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

[stevevw]

No no no no no. Ok, going to try one last thing to get you to see why you're wrong. I can't keep wasting time like this.

You've shown that my example is wrong to you, subjectively. You haven't shown that the example is wrong objectively.

Here's your task:

Objectively equate the words "harm" and "wrong".

If you can do that, you can start to demonstrate that objective morality exists. If you can't, then you can't demonstrate that objective morality exists.

And here's the thing, you can't bring up science, because science can only demonstrate "harm" (although that's even a dicey position to take). Trying to imply that science can determine right or wrong involves your subjective opinion in equating "harm" and "wrong".

If someone uses the moral system "What is right and good is what benefits me personally.", then the word "harm" equals "wrong" to them primarily when it's applied to themselves, not universally. In other situations, "harm" does not equal "wrong" to them.

Perhaps a review of Sam Harris's artcle/book from Thomas Nagel can give better insight into what Mr Harris's position is about for you to understand better.

Let's begin with my core claim that moral truths exist. In what was a generally supportive review of The Moral Landscape, strewn with strange insults, the philosopher Thomas Nagel endorsed my basic thesis as follows:

"Even if this is an exaggeration, Harris has identified a real problem, rooted in the idea that facts are objective, and values are subjective. Harris rejects this facile opposition in the only way it can be rejected - by pointing to evaluative truths so obvious that they need no defense. For example, a world in which everyone was maximally miserable would be worse than a world in which everyone was happy, and it would be wrong to try to move us toward the first world and away from the second. This is not true by definition, but it is obvious, just as it is obvious that elephants are larger than mice. If someone denied the truth of either of those propositions, we would have no reason to take him seriously ... The true culprit behind contemporary professions of moral scepticism is the confused belief that the ground of moral truth must be found in something other than moral values. One can pose this type of question about any kind of truth. What makes it true that 2 + 2 = 4? What makes it true that hens lay eggs? Some things are just true; nothing else makes them true. Moral scepticism is caused by the currently fashionable but unargued assumption that only certain kinds of things, such as physical facts, can be "just true" and that value judgments such as "happiness is better than misery" are not among them. And that assumption in turn leads to the conclusion that a value judgment could be true only if it were made true by something like a physical fact. That, of course, is nonsense."

In my view, morality must be viewed in the context of our growing scientific understanding of the mind. If there are truths to be known about the mind, there will be truths to be known about how minds flourish; consequently, there will be truths to be known about good and evil.
Why Science Can Determine Human Values – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I have shown that the example was wrong independent of my view. Science showed that his actions of killing would cause his own and others well being to suffer. That science came from psychology, human behavior science and the laws of cause and effect which tell us certain truths about what happens when we act in certain ways. Killing has a ripple effect on the life of the killer and on the victim, their family and society which produces a range of negative outcomes. This has been scientifically verified. Remember objectivity has to be independent of me or any human and the science is independent.

This is obviously incorrect, and you're just grasping at strong. There are plenty of people that get away with murder, stealing, etc. and have better lives for it. In the town where I grew up lived old men who had been in organized crime when they were younger, and who committed any number of illegal activities. These men died happy, surrounded by their families and the riches they accumulated through what most people would view as immoral actions.

The wrong is because all humans know that there are certain moral positions that are better for producing a stable and happy society and killing disrupts that. That is why we have laws to stop killing. It stands to reason. This is explained below.

I keep saying over and over that the phrase "stable and happy society" is an arbitrary and subjective condition you're adding to the definition of "morality", which for the millionth time is just:

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

So you see it's not a requirement of all moral systems. Saying that it has to be is just your incredulity showing through.

And even in a societal moral system that values its own health, it may disregard the health of other societies. A tribe can have a moral system that says that the next tribe over is ripe for the picking, and take by force all their belongings, leaving the invader much better off for it.

I have already done this and its is done below again as stated from MR Harris's article which you should have read when i posted it earlier.

I watched (and laughed at) Harris's TED talk when he first gave it. I have his book "The Moral Landscape". It still, obviously, doesn't successfully argue for objective moral systems. The best it can hope to do is argue for objective facts within subjective moral systems. Harris is, like you, so caught up in incredulity towards conditions he doesn't like that he's completely forgotten what "subjective" and "objective" mean. He states that when he talks about the word "morality" he means a very particular thing. His definition doesn't correspond to the actual definition of the word. It's his subjective incredulity that forces him to adopt this definition so he can attempt to argue objective morality into existence. It's intellectual dishonest, because that tactic can be used to define anything into existence. Remember when I said that the Christian god can't exist because I define the Christian god as a being that can only exist in a world where bowling balls are square? That's an example of defining something into or out of existence.

The fact that I'm just not getting through to you is why I'm going to have to stop responding to you, because this round and round we're doing is a waste of time.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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, God has objectively revealed His moral law, it is contained in His objective Word called the Bible. And His Holy spirit guides and allows us in most cases to interpret it without bias, especially regarding the essentials which include the plan of salvation and His moral laws. Which are the ten commandments and the moral teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

yi: 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 agree that not everyone follows His standards, that is called sin, and no one can follow His standards perfectly, that is why we need the atonement of Christ. Actually all denominations that accept the infallible authority of the Bible ARE in basically unified agreement about the essentials including the moral law.

yi: 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.

The reason I am coming from the perspective of Christianity is because that is reality. You have to understand things from the perspective of reality. You cant live in a fantasy world are you are doomed. I agree with you that we have to accept what He has said in His entire infallible word, you cannot ignore parts of it just because you don't like some of his followers who wrote parts of it, such as Paul. And you right we have to accept what He has said about His moral truth. You cannot ignore some truths like His moral truth and accept other parts of it, like His already fulfilled ceremonial laws.

yi: 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.

No, there is evidence that Adam repented and was restored spiritually as a son of God. No, we have our own eternal spirit or soul, and then when we become believers the HS comes into our body and soul and starts transforming it gradually. Making us live according to God's moral law more and more over our life span. Yes our bodies start to decay but our spirits guided by the HS become more Christlike.

yi: 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.

No, they have their own eternal spirit/soul given to them at conception as part of being created in the image of God and both believers and unbelievers will eternally have their own spirit. At the resurrection is when we both get our bodies back but believers bodies will be perfected.

yi: 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?)

We know which of His should be followed see my post of the verses regarding this issue.

yi: 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.

It is not humans determining what is good for humans, it is God thru His infallible word using the members of His church guided by the HS in their mostly objective interpretations to tell us what is good for humans.

 

[Ken-1122]

If they act like they exists then maybe they exist. I do not know why people are so scared of objective morality. I tend to think it is a more secure and comfortable way to exist. It means we know what is best and therefore are more assured of everyone being on the same page for certain best moral positions that will guarentee best outcomes.

Objective or Subjective morality is not something you choose; its about understanding what subjective and objective means, and determining which category morality fits under.

Otherwise with subjective morality we are continually undermining what is the best way to live because whenever we can find that someone will come along and challenge it.

But that’s what happens in the real world! That’s how slavery ended, that’s how women got the right to vote, that’s how gay marriage became legalized, transgender laws enacted, and Jim Crow law eradicated. The fact that people are constantly challenging the old laws and replacing them with new ones shows morality is subjective; not objective.

But that doesnt fit with subjective morality. No one can be proven wrong becuase there is no way to tell who is really right or wrong. It is only through objective morality that we can truly measure what is right and wrong for morality. We can say that there are varying levels of rightness and wrongness which can be discovered and therefore there is an ultimate best that can be discovered as well along the scale of varying right and wrong.

Are you under the impression that morally right or wrong issues can be demonstrated as such? If so, how do you demonstrate (for example) that slavery was wrong? If a person believes slavery was good, how do you prove him wrong?

 

[stevevw]

This is obviously incorrect, and you're just grasping at strong. There are plenty of people that get away with murder, stealing, etc. and have better lives for it. In the town where I grew up lived old men who had been in organized crime when they were younger, and who committed any number of illegal activities. These men died happy, surrounded by their families and the riches they accumulated through what most people would view as immoral actions.

Personal stories about when you were growing up are hardly going to carry much weight as far as proving something. Research shows that there are consequences to the person who kills. Unless they just do not feel guilt, have a conscience and have empathy for fellow humans which are classed as normal states in humans you would have to question their ability to understand right from wrong in the first place and empathize. Whether they know it or not they would be effected. Plus the people around them would be effected. The children, wife and extended family would be asking what sort of person is my father for killing and not caring. That unless they are all devoid of empathy and do not have a conscience.

The human brain is coded for compassion, for guilt, for a kind of empathic pain that causes the person inflicting harm to feel a degree of suffering that is in many ways as intense as what the victim is experiencing.
Here's What Happens in Your Brain When You Kill

Callous unconcern for the feelings of others can be defined as lack of conscience and comes from the inability to empathize with others. This effectively removes the normal social barriers associated with respect for other people.
Primary Personality Disorders: Understanding Them

Science is becoming better at determining brain states of right and wrong and associating that with real life situations. In the future this will be more and more defined so that we can show the effects of certain acts on the brain and its links with what is good and bad for human wellbeing.

I keep saying over and over that the phrase "stable and happy society" is an arbitrary and subjective condition you're adding to the definition of "morality", which for the millionth time is just:

Why do we have laws stopping this type of behaviour... I suggest it is to keep order.

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

So if the actions of a killer contribute to an unhappy and destablized society would that not affect the killers life and destablize it. I guess your going to go down the nihilistic road and say it does not matter, who cares, nothing matters, there is no meaning or rights and wrongs. That is just unreal.

So you see it's not a requirement of all moral systems. Saying that it has to be is just your incredulity showing through.

I am not saying it is a requiremnet of all moral systems to believe the same thing. I am saying that despite what they believe it still causes a destablizing factor which has effects for everyone including the killer or person with the moral view and that this is a basic human requiremnet to copoerate and have stability to survive. A world that is happy is better than a world that is miserable on many fronts that it does not even need any scientific support. As Thomas Nagel states it is as logical as an elephant is bigger than a mouse. This is beyond any individual view about what is good and bad.

And even in a societal moral system that values its own health, it may disregard the health of other societies. A tribe can have a moral system that says that the next tribe over is ripe for the picking, and take by force all their belongings, leaving the invader much better off for it.

This is the evolutionary view of morality. This has been proven to be wrong. We are more connected than you think. That is why the world is coming down on people like Kim Jong-un.

Evolution myths: ‘Survival of the fittest’ justifies ‘everyone for themselves’
When cooperation breaks down, the results can be disastrous. When cells in our bodies turn rogue, for instance, the result is cancer. So elaborate mechanisms have evolved to maintain cooperation and suppress selfishness, such as cellular “surveillance” programmes that trigger cell suicide if they start to turn cancerous.
Evolution myths: ‘Survival of the fittest’ justifies ‘everyone for themselves’

All these ideas about barbaric behavior being be a good and acceptable moral position are just wrong and can be proven wrong on so many fronts.

 

[stevevw]

Objective or Subjective morality is not something you choose; its about understanding what subjective and objective means, and determining which category morality fits under.

But that’s what happens in the real world! That’s how slavery ended, that’s how women got the right to vote, that’s how gay marriage became legalized, transgender laws enacted, and Jim Crow law eradicated. The fact that people are constantly challenging the old laws and replacing them with new ones shows morality is subjective; not objective.

Once again if they challenge an old moral view as being wrong isnt that contradictory under subjective morality. No one is ultimately wrong under subjective morality so making a challenge against someones moral view is admitting that there must be an objective standard to measure morals.

Are you under the impression that morally right or wrong issues can be demonstrated as such? If so, how do you demonstrate (for example) that slavery was wrong? If a person believes slavery was good, how do you prove him wrong?

through scientific reasoning and logic. There will be science that shows slavery effected peoples wellbeing, ie denied them their rights, repressed them, physically harmed them through doing medical tests, psychological tests such as the General Well Being (GWB) / Mental Health Index (MHI), Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE) or through rating scales and observation. There are many ways to determine peoples health and wellbeing. All these can then be linked to certain acts to determine the effects they have and whether those acts produce good or bad outcomes. Good and bad effects can be linked to areas of the brain that are associated with conscience.

 

[stevevw]

I watched (and laughed at) Harris's TED talk when he first gave it. I have his book "The Moral Landscape". It still, obviously, doesn't successfully argue for objective moral systems. The best it can hope to do is argue for objective facts within subjective moral systems. Harris is, like you, so caught up in incredulity towards conditions he doesn't like that he's completely forgotten what "subjective" and "objective" mean.

So I guess the great philosophers like Noam Chomsky and Thomas Nagel as well as the majority of academic philosophers who are in the best position to understand and assess morality and support objective morality are also just caught up in their incredulity.

He states that when he talks about the word "morality" he means a very particular thing. His definition doesn't correspond to the actual definition of the word. It's his subjective incredulity that forces him to adopt this definition so he can attempt to argue objective morality into existence. It's intellectual dishonest, because that tactic can be used to define anything into existence. Remember when I said that the Christian god can't exist because I define the Christian god as a being that can only exist in a world where bowling balls are square? That's an example of defining something into or out of existence.

Thats funny because that link I posted which you must have just ignored once again addresses that very point and shows how his definition is just like any other way science approaches other areas.

It seems to me that there are three, distinct challenges put forward thus far:

1. There is no scientific basis to say that we should value well-being, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)


2. Hence, if someone does not care about well-being, or cares only about his own and not about the well-being of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)


3. Even if we did agree to grant "well-being" primacy in any discussion of morality, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure well-being scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of morality. (The Measurement Problem)

I believe all of these challenges are the product of philosophical confusion. The simplest way to see this is by analogy to medicine and the mysterious quantity we call "health." Let's swap "morality" for "medicine" and "well-being" for "health" and see how things look:

1. There is no scientific basis to say that we should value health, our own or anyone else's. (The Value Problem)


2. Hence, if someone does not care about health, or cares only about his own and not about the health of others, there is no way to argue that he is wrong from the point of view of science. (The Persuasion Problem)


3. Even if we did agree to grant "health" primacy in any discussion of medicine, it is difficult or impossible to define it with rigor. It is, therefore, impossible to measure health scientifically. Thus, there can be no science of medicine. (The Measurement Problem)

While the analogy may not be perfect, I maintain that it is good enough to obviate these three criticisms. Is there a Value Problem, with respect to health? Is it unscientific to value health and seek to maximize it within the context of medicine?

No. Clearly there are scientific truths to be known about health - and we can fail to know them, to our great detriment. This is a fact. And yet, it is possible for people to deny this fact, or to have perverse and even self-destructive ideas about how to live.

Needless to say, it can be fruitless to argue with such people. Does this mean we have a Persuasion Problem with respect to medicine?

No. Christian Scientists, homeopaths, voodoo priests, and the legions of the confused don't get to vote on the principles of medicine. "Health" is also hard to define - and, what is more, the definition keeps changing. There is no clear "metric" by which we can measure it, and there may never be one - because "health" is a suitcase term for hundreds, if not thousands, of variables.

Do such contingencies give us a Measurement Problem with respect to health? Do they indicate that medicine will never be a proper science?

No. "Health" is a loose concept that may always bend and stretch depending on the context - but there is no question that both it and its context exist within an underlying reality which we can understand, or fail to understand, with the tools of science.

The charge is that I haven't actually used science to determine the foundational value (well-being) upon which my proffered science of morality would rest. Rather, I have just assumed that well-being is a value, and this move is both unscientific and question-begging. Here is Blackford:

The whole intellectual system of The Moral Landscape depends on an 'ought' being built into its foundations."

Again, the same can be said about medicine, or science as a whole. As I point out in my book, science in based on values that must be presupposed - like the desire to understand the universe, a respect for evidence and logical coherence, etc. One who doesn't share these values cannot do science. But nor can he attack the presuppositions of science in a way that anyone should find compelling.

Scientists need not apologize for presupposing the value of evidence, nor does this presupposition render science unscientific.

I argue that the value of well-being - specifically the value of avoiding the worst possible misery for everyone - is on the same footing. There is no problem in presupposing that the worst possible misery for everyone is bad and worth avoiding, and that normative morality consists, at an absolute minimum, in acting so as to avoid it.

To say that the worst possible misery for everyone is "bad" is, on my account, like saying that an argument that contradicts itself is "illogical." Our spade is turned. Anyone who says it isn't simply isn't making sense.

Our "oughts" are built right into the foundations. We need not apologize for pulling ourselves up by our bootstraps in this way. It is far better than pulling ourselves down by them.
Why Science Can Determine Human Values – Opinion – ABC Religion & Ethics (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The fact that I'm just not getting through to you is why I'm going to have to stop responding to you, because this round and round we're doing is a waste of time.

What can I say, I understand what you are saying but I just do not agree with you and neither do the majority of academic philosophers.

Sorry the post is long but it is the section above from Sam Harris that replies directly to your objections that needed to be put in full otherwise it would not give the complete answer.

 

[Ken-1122]

Once again if they challenge an old moral view as being wrong isnt that contradictory under subjective morality. No one is ultimately wrong under subjective morality so making a challenge against someones moral view is admitting that there must be an objective standard to measure morals.

Under subjective morality, there is no ultimate right or wrong, but there is a belief of what is right and what is wrong. It is this belief that is changed. This ability to change is the personification of subjective morality.

through scientific reasoning and logic. There will be science that shows slavery effected peoples wellbeing,

If you look strictly at what was good for society, an argument could be made that slavery was good for society. Under slavery, the South was the richest part of America. Slavery allowed this struggling country to become the richest country in the world. After slavery ended, the South became the poorest ares of the USA and it continues to be till this day. So an argument could be made that slavery was good for US society.

ie denied them their rights, repressed them, physically harmed them through doing medical tests, psychological tests such as the General Well Being (GWB) / Mental Health Index (MHI), Rosenberg Self-esteem Scale (RSE) or through rating scales and observation. There are many ways to determine peoples health and wellbeing. All these can then be linked to certain acts to determine the effects they have and whether those acts produce good or bad outcomes. Good and bad effects can be linked to areas of the brain that are associated with conscience.

First of all, there was slavery in West Africa long before the transatlantic slave trade. Africans enslaved each other; often a result of war, kidnapping, religious issues, etc. Many of the african rulers and merchants profited by selling slaves and controlling access of slaves to the europeans and americans during this time. It was believed by many europeans and americans that the slaves were better off in their hands than in the hands of their african slave owners.
Slavery of Africans by Africans
Now does this justify slavery? If slaves were treated better by their owners, would slavery be okay then? No! Slavery is not wrong because of their treatment, slavery is subjectively wrong because it is subjectively wrong for one human to own another. Now explain why it is objectively wrong for one person to own another.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

No, God has objectively revealed His moral law, it is contained in His objective Word called the Bible. And His Holy spirit guides and allows us in most cases to interpret it without bias, especially regarding the essentials which include the plan of salvation and His moral laws. Which are the ten commandments and the moral teachings of Christ and the Apostles.




I agree that not everyone follows His standards, that is called sin, and no one can follow His standards perfectly, that is why we need the atonement of Christ. Actually all denominations that accept the infallible authority of the Bible ARE in basically unified agreement about the essentials including the moral law.



The reason I am coming from the perspective of Christianity is because that is reality. You have to understand things from the perspective of reality. You cant live in a fantasy world are you are doomed. I agree with you that we have to accept what He has said in His entire infallible word, you cannot ignore parts of it just because you don't like some of his followers who wrote parts of it, such as Paul. And you right we have to accept what He has said about His moral truth. You cannot ignore some truths like His moral truth and accept other parts of it, like His already fulfilled ceremonial laws.



No, there is evidence that Adam repented and was restored spiritually as a son of God. No, we have our own eternal spirit or soul, and then when we become believers the HS comes into our body and soul and starts transforming it gradually. Making us live according to God's moral law more and more over our life span. Yes our bodies start to decay but our spirits guided by the HS become more Christlike.


No, they have their own eternal spirit/soul given to them at conception as part of being created in the image of God and both believers and unbelievers will eternally have their own spirit. At the resurrection is when we both get our bodies back but believers bodies will be perfected.


We know which of His should be followed see my post of the verses regarding this issue.



It is not humans determining what is good for humans, it is God thru His infallible word using the members of His church guided by the HS in their mostly objective interpretations to tell us what is good for humans.

Ok.

 

[stevevw]

Under subjective morality, there is no ultimate right or wrong, but there is a belief of what is right and what is wrong. It is this belief that is changed. This ability to change is the personification of subjective morality.

It is also its downfall. By not having any clear standard to measure what is right and wrong, what becomes the measure is things like what benefits me, what I like and what I hate and what pleasures me. It comes down to whoever can make the best argument for what they consider good and right so someone with a idea that is not best for us can buy votes and and trick people into supporting their moral views.

Just like with the legalization of pot, it is not about what is really good or bad becuase the science states that recreational pot is bad. It is about profits and it is the powerful people behind that which are buying their way in. So the supporters of slavery were about the financial benefits of using people as comodities. It was the objective moral position of people like Wilberforce who stood up and said it is wrong no matter what. That forced those with the moral view that slavery was good to let go of their position. So if their moral position was so shallow to begin with who says it is not shallow now and will keep being undermined by any person who has a will or money to buy their vote.

If you look strictly at what was good for society, an argument could be made that slavery was good for society. Under slavery, the South was the richest part of America. Slavery allowed this struggling country to become the richest country in the world. After slavery ended, the South became the poorest ares of the USA and it continues to be till this day. So an argument could be made that slavery was good for US society.

That is how subjectivism works. Because there is no strong foundation that can be stood upon to say this is right and that is wrong no matter what people can justify and rationalize all sorts of things as being OK. The best way is to buy the truth with a lie or appeal to peoples sensitivities with another so called moral wrong or right that is justifying the action. Such as saying slavery is making us wealthy and creating jobs and helping the poor. It is the same for the pot debate in saying it is turning poor areas with no industries into working ones. But it comes at a cost and as it has happened in the past with things like smoking, gambling, deforestation, neoliberalisation, globalisation, caapitalism ect. It effects people and creates more problems than what they claimed would be fixed.

First of all, there was slavery in West Africa long before the transatlantic slave trade. Africans enslaved each other; often a result of war, kidnapping, religious issues, etc. Many of the african rulers and merchants profited by selling slaves and controlling access of slaves to the europeans and americans during this time. It was believed by many europeans and americans that the slaves were better off in their hands than in the hands of their african slave owners.
Slavery of Africans by Africans
Now does this justify slavery? If slaves were treated better by their owners, would slavery be okay then? No! Slavery is not wrong because of their treatment, slavery is subjectively wrong because it is subjectively wrong for one human to own another. Now explain why it is objectively wrong for one person to own another.

No slavery is right or wrong for whatever reason each individual believes it is. There can be as many reasons as there are people. That is how subjective morality works. So some may say it is OK to own slaves becuase it makes money for me, some may say it is OK because I treat them good, and others may say it is OK because I like owning people as it gives me power. And there will be many other reasons. It is objective morality that says no it is wrong to own slaves period no matter because owning people is denying a human their rights and all humans are equal.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Says who? Who made your idea of God the moral judge over all of us?

The natural order of things. He made the universe so He gets to decide what to do with it. If you made something, so would you.

ken: With human law things are different because there is a police force that will ENFORCE human laws; but your idea of God doesn’t have any enforcement. Unless you have enforcement, you have nothing!

No, government is instituted by God to punish evildoers, read Romans. He created human beings with a natural desire for law and order so that they would form governments to maintain it. In addition, there are natural consequences also for breaking His moral laws, such as generally if you engage in a large amount of promiscuous sex, then you will probably get an STD. If you cheat on your wife then in most cases it destroys your marriage, if you are lazy, then you will most likely become poor and etc.

ken: The only people your God’s laws apply to, are people like you who choose to allow it.

No, see above. All people are subject to the enforcement of His moral laws.

ken: Care to answer my question? Would you become a rapist? Or is there something inside you that knows rape is wrong, independent of whatever you believe God says?

Of course not, most people know that rape is wrong because they are created in the image of God with a moral conscience that generally lines up with His moral law and this gets reinforced if the person lives in a society based on Christian principles like most Western nations and even greater reinforcement if they are a Christian themselves. But the moral conscience gets weakened over time if they not a Christian and are influenced by an evil society such as Nazi Germany or many Muslim societies or pagan and atheist societies.

 

[Ken-1122]

It is also its downfall. By not having any clear standard to measure what is right and wrong, what becomes the measure is things like what benefits me, what I like and what I hate and what pleasures me. It comes down to whoever can make the best argument for what they consider good and right so someone with a idea that is not best for us can buy votes and and trick people into supporting their moral views.

That is how things are done in reality. Congratulations; you've just made a case for subjective morality

No slavery is right or wrong for whatever reason each individual believes it is. There can be as many reasons as there are people. That is how subjective morality works. So some may say it is OK to own slaves becuase it makes money for me, some may say it is OK because I treat them good, and others may say it is OK because I like owning people as it gives me power. And there will be many other reasons. It is objective morality that says no it is wrong to own slaves period no matter because owning people is denying a human their rights and all humans are equal.

Objective means based on fact. If slavery is an objective moral issue, can you prove slavery is wrong? And don't say it is harmful to society, or harms people, because the definition of right or wrong is not about what is harmful or helpful. So can you prove slavery is wrong?

 

[Ken-1122]

The natural order of things. He made the universe so He gets to decide what to do with it. If you made something, so would you.

No he didn’t. If you want to believe he created the Universe, and allow him to be your judge, that’s fine; but for me and other non Christians; he is not a creator nor is he a judge.

No, government is instituted by God to punish evildoers, read Romans. He created human beings with a natural desire for law and order so that they would form governments to maintain it.

Oh so now God instituted Governments to punish evildoers? Well there are things in the Bible, that if you do, the Government will punish you! Proverbs 13:24 for example; if you follow those instructions; the police will come arrest you. If God instituted the Government to punish evildoers, why are people being punished for following the Bible?

Of course not, most people know that rape is wrong .

Okay, to answer your question; how do I determine what is evil? The same way you and most people know rape is wrong, I know what is evil

 

[stevevw]

s well

That is how things are done in reality. Congratulations; you've just made a case for subjective morality

I know, I'm like that and dont mind doing you a favour sometimes, lol.

Objective means based on fact. If slavery is an objective moral issue, can you prove slavery is wrong? And don't say it is harmful to society, or harms people, because the definition of right or wrong is not about what is harmful or helpful. So can you prove slavery is wrong?

Objective means the moral stands independent of human opinion. First morality has to apply to humans as opposed to something like a rock as humans can be wronged.
An entity has moral status if and only if it or its interests morally matter to some degree for the entity's own sake, such that it can be wronged.
The Grounds of Moral Status (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

But if humans can be wronged what wrongs does this apply to. It would seem logical that slavey harming people and harming society is an obvious one.

Virtually everyone agrees that slavery is inhumane and degrading and wrong,
BBC - Ethics - Slavery: Attempts to justify slavery

So inhumane is without compassion for misery or suffering; cruel. You can keep looking up the meaning of each word for example cruel means wilfully causing pain or suffering to others, or feeling no concern about it. So for me that seems to speak about doing harm to people.

The Declaration of human Rights states that inhuman or degrading treatment is wrong.
Article 3: Freedom from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment | Equality and Human Rights Commission

It seems slavery was not just morally wrong but actually bad for soceity economically as well. So it was not as financially sucessful as some say.

Why Slavery Wasn't Just A Monstrous Evil, It Was Also Bad Economics
It should be clear to all right-thinking people that slavery was and is a moral abomination.
Wherever and whenever people enslave other people the entire economy suffers on net, and pretty much to the extent that enslavement occurs.
Why Slavery Wasn't Just A Monstrous Evil, It Was Also Bad Economics

So it is universially accepted that slavery was wrong and the measurement for this was independent of humans from economics and science.

 

[Ken-1122]

s well I know, I'm like that and dont mind doing you a favour sometimes, lol.

So if your own logic proves you wrong, why aren’t you admitting your mistake, and changing your position on this issue?

But if humans can be wronged what wrongs does this apply to. It would seem logical that slavey harming people and harming society is an obvious one.

Actually slavery harmed some people, and helped others. In the USA, far more people were helped by slavery than harmed by it.

Virtually everyone agrees that slavery is inhumane and degrading and wrong,

Everybody TODAY agrees slavery is inhumane, and wrong; 200 years ago everybody agreed slavery was good! Who knows what everyone will believe 200 years from now! If morality were objective, we wouldn't be having this back and forth beliefs.

Why Slavery Wasn't Just A Monstrous Evil, It Was Also Bad Economics

All one has to do is look at the effect slavery has had on economies through out history to see you are wrong here. Any society based on free labor will thrive. As I said before, the South was the richest part of america during slavery; and became the poorest after slavery. But even if you were right and slavery was bad economics; that doesn’t make it wrong! There are plenty of economic decisions made that are seen as morally good even though they are harmful economically thus your argument fails. Again; prove slavery is morally wrong.

 

[stevevw]

So if your own logic proves you wrong, why aren’t you admitting your mistake, and changing your position on this issue?

First, it was I was attempting to make a joke. Second, I am not denying there are subjective moral view and have said that from the beginning but that does not mean that objective morality does not exist either.

Actually slavery harmed some people, and helped others. In the USA, far more people were helped by slavery than harmed by it.

How does abusing and denying a person their freedom help them. I think you will find that slavery was bad no matter what but in some cases it was justified as the lessor of two evils. Which position do you think blacks would prefer living free with the same opportunities as whites to pull themselves out of poverty and accept all the ups and downs that life has or have your liberty taken and be subject to abuse but be reasonably fed and housed. Under the logic you are supporting that would mean any white person who was finding it hard to make ends meet should have been enslaved as well. Why were blacks only enslaved.

Everybody TODAY agrees slavery is inhumane, and wrong; 200 years ago everybody agreed slavery was good! Who knows what everyone will believe 200 years from now! If morality were objective, we wouldn't be having this back and forth beliefs.

The point is we know today that slavery is inhumane because the sciences have shown us the truth about what slavery does to people and that truth stands no matter what context. People just did not know that back then but that does not make it right. As time goes by we discover more and more of the effects of slavery and in fact we have taken this to the point of not just the physical effects but the mental and psychological effects of denying people the right to make decisions for themselves and live free.

It was the development of the sciences that allowed us to see this and because it shows us how slavery can effect people badly we know that this is right compared to people who had a subjective view and just did not know back then. But I suggest that people have a basic knowledge of when something is wrong and they did know it was wrong back then but were able to justified it for personal reasons because they had and liked control. There were people who said it was wrong and stood up against the common view back then but it took time for them to get the message accross. It was exposing those who supported slavery that it was bad that ended slavery.

All one has to do is look at the effect slavery has had on economies through out history to see you are wrong here. Any society based on free labor will thrive. As I said before, the South was the richest part of america during slavery; and became the poorest after slavery. But even if you were right and slavery was bad economics; that doesn’t make it wrong! There are plenty of economic decisions made that are seen as morally good even though they are harmful economically thus your argument fails. Again; prove slavery is morally wrong.

The economics were only part of why slavery was wrong. The main evidence comes from the sciences that show the damage slavery causes and the importance of why people need to have the freedom to make decisions and live their own lives as it promotes the development of healthy independent humans.

 

[Ken-1122]

First, it was I was attempting to make a joke. Second, I am not denying there are subjective moral view and have said that from the beginning but that does not mean that objective morality does not exist either.

So you believe some moral issues are subjective, and other objective? Can you give a few examples of each and why?

How does abusing and denying a person their freedom help them.

Slavery only economically helped the people who were not slaves. Most americans were not slaves.

The point is we know today that slavery is inhumane because the sciences have shown us the truth about what slavery does to people and that truth stands no matter what context. People just did not know that back then but that does not make it right. As time goes by we discover more and more of the effects of slavery and in fact we have taken this to the point of not just the physical effects but the mental and psychological effects of denying people the right to make decisions for themselves and live free.

It was the development of the sciences that allowed us to see this and because it shows us how slavery can effect people badly we know that this is right compared to people who had a subjective view and just did not know back then. But I suggest that people have a basic knowledge of when something is wrong and they did know it was wrong back then but were able to justified it for personal reasons because they had and liked control. There were people who said it was wrong and stood up against the common view back then but it took time for them to get the message accross. It was exposing those who supported slavery that it was bad that ended slavery.

What are some of the scientific theories concerning slavery that exist today that didn’t exist back then?

 

[Ed1wolf]

You Are being purposefully dishonest, or ignorant, if you can with a straight face say that God and/or Christ ever said their Word/Law was conditional, null or void.

I am neither, reread the verses I quoted earlier in this thread.

yi: It is a very dangerous doctrine to teach: and, notice I asked for only when God or Christ said this, and It never fails that one brings up a human - namely Paul. WHO IS GREATER?

It is a doctrine that most Christians have believed for 2000 years. Paul's writings are also God's infallible Word. If it wasn't for the writings of the disciples you would know next to nothing about God or Christ. How do you reconcile that inconsistency of your beliefs?

yi: So, again:

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.

Not Paul, not Peter, not MOSES, not any other human except for Christ.

Again, if not for those godly men who God used as His mouthpieces, you would know next to nothing about God and Christ.

yi: You did not show this anywhere.
Other than that, I don' care much aboutbour exchange. It needs massive help anyway. But, you are jot being truthful, or you are being very ignorant if your answer to

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
​

is

I already have.
​

Especially if you have to bring up a human to substantiate it. The Word of God stands alone.

Again if not for those humans chosen by God to write His word you would know next to nothing about God or Jesus Christ.

 

[stevevw]

So you believe some moral issues are subjective, and other objective? Can you give a few examples of each and why?

Everyone will have subjective views of things including myself. But I may think something is OK and then learn that I was wrong and that there can be an objective position that works out best. Sometimes people may not agree with that but will accept it becuase it is the best thing to do. There may be subjective views about killing such as it is OK to kill for money, kill for pleasure, or kill because it benefits me. At the same time there is an objective view that killing is never OK except in self defence.

Slavery only economically helped the people who were not slaves. Most americans were not slaves.

That still does mean slavery was good. Does the majority view that they benefited from the money of slavery outweigh the minority view that slavery was bad because it hurt them. Whats more important money or peoples welfare. Some may say that it doesnt matter what is more important becuase subjective morality does not have any particular criteria as to what is right or wrong and each persons own view is only relevant. But we can determine that becuase slavery can be scientifically measured as to the harm it causes to humans that this is wrong for human flourishing and wellbeing. We can determine scientifically that human wellbeing is important for human happiness and the stability of society and that happiness is better than misery and the stability of society is important for human survival.

What are some of the scientific theories concerning slavery that exist today that didn’t exist back then?

There are many becuase science has developed in all areas compared to then. There are certain needs that people want and need that will give them a good and balance life and help them be complete such as described with the Maslow's hierarchy of needs.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html

Slavery for some may have given them the first level of needs such as shelter and food. The second level of Safety needs may have been taken care sometimes but it was unpredictablefor many. Safety is not just about physical safety and having your life in the hands of someone else can take its toll. In the third level of needs slaves may have found it hard to feel they were loved and belonged if they were denied the freedom to persue their own lives and love and belong in the greater society freely.

But it is the upper levels of needs that slavery effected the most such as the Esteem needs - which Maslow classified into two categories: (i) esteem for oneself (dignity, achievement, mastery, independence) and (ii) the desire for reputation or respect from others (e.g., status, prestige). Cognitive needs- knowledge and understanding, curiosity, exploration, need for meaning and predictability. Self-actualization needs - realizing personal potential, self-fulfillment, seeking personal growth and peak experiences. These needs are seen as the basic needs for all humans to be complete and slavery denied that.

We know this even more so today what things like slavery can do with further developments in psychology, neorology and the other sciences associated with human development.
Psychological Slavery

In fact slavery from the past still has bad effects on people today
How the legacy of slavery affects the mental health of black Americans today

 

[Ygrene Imref]

I am neither, reread the verses I quoted earlier in this thread.



It is a doctrine that most Christians have believed for 2000 years. Paul's writings are also God's infallible Word. If it wasn't for the writings of the disciples you would know next to nothing about God or Christ. How do you reconcile that inconsistency of your beliefs?


Again, if not for those godly men who God used as His mouthpieces, you would know next to nothing about God and Christ.


Again if not for those humans chosen by God to write His word you would know next to nothing about God or Jesus Christ.

Ok.