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

[Ed1wolf]

You haven’t refuted anything; you just refuse to admit the obvious. Numbers 31:17-18 says:

17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.
18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

As any reasonable person can see, verse 17 is genocide; verse 18 is kidnapping that leads to rape.

See my response above to the rape accusation. As far as genocide, genocide is the killing of a group because of WHO they are, this was an ordered capital punishment because of what these people had DONE, ie their rebellion against God from birth.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Man is here to fight the Devil (aka entropy decay disease etc)...View attachment 247751

How do you know this?

 

[Cis.jd]

I hate to admit. Morality can be subjective, especially towards religious people

I don't want to throw 'my kind' under the bus but I made a thread in regards to the violence in the OT and the responses I got where very disturbing to me.

The violence in the OT

There are people here who actually support the slaughtering of infants and animals. The argument was "since God is the high authority, then anything he does is now good..". So if we kill babies, it's evil but if he does it is good because he is god. One guy even replied to me saying "why are you upset with animals getting killed.. they are not made in the image of God".

This has seriously blown my mind. What was worse, is that anybody, such as myself who couldn't logically approve with the "God said so" as a reason to support the baby slaughtering in the OT was like following Satan or something.

I believe that there are morals that are subjective but everything depends on the circumstances/situation. Everything.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

1 Corinthians 6

EDIT: Also, why are you even pretending that behavior is at all relevant to Christian moral philosophy? I could spend my entire life as a serial rapist, have a deathbed conversion and go on to an eternal reward. Conversely, I could spend my entire life as an atheist philanthropist while volunteering for suicide hotlines and soup kitchens, adopting unwanted children, etc., and go to an eternity in hell. Behavior is utterly irrelevant.

I hate to say this, but Manchild is correct in regards to morality being relevant for salvation. However, his assertion that morality is irrelevant for salvation, therefore it is completely irrelevant is inaccurate.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

"Also, why are you even pretending that behavior is at all relevant to Christian moral philosophy?"
1 Corinthians 6

 

[Ken-1122]

See my response above to the rape accusation. As far as genocide, genocide is the killing of a group because of WHO they are,

This dictionary disagrees with you
GENOCIDE | definition in the Cambridge English Dictionary

this was an ordered capital punishment because of what these people had DONE, ie their rebellion against God from birth.

How do you know what they did? Because Moses said so? How do you know Moses wasn't lying?
So if a nation of people don't worship your God that is justification for genocide?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Well it took me practically no time and energy to refute Ken that in the texts he referenced there was anything about rape. And I have refuted others pretty easily that the Bible does not condone slavery, in fact it was a strong force against slavery in Western societies. And the claim that the Bible condones genocide I have also easily refuted without spending much time and energy.

efm: I believe that you believe you've done all of that.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
WellIf they arise from the Creator of the universe's objectively existing moral character, then they do have an objective basis which secular morality does not have. God's moral character exists outside the human mind, so therefore it is objective.

efm: That's is, of course, blatant special pleading. Objective does not mean 'outside the human mind'.

Ok, can you provide an example of something that exists outside the human mind that does not objectively exist?

efm: If it derives from a mind, it is necessarily subjective. You don't get to just ad-hoc you're way out of that.

His moral character does not derive from His mind, it is part of who He is.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, we have them in propositional form

efm: You have the writings of anonymous people purporting to speak on Yahweh's behalf. Nothing else.

While some are anonymous, most are not. And most were written near the time of the events that are recorded by eyewitnesses. And there is strong evidence of its divine origin as I have explained earlier in this thread.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
We generally learn this when we get to know Him personally,

efm: Which is useless, of course. Anyone can claim their own personal experience of Yahweh and come up with completely different conclusions than you, and you stand on no ground whatsoever in saying their experiences are 'wrong'.

No, if any experience and conclusion goes against His two books, the bible and nature, then we know it is wrong.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
there is also scientific evidence that points to following Christian morality is best for humans.

efm: Only in the most superficial sense. There is a great deal of evidence that, for example, refraining from killing and stealing is best for humans, but that idea is not remotely unique to Christianity.

There are many more examples than that, other moral issues such as promiscuous sex, homosexual behavior, and not attending church hurts human flourishing too.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Christian moral philosophy has none of those characteristics.

efm: It has all of them. You've spent a great deal of time in this thread engaged in apologetics for atrocities. So has William Lane Craig. So have a number of other apologists. And you have no coherent ontology or epistemology to speak of.
As such, I dismiss your vacuous nakedness assertions out of hand.

Without an objective moral standard, you dont even know what actual atrocities are and in fact, there is no such thing as atrocities. But of course, you are free to dismiss my assertions because as a Christian we believe that freedom of conscience is an objective moral standard.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Are you going to answer my question?

I did, if you cant understand my answer, I cant help that. You are free to ask me questions about it and I will answer you.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Ok, can you provide an example of something that exists outside the human mind that does not objectively exist?

That question misses the point entirely, which is that you are special pleading a case for Yahweh. If it derives from a mind - any mind - it's subjective.

His moral character does not derive from His mind, it is part of who He is.

That is a complete non-sequitur of an argument. Being 'part of who he is' does not magically make it objective.

While some are anonymous, most are not. And most were written near the time of the events that are recorded by eyewitnesses. And there is strong evidence of its divine origin as I have explained earlier in this thread.

I believe you believe that.

No, if any experience and conclusion goes against His two books, the bible and nature, then we know it is wrong.

No you don't. There is no more reason for anyone to accept that criteria than any other criteria. You both stand on the exact same ground in calling the other wrong - which is to say, no ground at all.

There are many more examples than that, other moral issues such as promiscuous sex, homosexual behavior, and not attending church hurts human flourishing too.

All three of those are amoral, not immoral. And to the point, the (false) idea that they are immoral is not limited to Christianity.

You're beginning to approach a right answer with 'not attending church', because it is at least demonstrably true that engaging in social activities is beneficial. But there is nothing magical about attending church. It goes for any social activity. That's why largely secular nations like Sweden, Denmark, New Zealand, etc., do not suffer in the slightest for their lack of church attendance.

Without an objective moral standard

You can stop right there. You don't have one. You have the writings of people purporting to speak on behalf of Yahweh, which wouldn't be 'objective' even if you could somehow prove they were from Yahweh. That's all.

This is always the most amusing and frustrating thing about having these discussions with theists. You can't seem to help but speak from a position of pretend authority, as if you stand at a level of having established the veracity of your moral philosophy, and everyone else is obligated to bring themselves up to you.

Understand something: I do not grant you that ground. You don't get to just assume it and expect me to meet you there.

But enough about you. Harm and wellbeing are my standards. They are objectively quantifiable. Now, whether that is valued is necessarily subjective, and no appeal to Yahweh or any other imaginary non-entity will magically make it objective, which is one of the many reasons he is worthless in my consideration of morality.

Which is all to say nothing of the fact that moral behavior is utterly irrelevant to your moral philosophy in the first place. If I can spend my entire life as a child murdering serial rapist, have a last second deathbed and go to heaven, or spend my entire life as an atheist philanthropist humanitarian and go to hell, then it is a waste of time to even talk about the moral character of any behavior. Only belief in Yahweh matters.

 

[Ken-1122]

I did, if you cant understand my answer, I cant help that. You are free to ask me questions about it and I will answer you.

The question is, can you point to something that is objective (other than your claims of morality) that cannot be demonstrated as true or false. That is the question you didn't answer

 

[DogmaHunter]

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?

It depends on context.
We no longer live in literal tribes. Tribal mentality is contextual.
Your "tribe" is whatever group you fall into / identify with in context of the point being discussed. That can be citizenship of a certain country, it can be skin color, it can be sexual orientation, it can be a sports team you support, a religion you subscribe to....

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 don't think that matters.
What "tribe" you identify with, seems something personal. I also don't see any problem with disagreement within the "tribe".

I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that person X identifies as a christian, while person Y says of X that "he's not a real christian".

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.

Racism is demonstrably detrimental to building a peacefull society where all humans have equal rights and an equal shot at happiness, health, prosperity, wellbeing, individual freedom, education,...

That makes it immoral / unethical / wrong.


That is, off course, if you agree that happiness, health, prosperity, wellbeing, ... for all humans is the ultimate goal / motivation of moral / ethical behaviour.

If you don't agree with that, then when you use the words "moral behaviour", I don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Ken-1122]

It depends on context.
We no longer live in literal tribes. Tribal mentality is contextual.
Your "tribe" is whatever group you fall into / identify with in context of the point being discussed. That can be citizenship of a certain country, it can be skin color, it can be sexual orientation, it can be a sports team you support, a religion you subscribe to....



I don't think that matters.
What "tribe" you identify with, seems something personal. I also don't see any problem with disagreement within the "tribe".

I'm sure you are familiar with the idea that person X identifies as a christian, while person Y says of X that "he's not a real christian".

Sounds like you’re making my point! What constitutes “tribe” is subjective, not objective.

Racism is demonstrably detrimental to building a peacefull society where all humans have equal rights and an equal shot at happiness, health, prosperity, wellbeing, individual freedom, education,...

That makes it immoral / unethical / wrong.


That is, off course, if you agree that happiness, health, prosperity, wellbeing, ... for all humans is the ultimate goal / motivation of moral / ethical behaviour.

If you don't agree with that, then when you use the words "moral behaviour", I don't know what you are talking about.

Exactly! You don’t know what they are talking about. The reason you don’t know, is because different people will have different views on what is best for society, and it won’t always include your idea of equality for everybody. Why the different views? Because what is deemed best for society is subjective; not objective.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I am referring to the general public's understanding of evolution

I don't care about 'the general public's understanding of evolution'. I don't defer to their understanding of any scientific field.

IOW Macro-evolution. Microevolution is not in dispute.

Neither are in dispute within the scientific community, except by a minuscule fringe. Each rely on exactly the same mechanisms. One is just the cumulative effect of the other.

This is just as absurd as saying dialects can emerge through linguistic evolution, but languages can't.

Also, there is not enough time for the beneficial mutations to make major changes in morphology. Mathematicians at Cornell recently determined how hard it is to get a binding site in DNA. They determined that it would take 60,000 years for a mutation to arise, and 6 million years for it to become general in the population to go from an apelike ancestor to humans. And that is just one mutation, if you need two coordinated mutations it would take 216 million years. So that makes it basically impossible to go from australopithecine to human since you need a lot more coordinated mutations than that.

You copied this from here, almost word for word,

Science vs. Darwinism - WORLD

You should at least cite your crappy sources.

Unsurprisingly, I have not found a single reference to this study - if it even is a study - in any primary scientific material I am aware of, nor in anything popular-level. If it is an actual peer-reviewed study, I suspect, as is always the case, that creationist propagandists have gotten a hold of it and misconstrued for their own purposes, and it doesn't say anything like what is being asserted here. Again, that's assuming it's anything like an actual study at all.

But here's the nice thing about living in 2019 - I can just e-mail the math department at Cornell, with a link to this interview, and ask them if they have any awareness of such a thing, and if it actually says what is claimed. So, I did.

**********************

To whom it may concern,

I came across an article claiming that mathematicians at Cornell had determined that the number and frequency of genetic mutations needed for the evolution of humans from their ape ancestors was problematic for the Theory of Evolution. The article is here,

Science vs. Darwinism - WORLD

Assuming this is referring to an actual academic study in the first place, I am wondering if you are aware of any such study, and where I might read the source material myself (the article has no citations).

Thank you for your time and consideration,

XXXXXXXX

***********************

I have done this sort of thing many times before, when creationists make such citation-free claims as you've made here. In every single case the claim has turned out to be, at the very best, only partially true, and usually completely false. I am not exactly shaking in my boots that this time, it will somehow turn out that you were correct.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

But here's the nice thing about living in 2019 - I can just e-mail the math department at Cornell, with a link to this interview, and ask them if they have any awareness of such a thing, and if it actually says what is claimed. So, I did.

**********************

To whom it may concern,

I came across an article claiming that mathematicians at Cornell had determined that the number and frequency of genetic mutations needed for the evolution of humans from their ape ancestors was problematic for the Theory of Evolution. The article is here,

Science vs. Darwinism - WORLD

Assuming this is referring to an actual academic study in the first place, I am wondering if you are aware of any such study, and where I might read the source material myself (the article has no citations).

Thank you for your time and consideration,

XXXXXXXX

***********************

I have done this sort of thing many times before, when creationists make such citation-free claims as you've made here. In every single case the claim has turned out to be, at the very best, only partially true, and usually completely false. I am not exactly shaking in my boots that this time, it will somehow turn out that you were correct.

And here's the follow up. The following was forwarded to me by the Assistant to the Chair of Mathematics at Cornell. It was written by Steven Strogatz, a Professor of Applied Mathematics there.

**********************

I have no idea what article is being referred to. Honestly, though, the person being interviewed in the article is saying a lot of unreliable and false things that no reputable biologist would agree with. So I wouldn’t expect that there is an actual reference for the “Cornell mathematician who did a study of DNA binding” – or if there is, I imagine that she is misinterpreting the results of that article.

Feel free to pass my remarks along to the person who made the inquiry.

Best,

Steve

*********************

There you have it. Neither the Assistant to the Chair nor the Professor of Applied Mathematics at Cornell have even heard of any such thing. Furthermore, the professor agrees with me that if it exists at all, it is being misconstrued.

I think I'll make a thread about this over on the Creationism vs Evolution board, in case anyone else is tempted to cite this load of horse crap.

Thanks for making an example of yourself.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No; you said they would have explored other planets. Unless you know of some other planets that exist within the Earth, you were referring to outside the Earth. As I said before, outside of Earths atmosphere, is hostile to human life.

That was just a hypothetical future I proposed that even if possible, that God knew would never happen. I was saying that could only have happened if original sin had never happened. God actually may have limited us to earth to prevent the spread of sin and evil to other parts of the universe. But in fact, the universe as a whole was designed to support human life among other things.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Out of the three options "allows for human life", "does not prevent human life" and "support human life" you arbitrarily pick the last and strongest one.
Of course, even worse would be "are designed for human life".

Actually there is evidence that it IS designed for human life among other things.

 

[Cis.jd]

Just to ask. Is "are morals subjective" the right question or "are morals circumstantial"?

I, myself, think that what defines evil and good is all about the intention and the circumstances behind it.

Take a look at murder for example. No matter what religious or non-religious views you have, we all agree that initially, murder is wrong. However i think we all can imagine circumstances in where it is necessary (self-defense, justice...). Abortion is in majority condemned by christianity, however there are circumstances in where it can be understandable (the fetus is a danger to the woman's health). Everything depends on the circumstances.

 

[Ken-1122]

That was just a hypothetical future I proposed that even if possible, that God knew would never happen.

Ahh so you're changing it now; I don't blame ya

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

Just to ask. Is "are morals subjective" the right question or "are morals circumstantial"?

I, myself, think that what defines evil and good is all about the intention and the circumstances behind it.

Take a look at murder for example. No matter what religious or non-religious views you have, we all agree that initially, murder is wrong. However i think we all can imagine circumstances in where it is necessary (self-defense, justice...). Abortion is in majority condemned by christianity, however there are circumstances in where it can be understandable (the fetus is a danger to the woman's health). Everything depends on the circumstances.

I agree...mostly. I think any moral philosophy worth its salt will not only allow for nuance and circumstance, but necessitate it. I think Jean Valjean was right to steal the loaf of bread. I would have done the same, as I hope anyone else would have.

For another example - if you are hiding a Jewish family in your home, and the gestapo come to your door in search of them, lying to them is actually moral, and telling the truth is immoral.

But that doesn't go for every action. I do not believe there exists, or has ever existed, any circumstance in which the owning of another person is morally justifiable. Same for rape. Same for genocide. Same for child abuse. It would take an awful lot to convince me otherwise.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but probably since He knew we were going to choose evil, He did not want us to spread it to other planets. That was one reason He flooded the earth because we were getting too evil.

ken: At first you said he probably wanted us to colonize other planets, now you are saying he didn’t want us to colonize other planets; which is it?

No, I said if we had not had original sin, then our minds would not be distorted by sin and would have probably helped to do things far beyond what we do now such as traveling to other planets. But God knew that we would choose sin, so He knew that would not happen and if it did it could spread evil throughout the universe so that may be why He allowed the universe to develop the way it did without other habitable planets. But even those planets exist to help us exist. Such as Jupiter absorbs many large meteors and asteroids that otherwise would have struck the earth and caused major devastation including possibly our extinction.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
No, but 100% of people I have met including ex cons I know do not have your view of love. How do you tell the difference between love and hate? Do believe Hate Crimes exist? If so, Should Love Crimes be treated differently? If not, why?

ken: How do you define love?

I am referring to the virtue form of love, not just romantic love, love as a virtue is care and concern for the well being of another. Now answer my questions.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Why? If they did it out of love?

ken: Because he is mentally ill and causes harm to others.

How do you know he is mentally ill? One of the signs of a mature normal human is the ability to love. And you said that love can do many harmful things to others and still be love.