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

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
I am not saying that, but that fact indicates it is probably part of human nature. If most humans behave a certain way then it is strong evidence that it is human nature to behave that way. This is done in behavioral science all the time when studying animals.

ken: But these behaviors change over time. Human behavior 1000 years ago is much different than it is today, and human behavior today is far different than it will be 1000 years from now. Why do you think that is?

No, on basic morality, we have not changed, see where I demonstrated this earlier in the thread.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
True, but as a fellow human and a close observer of humans I have learned from myself and my fellow humans how we think and I understand many things about human nature and it is human nature not to want to believe in a God like the Christian God and so reject Him.

ken: There are countless versions of the Christian God that people worship. Not every Christian version of God is the same as yours. Some versions are attractive to people, some are not. If a person didn’t want to reject God, all they have to do is find a version of God that fits their lifestyle and beliefs!

No, all churches that accept the infallible authority of the bible basically agree on the characteristics of God.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
He was not testing him to find out how he would react, but rather to produce spiritual growth. Spiritual growth does not come from living a problem free life.

ken: Nowhere in the Bible does it say God was testing Job for spiritual growth. This was a wager between God and Satan.

No, read Job 1:8-12, it was plainly a test to see how Job would handle suffering.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, He obviously is capable, that is what the substitutionary atonement of Christ is for.

ken: He don’t need all of that to forgive, all he's gotta do is not hold a grudge.

How do you know "He dont need all of that"? Do you understand the extreme nature of rebellion against the creator and King of the Universe? All the person needs to do to gain forgiveness is to repent of his sins and accept Christ as His substitute.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, He is both of those things as long as your definition of benevolence includes being just and meting out justice.

ken: What he did was unjust IMO

How do you know what justice is? You cant just go by feelings.

 

[Ken-1122]

Like what scenario?

Consider the following scenario:
It’s 1939 Germany, the Gestapo enters your house looking for the Jews you are hiding in your attic. You and your family see the opportunity to kill Gestapo and hide the bodies without anybody noticing. Legally that is murder but not everybody would consider it wrong.

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

I’m talking about believing the moral rules are wrong!

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

Gravity never changes; the only way people can fly is to be able to build a machine that provides enough lift to counter the effects of gravity.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

The ability to imagine something does not make it so.

 

[Ken-1122]

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"....

Those are examples of subjective beliefs and feelings; not objective facts. Care to try again?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Those are examples of subjective beliefs and feelings; not objective facts. Care to try again?

?? Not at all subjective - it is what people say, right or wrong it is what they say (and do).

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

First have your God appear, THEN we can talk about his words and their meanings.
Until that happens, your just relating myths and fairy tales

 

[Ken-1122]

No, on basic morality, we have not changed,

Really? So what’s the difference between morality and basic morality?

No, all churches that accept the infallible authority of the bible basically agree on the characteristics of God.

But they dont agree on what God considers right or wrong.

No, read Job 1:8-12, it was plainly a test to see how Job would handle suffering.

Again; if God knows everything, he would know how Job would handle suffering.

How do you know "He dont need all of that"? Do you understand the extreme nature of rebellion against the creator and King of the Universe?

Again; if God knows everything, he would know how Job would handle suffering.

How do you know what justice is? You cant just go by feelings.

I go by what I believe to be true.

 

[Ken-1122]

?? Not at all subjective - it is what people say, right or wrong it is what they say (and do).

Of course people say that; but they are speaking subjectively, not objectively.

 

[Tinker Grey]

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

There is a rock in my front yard at such-and-such a position. That is objectively true; tomorrow when I move it, it will no longer be true, objective or otherwise, that it is in that position.

I'm increasingly of the opinion that objective vs. subjective is not a useful way to think about morality.

We are beings that, by-and-large, have empathy because we evolved to have empathy. This has expressed itself as tribalism and as the tribes have grown, nationalism. Humankind will be better off when our tribe is the world. But that is a long way off.

Things feel objective because we can't help feeling them. That we can't help feeling them is what makes some aver that they are objective. What we can't help but feel seems to be forced on us from the outside.

Once we understand (assume for a moment I am correct) that morality is merely what we evolved to do, then it is discussion about what interactions favor our species -- or at least favor you and me here and now.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, evolution requires major changes in morphology.
efm: No, it doesn't 'require' any such thing.

It definitely does if it goes from single cell organism to human. And even just from Australopithecine to human major changes in morphology must take place.

efm: I learned what evolution actually is in junior college. What's your excuse for not knowing?

It sounds like you all were taught Lysenkoism.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, it is the Big Bang Theory. That is one of the conclusions of the theory.

ken: No it isn't. That is false, and you have already been corrected on this canard earlier in this same thread. Big Bang cosmology describes the earliest known conditions, initial expansion, and early evolution of the universe. That's all. It has no 'conclusions' at all about anything pre-Planck time.

I wasn't talking about pre-Planck time. I said most cosmologists agree that the BB produced space, time and matter. Ken was claiming that that was not true.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Good Evening. I am Zed Aliz Zed

"well if Lucifer was even more powerful would you follow his creed?"

I apologize but after reading your monologue this appears to be the only real question that you asked. The short answer is that the standard for morality is not derived from power or dictates. It comes from created purpose. Because God is the Creator of all that exists, He and He alone has the authority to bestow a purpose onto his creation. Purpose drives which qualities are positive or negative towards that purpose. Thus, God is the only being capable to act as an objective mediator outside of humanity to declare which qualities will positively or negatively impact the purpose for humanity. This would also be true if Lucifer was more powerful than God because Lucifer did not create humanity.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

That sounds funny because compared to the Creator of all LIfe and the Maker of the Universe, Yahweh,

the enemy has as little power as the poop of a worm.

He (the enemy) has no power at all over a little child trusting God,

and less power than the least of the Ekklesia.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That sounds funny because compared to the Creator of all LIfe and the Maker of the Universe, Yahweh,

the enemy has as little power as the poop of a worm.

He (the enemy) has no power at all over a little child trusting God,

and less power than the least of the Ekklesia.

Agreed. The point that I was driving at was that no matter how great or small, Lucifer's power has nothing to do with morality.

 

[quatona]

Agreed. The point that I was driving at was that no matter how great or small, Lucifer's power has nothing to do with morality.

Indeed: Power doesn´t - and neither has creatorship.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Indeed: Power doesn´t - and neither has creatorship.

I disagree. The intended or created purpose of a thing is the only way a thing's goodness can be objectively measured. For example, assuming that I created a knife for the sole purpose of cutting. This purpose drives what qualities are good or bad for that knife. In this case, sharpness and strength are good qualities. Dullness and brittleness are negative qualities and appearance would be irrelevant . However, if the intended purpose of the knife was for decoration or collecting, sharpness and strength wouldn't dictate goodness. The only quality of importance is how well it is pleasing to the eye. The reason why creatorship is critical to establishing an objective standard is because nobody else can objectively establish the purpose of the creators creation. Furthermore, created purpose is objective because it will be true regardless of personal feelings or emotions. You couldn't tell me that a decorative knife was bad because you couldn't cut with it. If it was pleasing to the eye, you would be objectively wrong because it would be true then, today, and forever that the creator of the knife made he knife for the sole purpose of decoration. It would be no different that if you were to tell me that a toaster is bad because it cannot tie your shoes even though it toasts bread perfectly. If you are displeased because you think your decorative knife should cut, it still does not change the fact that the creator never intended the knife to cut. The knife is and always will be simply a decoration.

Assuming that humanity was created by an intelligent being for a specific purpose as the Bible claims, humanity is no different any other object that was created by an intelligent being. God would be our inventor and manufacturer. The Bible is our manufacturers manual which specifically tells us how His product (humanity) ought to be used. Like any other product, if you disregard the manufacturer's manual and use a product for purposes it was never intended, you would be objectively wrong

 

[Strathos]

I disagree. The intended or created purpose of a thing is the only way a thing's goodness can be objectively measured. For example, assuming that I created a knife for the sole purpose of cutting. This purpose drives what qualities are good or bad for that knife. In this case, sharpness and strength are good qualities. Dullness and brittleness are negative qualities and appearance would be irrelevant . However, if the intended purpose of the knife was for decoration or collecting, sharpness and strength wouldn't dictate goodness. The only quality of importance is how well it is pleasing to the eye. The reason why creatorship is critical to establishing an objective standard is because nobody else can objectively establish the purpose of the creators creation. Furthermore, created purpose is objective because it will be true regardless of personal feelings or emotions. You couldn't tell me that a decorative knife was bad because you couldn't cut with it. If it was pleasing to the eye, you would be objectively wrong because it would be true then, today, and forever that the creator of the knife made he knife for the sole purpose of decoration. It would be no different that if you were to tell me that a toaster is bad because it cannot tie your shoes even though it toasts bread perfectly. If you are displeased because you think your decorative knife should cut, it still does not change the fact that the creator never intended the knife to cut. The knife is and always will be simply a decoration.

That's interesting, but it raises a question. What if a knife was designed for cutting, but it later becomes a rare collector's item, and is sought after for display/decoration? That wasn't its original purpose, but somehow it just happened to acquire that purpose, that its creator never intended. How does that fit into the analogy?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Perhaps, as it seems, objective and subjective are misleading terms..... ?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

That's interesting, but it raises a question. What if a knife was designed for cutting, but it later becomes a rare collector's item, and is sought after for display/decoration? That wasn't its original purpose, but somehow it just happened to acquire that purpose, that its creator never intended. How does that fit into the analogy?

That is a good point. However, if the original intended purpose is to cut, that would be true of all time. If I was born in Montana, that truth will always be the same regardless of where I am currently living. In this case, the objective truth is that the knife was created to cut and (I assume) was never intended for collecting. This objective truth will never change and is absent of personal feeling and emotions. Thus, if the knife was dull, it would be a bad cutting knife regardless of its collectability. Because people decided that it was now a collectible, people find it's beauty a positive quality. But this quality is subjective to individual preference or feelings. Objectively, it still does not change the fact that it is now a terrible cutting tool unless it is sharpened.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Naturally, the notion of created purpose as a standard of morality brings much debate. However, the emotional responses that I receive only confirm its objectivity. Facts don't care about feelings. If we use create purpose as a standard, there is no debate. When it comes to qualities, there are only three options. Either the quality positively enhances the purpose (good), negatively hinders the purpose (bad), or has nothing to do with its purpose (neutral). Whatever purpose a creator bestows onto its creation never changes and is objectively true at all times and in all circumstances regardless of the individual's feelings and emotions.

Likewise with humanity, if we are created by a being with intelligence for a specific purpose. That purpose will be objectively true at all times. Every decision we make will either have a positive, negative, or neutral impact to the created purpose for humanity. We can then objectively declare anything that positively impacts the purpose for humanity to be 'good', anything that negatively impacts the purpose for humanity to be 'evil', and anything that has a neutral effect to have no moral significance.

 

[Ken-1122]

I disagree. The intended or created purpose of a thing is the only way a thing's goodness can be objectively measured. For example, assuming that I created a knife for the sole purpose of cutting. This purpose drives what qualities are good or bad for that knife. In this case, sharpness and strength are good qualities. Dullness and brittleness are negative qualities and appearance would be irrelevant .

That is only the case for machine/tools and slaves. Only that which which does not have freewill, has a purpose assigned by someone else. I am not a slave, and I am not a machine or tool so I am free to decide what my purpose in life is.

As far as creation, my parents gave birth to me; I was not created I was born. Just because my parents are responsible for my existence does not mean they determine what my purpose in life is. Once I become an adult I am free to decide for myself.