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

[Strathos]

Then how do you know it's objective? I know 1+1=2 because I can demonstrate math as objective. I know Lead is heavier than aluminum because I can weigh them thus proving which is heavier. Anything objective has to be demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate that which is moral or immoral, how can you call it objective, rather than subjective?

Go back to my analogy. We can't demonstrate the perfect strategy to play in every chess position, but we know that it exists.

 

[Ken-1122]

Go back to my analogy. We can't demonstrate the perfect strategy to play in every chess position, but we know that it exists.

Chess strategy is subjective; not objective. If you are trying to make a point that morality is objective, instead of subjective; the game of chess is not a very good analogy to use.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Chess strategy is subjective; not objective. If you are trying to make a point that morality is objective, instead of subjective; the game of chess is not a very good analogy to use.

The computers that easily beat chess players are not subjective.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Go back to my analogy. We can't demonstrate the perfect strategy to play in every chess position, but we know that it exists.

The computers can.

 

[Ken-1122]

The computers that easily beat chess players are not subjective.

Excellent point. And if morality were objective, a computer could probably be programmed to determine the morally correct thing to do in every situation.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Naomi was not a Moabite. She was a Jew. The only reason Ruth was there at all was to care for her MIL. The situation in Moab was fine when they left. Ruth had the option of returning whether or not Naomi went with her.

If there is a straw man here, the signature of the artist is "jason_delisle".

Okay, apparently I am the one making strawmen because someone makes an absurd claim about massive scale rape without any justification and I provide evidence that demonstrates that the claim isn't true. Sorry. I am not throwing strawmen. The only thing I am guilty of is not buying the absurd and unsupported claims made by manchild and ken. The only responses that I receive is "that is an absurd analogy because it isn't at all what happened". Well, did anyone actually consider that perhaps the claim of massive rape and forced marriages maybe did not happen? Gee, that's a thought! Perhaps, the women and children became servants and lived amongst the Israelites. Perhaps, they realized that life as an Israelite wasn't that bad because they were treated kindly and actually had more rights under Israelite Law than of their own country. Perhaps they came to the realization that it was wrong for their people to use lust as a means of subversion on another nation and that their plight was well deserved. Perhaps later, many actually fell in love with "their captors" and married. Yes, the book of Ruth is set years after the holy war. However, after reading the Book of Ruth there is no evidence of "mass rape" as defined by Manchild. The only evidence we can honestly derive from the book is that the opposite it true.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Doesn’t that that goes against the idea that morality is objective? Or do you believe morality is subjective. If God said 1+1=3, or that aluminum weighs more than lead; God would be wrong because math and the weight of metals are objective, not subjective. So if “X” is objectively wrong, it would be wrong even if God says it is right. So are you now saying morality is subjective?

So explain to me how God said 1+1=3? Of course I am not looking for the literal example. Rather, I am looking for the instance where God was declaring something that is objectively wrong.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed: The
document that contains the teachings of Christianity, the bible, actually teaches that. Does Zoroastrian scripture or documents teach it?

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

Only by taking verses out of context. But studying it in context confirms its teaching of human equality.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
It does matter what the religion actually teaches, that is what the followers of that religion at least try to live by. And in the case of Christianity, it has had periods where the followers did treat some people unequally (primarily during the period when the leadership was corrupt, the middle ages), but there are periods in its history where Christians treated people far more equally than the surrounding society like the Roman period when women were treated far better than the Romans and the Greeks did in the first centuries of Christianity. They also rescued abandoned babies and ended the gladiatorial fights among other things. And of course, later they ended slavery and the burning of widows in India.

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

No, if you read the writings of the Christians involved in these things, they confirm that they were spurred to do the right thing by the teachings of the Bible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, all churches that believe in the infallible authority of the bible generally agree on the moral teachings.

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

Yes because liberal churches do not believe in the infallible authority of the bible, the divisions on these issues are based on the churches view of the bible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, I explained that adaptation just allows the organism to adjust to conditions, evolution changes one organism into another. And that has never been empirically observed.

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

From dictionary.com: Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Ok, why and how is there an objective reality and how do you know there is an objective reality?

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

That doesn't answer my question. How do you know these are objective realities?

Ed1wolf said: ↑
And why and how can the universe operate in an orderly and intelligible way without an intelligent creator?
ken: You are the one claiming the Universe operates in an orderly and intelligible way; not me.

You just mentioned forces above that are orderly and intelligible. So you are now contradicting yourself. The only way the universe could not be orderly and intelligible is if there were no laws of physics, are you denying the existence of the laws of physics. Without those laws, science is impossible.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Excellent point. And if morality were objective, a computer could probably be programmed to determine the morally correct thing to do in every situation.

The thing to understand is that there is no such thing as objective morality. All morality is necessarily subjective.

Also, if morality were objective then every person would share the same moral values.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Then how do you know it's objective? I know 1+1=2 because I can demonstrate math as objective. I know Lead is heavier than aluminum because I can weigh them thus proving which is heavier. Anything objective has to be demonstrable. If you can't demonstrate that which is moral or immoral, how can you call it objective, rather than subjective?

How can you demonstrate that "rape" to be objectively morally wrong? I think we all can agree that butter pecan ice cream is the best ice cream in the world just like we all can agree that rape is wrong in every circumstance. However, how do you demonstrate these to be true?

 

[Strathos]

Chess strategy is subjective; not objective. If you are trying to make a point that morality is objective, instead of subjective; the game of chess is not a very good analogy to use.

It's objective when every possible move in a position is accounted for. The only reason it's subjective in most positions is that we can't calculate everything.

The computers that easily beat chess players are not subjective.

The computers can.

Not really. See, there is this thing called a 'tablebase', which is basically an exhaustive database of every possible move and position and the correct strategy to win them, but the best tablebases we have can only cover positions where there are 7 or 8 pieces total on the board. To fully solve the game of chess, you would need a 32 piece tablebase, and it has been calculated that that would require more information storage than can possibly exist in the observable universe. Yet, we can still conceive of such a tablebase existing.

Excellent point. And if morality were objective, a computer could probably be programmed to determine the morally correct thing to do in every situation.

Chess is much simpler than morality. I already explained that even if you took the entire observable universe and turned it into a computer, with each Planck 4-volume representing 1 bit, it wouldn't come anywhere close to fully solving the game of chess. So your hypothetical computer that could fully solve the issue of morality would have to be extraordinarily, vastly more complex than even the theoretical perfect chess computer, which already can't exist within the confines of our universe. In fact, it would be an understatement to say that the 'Perfect Morality Computer' would make the Perfect Chess Computer look like an abacus in comparison. So what kind of entity could this PMC be? The only candidate would be God.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

QUOTE="Strathos, post: 73521949, member: 320753"]Not really. See, there is this thing called a 'tablebase', which is basically an exhaustive database of every possible move and position and the correct strategy to win them, but the best tablebases we have can only cover positions where there are 7 or 8 pieces total on the board. To fully solve the game of chess, you would need a 32 piece tablebase, and it has been calculated that that would require more information storage than can possibly exist in the observable universe. Yet, we can still conceive of such a tablebase existing.[/QUOTE
==============================
No,not really, for more than one reason, but not worth space on this forum.

 

[Belk]

It's objective, but we can't know what the objectively moral thing to do is in any and all circumstances.

Unless there have been a bunch of developments in ethics that I have not heard about I'm unaware of anyone being able to tell objective morality in any circumstance. We have no tools with which to test morality and come to an objective understanding of it.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Unless there have been a bunch of developments in ethics that I have not heard about I'm unaware of anyone being able to tell objective morality in any circumstance. We have no tools with which to test morality and come to an objective understanding of it.

So would you then agree that nobody has the right to lecture anyone on moral philosophy? To argue morality is like having an argument over which flavor ice cream is best?

 

[Belk]

So would you then agree that nobody has the right to lecture anyone on moral philosophy? To argue morality is like having an argument over which flavor ice cream is best?

No, I would not agree with that. Thinking that killing others is wrong is not the same as ice cream preference. It is based off of logic that is common to the vast majority of us.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

No, I would not agree with that. Thinking that killing others is wrong is not the same as ice cream preference. It is based off of logic that is common to the vast majority of us.

But it is common logic that butter pecan is the best ice cream flavor. Lol. You don't need to respond to that comment. However, would you then say that all killing is wrong?

 

[Belk]

But it is common logic that butter pecan is the best ice cream flavor. Lol. You don't need to respond to that comment.

I apparently missed all those old societies that came to the common conclusion butter pecan is the best ice cream.

However, would you then say that all killing is wrong?

No I would not. I kill things on a regular basis as does every other human.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I apparently missed all those old societies that came to the common conclusion butter pecan is the best ice cream.



No I would not. I kill things on a regular basis as does every other human.

Yeah. I could kill some butter pecan ice cream right now.

 

[Ken-1122]

So explain to me how God said 1+1=3? Of course I am not looking for the literal example. Rather, I am looking for the instance where God was declaring something that is objectively wrong.

I’m not claiming God actually said do those things, but men claiming to speak for God said to do it and believers acting on faith did it thinking they were doing the will of God.
When men like Moses defeated the Midianites, or when Saul defeated the Amalekites, these men speaking for God instructed their army to commit genocide against their fallen enemy. I see this as no different than what Hitler did against the Jews. Hitler in his Book Mein Kamph wrote how he was doing God’s work in his actions against the Jews. History is full of men speaking for God, instructing gullible believers to commit acts of evil.
I’m an Atheist; I don’t believe this God ever existed, I believe it was just a bunch of men who saw an opportunity to control a lot of people through religious beliefs. When those religious beliefs are used in acts of evil, and followers justify those acts of evil because of their faith, that is where my disagreement comes from

 

[Ken-1122]

Only by taking verses out of context. But studying it in context confirms its teaching of human equality.

Perhaps you are the one taking it out of context in order to get it to say treat people equally

No, if you read the writings of the Christians involved in these things, they confirm that they were spurred to do the right thing by the teachings of the Bible.

Christians have always used the bible to justify their good behavior, as well as their bad behavior. It goes both ways

Yes because liberal churches do not believe in the infallible authority of the bible, the divisions on these issues are based on the churches view of the bible.

Again; not all churches agree on moral teachings.

From dictionary.com: Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

Is Macroevolution the only type of evolution that exists? No.

That doesn't answer my question. How do you know these are objective realities?

Because they can be consistently demonstrated

You just mentioned forces above that are orderly and intelligible. So you are now contradicting yourself. The only way the universe could not be orderly and intelligible is if there were no laws of physics, are you denying the existence of the laws of physics. Without those laws, science is impossible.

I said those forces were objective. I never said they were orderly or in any way intelligent.