What is objective morality?

[RDKirk]

My point is; lying is not always bad; sometimes it is good. Do you agree?

Ken

A soldier is obligated to tell the truth always to his commander and comrades, yet is also obligated to deny the truth always to the enemy. And such a soldier is commended as a good soldier.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There is a hierarchy of values in which protecting the innocent is more important than making factually true statements to bloodthirsty nazis.

Funny, this very argument structure is presented in the Book of Exodus where the mid-wives lie to the Pharoah in order to save the lives of Hebrew baby boys. Apparently, there are rare occasions where, when dealing with evil tyrants, it is okay to lie. In fact, God commends it.

 

[Joshua260]

On this issue of lying, it was pointed out to me a while back that objective right and wrong is not the same as absolute right and wrong. Absolute would mean that lying is wrong in every situation, while objective takes conditions into account.

 

[Ken-1122]

On this issue of lying, it was pointed out to me a while back that objective right and wrong is not the same as absolute right and wrong. Absolute would mean that lying is wrong in every situation, while objective takes conditions into account.

The problem with conditions is there are gonna be "grey" areas whereas not everybody is going to agree thus it won't be as appearant as 1+1=2. which I guess is necessary to classify something as objective morality

K

 

[Joshua260]

The problem with conditions is there are gonna be "grey" areas whereas not everybody is going to agree thus it won't be as appearant as 1+1=2. which I guess is necessary to classify something as objective morality

K

No. I do NOT agree with your definition of objective morality in that it has anything to do with personal opinions. I'm simply saying that it could be that for example, lying to the Nazis so as not to betray innocent Jews during wartime can have a positive moral value attached to it...again, that is objective (independent of anyone's personal opinion about the situation), as opposed to lying being an "absolute" wrong.

 

[RDKirk]

Funny, this very argument structure is presented in the Book of Exodus where the mid-wives lie to the Pharoah in order to save the lives of Hebrew baby boys. Apparently, there are rare occasions where, when dealing with evil tyrants, it is okay to lie. In fact, God commends it.

See my post 61. Several times in scripture God commends or commands "tactical deception" in time of conflict. There is a total moral difference between deceiving someone to whom you owe loyalty and deceiving someone with whom you are at war.

It's not a "choice of the lesser of two evils." Tactical deception of the enemy is a good thing. God clearly understands the moral difference in scripture.

In the same way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out by another way? -- James 2:25

 

[prov1810]

It's not a "choice of the lesser of two evils." Tactical deception of the enemy is a good thing.

But isn't it unfortunate that one has to betray the truth? There is a rift between what one says and the truth one knows. So I would not say that lying is good. It's something that only comes up as an expedient because of a pre-existing evil: conflict between persons.

 

[grasping the after wind]

First, we brothers and sisters should not debate here (per forum rules) so this will be my only response here.

If, per forum rules, we are not allowed to debate, then must we simply allow the first given opinion by a Christian on a subject to be considered the "Christian position" or may one give our opinion even if it differs slightly from the first one given?

Brother, the problem with saying that something is good or bad just because God says so is that it could therefore lead to God possibly declaring that rape is good. This falls into that "Euthyphro Dilemma" trap that I referred to in my reply. So I only recommend to you that you research this so-called dilemma a little bit further and some Christian responses to it. I think it is more correct to say that a (good) God's commands will always be good. To say it another way, "God is good, therefore, whatever he commands is good"

The " Euthyphro dillemma" is not Christian doctrine. It is a fictional scenario in which the author decided that he would allow only two options to be available. The author is bias toward one of those options and precludes an honest discussion of any alternatives. I do not find anything definitive about the subject in the opinion of that one philosopher who was brought up in a pagan culture to believe that morality is objective. If you want to agree with Plato on the subject, you will have to stipulate that God would be constrained to conform to an objective moral standard outside of His Will before we can say that He is good. In Plato's fictional world good is objective and what Plato perceives to be good has power to define the fictional gods. Unlike that scenario, I submit that God is good because HE is the author of the story of Creation and the narrative is His narrative not some outside ideal called "Good" and it is not because of an objective standard that God is good but because He is God and determines as Creator the nature of all created things i.e. what is and is not good. The definition of good then may well become "that which conforms to God's Will and nature.". the problem then is not Euthypro's but more like the the chicken and the egg, "which came first God's nature or the concept of goodness?". I come down squarely on the side of His nature.

The problem here is that if your statement is true "God decides what is good so He decides He is good.", then that would mean that, not only is that reasoning circular, but that God existed FIRST without any good (or bad) nature, and THEN decided to take on that good nature. Your reasoning could then allow that he could have decided to be evil. I do not believe this to be the case. I believe the goodness of God to be an inherent part of his nature. Since he IS good, he commands good things. Hmmm, I just realized that it's almost like the fruit-of-the-tree logic if you think about it.

God's nature is what it always has been. It was however, God's decision to decide that that nature was good. He did not take on a nature that conformed to some standard in order to be good nor did He just happen to be fortunate enough to have a nature that conformed to a standard that allowed Him to claim goodness. He is God, before Him there can be nothing. Neither good nor evil existed until God created something other than Himself which allowed for a situation where such concepts had meaning. A Being complete unto Himself has no use for terms like good or evil anymore than He has use for a name to call Himself.

I want to add here that "God decides what is good so He decides He is good." also falls into the trap that RDKirk described "There would be a moral code that God was obligated to obey, thus that moral code would be God's "god." If God had decided that he would be good, then he would have been subject to his own command. I like and respect your position on this (its a very interesting POV), but I still have to fall into the camp that God simply has an inherent good nature about him, therefore he commands good things. Again, great response, but I still respectfully disagree.

God does not decide He would be good,God decides He is good. Two very different concepts.

In any case, I understand where you're coming from, so just to be clear (and reconcile our apparent differences), when I say that there are objective moral values and duties, I mean that a good God has declared that rape has a negative moral value attached to it and humanity is not in the authoritative position of deciding otherwise. Does that clarification help us understand each other (and agree with each other)? The point I'm trying to make to the poster is that there is a moral law above what is between our ears. If God does not exist, then the only moral law that DOES exist is between our ears. So again, if Hitler had won the war and brainwashed the rest of society into believing that antisemitism has a positive moral value attached to it, there would be no basis for a moral argument against it. One could not argue for a higher moral authority...everyone agrees that antisemitism has a positive moral value attached to it, therefore antisemitism must have a positive moral value attached to it.

I think we can agree that as far as a Christian is concerned, God gives us the standard for morality and that standard is as good for us as if it was a totally objective standard because we have no say in what it is and it is as unchanging and immutable as God's Will. We may disagree upon the philosophical underpinning of how God has placed us in that position but I think in the end all that matters is that we all agree that it is not our place to decide what is good or evil as God is the authority on that subject. Since we are not to debate, I hope we have merely both individually speculated upon first causes rather than quoted each other to rebut as we have not in any substantial way shown a difference of opinion upon what Christians believe in terms of the authority of God in this matter. We both confirm that God is the source of morality for the Christian.

 

[Ken-1122]

No. I do NOT agree with your definition of objective morality in that it has anything to do with personal opinions.

I didn't say that; as a matter of fact I said the opposite. I was comparing objective morality to math. Personal opinions are not taken into account when it comes to math; and it doesn't with objective morality either. As far as taking conditions into account before deciding if lying is objectively wrong, that sounds like subjective morality to me; math takes nothing into account; so I don't understand how Objective morality can. If it is good to lie in one situation but not another, how is that Objective?

I'm simply saying that it could be that for example, lying to the Nazis so as not to betray innocent Jews during wartime can have a positive moral value attached to it...again, that is objective (independent of anyone's personal opinion about the situation), as opposed to lying being an "absolute" wrong.

Having a positive moral value attached to it doesn't prevent it from being subjective. So where do you draw the line? Maybe you aren't dealing wit Nazis, how about lying to protect someones feelings? Or lying to someone that YOU consider bad but most people don't? (like your enemy) How about lying to achieve what you think is the greater good? If you are gonna take stuff like this into account just to determine if lying is bad or not, that sounds like subjective morality to me; not objective. What do you think?

K

 

[lesliedellow]

Wrong is wrong based upon my opinion, or based on something outside of myself weather it be what God says, the Golden Rule says, Humanist manafesto, says, or whatever someone chooses to use as a base for morality; it all results in the person claiming it is wrong. Do you agree

A presenter on a British radio station puts forward a hypothetical situation in which the Nazis had won the Second World War. Through the use of propaganda they had managed to persuade the population of Europe that it was moral to murder Jews. He then asks whether it would indeed be moral, because the overwhelming consensus said so, or would it still be immoral.

If it would still be immoral, then there must be some absolute standard which transcends even a universally held belief that something is moral.

 

[Ken-1122]

A presenter on a British radio station puts forward a hypothetical situation in which the Nazis had won the Second World War. Through the use of propaganda they had managed to persuade the population of Europe that it was moral to murder Jews. He then asks whether it would indeed be moral, because the overwhelming consensus said so, or would it still be immoral.

If it would still be immoral, then there must be some absolute standard which transcends even a universally held belief that something is moral.

What proof would you provide to show it is immoral?

Ken

 

[lesliedellow]

What proof would you provide to show it is immoral?

Why do you need proof? You know full well that it would be absolutely immoral, even though it is inconvenient for your theoretical position.

 

[prov1810]

A presenter on a British radio station puts forward a hypothetical situation in which the Nazis had won the Second World War. Through the use of propaganda they had managed to persuade the population of Europe that it was moral to murder Jews. He then asks whether it would indeed be moral, because the overwhelming consensus said so, or would it still be immoral.

If it would still be immoral, then there must be some absolute standard which transcends even a universally held belief that something is moral.

“If we persist in defining ourselves as doomed, human nature as beyond redemption, and social institutions as beyond reform, then we shall create a future that will inexorably proceed in confirming this view. Rescuers refused to see Jews as guilty or beyond hope and themselves as helpless, despite all the evidence that could be marshaled to the contrary. They made a choice that affirmed the value and meaningfulness of each life in the midst of a diabolical social order that repeatedly denied it. Can we do otherwise?”
― Samuel P. Oliner, The Altruistic Personality: Rescuers Of Jews In Nazi Europe

 

[Joshua260]

I didn't say that...

Maybe I misunderstood you.
What you said was "there are gonna be "grey" areas...not everybody is going to agree...necessary to classify something as objective morality".

All of these phrases to me that are suggestive of the idea that the moral value of something is determined by human observers. That is what I was saying I do not agree with. We humans are not in the authoritative position to classify anything as having a negative or positive moral value, but it's possible that we may PERCEIVE it.

...As far as taking conditions into account before deciding if lying is objectively wrong...

You're saying it again here in the above comment, and this is what I disagree with. We do not decide "if anything is objectively wrong" or not. Whether or not something is wrong or not is commanded by a good God and not "decided" by fallible humans.

If it is good to lie in one situation but not another, how is that Objective?

As I explained before, "absolute" morality means that lying is ALWAYS bad. This is not taught in the bible. So, if one lies to keep from being caught in a murder, that would be objectively (independent of opinion) bad. But if one lies to keep innocent Jews from getting murdered, that would be objectively (independent of opinion) good. Conditions matter, as has been explained by others here citing biblical stories.

 

[Joshua260]

I think we can agree that as far as a Christian is concerned, God gives us the standard for morality and that standard is as good for us as if it was a totally objective standard because we have no say in what it is and it is as unchanging and immutable as God's Will. We may disagree upon the philosophical underpinning of how God has placed us in that position but I think in the end all that matters is that we all agree that it is not our place to decide what is good or evil as God is the authority on that subject. Since we are not to debate, I hope we have merely both individually speculated upon first causes rather than quoted each other to rebut as we have not in any substantial way shown a difference of opinion upon what Christians believe in terms of the authority of God in this matter. We both confirm that God is the source of morality for the Christian.

Wow...an excellent reply and I wholeheartedly agree with you. If there was an offense, I'll take the hit as being the offender. If so, I apologize. But I again wholeheartedly agree with your analysis of the discussion. Well said, brother!

 

[RDKirk]

But isn't it unfortunate that one has to betray the truth? There is a rift between what one says and the truth one knows. So I would not say that lying is good. It's something that only comes up as an expedient because of a pre-existing evil: conflict between persons.

I agree with you, with more thought. It falls in the same realm as the existence of earthly government--permitted by God but not "as it was in the beginning." Authorized in this fallen world, but not righteous. So in the future age, when we will have no more enemies, there will be no authorization for tactical deception.

 

[Cuddles333]

'What Is Objective Morality?' Objective Morality is the evidence of Agape Love.

 

[Ken-1122]

Why do you need proof? You know full well that it would be absolutely immoral,

Of course I know it is immoral; but subjective, not objective. If it were objective it would be obvious to everybody and proof could be provided just as 1+1=2. That's why I don't see how there could be an objective morality

Ken

 

[Ken-1122]

Maybe I misunderstood you.
What you said was "there are gonna be "grey" areas...not everybody is going to agree...necessary to classify something as objective morality".

Exactly. If objective morality were the case, there would be no grey areas, and everybody would agree. But as you know that is not the case; that is why it appears morality is subjective, not objective.

All of these phrases to me that are suggestive of the idea that the moral value of something is determined by human observers. That is what I was saying I do not agree with. We humans are not in the authoritative position to classify anything as having a negative or positive moral value, but it's possible that we may PERCEIVE it.

So how are we supposed to live in a civilized society if we are not supposed to determine right from wrong? That would be anarchy. We must and we do make these classifications.

You're saying it again here in the above comment, and this is what I disagree with. We do not decide "if anything is objectively wrong" or not. Whether or not something is wrong or not is commanded by a good God and not "decided" by fallible humans.

I live in the USA. The USA has a secular Government which means it is run by elected politicians not God. Weather that is a good thing or not; I am sure has been and will be debated for years to come, but as it stands; such decisions are made by falliable humans.

As I explained before, "absolute" morality means that lying is ALWAYS bad. This is not taught in the bible. So, if one lies to keep from being caught in a murder, that would be objectively (independent of opinion) bad. But if one lies to keep innocent Jews from getting murdered, that would be objectively (independent of opinion) good. Conditions matter, as has been explained by others here citing biblical stories.

How are you defining Objective and Subjective morality?

Ken

 

[Joshua260]

So how are we supposed to live in a civilized society if we are not supposed to determine right from wrong? That would be anarchy. We must and we do make these classifications.

I live in the USA. The USA has a secular Government which means it is run by elected politicians not God. Weather that is a good thing or not; I am sure has been and will be debated for years to come, but as it stands; such decisions are made by falliable humans.
Ken

I'm glad you brought this up. I live in the USA also and I agree that we do not live in a theocracy. However, the founding documents of our country actually support what I've been saying.

Look first at the Declaration of Independence. It states that "We hold these truths to be self-evident," which means that they are perceived, instead of decided by man to be true, "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator" not man "with certain unalienable Rights," which means that they are rights which are unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor, " that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People" again, that they already posses those rights given to them by their creator and not decided by man to be given to them, "to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

All this is saying that the founding fathers believed that man was created with certain rights given to him by his creator, and not by man. In other words, we didn't form a government and then voted to give people these rights; instead the founding fathers were recognizing that the people possessed those rights already and they were not something that could be given or taken away from them.

Next, look at the Bill of Rights. The first amendment to the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The highlighted language is saying that the people already have these rights, and that they were not voted to them from man.

2nd amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Again, the people already posses this right, and that it was not voted to them from man.

4th amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, ..." Again, the people already posses this right, and that it was not voted to them from man.

9th amendment "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Again, the people already posses these rights, and they were not voted to them from man.

10th amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Again, the people already posses these rights, and they were not voted to them from man.

So these documents show that the founders of the USA believed that people had certain rights that were self-evident and given to them by God and not voted to them by man. I already have the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness", and your opinion about whether I should have those rights or not is irrelevant.

You said "So how are we supposed to live in a civilized society if we are not supposed to determine right from wrong? That would be anarchy. We must and we do make these classifications." You are in complete disagreement with what the founders were saying in these documents. They were saying that some things have already been decided by a higher authority (like our right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness) and no man has the authority to give or take them away from another man. When we start deciding on our own who should have certain rights or not, irregardless of what God has said about the matter, THAT would lead to anarchy, or even worse, a dictatorship.

I say all this to say that the founders' beliefs about our unalienable rights is the perfect example of what I mean by the word "objective". I mean that things are a certain way (like certain rights of man endowed on him by his creator and moral values that are placed on practices by a good God) irregardless of anyone's opinion about them.