What does "We all agree X is wrong -> objective morality" actually mean

[BPPLEE]

I was thinking about solving moral problems now rather than wait. So if there are conflicting revelations, how do we know which one is right?

What is the moral problem?

 

[Hans Blaster]

I've met Catholics who were born again. I'm sure you could still contribute to the discussion

Not according to post #4, you need to be "born again" to form an objective opinion on morality. Sigh.

(Of course forming your own objective opinion is an oxymoron.)

(I'm also not adept at these rap battles.)

(I'm also not a Catholic anymore, so any "powers" I may have had are expired.)

 

[HARK!]

MOD HAT ON

Please read and abide by each forum's Statement of Purpose; Statement of Purpose threads are sticky threads located at the top of the forum's page. Not all forums have a Statement of Purpose thread.​

MOD HAT OFF​

 

[RDKirk]

God will judge people by the rule of their conscience (Romans 2:12).

Some people--maybe most people--have seared consciences.

 

[RDKirk]

Some people in the American politics forum love saying
"We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality" but many people don't understand what they mean by "objective morality" so I want them to explain it in a very different way I think getting them to use scripture is a good way of forcing this to happen

I think there would be several definitions of what "torturing children" means, and some of them would vary so widely that it would be absurd to declare that there was true agreement that "torturing children is wrong" even if everyone assented to those words.

Everyone agrees that murder is wrong, but the definitions of "murder" can vary so widely that the agreement is invalid.

 

[Bradskii]

Morality is one's best, current understanding of Truth, not its fullness. In that regard, it is much like competing scientific hypotheses.

Even Christians, who are converging on Christ-likeness, do not yet have a monopoly on Truth. God's people will still make mistakes as we progress. The difference between a believer's mistakes and those of an unbeliever, eternally speaking, is that those of the former are under grace. That grace is only promised to those who are surrendered to Jesus.

Well, that's the long hand version of 'I don't know'. Someone telling me 'This is what you should do - but bear in mind I might be wrong but at least I'm under grace' is of no use to me whatsoever. Personally speaking, someone giving me a good reason for doing something will get me every time. And if they have faith, belong to some religion or have none at all matters not one plugged nickel to me.

Reason trumps all.

 

[Bradskii]

What is the moral problem?

Anything whatsoever that isn't directly covered in scripture, such as do not murder or do not steal. A common one I have been using is caging animals. Is it morally acceptable? What size cage if it is? How long can they be kept caged? Does the reason why they are caged matter? Etc etc. Obviously moral problems with a multitude of answers.

The point being that there will be personal opinions on all those matters. And no help from the good book.

 

[Sabertooth]

Reason trumps all.

To that I say,... It's Not What You Know, It's Who You Know; The Whites (1988)

 

[Bradskii]

To that I say,... It's Not What You Know, It's Who You Know; The Whites (1988)

​

Look around the forum. There are a lot of people who would say exactly that. And who seem to have vastly different opinions on moral problems. So I'd say it's not who you know, it's how you personally interpret what He says. Because that's what I see. A lot of different personal opinions being justified by faith.​

 

[Sabertooth]

A lot of different personal opinions being justified by faith.

Until 1 John 3:2 comes to pass...

 

[Bradskii]

Until 1 John 3:2 comes to pass...

But I don't want an answer 'when it comes to pass'.

'We're not sure yet' cuts no ice with me.

 

[Larniavc]

I would suggest that you only use scripture

So you’re fine with slaves? And raped women being killed? Is that the Scripture that should be used?

If not, how do you decide? I think we typically don’t want bad things to happen to other people because if our empathy resulting from humans being a social species.

And that level of empathy varies by person. Some people just can’t understand how doing bad things to other people feels on an empathic level. They are the types who claim that without the Bible there is nothing to stop people going out raping and killing.

They scare the heck out of me.

 

[Sabertooth]

But I don't want an answer 'when it comes to pass'.

This world and its ways is the closest that an unbeliever is going to come to Heaven.
Apart from Salvation, no one in it can escape its social entropy.
Trying to keep it going is as futile as "perpetual motion."

 

[Matt5]

In your opinion does the existence of the golden rule provide clear evidence that there is a Holy Spirit you must surrender to ?

Interestingly, Islam does not have the golden rule:

Bill Warner PhD: Any Religion is Better [Go to 45 seconds.]

If you're not Muslim then you're fair game for anything. Kind of weird given that Islam is an Abrahamic religion.

 

[Hammster]

I don't understand the comment "We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality"

Could something that thinks it is true explain it in a totally different way

please please please do not just say "but why do you think that"
I would suggest that you only use scripture

Not everyone knows that it’s wrong. What argument would you use to convince them otherwise?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I don't understand the comment "We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality"

Could something that thinks it is true explain it in a totally different way

please please please do not just say "but why do you think that"
I would suggest that you only use scripture

Actually, that's subjective morality based on perceived harm committed. Whether it is considered good or bad is based on whether the person viewing it can see the harm.

 

[Clare73]

The original question specifically asked about problems that are not addressed in scripture. If I gave an example I'm sure that you might find something in scripture which you could say helped you make a decision. I'm equally sure that someone else who disagreed with you would find something in scripture that would back their opposing view.

If the answers were not in agreement, it can be demonstrated which one is not according to Scripture.
If Scripture itself appears to be in disagreement, that which reconciles the "disagreement" would be the correct understanding.

It's like revelation. How do we know who is correct?

Are you speaking of the book of Revelation which is given in prophetic riddles (Numbers 12:8)?
Riddles are subject to more than one interpretation, the only rule being interpretation must be in agreement with NT apostolic teaching in order not to be incorrect on its face.

 

[Clare73]

Not everyone knows that it’s wrong. What argument would you use to convince them otherwise?

According to Scripture, everyone does (Romans 2:14-15).
Murder, adultery are naturally written on the human conscience as wrong, while parental respect, care for the elderly are naturally written on the human conscience as right.
We find that understood in pagan cultures.

 

[childeye 2]

Some people in the American politics forum love saying
"We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality" but many people don't understand what they mean by "objective morality" so I want them to explain it in a very different way I think getting them to use scripture is a good way of forcing this to happen

Loving God with all your heart mind and soul and loving your neighbor as yourself is objective morality.

Matthew 22: 37-39
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

I don't understand the comment "We all know torturing children is wrong so there must be objective morality"

The comment is saying torturing children is universally immoral so there is a universal morality that it's good to not torture children. Due to semantics in our psycholinguistics, it should actually apply the term "cruelty" as the sentiment for a universal immorality instead of "torture".

 

[RDKirk]

Actually, that's subjective morality based on perceived harm committed. Whether it is considered good or bad is based on whether the person viewing it can see the harm.

There was a little video recently of a little girl, maybe four years old, clutching a bottle of apple cider vinegar and demanding her mother to give her a drink of that "juice." Her mother tried to explain that it wasn't juice and didn't taste good. The tyke insisted that it was juice, and she wanted some, starting to go into a tantrum.

The mother then poured out a bit into the bottle cap for the little girl to taste...and the result was predictable. The little girl learned a couple of significant lessons at very small cost.

A host of commenters immediately hurled insults, accusing the woman of child abuse to the point of insisting that protective child services take the child from her.