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

[Cis.jd]

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.

I agree.. accept with in the animal kingdom. Morality is non-existent with in the laws of the jungle.

 

[quatona]

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

Feel free to bring it to the table.

 

[durangodawood]

....Without an objective moral standard.....

Just because a moral standard is proposed to come from God does not make it objective. That proposed derivation does not make it demonstrable to me.

Its more correct to call scriptural divine commandments "absolute" morality rather than "objective".

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Only by taking verses out of context. But studying it in context confirms its teaching of human equality.

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

No, it can be proven using the grammatico-historical hermeneutic that they were taking them out of context. The word "race" does not even exist in the bible so there is absolutely no basis for treating people differently by race in the bible.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

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

So what? The Nazis used evolution to justify their behavior does that prove evolution false? So it is with the bible, just because some Christians use it to justify bad behavior does not prove the bible is false or that it actually contains teachings they claim it does.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

ken: Again; not all churches agree on moral teachings.

Non sequitur. Again, all the churches based on the original historic understanding of biblical authority do.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
From dictionary.com: Macroevolution: major evolutionary transition from one type of organism to another occurring at the level of the species and higher taxa.

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

I and most creationists don't dispute microevolution.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
That doesn't answer my question. How do you know these are objective realities?

ken: Because they can be consistently demonstrated

That doesn't prove that they are objective realities, it could just be a consistent hallucination or consistent dream.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

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

You just contradicted yourself again. You said that they can be consistently demonstrated, something can only be consistently demonstrated if it is orderly and intelligible. You do know the difference btw intelligent and intelligible dont you?

 

[DogmaHunter]

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.

I think you missed the part where I said "for all humans", not just the ones you like.
Any morality that as a principle excludes a bunch of humans and /or grants more priviliges to one group over the other, is immoral by definition.

Murder is wrong, no matter if the victim is a white guy, a black guy, an indian or a jew.

Sure, some people won't agree with that.
And those people would be wrong.

Some people also don't agree that the earth is a sphere and believe it's flat instead.
But that doesn't make the shape of the earth a subjective matter....

Wheter something is subjective or not, is not determined by how many people agree on it.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

I think you missed the part where I said "for all humans", not just the ones you like.
Any morality that as a principle excludes a bunch of humans and /or grants more priviliges to one group over the other, is immoral by definition.

Murder is wrong, no matter if the victim is a white guy, a black guy, an indian or a jew.

Sure, some people won't agree with that.
And those people would be wrong.

Some people also don't agree that the earth is a sphere and believe it's flat instead.
But that doesn't make the shape of the earth a subjective matter....

Wheter something is subjective or not, is not determined by how many people agree on it.

Can you then show us how murder is objectively wrong and not merely the subjective opinion of the majority? Why would someone be objectively wrong if they thought it was okay to murder a white guy in the same way they would be objectively wrong for thinking the earth was flat?

 

[xianghua]

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.

here is the paper i guess:

Gauger

anyway, what make you think that evolution has enough time to evolve even a single complex biolotical system? check my signature link for instance.

 

[Ken-1122]

So what? The Nazis used evolution to justify their behavior does that prove evolution false? So it is with the bible, just because some Christians use it to justify bad behavior does not prove the bible is false or that it actually contains teachings they claim it does.

If the claim of Evolution was about morality, it would prove evolution false. But that's not the claim of evolution so your argument fails.

That doesn't prove that they are objective realities, it could just be a consistent hallucination or consistent dream.

Hallucinations and dreams work only on an individual level; not a world wide level.

You just contradicted yourself again. You said that they can be consistently demonstrated, something can only be consistently demonstrated if it is orderly and intelligible. You do know the difference btw intelligent and intelligible dont you?

Obviously I misunderstood what you said.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think you missed the part where I said "for all humans", not just the ones you like.
Any morality that as a principle excludes a bunch of humans and /or grants more priviliges to one group over the other, is immoral by definition.

By definition? Then you should have no problem providing a definition of morality that supports your claim.

Murder is wrong, no matter if the victim is a white guy, a black guy, an indian or a jew.

Sure, some people won't agree with that.
And those people would be wrong.

Murder is a legal term. there have been cases when immoral laws have defined what could be called a justified killing as murder.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

here is the paper i guess:

Gauger

Not the same subject, and not from Cornell.

anyway, what make you think that evolution has enough time to evolve even a single complex biolotical system?

Thousands of convergent lines of critically robust evidence from numerous relevant fields.

 

[Strathos]

IIRC Hitler had a very distorted view of evolution and creationism (he believed that 'Aryans' were divinely created by God and 'lesser races' evolved from other animals).

 

[Ed1wolf]

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.

I dont know any Christians that "support" the killing of infants. But we ALL deserve to die at birth because of our sin. The Bible says "the wages of sin is death." Even infants are sinners though not intentional sinners, though because they have not reached the age of accountability, if they die they go to heaven rather than hell. So any time we live past birth, God is being gracious to us, because we dont deserve it. The ancient Hebrews were God's arm of meting out justice on these evil nations for only this time period in history. After the coming of Christ, we are living in the age of Grace and of course, are not allowed to kill non-combatants in war. As far as animals, we are allowed to kill them for food or in war time to help win a just war it may be necessary. But they should never be tortured or treated inhumanely. And no, God's moral laws are not subjective because they are based on His objectively existing moral character.

 

[Cis.jd]

I dont know any Christians that "support" the killing of infants. But we ALL deserve to die at birth because of our sin. The Bible says "the wages of sin is death." Even infants are sinners though not intentional sinners, though because they have not reached the age of accountability, if they die they go to heaven rather than hell. So any time we live past birth, God is being gracious to us, because we dont deserve it. The ancient Hebrews were God's arm of meting out justice on these evil nations for only this time period in history. After the coming of Christ, we are living in the age of Grace and of course, are not allowed to kill non-combatants in war. As far as animals, we are allowed to kill them for food or in war time to help win a just war it may be necessary. But they should never be tortured or treated inhumanely. And no, God's moral laws are not subjective because they are based on His objectively existing moral character.

Read up, the majority in this thread supported the murder of babies in the OT. The arguments from the majority were: "well if God said so,then it's not evil..." post #82 can be a good example, but yes there is a lot you can read here.

The violence in the OT

 

[Ed1wolf]

True Wisdom starts with fear of God.

Anything opposed to God then is not acceptable.

Generally a good honest scientist properly following the scientific method will not discover anything in nature that is opposed to God or His word.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Generally a good honest scientist properly following the scientific method will not discover anything in nature that is opposed to God or His word.

This is true, (not that there is anyone good but God, as Jesus stated),
and I'm not really sure about the actual 'scientific method' since
so many errors have resulted in the last 200 years or more,
but
nothing in nature is opposed to God nor to His Word -
it is Written that HIS WORD holds the entire Universe together .

As the song goes (I have no idea what year or who) (or even the exact words):

"honesty" is so far away.... or so hard to find....

and as
frequently reported by lawyers : nothing is as it seems. No one tells the truth.

But, thankfully, just like there are a few true believers,

there are a few true believers who are also scientists (or were).

And they tell and publish the truth as God directs and when He opens the door,
contrary to most public knowledge and
contrary to their unfaithful peers and colleagues.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Who says? Not who or what the creator is, but whether there is one is certainly not outside the domain of science.
ken: The systematic enterprise of science does not lead to a creator, so why should a creator be mentioned in science classes?

Yes it does if you just take one more step in logic as I explained earlier.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Good scientists let the data take them wherever it leads.

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

No, nothing discovered by good honest scientists that correctly use the scientific method and strive not to cling to any scientific dogmatic theories will ever discover anything against God's word.
It could go against our incorrect interpretation of His word but it will never actually go against His word.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
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.

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

I didn't say that, but schools in colonial days and even up until the 1960's that did teach the ten commandments produced 95% literacy and no mass killings, very different from schools today which dont, do you think there could be a connection?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Woohooo! I am post #1817.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Can you then show us how murder is objectively wrong and not merely the subjective opinion of the majority?

Because it is detrimental to building a safe society that maximizes well-being of all sentient beings.

Why would someone be objectively wrong if they thought it was okay to murder a white guy in the same way they would be objectively wrong for thinking the earth was flat?

Simple deduction.

Like I said, moral behaviour is directly related to decreasing suffering in all its forms and celebrating life (so to speak).

To find out what is and isn't moral, is a question of rational reasoning and facts.
Obviously, it's not an exact science. There are certainly grey area's - that's why we have moral dilemma's like the trolley problem. But let's not pretend that that is the case for all things.

For the vast majority of actions one could engage in, there are pretty straitforward arguments one way or the other.

Like murder. To allow people to rob innocents from their lives, is about the best way to create a society ruled by insecurity, fear, oppression, grief, etc.

 

[DogmaHunter]

By definition? Then you should have no problem providing a definition of morality that supports your claim.

Moral behaviour are those behaviours that decrease suffering / increase well-being of sentient beings.

Immoral behaviours are those behaviours that increase suffering / decrease well-being of sentient beings.

Mentally, physically, materially... so "suffering/well-being" in a broad sense.

Murder is a legal term. there have been cases when immoral laws have defined what could be called a justified killing as murder.

I don't think I said that laws are necessarily moral.

 

[DogmaHunter]

IIRC Hitler had a very distorted view of evolution and creationism (he believed that 'Aryans' were divinely created by God and 'lesser races' evolved from other animals).

Got a reference for this one?
Never heared that before.