physics.

Science is axiomatic; it is not truth. Science is not objective because it has always been based on philosophy (Doctorate of Philosophy, for example.) Assuming one can evolve objectivity from science is dangerously wrong, and (again) is what an imperialist mind exploits: scientific "advancement" as an accepted (but poor) qualifier of truth and objectivity.

Logic is a completely different entity, and is still based on experiences and Western paradigms (in its colloquial meaning, especially.) It is not objective. It actually comes from the Greek work for word. It is a persuasion technique - and with persuasion techniques, the objective isn't to be objective, it is to get another party to accept what you have presented. This is not objectivity.

LOGOS represents inward thought within one's self expressed outwardly. It has been bastardized to mean "a perspective of argument which comes from objectivity and reason." You are still taking your inwardly accepted system of rules and codes, analyzing them and applying them to outward situations.

AS stated before with the example of the pot of water only being able to be boiled with heat despite some believing that staring at it could make it boil. Science tells us that only heat can boil water and not staring at it.

And, I have seen thermokinesis, telekinesis, psionic assault, reality warping, demons - all of which completely turn science (even my own research) on its head. Of course I have been told I am crazy, or just straight lying (either me, or my eyes) because the person(s) making the assessment has (fortunately) never experienced such things. Fine; however that does not make the assessment objective - even if based on science. It makes it myopic, and ignorant - but not subjective.

**Science is simply Greek for knowledge. Let's just get that out there now. It has become colloquially synonymous with truth, which is a severe error.**

Science cannot study things like thermokinesis because it is outside of the realm of natural understanding for now. So, persons who base their alleged objectivity on science are just as vulnerable to misinformation and false senses of objective reality. I am surprised you as a Christian would believe science can objectively discern reality when you [are supposed to] believe in demons, spirits, and a Man who fully raised from the dead. Do you think science would support this, and your sanity for believing this? We haven't even divulged

So despite someones personal view that starring at water boils it science proves they are objectively wrong.

Nowhere near correct. Science is axiomatic. Science has become the model for those who have no religion or spirituality to adhere to. But, it was always philosophy and open to interpretation. Humans have allowed grant money, scholarly articles reviewed by those within the same club, and the bombardment of canonized, popularized science paradigms since the 50s in the West.

So science can tell us certain things which makes certain acts more moral than others when it comes to human wellbeing. It has been discovered that eating humans causes disease. Just like humans cannot eat certain plants, and animal meats becuase they make us sick. So despite some peoples views that eating humans is good it is not good as it causes disease and effects human wellbeing. The beliefs the tribes had that eating humans would make them strong was actually making them weak.
When People Ate People, A Strange Disease Emerged

The Hebrews knew more medicine than modern medicine through faith, because they listened to the Most High God instead of men telling them how to live their lives - objectively, of course. In fact, only those who rely on science to spend millions of dollars to tell them what they should already know are the ones who also rely on science for their objective instructions on how to live their lives. Science is a philosophy - axiomatic and malleable in nature. It is not subjective no matter how many people claim science is the truth.

There is only one Truth.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No, animals die but they are not moral beings and have no morality.

Morality is defined as a set of codes that entities that die follow in order to prolong and substantiate their lives.

You have made another mistake of assuming 1) animals are not mortal beings (when they categorically are - because they die), and 2) that they have no morality because you see no morality.

You obviously have not studied the bible in depth, the rules about types of fabric the ancient Hebrews were supposed to wear are not part of God's moral law. There are three types of law in the Bible, Moral, Civil, and Ceremonial. Only the moral law still applies to humanity, the other two only applied to the Old Hebrew theocracy.

Oh, I have.

Show me one place where God Himself ever said that His word is null, void or inactive. Show me one place where God Himself, or the Word of God Himself says this.

Law is Law; humans have qualified the word of God. Dangerous, as usual. But, who actually cares?

Evidence?

Go do your research. I am not going to give that information here because these discussions on the simplicity of objectivity are already miles from the point. It would distract from the point of this discussion. However, I wouldn't even need evidence; I would just trust God. He said wearing mixed woolens is not to be done, yet humans want to say, "well, that's not so important anymore because times have changed." Unlike human objectivity, the Word of God doesn't change. Can you show one place in the bible canon, or apocrypha where God Himself, or Christ said that the Word of God has changed from the foundation?

The hebrew ceremonial laws that you are referring to were only for the ancient Hebrew theocracy to set them apart from the surrounding pagan nations.

Show me one place in the canon or apocrypha where God, or the Word of God tells us that any of God's word is no longer active. One place where God or Christ - the authorities on the Word of God - say this (not man.)

No, humanist morality is not true morality at all it is just human preferences. God's morality for humans was specifically designed for human progress and flourishing. You are right that Gods moral laws are not based on circumstances, paradigms, or location.

But, you are not arguing God's morality, and if you are you are qualifying it along the way.

No, it is not me it is God. God has revealed to the morality for human success and survival. God is a better judge than all of us.

Not everyone adheres to God - even "Godly" people. They change His unchangeable rules to fit their model of the world - and then they call it objective.

But, God does not follow morality, nor does He command it: He commands Truth. The danger in these philosophical arguments is that it equates anthropological paradigms with objective truth based on accepted totems and hegemony overseeing the ideals. It is all based on a false sense of separation from bias.

No, we determine which human is better at following God's objective moral standards. But of course, no one can follow His law perfectly.

You continue to miss not everyone follows God's standards - they are not MORAL because HE DOESN'T DIE. Moreover, Christians do not follow God's standards, because if they did the entire faith would be in unity, not denomination.

I cannot you are right, but God can. And He wants what is best for us, and as revealed His laws for our good in this world and the next. Yes, human morality has changed over time, some of that has been in the direction of God good moral laws and sometimes in the wrong evil direction.

You are still coming from the perspective of Christianity. We can discuss those implications in another thread, because I think it is important. However, when talking about what God teaches us - we have to accept that what He said is founded and true as he says.

Instead, the lot of us qualify His law to fit our own lives.

No, God wants us to live and live life abundantly and enjoy His good creation, and that can only be done by being spiritually reborn. You are right about unbelievers, they are spiritually dead. But they can become spiritually alive by being changed by God thru Christ.



No, our bodies are good and amazingly created by God and if you are a Christian then your spirit is already in the process of being re-created. But you are right our bodies have been affected by sin so we will all die physically, but we will also be resurrected physically with bodies similar to the one ones we have now, but changed to be like Christ's.

If you are Christian, and a believer, you have an on loan spirit from God called the Holy Spirit. When Adam died, he immediately began to rot, and his spirit immediately died. He lost his title as a son of God, and became a son of man. We are sons of man with no spirit of our own; we are dead.

Those who do not believe in him are already dead by consequence: they are rotting flesh without even an on-loan spirit. None of us will have our own spirit until we are resurrected.

Again, we can't even begin to talk about Christ, and following God until we determine what of His law should be followed (i.e.: How can we better "judge" God Himself?)

Trying to calibrate human philosophy and ideals to objectivity - especially as a Christian - is quite perverse. I cannot believe history has not afforded people - especially Christians - the hindsight to understand what humans determining what is good for humans does to other humans. This alleged philosophical argument (especially the tangential attachment to God) is a dangerous, but hackneyed argument from delusion. It is not new (especially in the occult world in justifying one's activity.)

It is very dangerous.

 

[stevevw]

Which is not Truth, it is still axiomatic.

That would make morality even more self-evident and recognizable. Besides truth as far as morality is concerned is similar to objective morality in that there is only one set of morals.

That it comes from non-religious or scientific sources (coloquially and erroneously considered "objective,") does not make it objective at all. In fact, it makes it part of an ordered system not necessarily shared by the rest of the world.

When something is verifiable through science it is proven beyond personal opinion. Like with the laws of physics we know that water needs heat to boil and boils at 212 degrees F. There is no disputing that. If a moral act causes a certain cost to a humans wellbeing such as raping a woman damages her physically, emotionally and psychologically to varying degrees. We can test that and find the damage. We can look at the effects that happen to others in similar situations and know that this is verifiable beyond doubt. So we know beyond doubt that rape causes certain damages to a human and therefore can say the act of rape is bad for humans because of that damage just as confidently as we can for saying that only heat boils water and water boils at 212 degrees F.

You didn't answer the question. It isn't that people believe cannibalism is "O.K.," it is that it is a serious part of the culture, religion and or overall progress in life for some cultures and people. How do you reconcile your morality with these types of people? How do you justify telling them with a straight face the practices they have participated in for centuries is "morally" wrong - according to you?

I do this by saying that I respect your right for you to hold your own views but it has been scientifically proven that eating people is no good for you and your children's health. You are actually making yourself and loved ones sick and risk dying. Just like telling a person who thinks smoking is good that science shows it makes you sick and kills you. The point is I would be not doing the right thing if I didn't let them know that what they are doing is causing disease and killing them.

To impose your own set of codes on other people (as if they can be justifiably and demonstrably true and objective for all cases) is the pinnacle of arrogance. Again, this is an imperialist attitude - to heal alleged morally sick persons.

No one is forcing anyone to follow anything. It is giving them information so they can make an informed decisions. Isn't that what we have been doing throughout history and making better-informed decisions that actually save lives. It would be immoral not to do so.

There is no such thing as objective morality

You keep saying that. So if a person thinks that smoking is morally good and science can prove beyond doubt that it is bad does not that show beyond doubt that smoking is bad. Does not that show that according to the evidence smoking is morally bad for you? The person has the right to continue to think that smoking is good but that does not mean his view is absolutely right. Science is rock solid in its verification of physical facts. We have proven beyond doubt that smoking causes at the very least many diseases and at the worse cancer and death. That makes the moral position that smoking is bad objective because it has been proven with science which trumps personal views. Objective means a moral position being able to stand up and hold its ground outside human views and science can do this for us.

I don't think you realize what you are saying. Nothing stands independent of human minds because humans do not create from thin air: the creative ability of humanity is one that creates and innovates from inspiration from experiences and relationships. This is the opposite of objectivity. Even 1+1=2 is axiomatic - an accepted operation with an accepted image based on the collection of ideas used to quantify and qualify.

Then how can you explain how if science can show that a moral position that says smoking is good for you can be scientifically shown to be wrong through medical science. JUst like drinking poison is no good for you. The people have not got some inspiration to make cancer disappear or not come in the first place. It is a medical fact that smoking causes many diseases and possible death.

I just told you scores of tribes, people who practice witchcraft and occultology heavily use cannibalism as a method to further what they think is morally and mortally profitable. You can't just say a swath of people are wrong because you adhere to a consensual, axiomatic system of codes that has worked for you and the people with whom you have relationships.

You, human - or any other human - do not have the authority to tell anyone what is O.K. You can, at best, describe what has been accepted by your culture and through the lens of your morality. That also doesn't make your morality (or any morality) objective. At all.

I don't even tell people what my own religious belief says for me or others to do. I am merely saying that we can determine what the effects of certain actions can have on ourselves and others through science. Do you think science can inform us of anything as a fact? A fact that cannot be disputed by human opinion. If I hear of a scientific procedure that can help cure me of a disease I tend to think that this is true as science has shown over and over again that it can save lives. It has verified many things like gravity, electrons, protons, polio, Penicillin, too many to name.

Science is axiomatic; it is not truth. Science is not objective because it has always been based on philosophy (Doctorate of Philosophy, for example.) Assuming one can evolve objectivity from science is dangerously wrong, and (again) is what an imperialist mind exploits: scientific "advancement" as an accepted (but poor) qualifier of truth and objectivity.

I agree that there are some theories that are up for debate but there are also many scientific facts that have been verified. The fact that people go to the doctors and trust surgeons to operate on them is proof enough. Science does not deal with truth but fact. It can verify that a moral act can cause certain harm. If you stab someone with a knife it can be verified scientifically that the knife will do damage. So the act of stabbing someone will do damage to the person. If the person thinks killing is OK then they have a right to think that. But it can be proven with science that when someone uses that knife to kill someone that it may be cut the persons heart or vital organs and that's why they died. There is no disputing this.

So despite the person saying they believe killing is OK we have scientific evidence that it is not OK as far as the damage it caused someone else. But we also have evidence that it can affect the person doing the killing in their conscience. They may be affected emotionally, psychologically and physically and need therapy. Most of all they will go to jail and lose their liberty. So unless that person is a psychopath they will be damage personally and lose their freedom which is a bad thing for them So we have plenty of evidence that killing is bad for others, the person doing the killing and society at large as we have seen in the news.

Logic is a completely different entity and is still based on experiences and Western paradigms (in its colloquial meaning, especially.) It is not objective. It actually comes from the Greek work for word. It is a persuasion technique - and with persuasion techniques, the objective isn't to be objective, it is to get another party to accept what you have presented. This is not objectivity.

Logic is just one tool to support an argument. It can add some truth to your argument. IE

A deductive argument is one that, if valid, has a conclusion that is entailed by its premises. In other words, the truth of the conclusion is a logical consequence of the premises—if the premises are true, then the conclusion must be true.

Tweedy is a bird.
Birds generally fly.
Therefore, Tweedy (probably) flies.
Argument - Wikipedia

I will have to leave it at that for the moment as I am busy with something else but will get back to it as soon as possible. Good night [/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[Ken-1122]

Thats fair enough and you have the right to think that. But if one of your views that thought something was right was shown to badly effect others wellbeing would you continue to think it was right. Is it truly right considering it has been scientifically shown your actions are hurting others.

It depends on who those others are! Are those others who are being hurt by my actions my enemies whom I am at war with, or are they my friends?

May I suggest that the main reason we can show that we got things wrong in the past is through scientific reasoning and logic.

How are you determining the difference between Scientific reasoning and logic, vs reasoning and logic?

For example people use to think cigarette smoking was OK and now we know better through medical science.

Medical science never determined if smoking was okay or not, it just determined the effects of smoking, then people outside of medical science determined it was bad based on the scientific data. Medical science also determined the effects sugar, caffeine, alcohol, and trans fats has on the body, but the people outside the medical industry didn’t determine those things were bad enough based on the scientific data. Science does not determine right or wrong, people use scientific data and other things to determine right or wrong.

The scriptures can be misinterpreted and all of the examples you give about the scriptures being support for how we have updated our moral position are wrong.

Misrepresented or not, people used scripture to justify slavery, and many of the other issues I mentioned. That is the point I was making.

But most important is that all the reforming of morality you speak about is impossible under subjective morality. Reformers are seen as heritics and out of step with everyone else if subjective morality is the only moral position we have.

I wasn’t talking about “reforming” morality; I was talking about how it gradually changes over time.

 

[stevevw]

It depends on who those others are! Are those others who are being hurt by my actions my enemies whom I am at war with, or are they my friends?

Any act that is unjustified. War can also be unjustified such as the Vietnam war, the Iraqi war and many other wars. But generally without war a wrong moral act would still apply whether it was your enermy or not.

How are you determining the difference between Scientific reasoning and logic, vs reasoning and logic?

Scientific reasoning is backed by science.

Medical science never determined if smoking was okay or not, it just determined the effects of smoking, then people outside of medical science determined it was bad based on the scientific data. Medical science also determined the effects sugar, caffeine, alcohol, and trans fats has on the body, but the people outside the medical industry didn’t determine those things were bad enough based on the scientific data. Science does not determine right or wrong, people use scientific data and other things to determine right or wrong.

Then why are there warnings on cigarette packs saying Medical authorities warn that smoking is a health hazard showing pictures of diseased lungs, arteries ect. Trans fats are medically proven and warnings are made from medical authorities. The same for alcohol where they say there is a limit to how many drinks for a health lifestyle. In Australia there is a worrying trend of excessive drinking and the results speak for themselves with alcohol related deaths from drink driving, liver disease, fetal alcohol syndrome and even domestic violence. Indigenous people are especially affected.

Sugar is a good example of science and the public disagreeing. Some sites will say sugar is OK others will say it is bad for you and can cause disabeties and heart disease. So the jury is still out on this. It is harder to determine becuase sugar is a natural part of life but there are limits. I think there is some evidence that excess sugar can cause problems and certainly most diets cut it out and are proven to lose weight. But just because there is disagreement and no definite answer does not mean that there is no truth that it may turn out bad for you. If not then that will make it OK to use.

Misrepresented or not, people used scripture to justify slavery, and many of the other issues I mentioned. That is the point I was making.

Rape was never supported as good in the bible and neither was slavery in the way most people understand it. But despite this if people treated people badly and justified it with the bible and people were hurt then they can be shown as being wrong. The medical evidence may not have been there in the day but it can show it as wrong now which makes it wrong for all time whether people knew it or not.

I wasn’t talking about “reforming” morality; I was talking about how it gradually changes over time.

It gradually changes over time with evidence showing that it is wrong. Not because someone just decides they want a change like clothing. The change about slavery and the treatmentof blacks was through human and civil rights. It took reformers to do that. But reformers would be classed as heritics under a subjective morality as they demand a change to the existing views that society has decided as being right. They stand outside the general consensus but more importantly they say that the consensus morals are wrong which would make them immoral. Yet they end up being the most moral.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

That would make morality even more self-evident and recognizable.

Because it is axiomatic? Recognizable, sure - because it is axiomatic. Axioms are just accepted strings and objects. 1+1=2 is an accepted collection of algebraic objects under operation. It isn't necessarily objective; it is axiomatic.

Besides truth as far as morality is concerned is similar to objective morality in that there is only one set of morals. When something is verifiable through science it is proven beyond personal opinion.

I completely disagree with this. Science in no way proves anything (to me) beyond a personal opinion. It shouldn't be the case at all; science is a philosophy. I believe this is where you are forcing qualities into the acceptance of morality in order to substantiate the idea that it is objective.

Like with the laws of physics we know that water needs heat to boil and boils at 212 degrees F. There is no disputing that.

If you lower the pressure of the water being heated while keeping the volume constant, you can lower the boiling point of water. When a neutrino encounters heavy water, it travels faster than the speed of light in heavy water - creating Cherenkov Radiation ("photonic" boom of blue light.) So, again, the laws of physics, and science in general is axiomatic - accepted, but not necessarily objective or the truth for all situations.

If a moral act causes a certain cost to a humans wellbeing such as raping a woman damages her physically, emotionally and psychologically to varying degrees. We can test that and find the damage.

The measurement is partial; the metric is subjective.

We can look at the effects that happen to others in similar situations and know that this is verifiable beyond doubt. So we know beyond doubt that rape causes certain damages to a human and therefore can say the act of rape is bad for humans because of that damage just as confidently as we can for saying that only heat boils water and water boils at 212 degrees F.

The metric is subjective. The measurement is still partial: how do you measure who has the authority to gauge the effects? There is no iota of the morality argument that is without partiality.

I do this by saying that I respect your right for you to hold your own views but it has been scientifically proven that eating people is no good for you and your children's health. You are actually making yourself and loved ones sick and risk dying. Just like telling a person who thinks smoking is good that science shows it makes you sick and kills you. The point is I would be not doing the right thing if I didn't let them know that what they are doing is causing disease and killing them.

I understand. But, you don't have the authority, place or right to impose your own opinion no matter how axiomatic.

No one is forcing anyone to follow anything. It is giving them information so they can make an informed decisions. Isn't that what we have been doing throughout history and making better-informed decisions that actually save lives. It would be immoral not to do so.

You are passively declaring authority by stating that your morality is superior, and therefore a standard. Claiming any morality is objective means someone has to be the superiority or standard by which we all measure our moral standards - and therefore right or wrong.

I am just going to stop here: do you realize the implications of stating morality is objective?

And, I don't ask this because I think you are stupid. Sages much older than you have had the same philosophy, and I have enjoyed our exchange. However, pertaining to my thesis: how can you seriously believe morality is objective?

 

[stevevw]

Because it is axiomatic? Recognizable, sure - because it is axiomatic. Axioms are just accepted strings and objects. 1+1=2 is an accepted collection of algebraic objects under operation. It isn't necessarily objective; it is axiomatic.

This is the definition of objective morality.
A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.

Science can prove moral objective facts just as they do in court with showing how the weapon used fits the wound and the wound killed the person. The persons DNA and finger prints are on the weapon. These are facts no human can challenge. All we have to do is show that the persons wellbeing was ffectedby the moral act and science can prove what affects peoples wellbeing such as assault breaks bones, abuse leaves bruises and both traumatize people.

I completely disagree with this. Science in no way proves anything (to me) beyond a personal opinion. It shouldn't be the case at all; science is a philosophy. I believe this is where you are forcing qualities into the acceptance of morality in order to substantiate the idea that it is objective.

So why would you trust a surgeon to cut you open and perhaps work on your heart. Why do we trust traveling in areoplanes if science did not discover how arodynamics works. How does scientists land a satelite on Mars in the exact spot if they did not understand how gravity works. These are all scientific facts that allow scientists to do things according to maths and calculations that stand regardless of a persons personal opinion.

Science itself is not making any comments about morality. It is a tool we can use to show that a moral view a person has will caused damage to another person beyond their opinion. So if a persons moral view is that there is nothing wrong with driving a car fast, we can show through scientific tests with cars on speed and time/distance for breaking that speed makes it more risky and likely you are going to have a crash. In fact years of statistics show it is a fact and when we reduce speed it is one proven way to reduce deaths by car accidents. So that disproves the person who says speed is not a bad thing.

If you lower the pressure of the water being heated while keeping the volume constant, you can lower the boiling point of water. When a neutrino encounters heavy water, it travels faster than the speed of light in heavy water - creating Cherenkov Radiation ("photonic" boom of blue light.) So, again, the laws of physics, and science in general is axiomatic - accepted, but not necessarily objective or the truth for all situations.

No all you have done is adjusted the way heat affects the water. The scientific fact is not that there are different ways to heat water. The scientific fact is we can only heat water to the boiling point by heat. So if someone says we can boil water by ice or by staring at it it can be scientifically proven as a fact that only heat can boil water and this will objectively prove the person as wrong because it is not anyones personal opinion that heat boils water it is an independent fact outside human views that comes from science which discovered and verified that only heat boils water. We can argue about how that heat can boil water such as by fire, cook top or microwave but the fact remains we need heat. If we lower boiling points we still need heat to bring it to the new temperature.

The measurement is partial; the metric is subjective.

The scientific measurement and in the case of rape it will be a medical practictioner and a psychologist ill do an examination and tests and will determine what damage is done. Just like a mechanic does tests to see what is wrong with your car. From that we will know what is wrong. Rape will cause damage as it is an act of force which means against a persons will. They will try to fight and the attacker will do damage. It is often the psychological damage that can last years ie women is scared to go out at night, to have relationships, loses confidences, may turn to drugs, self abuse etc ect. This is determined by a psychological evaluation which will stand up in court or for insurance claims.

The metric is subjective. The measurement is still partial: how do you measure who has the authority to gauge the effects? There is no iota of the morality argument that is without partiality.

People with expert know how that have studied at UNi for years like doctors, geneticists, psychologists, psychiatrists, biologists and neorologists.

I understand. But, you don't have the authority, place or right to impose your own opinion no matter how axiomatic.

I think I have already stated that I am not forcing anyone to do or believe anything. It is just a fact that gets put out there in the universe like that water needs heat to boil. people can takee it or leave it. peeople can choose to still believe that ice boils water. In fact objective moraly does not work if it is forced on people as part of having objective morality is conscience and free will. The right to choose right or wrong and to live with your conscience.

You are passively declaring authority by stating that your morality is superior, and therefore a standard. Claiming any morality is objective means someone has to be the superiority or standard by which we all measure our moral standards - and therefore right or wrong.

That cannot be the case as most societies are continually telling us what we can and can't do as far as the law. They are saying to everyone regardless of their personal views that certain things are wrong and if you do them you will be punished.

The ironic thing about subjective morality is we end up with more laws, rules and regulations than an objective system becuase we have to protect just about every view. Such as anti descriminations laws, equal rights, council by laws, political legislations, and an ever increasing legal system that gets more and more complicated.

I am just going to stop here: do you realize the implications of stating morality is objective?

The funny thing is you are objecting to my view that there is objective morality when you support subjective morality that should allow and accept different views no matter what they are even if you disagree, even if they are horrible to you. It is almost as though you want me to give up my position and take on yours which totally against subjective morality.

And, I don't ask this because I think you are stupid. Sages much older than you have had the same philosophy, and I have enjoyed our exchange. However, pertaining to my thesis: how can you seriously believe morality is objective?

I believe it is objective from what have said, not becuase it is my view but becuase I respect things like science which can inform people of certain verifiable facts. You have every right to have your thesis and hold you views. At the end of the day we may disagree but that is OK too.

 

[Ed1wolf]

You are looking at this from the position that God exist and has the authority to decide who lives and who dies.
I look at this from the position that God does not exist, but if he did, what he did is immoral, because if morality is objective as you say, the laws of morality must apply to God’s actions just as they apply to yours and mine.

The laws of morality do apply to Him because He is the source of morality. But just as there are different roles in society, there are also different roles in the universe. Just as it is moral and legal for a human Judge to confine someone to a jail cell for committing a crime so it is moral and just for God (the ultimate judge) to allow someone to be killed for their sin.

ken: Consider a hypothetical for a moment. Suppose God proclaimed rape as good. Would you assume you cannot trust your own perception of right vs wrong, and still follow God’s word and become a rapist? Or would you proclaim God is wrong, because you know rape is wrong.

If you become a rapist, I must then ask; if you can’t trust yourself when determining if rape is good or bad, how can you trust yourself concerning whether or not God is good or bad?

If you proclaim God as wrong because you know rape is wrong, whatever it is that caused you to acknowledge rape as wrong; independent of whatever God says, is the same thing that allows me to determine what is evil; independent of whatever God says.

Since we are created in the image of God, our moral conscience generally confirms that what God does is right and generally conforms to God's moral laws. But there are rare cases where we cannot trust our conscience due to our sinful natures especially if we are not a Christian because we don't have the holy spirit working and teaching our consciences to recognize goodness a little better everyday. So unbelievers are more likely to get confused about morality especially the longer they go in denying who He is and rejecting Him. Their consciences become distorted over time. But Our moral conscience helps us to see that God is good and that gets reinforced when we become one of His followers and have a personal relationship with Him.