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

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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



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.

Well, that all sounds great. Assuming that everyone doesn't want a society ruled by insecurity, fear, and oppression.

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

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).

Hitler was a Mormon?

 

[DogmaHunter]

Well, that all sounds great. Assuming that everyone doesn't want a society ruled by insecurity, fear, and oppression.

Those who would want a society ruled by insecurity, fear, etc... are immoral.

The point.

The whole point of acting morally, is to end up with a society that is exactly not like that, but rather to a society where one can prosper and flourish and thrive and be happy.

The point.


It makes no sense to say otherwise.
Because then you end up with moral actions that directly lead to suffering and misery.
And if moral actions can be or are like that, then what are immoral actions supposed to be?

Give me an example of a moral action of which the direct effect is nothing but predictable misery and dispair?

Can you spot the self-contradiction in the question?


Let me ask you, what is morality in your opinion? What's the point of it?

 

[(° ͡ ͜ ͡ʖ ͡ °) (ᵔᴥᵔʋ)]

Those who would want a society ruled by insecurity, fear, etc... are immoral.

The point.

The whole point of acting morally, is to end up with a society that is exactly not like that, but rather to a society where one can prosper and flourish and thrive and be happy.

The point.


It makes no sense to say otherwise.
Because then you end up with moral actions that directly lead to suffering and misery.
And if moral actions can be or are like that, then what are immoral actions supposed to be?

Give me an example of a moral action of which the direct effect is nothing but predictable misery and dispair?

Can you spot the self-contradiction in the question?


Let me ask you, what is morality in your opinion? What's the point of it?

I guess the question would be self-contradictory. Well to answer your question from a secular worldview is difficult. Without a standard, what is morality? Does it truly exist or is it a mere abstract idea? Like, asking which way is north while floating in the vacuum of space. Does north really exist in space? I would argue not. But the idea of north may exist in the abstracts of our minds regardless if it actually exists.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I guess the question would be self-contradictory. Well to answer your question from a secular worldview is difficult.

So you are unable to give a reasoned argument for why it's not moral to go around killing random innocent people, without appealing to some authority who says it's wrong?

Really?

Without a standard, what is morality?

What you propose is not a standard. It is an authority.
I actually have a standard and I already told you as well: well-being vs suffering, in its broadest sense.

Does it truly exist or is it a mere abstract idea?

It's a word used to label certain behaviours in context of how those behaviours impact the lives of others as well as yourself, in terms of suffering and well-being.

Like, asking which way is north while floating in the vacuum of space. Does north really exist in space? I would argue not.

North exists in context of being on a planet with a magnetic field.
Morality exists in context of being a human living in a social cooperative society.

But the idea of north may exist in the abstracts of our minds regardless if it actually exists.

And we can objectively determine where north is nonetheless.

 

[Strathos]

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

Well I recall hearing that before. Doing some more research, it seems that Hitler's views on evolution and creationism were inconsistent and self-contradictory, which is not really surprising considering he was a complete nutcase.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

Who says? There are many cases where we have discovered things just using logic to determine a cause after discovering an initially unexplained effect. This is done in science everyday.

 

[Ed1wolf]

Ed1wolf said: ↑
The basics like the second five of the ten commandments, more detailed and complex moral decisions require more education to get agreement among people.

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

They are the same thing as I mentioned above.

Ed1wolf said: ↑
Yes, but Job had to actually experience the suffering to gain spiritual growth, which is God's goal for all believers.

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

That was relatively speaking as compared to other humans, but understood in the context of the entire bible, which teaches that all humans are sinners in comparison to God's moral law, Job was a sinner too.

 

[Ed1wolf]

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

Determining causes of effects using logical reasoning is how things are scientifically established. Making the origin of the universe and living things out of bounds is not good science.

 

[Strathos]

Determining causes of effects using logical reasoning is how things are scientifically established. Making the origin of the universe and living things out of bounds is not good science.

I don't think they're 'making them out of bounds', they just haven't discovered the answers yet.

 

[Ed1wolf]

THe answer was pretty straightforward - and better than yes or no could be-
since Yahweh hides salvation from scholars,
"it doesn't matter"

Sorry brother, I disagree with your interpretation of that verse. Jesus was talking about attitudes. The humble attitude of a child, God does not hide salvation or the truth from scholars. Good Christian scholars have that attitude of humility. We learn many things from good biblical scholars, even some unbelieving scholars can discover truths about His word. Unfortunately most unbelieving scholars are arrogant and think they know it all, they are the ones that lead people astray. That is what Christ was referring to.

 

[Ed1wolf]

post # ?

I dont remember but a simple piece of evidence is the BB theory has proven that the universe is an effect, and therefore needs a cause. And the universe contains purposes and we know that only persons can create purposes, therefore the cause is personal.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

I dont remember but a simple piece of evidence is the BB theory has proven that the universe is an effect

Big Bang cosmology has 'proven' no such thing. How many times are you going to misrepresent the same subject in one thread?

 

[Ken-1122]

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

Science is not about taking steps in logic

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.

Nothing in science goes against the words of Halle Selassie either! Should we make Rastafarian a part of science as well?

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?

The culture was different back then. In those schools that taught the 10 commandments, they also initially had slavery, and after slavery they had Jim Crow laws.

 

[Ken-1122]

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.

That's a definition you made up. Morality has nothing to do with suffering. Sometimes suffering will allow a sick or injured person to become healed.

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

I was pointing out; what is sometimes called murder is not immoral

 

[Ken-1122]

Who says? There are many cases where we have discovered things just using logic to determine a cause after discovering an initially unexplained effect. This is done in science everyday.

Examples?

That was relatively speaking as compared to other humans, but understood in the context of the entire bible, which teaches that all humans are sinners in comparison to God's moral law, Job was a sinner too.

I don’t care how much you try to justify it, killing his children was wrong.

 

[durangodawood]

I dont remember but a simple piece of evidence is the BB theory has proven that the universe is an effect, and therefore needs a cause. And the universe contains purposes and we know that only persons can create purposes, therefore the cause is personal.

I agree the BB probably had a cause.

But what purposes are there in the universe beyond the ones people cook up?

 

[DogmaHunter]

That's a definition you made up.

How is it made up?
How is moral behaviour not directly linked with improving or maintaining living conditions accross the board in a positive way?

Can you give me an example of a moral action that predictably leads to ONLY misery and dispair?

Likewise, can you give me an example of an immoral action that predictably leads to ONLY positive things like hapiness, health, security, etc?

If the moral value of an action isn't determined by the impact of said action, how then can you determine moral values?

I don't see how you can divorce moral value from sociological impact of behaviour.

Morality has nothing to do with suffering. Sometimes suffering will allow a sick or injured person to become healed.

Which would result in a net increase of well being.
The alternative would be not getting healed and receive the ultimate suffering: death or chronic desease / pain.

I was pointing out; what is sometimes called murder is not immoral

I'm afraid I don't follow.
You mean when a lawfull, justified, killing is incorrectly labeled an unlawfull, unjustified, killing?

 

[DogmaHunter]

And the universe contains purposes and we know that only persons can create purposes, therefore the cause is personal.

What "purposes"?

 

[Ken-1122]

How is it made up?
How is moral behaviour not directly linked with improving or maintaining living conditions accross the board in a positive way?

Can you give me an example of a moral action that predictably leads to ONLY misery and dispair?

Likewise, can you give me an example of an immoral action that predictably leads to ONLY positive things like hapiness, health, security, etc?

If the moral value of an action isn't determined by the impact of said action, how then can you determine moral values?

I don't see how you can divorce moral value from sociological impact of behaviour.

It’s not that simple; sometimes the same act will lead to happiness and wellbeing for one group will lead to pain and misery to another. That’s why you will never find a definition of morality that includes “improving wellbeing” except for the one you made up.

I'm afraid I don't follow.
You mean when a lawfull, justified, killing is incorrectly labeled an unlawfull, unjustified, killing?

No when a justified killing is labeled murder by an immoral law. An example might be considered self defense that leads to the death of a person legally allowed to murder you by an immoral law.