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

[RDKirk]

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.

But what is "murder?" What is "adultery?" From culture to culture, the definitions of those words can vary so greatly that they become meaningless if one tries to stretch them across cultures.

 

[Clare73]

But what is "murder?" What is "adultery?" From culture to culture, the definitions of those words can vary so greatly that they become meaningless if one tries to stretch them across cultures.

Murder is understood as wrongly taking human life.

Adultery is understood as being sexually unfaithful to one's spouse.

It's not about the definition, it's about the nature of the conscience.

 

[Ken-1122]

Murder is understood as wrongly taking human life.

Adultery is understood as being sexually unfaithful to one's spouse.

It's not about the definition, it's about the nature of the conscience.

I disagree. If murder is wrongly taking human life, what constitutes wrongly, will vary from culture to culture. Under Nazi Germany, killing a Jewish person was not wrong as long as the killer was Aryan; in another culture it would be considered wrong.
If adultery is being sexually unfaithful, some cultures justify having sex with other women as natural for a man and should be expected of him; thus not unfaithful. Other cultures that same act will be adultery. It is often about the definition

 

[childeye 2]

Murder is understood as wrongly taking human life.

Adultery is understood as being sexually unfaithful to one's spouse.

It's not about the definition, it's about the nature of the conscience.

Respectfully, I see an occasion for a possible misunderstanding:
The character of the conscience is based on an image of God/god.
To rephrase:
We reason upon what we believe to be true, therefore the conscience is subject to knowledge and ignorance of what the Truth is.

Edit: Note that I posted this 1 minute behind Ken-1122 without knowing the poster had already posted ahead of me.

 

[Clare73]

I disagree. If murder is wrongly taking human life, what constitutes wrongly, will vary from culture to culture. Under Nazi Germany, killing a Jewish person was not wrong as long as the killer was Aryan; in another culture it would be considered wrong.
If adultery is being sexually unfaithful, some cultures justify having sex with other women as natural for a man and should be expected of him; thus not unfaithful. Other cultures that same act will be adultery. It is often about the definition

Agreed. . .but that it is even on the radar in pagan cultures is evidence of conscience.

 

[Clare73]

Respectfully, I see an occasion for a possible misunderstanding:
The character of the conscience is based on an image of God/god.

Actually conscience itself is natural, with an innate sense of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15).

To rephrase:
We reason upon what we believe to be true, therefore the conscience is subject to knowledge and ignorance of what the Truth is.

Edit: Note that I posted this 1 minute behind Ken-1122 without knowing the poster had already posted ahead of me.

 

[childeye 2]

Actually conscience itself is natural, with an innate sense of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15).

Have you considered that the conscience is the product of the knowledge of good and evil? For what it's worth here are some things I think about.

Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.

Genesis 3-10
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.

Titus 1:15
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.

1 Corinthians 8:7-9
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.

9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

 

[rturner76]

Now if only Jesus did not state the contrary. . .(John 3:18)

God is all things including all forgiving. Or is he not sovereign?

 

[Clare73]

Have you considered that the conscience is the product of the knowledge of good and evil?

Does that alter the fact that we have an innate sense of right and wrong, called conscience (Romans 2:14-15)?
Our fallen nature is likewise the product of the knowledge of good and evil (disobedience), but do we not still refer to it all as the natural order.

For what it's worth here are some things I think about.
Genesis 2:25
25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Genesis 3-10
10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.
Titus 1:15
15 Unto the pure all things are pure: but unto them that are defiled and unbelieving is nothing pure; but even their mind and conscience is defiled.
1 Corinthians 8:7-9
7 Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled.
8 But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse.
9 But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak.

More Biblical teaching on conscience, thanks.

 

[Clare73]

God is all things including all forgiving. Or is he not sovereign?

He is absolutely sovereign. . .and absolutely just.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

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.

Yeah, people really get out of hand if they think an anonymous collective is listening.

 

[RDKirk]

Actually conscience itself is natural, with an innate sense of right and wrong (Romans 2:14-15).

Paul writes of Gentiles who "have the law written in their hearts," he is not by any means meaning all people have the Law written in their hearts, but specifically only those Gentiles who do have the law written in their hearts.

 

[childeye 2]

Does that alter the fact that we have an innate sense of right and wrong, called conscience (Romans 2:14-15)?

No, it doesn't, but my point is that the conscience is subject to an imagery of God/god. So, I think your use of the term "conscience' might be misunderstood since I think you mean to convey that the subjective conscience only exists because there is an objective reality that includes the existence of many subjective views.

Our fallen nature is likewise the product of the knowledge of good and evil (disobedience), but do we not still refer to it all as the natural order.

It depends on whether objectively speaking we intend to convey that it was the natural order that was corrupted, or that objectively we intend to convey that the natural order was to learn we are corruptible. That is to say that a positive cannot be valued without it's negative.

I think the report that sin entered in through disobedience to God, necessarily means that, objectively speaking, the Truth existed before the lie and this can be reasoned upon without any ambiguity. And it's in this equation we see the sentiment of the term 'faith' as necessary to understand that all positive/negative, moral/immoral meanings will break down without a Holy image of God.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Some people have nothing to do but complain and intervene. That action was harmless and (as you said) taught a lesson or three.

And if the mother had limited the girl to *only* drinking (and requiring drinking) vinegar for breakfast every morning in place of juice for a month that would be cruel and serve no purpose. (Certainly not the worst thing that a parent could do. Not sure if it would cross the abuse threshold.)

 

[childeye 2]

Some people have nothing to do but complain and intervene. That action was harmless and (as you said) taught a lesson or three.

A reasonable assessment.

And if the mother had limited the girl to *only* drinking (and requiring drinking) vinegar for breakfast every morning in place of juice for a month that would be cruel and serve no purpose. (Certainly not the worst thing that a parent could do. Not sure if it would cross the abuse threshold.)

No doubt there are degrees towards what is unreasonable.

 

[Bradskii]

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."

That doesn't address my point. Which is valid for Christians and atheists alike.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

Again, I'm talking about moral problems that are not addressed in any way by scripture.

 

[Sabertooth]

That doesn't address my point.

It does. You keep asking for a static social ideal that will work apart from one's [philosophy].
I was saying that there is no such ideal social model when you remove God's intervention from the picture.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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

The reason there is so much confusion about objective morality is that there are two senses or contexts in which the concept of objectivity is used. One is in the metaphysical sense of things existing independent of consciousness such as a tree or a rock being a tree or a rock regardless of anyone's thoughts to the contrary. The other context has to do with the nature and means of knowledge or epistemology. In that context, objectivity is defined as a method of identifying and defining the things we perceive that exist independent of the mind. I only see people using it in its metaphysical meaning and never its epistemological meaning. If one tries to use the metaphysical meaning in the context of knowledge, then of course knowledge can't exist independent of the mind and one will be led to think that all knowledge is subjective. Objective morality is impossible since concepts don't exist independently of the mind.

Concepts are the product of the human mind and in that sense they are subjective but they get their meaning from the objects which they encompass. They are products of a subject of consciousness but their meaning is objective. So an objective moral principle is one that is formed by an objective method, one that works with facts and recognizes the primacy of existence, the metaphysical principle that is the root of objectivity.

 

[Bradskii]

It does. You keep asking for a static social ideal that will work apart from one's [philosophy].
I was saying that there is no such ideal social model when you remove God's intervention from the picture.

What on earth is a static social model? I'm simply asking how you determine moral matters. I can't make the question any simpler.