Where does morality come from?

[stevevw]

Oh my, so many errors.

Read Kant and then Nietzche.

I have read and studied Kant and Nietzche. Kant and Nietzche ethical positions are nowhere near the complete understanding of ethics and morality so I cannot see why you would claim that their positions negate the moral argument above. I guess you are coming from a different position to most being a value nihilist but most people don't see things that way. Still, you need to present an argument as to why the moral argument is invalid based on your position. No one can guess that so you have to spell it out.

Most philosophers agree that morality is a rational exercise so I cannot see any issues with premise 1.
Like I said premise 2 is the most contentious but there are good arguments that support moral realism. I think most people agree premise 3 that humans cannot know everything there is to know about moral reasoning to be able to know the truth and facts about morality so they cannot be grounded in humans.

Once we get to this point the first 3 premises follow logically to premise 4 that if we cannot ground morality in humans and we accept the first 3 premises then it logically follows that morals need to be grounded in a rational and necessary source that knows all the truth and facts about morality. That points to some transcendent entity, not necessarily God.

This moral argument is only addressing the foundation of moral facts and it's not making any claims that nonreligious people cannot be good. This is about moral ontology (that moral facts exist) and not epistemology (how we come to know morality). So the argument is not appealing to God to show objective morality exists. Rather it proposes that realism is true, that moral facts and duties need to be grounded in a necessarily rational source. I think that is a logical conclusion from the proposition.

It also addresses the Euthyphro dilemma. The argument is not grounding moral facts and duties in God because there is no alternative. It is only determining moral truth and reasoning ontologically and that they need to be grounded in a necessary rational source that we can look to for moral guidance. The term God is just used to name the necessary rational source.

If some God had to look to some other necessary, rational source as the foundation of morality then that source would be the real God. The source can’t just arbitrarily command a good act and then make it moral. As the agruement explains objective moral facts and duties have to be grounded in something unchangeable, rational, and necessary.

Something that doesn’t arbitrarily change values all the time. If that moral source was always changing morality or looking to someone else for moral grounding it would not be the necessary, rational source as the argument presents. That's why this argument works best as it addresses those objections.

 

[stevevw]

Then in your opinion god was good when he/she/it asked for a human sacrifice?

I am not sure which sacrifice you are talking about.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am not sure which sacrifice you are talking about.

Abraham and his son Isaac.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have read and studied Kant and Nietzche. Kant and Nietzche ethical positions are nowhere near the complete understanding of ethics and morality so I cannot see why you would claim that their positions negate the moral argument above. I guess you are coming from a different position to most being a value nihilist but most people don't see things that way. Still, you need to present an argument as to why the moral argument is invalid based on your position. No one can guess that so you have to spell it out.

Most philosophers agree that morality is a rational exercise so I cannot see any issues with premise 1.
Like I said premise 2 is the most contentious but there are good arguments that support moral realism. I think most people agree premise 3 that humans cannot know everything there is to know about moral reasoning to be able to know the truth and facts about morality so they cannot be grounded in humans.

Once we get to this point the first 3 premises follow logically to premise 4 that if we cannot ground morality in humans and we accept the first 3 premises then it logically follows that morals need to be grounded in a rational and necessary source that knows all the truth and facts about morality. That points to some transcendent entity, not necessarily God.

This moral argument is only addressing the foundation of moral facts and it's not making any claims that nonreligious people cannot be good. This is about moral ontology (that moral facts exist) and not epistemology (how we come to know morality). So the argument is not appealing to God to show objective morality exists. Rather it proposes that realism is true, that moral facts and duties need to be grounded in a necessarily rational source. I think that is a logical conclusion from the proposition.

It also addresses the Euthyphro dilemma. The argument is not grounding moral facts and duties in God because there is no alternative. It is only determining moral truth and reasoning ontologically and that they need to be grounded in a necessary rational source that we can look to for moral guidance. The term God is just used to name the necessary rational source.

If some God had to look to some other necessary, rational source as the foundation of morality then that source would be the real God. The source can’t just arbitrarily command a good act and then make it moral. As the agruement explains objective moral facts and duties have to be grounded in something unchangeable, rational, and necessary.

Something that doesn’t arbitrarily change values all the time. If that moral source was always changing morality or looking to someone else for moral grounding it would not be the necessary, rational source as the argument presents. That's why this argument works best as it addresses those objections.

Tl, dr. Brevity is an virtue.

And I dont belive that you have studied either one as you dont understand even their basics.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Your referring to when Jesus said in Mathew 5:27-28

You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

This does not change the law. The law says, "do not commit adultery". Jesus adds that you don't have to physically do the act of adultery to break that law. You can break that law in your heart as well when you lust over a married woman. Jesus says the same about a few laws.

Jesus even clarified that the law has not changed by saying Mathew 5:17-18 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.

So since Adam people were unaware that these thought crimes were actually sin and were probably sinning an did not know it? Jesus changed the requirements of what sin was for the people.

Of course, non-believers can do good and love. I never said they can't. It is not that a person can be good without God but rather can morality exist without God.

Yes, non believers live with morals every day.

It doesn't matter if we cannot show a particular standard only that we can show there are objective morals. Though I disagree that we don't know the objective standard as we live it every day and the majority of philosopher’s concern there are objective morals. People say there are certain moral wrongs that are always wrong and apply universally despite subjective morality, IE doesn't kill, steal, rape, abuse children, discriminate ect and do love and care for children, treat people with respect, treat life as precious, etc.

Not all believe these are wrong and not all cultures believes these things were wrong.

The objective standard has to be outside humans because anything that comes from a human is personally viewed, preferred, tainted, biased, and arbitrary to each and every individual. Whereas an objective moral standard beyond humans is not subject to any of that just in the same way the earth is objective a sphere and personal opinions don't count even if someone thinks it's flat. The earth is round not because you or I say so but because it is round in of itself.

No, again just because you don't like the consequences of there not being an objective standard does not mean one has to exist. This is fallacious thinking.

As mentioned I don't have to initially show that the moral lawgiver is the God of the Bible. That is a different and complex argument. I can just show that some transcendent being needs to be the moral lawgiver because an objective lawgiver needs to be beyond humans which means they have to be transcendent and all good.

Just because you think this must be the case does not mean it is the case. Showing problems with a moral system without a moral lawgiver does not mean a moral lawgiver exists.

A case can be made for the God of the Bible as He is all good and no evil exists in Him despite you saying. You are determining things from your human perspective and that is why an objective moral lawgiver is beyond humans. God as the creator and saviour has a bigger plan and what is done as part of that can be justified for reasons beyond what you and I can fully understand. But the fact is God is all good and no evil is in Him. Christ stated this while on earth.

You claim a lot here without sufficient evidence. So if someone agrees with you on gods morality you are right, if they disagree on gods morality then you are correct as well, we just cannot understand God. Until god can show that owning people as property or forcing a woman to marry her rapist against her will is moral then I will not be convinced.

You will have to read and understand the logical proposition that we are justified to believe that there are objective morals based on our lived moral experience of them. It is based on the Theory of Experience and the Theory of knowledge. Yes and that is what the logical proposition that we are justified to believe that objective moral exists based on our lived moral experience is about.

Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Justification
Perceptual Experience and Perceptual Justification (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Appearances, Rationality, and Justified Belief
Appearances, Rationality, and Justified Belief | Semantic Scholar
The Epistemology of Perception
Epistemology of Perception, The | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Well one of these I need to pay for. Why don't you cite the relevant information since you are making the claim.

 

[stevevw]

Tl, dr. Brevity is an virtue.

Unlike you where you don't even give any words, I like to explain things as I go. This is the result of you dismissing things in the first place that a person needs to explain things as you don't read links. Besides I thought you were a value nihilist.

And I dont belive that you have studied either one as you don't understand even their basics.

As I stated before I studied humanities and ethics is a foundational unit that includes Kant (deontology) ruled and duty-based ethics and teleology (consequentialism) and its variants such as utilitarianism including act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism and also covered Nihilism and virtue theory.

 

[Speedwell]

Unlike you where you don't even give any words, I like to explain things as I go. This is the result of you dismissing things in the first place that a person needs to explain things as you don't read links. Besides I thought you were a value nihilist.

As I stated before I studied humanities and ethics is a foundational unit that includes Kant (deontology) ruled and duty-based ethics and teleology (consequentialism) and its variants such as utilitarianism including act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism and also covered Nihilism and virtue theory.

No Aristotle? No Aquinas?

BTW, my question was,
How do you rule out the possibility that God, having given us the capacity to create our own moral systems, would allow us to proceed to do so?

 

[VirOptimus]

Unlike you where you don't even give any words, I like to explain things as I go. This is the result of you dismissing things in the first place that a person needs to explain things as you don't read links. Besides I thought you were a value nihilist.

As I stated before I studied humanities and ethics is a foundational unit that includes Kant (deontology) ruled and duty-based ethics and teleology (consequentialism) and its variants such as utilitarianism including act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism and also covered Nihilism and virtue theory.

Sure sure

 

[stevevw]

No Aristotle? No Aquinas?

From memory, they were mentioned. I would have to get my old notes out. I know it covered a wide range of topics. It wasn't extensive as I said it was more humanities-based than philosophy. But I have researched and learned a lot thanks to forums like this one over the years.

BTW, my question was,
How do you rule out the possibility that God, having given us the capacity to create our own moral systems, would allow us to proceed to do so?

I am not sure what you mean by given the capacity to create our own morality. If there are objective moral values then they are like natural laws that are already there and discovered rather than created.

God gave us free will and the ability to reason. We can reason what is right and wrong but as the moral argument goes we are fallible beings who don't know everything as to what is really right and wrong. We can also be influenced by many things that cause personal bias and selfish motives that can skew our view of the truth.

From memory was it you I was debating with about Christ and the law. Christ states that the law is clear and is not done away with. So we do have a moral law we can measure what is right and wrong. The Bible says that moral law is in all of us and measured through our conscience.

So though you may say we create our own morality it may be that we just discover it and then claim it is created

 

[Speedwell]

From memory, they were mentioned. I would have to get my old notes out. I know it covered a wide range of topics. It wasn't extensive as I said it was more humanities-based than philosophy. But I have researched and learned a lot thanks to forums like this one over the years.
I am not sure what you mean by given the capacity to create our own morality. If there are objective moral values then they are like natural laws that are already there and discovered rather than created.

And if there are not?

God gave us free will and the ability to reason. We can reason what is right and wrong but as the moral argument goes we are fallible beings who don't know everything as to what is really right and wrong. We can also be influenced by many things that cause personal bias and selfish motives that can skew our view of the truth.

Exactly.

From memory was it you I was debating with about Christ and the law. Christ states that the law is clear and is not done away with. So we do have a moral law we can measure what is right and wrong. The Bible says that moral law is in all of us and measured through our conscience.

I don't care what you think the Bible says. At this point it's not relevant to the discussion.

So though you may say we create our own morality it may be that we just discover it and then claim it is created

I don't "say" it. I am asking you how you rule out the possibility. Evidently you haven't got an answer.

 

[stevevw]

And if there are not?

If there are no moral truths and humans create moral values then it will be a hit and miss approach. I believe this would leave us in an even worse situation than we are now. Morally would be dictated by the powerful and bought. It is because there are moral truths that we can at least have some chance of aligning ourselves with what is morally best.

Exactly.

I have not said that humans cannot reason morality. Only that our reason is limited to know what is true and best for morality. That there is no grounding for morality and therefore this puts what may be wrong or bad for us on par with what may be right and good. A reasoned argument could potentially come up with a number of rationalizations as to why something is morally right or wrong.

I don't care what you think the Bible says. At this point, it's not relevant to the discussion.

You asked how do we know that God didn't give us the capacity to create our own moral system. I was merely showing how despite giving us the capacity to reason and free will to choose He also gave us a moral law that we know within us through our conscience.

I don't "say" it. I am asking you how you rule out the possibility. Evidently you haven't got an answer.

It is the fact that we act and react like there are moral truths that rule out that we don't just make up our own moral system. It is despite any capacity to make our own moral system and that we often act against our own made-up morals that points to there being moral truths. Even when we want to dent that truth and do things our own way we still are guilty and feel accused which shows that this moral truth stands independent from us.

 

[stevevw]

So since Adam people were unaware that these thought crimes were actually sin and were probably sinning an did not know it? Jesus changed the requirements of what sin was for the people.

There was no thought crimes before Jesus. There was only the law that all knew IE thou shall not kill, steal, etc. Jesus was the fulfillment of that law and He completed the law. Jesus was now showing that it isn't just about just adhering to the law and always falling short and then seeking atonement. That we need to be born again with the spirit of God. It is now about the spirit of the law and what is in our hearts that made us morally right before God.

Yes, nonbelievers live with morals every day.

Yes but it is about which morals are true and best rather than a system that allows any person to push their moral views which may not be what is best for us. We just cannot tell under a subjective system as there is no grounding of morals.

Not all believe these are wrong and not all cultures believe these things were wrong.

Yes under a subjective and relative system there are different views on morality. But ironically we live and react like there is moral truths such as those I mentioned. We in the west protest and accuse other cultures that their morals are wrong and that they should live like us. This shows we believe there are moral truths that everyone should follow.

Take female genital circumcision in some African tribes. The western cultures condemn this practice as mutilating female genitals and subjecting women to oppressive patriarchal practices. Yet moral relativism should accept female circumcision as a valid cultural moral position that just happens to be different from others and therefore not morally wrong. This shows that people know that despite subjective or relative moral positions somethings are always wrong. Or at least western cultures believe that is so.

No, again just because you don't like the consequences of there not being an objective standard does not mean one has to exist. This is fallacious thinking.

But I am not trying to make a case for objective morality here. I am just explaining the difference between subjective and objective morality. Plus I would not use " that I don't like the consequences of there not being an objective standard" as support for objective morality. The support would be people's lived moral experience. That despite there being subjective morals people act and react like there are objective morals.

Just because you think this must be the case does not mean it is the case. Showing problems with a moral system without a moral lawgiver does not mean a moral lawgiver exists.

The argument for objective morality is a logical one and not just appealing to there being problems with subjective morality. Regardless of support for objective morality, the fact is objective morality needs to be grounded in something beyond humans which can have rational thought and be personal to us. That means a transcendent being but not necessarily God.

You claim a lot here without sufficient evidence. So if someone agrees with you on gods morality you are right, if they disagree on gods morality then you are correct as well, we just cannot understand God. Until god can show that owning people as property or forcing a woman to marry her rapist against her will is moral then I will not be convinced.

The first question I would ask about your judgments of God being morally wrong is what measurement are you using to determine God is morally wrong.

Plus if you want to argue about God's moral status then you need to understand who God is rather than make Him conform to a human understanding of morality. The same Bible you are claiming God is immoral says that God has no and commits no sin and there is no evil in Him. So that tells us there is more to what is going on than what you understand. The problem is human understanding is not omniscient and God is.

Well, one of these I need to pay for. Why don't you cite the relevant information since you are making the claim?

These articles are just background information to help you understand how we can be justified in believing certain things. That our perception of certain things as being real because of the way we interact and live like it is real can be justified and believed (proper belief).

Like the physical world. We believe that our reality is what it is and not some virtual reality. We act, react, and live that way and we don't act like it is unreal. The same with our moral experience. We act, react, and live like there are objective morals by the fact we believe that certain things are always wrong despite claiming that morality is only subjective. People contradict their own moral positions which shows that there is a moral truth within them independent of what they subjectively think.

It is observing and measuring this lived moral experience is how we can build a case that objective morality is real (moral realism). Because this is a direct perception of something that doesn't rely on other beliefs to make it real. It is not an illusion or a perception of something unreal that may seem real. Therefore we can be confident and justified to believe our experience is real. This supports the logical argument for objective morality based on lived experience.

 

[Speedwell]

If there are no moral truths and humans create moral values then it will be a hit and miss approach. I believe this would leave us in an even worse situation than we are now. Morally would be dictated by the powerful and bought. It is because there are moral truths that we can at least have some chance of aligning ourselves with what is morally best.
I have not said that humans cannot reason morality. Only that our reason is limited to know what is true and best for morality. That there is no grounding for morality and therefore this puts what may be wrong or bad for us on par with what may be right and good. A reasoned argument could potentially come up with a number of rationalizations as to why something is morally right or wrong.

argumentum ad consequentiam, a logical fallacy.

You asked how do we know that God didn't give us the capacity to create our own moral system. I was merely showing how despite giving us the capacity to reason and free will to choose He also gave us a moral law that we know within us through our conscience.

I thought you were making a philosophical argument. You can't base it on your subjective interpretation of an ancient text.

How do you know that "moral law that we know within us through our conscience." is not subjective? This seems to be your only argument, but you are going to have to show that there is no other possible source for the content of our consciences.

It is the fact that we act and react like there are moral truths that rule out that we don't just make up our own moral system. It is despite any capacity to make our own moral system and that we often act against our own made-up morals that points to there being moral truths. Even when we want to dent that truth and do things our own way we still are guilty and feel accused which shows that this moral truth stands independent from us.

We act like there are moral truths which transcend our conscious rational deliberation. Whether they are objective or not is something you haven't shown us.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

There was no thought crimes before Jesus. There was only the law that all knew IE thou shall not kill, steal, etc. Jesus was the fulfillment of that law and He completed the law. Jesus was now showing that it isn't just about just adhering to the law and always falling short and then seeking atonement. That we need to be born again with the spirit of God. It is now about the spirit of the law and what is in our hearts that made us morally right before God.

So he changed the law for humans. It may have always been part of the law but god did not reveal that to them. Was it sinful to have lustful feelings before Jesus came to earth?

Yes but it is about which morals are true and best rather than a system that allows any person to push their moral views which may not be what is best for us. We just cannot tell under a subjective system as there is no grounding of morals.

I 100% agree.

Yes under a subjective and relative system there are different views on morality. But ironically we live and react like there is moral truths such as those I mentioned. We in the west protest and accuse other cultures that their morals are wrong and that they should live like us. This shows we believe there are moral truths that everyone should follow.

Yes I agree. Do you think people hold moral truths that they don't believe to be true or the best?

Take female genital circumcision in some African tribes. The western cultures condemn this practice as mutilating female genitals and subjecting women to oppressive patriarchal practices. Yet moral relativism should accept female circumcision as a valid cultural moral position that just happens to be different from others and therefore not morally wrong. This shows that people know that despite subjective or relative moral positions somethings are always wrong. Or at least western cultures believe that is so.

I can clearly condemn this practice as immoral based on my standards of morality.

But I am not trying to make a case for objective morality here. I am just explaining the difference between subjective and objective morality. Plus I would not use " that I don't like the consequences of there not being an objective standard" as support for objective morality. The support would be people's lived moral experience. That despite there being subjective morals people act and react like there are objective morals.

As you pointed out earlier these morals are not the same. So how can they be based on an objective morality as you have defined that.

The argument for objective morality is a logical one and not just appealing to there being problems with subjective morality. Regardless of support for objective morality, the fact is objective morality needs to be grounded in something beyond humans which can have rational thought and be personal to us. That means a transcendent being but not necessarily God.

Why? This is a claim you have not supported.

The first question I would ask about your judgments of God being morally wrong is what measurement are you using to determine God is morally wrong.

My moral system based on reason, logic and empathy. My moral objective is the most well being for all. I don't consider slavery, genocide, the concept of sin, hell, condemning homosexuality, condoning rape etc. to be in the best well being of all.

Plus if you want to argue about God's moral status then you need to understand who God is rather than make Him conform to a human understanding of morality. The same Bible you are claiming God is immoral says that God has no and commits no sin and there is no evil in Him. So that tells us there is more to what is going on than what you understand. The problem is human understanding is not omniscient and God is.

This is a cop out when you cannot demonstrate god exists or the bible is hid word.

These articles are just background information to help you understand how we can be justified in believing certain things. That our perception of certain things as being real because of the way we interact and live like it is real can be justified and believed (proper belief).

Have you ever believed something on your perception and been wrong? The time to believe something is when you have sufficient evidence.

Like the physical world. We believe that our reality is what it is and not some virtual reality. We act, react, and live that way and we don't act like it is unreal. The same with our moral experience. We act, react, and live like there are objective morals by the fact we believe that certain things are always wrong despite claiming that morality is only subjective. People contradict their own moral positions which shows that there is a moral truth within them independent of what they subjectively think.

I believe things are always morally wrong because of my objective morality based on my subjective goal. You said earlier that different cultures have different moral beliefs, so that should indicate there is nothing inside of us that we all have to indicate a objective moral system.

It is observing and measuring this lived moral experience is how we can build a case that objective morality is real (moral realism). Because this is a direct perception of something that doesn't rely on other beliefs to make it real. It is not an illusion or a perception of something unreal that may seem real. Therefore we can be confident and justified to believe our experience is real. This supports the logical argument for objective morality based on lived experience.

You have not demonstrated any of your presuppositions are true. Our morals come from our upbringing, what we were taught as children, then as we get older they are influenced by others and then some start to think about where their morals came from and if they are right. The fact that my morals are different at different stages of my life as I learn and grow as a person says there is not an objective moral system we all live by. If so, then why would my morals change?

 

[stevevw]

argumentum ad consequentiam, a logical fallacy.

Ok, then what would be the consequences if there were no moral truths.

I thought you were making a philosophical argument. You can't base it on your subjective interpretation of an ancient text.

It isn't my subjective interpretation though. It's a straight reading of the text as it was written.
Romans 2: 15-16
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.

How do you know that "moral law that we know within us through our conscience." is not subjective? This seems to be your only argument, but you are going to have to show that there is no other possible source for the content of our consciences.

It's not subjective because despite people claiming a subjective moral position they act/react against their own subjective morality by acknowledging moral facts. Their conscience convicts them regardless of what they personally say is right or wrong. Examples of this can be seen throughout societies.

We cannot prove morality through scientific testing. The only way we can provide support for objective morality is through our lived experience and measuring behaviour and our reactions to moral situations.

We act like there are moral truths that transcend our conscious rational deliberation. Whether they are objective or not is something you haven't shown us.

The point is subjective morality doesn't support moral truths. People should not be condemning and protesting against other individuals or cultures for having a different view because they cannot take a position of moral truth. All views under subjective/relative morality are valid and are not morally right or wrong. They are just "likes or dislikes" and preferences which are just different but not wrong.

The moment a subjectivist steps out and takes a moral stand that their moral position is right and others are wrong is then making a truth statement. That is the support for objective morality that subjectivist contradict their own position and are hostile witnesses against subjective morality. If their position was rational then they would realize this.

But they cannot help it because the truth is within us all and takes over. The fact the truth stands independent of people who hold subjective morality shows it is something beyond what they personally view which stands true despite subjective opinions.

 

[Speedwell]

So he changed the law for humans. It may have always been part of the law but god did not reveal that to them. Was it sinful to have lustful feelings before Jesus came to earth?

I don't think it is sinful even now. My subjective interpretation of that Bible passage is not the same as Steve's subjective interpretation.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok, then what would be the consequences if there were no moral truths.

What we observe of human behavior, including the content of our consciences.

It isn't my subjective interpretation though. It's a straight reading of the text as it was written.
Romans 2: 15-16
Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the work of the Law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them.

That the passage should be subject to a "straight reading" is an interpretation. And it is an interpretation of Paul's subjective opinion--unless you believe that what Paul wrote was dictated to him by God, which is a subjective belief.

It's not subjective because despite people claiming a subjective moral position they act/react against their own subjective morality by acknowledging moral facts. Their conscience convicts them regardless of what they personally say is right or wrong. Examples of this can be seen throughout societies.

No, they act/react against the content of their consciences, which you have not shown to be objective.

We cannot prove morality through scientific testing.

Which is consistent with moral subjectivity and a hint, perhaps, that morals are not objective.

The only way we can provide support for objective morality is through our lived experience and measuring behavior and our reactions to moral situations.

The point is subjective morality doesn't support moral truths. People should not be condemning and protesting against other individuals or cultures for having a different view because they cannot take a position of moral truth. All views under subjective/relative morality are valid and are not morally right or wrong. They are just "likes or dislikes" and preferences which are just different but not wrong.

The moment a subjectivist steps out and takes a moral stand that their moral position is right and others are wrong is then making a truth statement. That is the support for objective morality that subjectivist contradict their own position and are hostile witnesses against subjective morality. If their position was rational then they would realize this.

But they cannot help it because the truth is within us all and takes over. The fact the truth stands independent of people who hold subjective morality shows it is something beyond what they personally view which stands true despite subjective opinions.

Repeating that same assertion over and over does not prove it.

 

[stevevw]

So he changed the law for humans. It may have always been part of the law but god did not reveal that to them. Was it sinful to have lustful feelings before Jesus came to earth?

Your making claims without having read the Bible. I suggest you read the Bible to understand the law and where Christ fits in. The law has not changed. It was just that the old testament established the law to show we were sinners. But as with any sin, the sin itself is the end result of a state of mind and heart.

People don't just sin for no reason. They usually have envisioned doing wrong in their minds before they do it. If you are always angry their chances of getting into fights and killing someone are higher. If you are always lusting and thinking about sex with someone you are already on your way to doing it. The old testament people were not as aware and only lived by laws and the rituals to make themselves right with God after sinning.

Yes I agree. Do you think people hold moral truths that they don't believe to be true or the best?

I think people know and hold moral truths but don't acknowledge they are truths if they support a subjective position as that would be contradictory to their worldview. But they cannot help but act/react moral truths despite claiming there are no moral truths. That is why we have a conscience and feel guilt yet try to deny the truth but it often catches up with people.

I can clearly condemn this practice as immoral based on my standards of morality.

Yes, I am not denying you can personally condemn it. But people often take things beyond their personal position and say that other individuals or cultures should be stopped from holding and practising their moral views. This is then taking a position that they hold the key to moral truth and everyone else needs to follow their morality. That is an objective moral position.

As you pointed out earlier these morals are not the same. So how can they be based on an objective morality as you have defined that?

Just like above in how people take things beyond their personal subjective moral positions and push their morals onto others, that is taking an objective position. They are claiming they are the holders of moral truth and others should follow. People cannot help but do this as there are moral truths inside us.

It is impossible to take a subjective moral stand as we know certain acts are always morally wrong universally. Taking a subjective view would require people to admit that rape or abuse of a child is not a moral truth and that it is OK for some to do as that is their subjective moral position. People know that this is an unreal position and that is why they cannot hold to it.

Why? This is a claim you have not supported.

I have always supported this position. I may not have spelt it out to you but have mentioned this before on this thread. It makes logical sense. Objective morality has to be grounded outside humans yet still have a personal element as morality can only apply to people. Morals have to be rational as they require a decision about what is right and wrong. But humans cannot know all the possible factors about how to act morally. So that points to a personal and rational transcendent being.

My moral system based on reason, logic and empathy. My moral objective is the most well being for all. I don't consider slavery, genocide, the concept of sin, hell, condemning homosexuality, condoning rape etc. to be in the best well being of all.

But as mentioned humans are fallible when it comes to reasoning morality. What you may consider rational someone else will think differently and this can be different for each and every person. Humans are subjective to may influences which bias and skew their morality. We also have an evil side and this opens us up to turning a moral wrong into being OK.

This is a cop-out when you cannot demonstrate god exists or the bible is his word.

But you are wanting to criticize God. So you are accepting He is real for the sake of this argument. Why call God evil and condemn His morals if you don't believe He is real. But if you do engage in an argument about Him then you have to do it properly and get to know who God is and not just make assumptions or base things on a lack of understanding.

Have you ever believed something on your perception and been wrong? The time to believe something is when you have sufficient evidence.

Humans believe a lot of things without sufficient evidence. Science cannot address non-materialism yet many people believe in immaterial things and this doesn't have to be about religion. Even scientists have some pretty far fetched ideas that take belief despite them claiming they are a scientific fact IE dark energy, multiverse because they fit in with their materialist worldview. These at best are based on indirect loose evidence not too different from arguments for God.

I believe things are always morally wrong because of my objective morality based on my subjective goal.

Yes but this only supports your own view of morality. It cannot have an objective grounding outside of yourself or other humans.

You said earlier that different cultures have different moral beliefs, so that should indicate there is nothing inside of us that we all have to indicate a objective moral system.

Using the idea that there are different moral positions as support against objective morality is not evidence and a logical fallacy. It is like saying that because people have different views on a physical object that physical objects must not be true.

It is the fact that despite there being different moral positions individually or culturally that we all still believe there are moral truths is support for objective morality. When you take away the different cultural understandings about how we do things you will find that we all have similar moral beliefs.

You have not demonstrated any of your presuppositions are true. Our morals come from our upbringing, what we were taught as children, then as we get older they are influenced by others and then some start to think about where their morals came from and if they are right. The fact that my morals are different at different stages of my life as I learn and grow as a person says there is not an objective moral system we all live by. If so, then why would my morals change?

AS stated above this is a logical fallacy that because there are different moral positions that must mean there is no objective moral truth.

I am not sure if I posted links to the logical arguments for objective morality. I think I did and this explains the argument. It is simply that we act/react and live like there are objective morals. I can give many examples. But the one on genital circumcision is just one. I will give some more tomorrow as its getting late.

 

[Speedwell]

That is why we have a conscience and feel guilt yet try to deny the truth but it often catches up with people.

When are you going to show us that the content of our conscience is objective?

 

[stevevw]

I don't think it is sinful even now. My subjective interpretation of that Bible passage is not the same as Steve's subjective interpretation.

But how can you misinterpret a clear statement from Jesus IE
You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman to lust after her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

How can this be taken any other way than to say that Jesus is stating that we can sin in our hearts? He is even comparing it to the Old Testament Law "do not commit adultery" to point out that according to that particular law we can commit than sin in our hearts. I think we all know this as when we do it we feel guilt. I mean we wouldn't be saying to a friend, hey I was just lusting after your wife which shows we know its wrong.

He mentions other sins and also speaks about the state of our hearts as being what is important IE

Matthew 9:4
And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, “Why are you thinking evil in your hearts?
Matthew 15:18-19
But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.