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

[DogmaHunter]

So what is a tribe? Someone who lives in your neighborhood? Someone who shares your skin color? Someone who shares your views on religion? On Politics?

Yes, all of the above.

You may consider the people in your neighborhood as your tribe, but the racist next door will not consider you a part of his tribe because your skin is the wrong color and would have no problem killing you because he is convinced the less people like you around the better it is for those he consider his tribe!

Sure. And the world has gotten so small by now, that I'ld dare say that the rest of the tribe won't agree with that guy and do what they can to bring him to justice.
This isn't 1820 anymore.

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

I call it pseudo-objective.
It is only subjective insofar as what you choose as a starting point.
Once you've made your initial assumptions, you can make objective moral evaluations using those assumptions as premises.

But I'ld dare say that there is a moral framework out there, perhaps in the making if you will, where the initial assumptions themselves can also be derived from objective facts. Scientific facts. Neurological facts. Biological facts.

What it means to be human. What it neurologically means to "live the good life". What it psychologically means to "be happy". What it physically means to "be healthy". As opposed to sad, depressed, in pain.

That would kind of remove the "pseudo".

Dilemma's and culturally inspired choices will also always be a part of it imo though.


My main point: the idea that it's all subjective and thus just word against word, and one word not being any more valid then another word, is something I can not agree.

To take your racist example.... I say that that guy is unable to construct a well-reasoned argument to defend his actions in moral / ethical terms, without engaging in special pleading or using false assumptions.

 

[Strathos]

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

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

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

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



Sheesh....

So parents who make their children eat vegetables are evil, since the taste of of broccoli makes them feel bad?

 

[durangodawood]

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

Objective things dont change? Thats absurd.

 

[durangodawood]

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

Like what scenario?

Also, the objective derivation of certain moral rules does not mean everyone will follow them at all times.

I mean, gravity is objective, but from time to time people think they can fly. Doesnt change the facts tho.

 

[BarWi]

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

The disconnect appears to be that I define morality as a derivative of the true-false opposition where most consign truth to the realm of idea where it has the same connection to propositions of all types. Empiricists then only accept propositions that apply to points in time and space, excluding abstracta.

In my book if one is able to apprehend the concept of objective morality in the mind, the fact this concept is able to provide information demonstrates existence of some sort as only information can have existence. Example: a unicorn, a fiction. The existence of unicorn is drawn from both material (horn, horse) and sometimes spiritual (magical powers) existence. Unicorns are instantiated in drawings, stuffed toys, etc. Impossibilities can't be thought of. They have no possibility of existence (a three-sided square).

We can grasp that objective morality is, a sign of its existence, whether or not we know what it is.

 

[durangodawood]

The objective derivation of certain moral rules does not mean everyone will follow them at all times.

I mean, gravity is objective, but from time to time people think they can deny it. Doesnt keep them from going splat, tho.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Did you expect them to mention God when discussing mathematics, chemistry, geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, economics, etc.? If not, then why would you expect Him to be mentioned when discussing biology?

Actually there is evidence for an intelligent supernatural creator in all those fields, except maybe economics, especially when you talk about the origin of those fields. I think they should talk about the materialist explanation for their origin and the theist explanation for their origin.

 

[Ed1wolf]

They talk about Gods in religion and philosophy classes - exactly where the topic belongs.

No, a creator should also be mentioned in science classes when talking about the origin of things. They should present the evidence for both a non-theistic origin and a theistic origin. Also, the creator as moral lawgiver should be taught in optional ethics classes, because our nation was founded on that concept and it would help in the disciplining of children.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Speak for yourself.

Yes and as a human I can speak for other humans as well.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Nope. You don't get to move the goalposts. The assertion was not that it's 'human nature' to hate Yahweh. That would only indicate a tendency for hating Yahweh, if true.

The assertion was that I know Yahweh exists. That is a statement of certainty, not just tendency.

And again, that is predicated on information that only one of us has access to. I know my own thoughts. You do not know my own thoughts.

Therefor, I am in a position to know, with 100% certainty, that the assertion is false. So is any other atheist. We can all prove it to ourselves using the same intrapersonal means.

So the best case scenario for you is that your interpretation of Romans 1 is wrong. The worst case scenario is that your interpretation is correct, and the Bible itself is wrong.

It is extremely unwise to predicate an assertion on information you have no access to. I don't recommend you keep it up.

Strathos did a good job of explaining this, so I wont repeat his comments here.

 

[quatona]

No, a creator should also be mentioned in science classes when talking about the origin of things.

It´s not the subject of science. Get over it.

Also, the creator as moral lawgiver should be taught in optional ethics classes,

It is.

because our nation was founded on that concept

My nation isn´t, fortunately.

and it would help in the disciplining of children.

So you´re going pragmatic now?

 

[Strathos]

Actually there is evidence for an intelligent supernatural creator in all those fields, except maybe economics, especially when you talk about the origin of those fields. I think they should talk about the materialist explanation for their origin and the theist explanation for their origin.

Science can't usually address such issues of ultimate origin. Thus classes usually don't focus on it, rather they focus on the way things work while they are already in existence. Even the Big Bang theory isn't a theory of ultimate origins, as it just describes how the universe reached its current state. Cosmologists have no idea what happened before, if such terms are applicable in the way we understand them.

I subscribe to the concept of non-overlapping magisteria. Science explains the 'how', religions explains the 'why'.

 

[quatona]

Science can't usually address such issues of ultimate origin. Thus classes usually don't focus on it, rather they focus on the way things work while they are already in existence. Even the Big Bang theory isn't a theory of ultimate origins, as it just describes how the universe reached its current state. Cosmologists have no idea what happened before, if such terms are applicable in the way we understand them.

I subscribe to the concept of non-overlapping magisteria. Science explains the 'how', religions explains the 'why'.

Good post.
Except: Religion doesn´t explain anything - it asserts.

 

[durangodawood]

....They should present the evidence for both a non-theistic origin and a theistic origin....

Thats fair.

When evidence for a theistic origin turns up, by all means include it.

 

[Ken-1122]

Christians don't have to use the Bible to justify slavery -

Of course not Christians of today; I’m talking about 200 years ago. They justified it saying bring slaves from Africa and introducing them to Christianity here would allow their souls to be saved.

besides, there's few Christians as well as few unbelievers who understand it anyway.

Thats what YOU say; of course they would claim YOU don’t understand it. Who is to say your interpretation trumps theirs?

Those following Jesus don't change with society or cultural changes.

A simple look at moral issues like interracial relationships, gay marriage, racial separatism, or even female preachers; it is clear many who follow Jesus DO change with society and cultural changes; they just figure out a different way of interpreting the bible that allows for those changes.

Perhaps Ekklesia - the ones called out of babylon, saved and born again by Yahweh for Himself, are the ones you could seek , Yahweh Willing.
Yahweh's Ekklesia are born again, not joined to a 'religion',
they/we are alive in Chist Jesus, not members of a social club.

I ain’t talkin’ about Ekklesia people, I’m talking about people who call themselves Christians.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I ain’t talkin’ about Ekklesia people, I’m talking about people who call themselves Christians.

Obviously.
There's a big difference, and I did not miss that...

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes, all of the above.

You can’t pick all of the above; someone in your neighborhood may not share your skin color; someone who shares your religious beliefs may not share your political beliefs. Care to try again?

Sure. And the world has gotten so small by now, that I'ld dare say that the rest of the tribe won't agree with that guy and do what they can to bring him to justice.
This isn't 1820 anymore.

You’re missing my point; just because you consider “Joe” a part of your tribe, doesn’t mean Joe will consider you a part of his; thus all of that objective stuff you said always applies to tribes does not always apply to tribes.

I call it pseudo-objective.
It is only subjective insofar as what you choose as a starting point.
Once you've made your initial assumptions, you can make objective moral evaluations using those assumptions as premises.

But I'ld dare say that there is a moral framework out there, perhaps in the making if you will, where the initial assumptions themselves can also be derived from objective facts. Scientific facts. Neurological facts. Biological facts.

What it means to be human. What it neurologically means to "live the good life". What it psychologically means to "be happy". What it physically means to "be healthy". As opposed to sad, depressed, in pain.

That would kind of remove the "pseudo".

Dilemma's and culturally inspired choices will also always be a part of it imo though.

My main point: the idea that it's all subjective and thus just word against word, and one word not being any more valid then another word, is something I can not agree.

To take your racist example.... I say that that guy is unable to construct a well-reasoned argument to defend his actions in moral / ethical terms, without engaging in special pleading or using false assumptions.

To use the racism example; if racism were objectively wrong, one would be able to prove it is wrong. Do you think you can prove to a racist that racism is wrong? I don't think so.

 

[Ken-1122]

Objective things dont change? Thats absurd.

Care to give an example of something objectively true that does change?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Some say "I know it is wrong" , but also say "I like it anyway, and am not going to change my mind", or "It's what I choose"....

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Care to give an example of something objectively true that does change?

Yahweh never changes.
He never changes
no matter who says or things He does, or for any reason at all.
Even eternity to eternity, He never changes.

He is totally can and completely Just, Righteous, Merciful, and Perfect in all ways -

there is nothing that could change at all, ever, to make Him Better - it is a sin even to think it would be possible, if in rebellion against Him.