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

[Ken-1122]

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.

I agree! Now if only we can get some of these other people to understand this.

 

[Ken-1122]

How can you demonstrate that "rape" to be objectively morally wrong?

I can only explain why it is morally wrong; not 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?

We can’t! That’s because those claims are subjective; not objective. I can explain why butter pecan ice cream is the best ice cream in the world, but I can’t objectively demonstrate it. I can also explain why rape is wrong, but I can’t objectively demonstrate it.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

I wouldn’t say Chess is simpler than morality; I but I would say it is different. With Chess everybody agrees on the end game (killing your opponent’s king before he kills yours) and even though everybody may disagree on the best way to accomplish this, there is a best way of doing it. This is because Chess is objective.
With morality, nobody agrees on the end game. You can ask 100 different people what is right and what is wrong, and get 100 different answers. This is because morality is subjective. That is why you can't get a computer to solve moral issues.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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

I understand that you dont believe in God. We all can agree that genocide is bad just like we all can agree that butter pecan ice cream is the greatest icecream in the world. So how can you demonstrate that genocide is wrong because it is wrong and not simply because the currently established majority declared it so?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I can only explain why it is morally wrong; not objectively morally wrong

We can’t! That’s because those claims are subjective; not objective. I can explain why butter pecan ice cream is the best ice cream in the world, but I can’t objectively demonstrate it. I can also explain why rape is wrong, but I can’t objectively demonstrate it.

So if I were to say that rape is morally wrong, that would be a subjective statement? So how can you justify telling someone they are wrong if they disagree?

 

[quatona]

So if I were to say that rape is morally wrong, that would be a subjective statement? So how can you justify telling someone they are wrong if they disagree?

As far as my experience goes, among us subjectivists the discussion isn´t finished with "You are wrong!". Rather, that´s typically the starting point of a pretty complex discussion (about underlying values - and whether we agree on them or not, and about the question whether and how the action in question serves each of them; hinders them or neither; about each person´s priorities in these values, etc.etc.).

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

I agree! Now if only we can get some of these other people to understand this.

We understand only as Abba Yahweh has granted it to us from heaven.
ergo, we cannot make anyone else understand - only if they are seeking the truth and keep seeking, they will know...

 

[Ken-1122]

I understand that you dont believe in God. We all can agree that genocide is bad just like we all can agree that butter pecan ice cream is the greatest icecream in the world. So how can you demonstrate that genocide is wrong because it is wrong and not simply because the currently established majority declared it so?

That's where the conversation starts. I explain why I believe it is wrong, and he can explain why he thinks its right; and we see who has the most convincing argument.

So if I were to say that rape is morally wrong, that would be a subjective statement?

Yes!

So how can you justify telling someone they are wrong if they disagree?

The ability to explain WHY something is wrong is all the justification you need. I believe it was Twain who said; "The truth should always be up for question". If someone claims "X" is the truth, he should be willing to take on anyone who disagrees. If he is unwilling to do that, then there is something very wrong with what he calls the truth.

 

[Ken-1122]

We understand only as Abba Yahweh has granted it to us from heaven.
ergo, we cannot make anyone else understand - only if they are seeking the truth and keep seeking, they will know...

It may depend on the person. Sometimes for a person who seeks the truth, a convincing argument is all that is needed to help them understand

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It may depend on the person. Sometimes for a person who seeks the truth, a convincing argument is all that is needed to help them understand

Short term perhaps.
"A convincing argument" type understanding has sent billions to the grave with only condemned judgment without a chance at eternal life.

If anyone lacks wisdom, let them ask God Who gives to all men generously without reproach.
The only reliable faithful and true understanding is from God, sheer grace/ an undeserved gift.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, a creator should also be mentioned in science classes when talking about the origin of things.

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

Who says? Not who or what the creator is, but whether there is one is certainly not outside the domain of science. Good scientists let the data take them wherever it leads.

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

quat: It is.

Not in America, we can not even post the Ten Commandments on the walls in many schools, even though Ben Franklin thought it was a good idea.

ed: because our nation was founded on that concept

qua: My nation isn´t, fortunately.

If you are from a Western nation it was.

ed: and it would help in the disciplining of children.

qua: So you´re going pragmatic now?

When the fate of the nation may depend on it, why not?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Good scientists let the data take them wherever it leads.

True Wisdom starts with fear of God.

Anything opposed to God then is not acceptable.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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'.

It did address it for 250 years. I am not referring to exactly who or what the creator is, but whether there is one. Good scientists let the data take them wherever it leads without closing off certain areas of inquiry. While we cant say for certain what happened before the BB, one more simple step in logic gives us the most likely answer, ie a supernatural Cause/Creator. All a scientist and academia has to do is acknowledge that that is a logically possibility with a high probability. The concept of non-overlapping magisteria has serious problems but I wont go into them here.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Thats fair.

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

Glad you agree. I have provided some of the evidence on this thread.

 

[Ken-1122]

Who says? Not who or what the creator is, but whether there is one is certainly not outside the domain of science.

The systematic enterprise of science does not lead to a creator, so why should a creator be mentioned in science classes?

Good scientists let the data take them wherever it leads.

When they do that, you guys complain because the data doesn't lead them to your religious beliefs

Not in America, we can not even post the Ten Commandments on the walls in many schools, even though Ben Franklin thought it was a good idea.

Ben Franklin also thought slavery was a good idea. Just because some of his ideas were good doesn’t mean they all were.

 

[Ken-1122]

Short term perhaps.
"A convincing argument" type understanding has sent billions to the grave with only condemned judgment without a chance at eternal life.

If anyone lacks wisdom, let them ask God Who gives to all men generously without reproach.
The only reliable faithful and true understanding is from God, sheer grace/ an undeserved gift.

Do you really believe your preaching is going to work with someone who doesn't even believe your God exists? C'mon bruh you can do better than that.... can't cha?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, on basic morality, we have not changed,

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

The basics like the second five of the ten commandments, more detailed and complex moral decisions require more education to get agreement among people.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, all churches that accept the infallible authority of the bible basically agree on the characteristics of God.
ken: But they dont agree on what God considers right or wrong.

Yes they do on most issues if they have the orthodox view of the bible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, read Job 1:8-12, it was plainly a test to see how Job would handle suffering.

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

Yes, but Job had to actually experience the suffering to gain spiritual growth, which is God's goal for all believers.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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?
ken: Again; if God knows everything, he would know how Job would handle suffering.

See above about how it has to actually be experienced by the person to get the spiritual growth needed.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
How do you know what justice is? You cant just go by feelings.

ken: I go by what I believe to be true.

And you have already admitted that you determine what is true by how you feel about it, exactly the same basis as Adolf Hitler.

 

[Ken-1122]

While we cant say for certain what happened before the BB, one more simple step in logic gives us the most likely answer, ie a supernatural Cause/Creator. All a scientist and academia has to do is acknowledge that that is a logically possibility with a high probability.

Once he does that, he is no longer acting on science, he is acting on faith.

 

[Ken-1122]

The basics like the second five of the ten commandments, more detailed and complex moral decisions require more education to get agreement among people.

would you mind giving some examples of Basic morality vs Standard morality?

Yes, but Job had to actually experience the suffering to gain spiritual growth, which is God's goal for all believers.

The bible describes Job as “perfect and upright” he didn't need spiritual growth, and his children did not deserve to die.

 

[Strathos]

It did address it for 250 years. I am not referring to exactly who or what the creator is, but whether there is one. Good scientists let the data take them wherever it leads without closing off certain areas of inquiry. While we cant say for certain what happened before the BB, one more simple step in logic gives us the most likely answer, ie a supernatural Cause/Creator. All a scientist and academia has to do is acknowledge that that is a logically possibility with a high probability. The concept of non-overlapping magisteria has serious problems but I wont go into them here.

Even people like Dawkins admit it's a possibility. But basic science education just focuses on things that are scientifically established.