Where is the Objective Morality?

[eleos1954]

OK. So you can access objective morality. But if you disagree with someone on a moral act when t he other person has also studied the life of Jesus etc and claims that she has access to objective morality then how do we know who is correct?

Jesus is absolute morality .... if one studies His life then they know that .... absolute morality is non existent or impossible in the mind of a non believers ... so it's argued about.

All christians are in learning mode and we all mess up .... this continues throughout out our earthly lifetime.

There is some morality in the world ... (set of standards that enable people to live cooperatively in groups) but they are not absolute .... but that is not to say there isn't absolute morality ... because there is and that is shown in how Jesus lived His life.

Jesus is correct (absolute morality) and all of us (christian or not) fall short of His perfection .... that is why He died for all of us .... to create a pathway back to Him and back to how He originally created us before the fall of mankind. He doesn't force His morality on anyone ... but offers it as a choice.

 

[eleos1954]

OK. So you can access objective morality. But if you disagree with someone on a moral act when the other person has also studied the life of Jesus etc and claims that she has access to objective morality then how do we know who is correct?

define immorality

 

[durangodawood]

....Not certain I understand your point here. Can you elaborate?

I think he's say that math is an example of something that neither material nor subjective.

 

[Belk]

I think he's say that math is an example of something that neither material nor subjective.

Which is fair, but I think that was the point of the OP. We can map math back to its real world roots. How do we do that with morality if it is objective?

 

[childeye 2]

That might be a good answer to some question or other. But has nothing to do with what I asked. So I'll ask it again: If you disagree with someone on a moral act when the other person has also studied the life of Jesus etc and claims that she has access to objective morality then how do we know who is correct?

Void of any working example, your question can only be responded to by understanding why an immoral action will exhibit hypocrisy and the moral action will not. This is based on the moral principle that we should love others as ourselves. The positive prejudice sees others as one's self with a pure heart. A negative prejudice projects one's own wickedness onto others.

 

[durangodawood]

Which is fair, but I think that was the point of the OP. We can map math back to its real world roots. How do we do that with morality if it is objective?

I think there have been some pretty good attempts to find a basis for certain important moral rules in the evolutionary biology of social species.

 

[TheWhat?]

Inadequate for what? If we are discussing something that is objective, something that is in the material word, materialism would seem perfectly adequate would it not?

What do you mean by the material world? Do you think reality doesn't exist without material? What about space or the laws of physics? Are these material?

You mean a Photon?

Photon - Wikipedia

You don't suppose photons are material, right? In an enclosed space, once you ground it all down into elementary particles, this would include all light sources, I'm not certain about how you would show me the substance of light or shadow.

The point is reality is abstract, and it exists abstractly, as in "separated from material objects."

And yet substance is substantial, reality is real. That a thing is not classifiable as material doesn't mean it isn't real. Materialism -- the view that supposes all that is real is material -- is wholly inadequate.

 

[Bradskii]

Void of any working example, your question can only be responded to by understanding why an immoral action will exhibit hypocrisy and the moral action will not. This is based on the moral principle that we should love others as ourselves. The positive prejudice sees others as one's self with a pure heart. A negative prejudice projects one's own wickedness onto others.

So we have two people who can do that. But they disagree on a moral matter. Yet again, how do we tell who is right?

 

[Bradskii]

define immorality

We've been using the term for a few posts and you seemed not to have a problem with requiring a definition then. How could you even formulate an answer without knowing what it is? Use any standard dictionary definition you like and then answer the question.

 

[eleos1954]

We've been using the term for a few posts and you seemed not to have a problem with requiring a definition then. How could you even formulate an answer without knowing what it is? Use any standard dictionary definition you like and then answer the question.

Well perhaps I did miss them could you provide the post numbers? ... I asked you the question ... but ok ... from the standard dictionary

immorality
noun, plural im·mo·ral·i·ties.
immoral quality, character, or conduct; wickedness; evilness.
sexual misconduct.
an immoral act

immoral

adjective
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
licentious or lascivious.

wicked

adjective, wick·ed·er, wick·ed·est.
evil or morally bad in principle or practice; sinful; iniquitous:wicked people;wicked habits.
mischievous or playfully malicious:These wicked kittens upset everything.
distressingly severe, as a storm, wound, or cold:a wicked winter.
passing reasonable bounds; intolerably bad:wicked prices;a wicked exam.
having a bad disposition; ill-natured; mean:a wicked horse.

evil

adjective
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:evil deeds;an evil life.
harmful; detrimental:evil laws.
noun
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:to choose the lesser of two evils.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
adverb
in an evil manner; badly; ill:It went evil with him.

iniquitous
adjective
characterized by injustice or wickedness; wicked; sinful.

seems to become rather circular

 

[Bradskii]

Well perhaps I did miss them could you provide the post numbers? ... I asked you the question ... but ok ... from the standard dictionary

immorality
noun, plural im·mo·ral·i·ties.
immoral quality, character, or conduct; wickedness; evilness.
sexual misconduct.
an immoral act

immoral

adjective
violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics.
licentious or lascivious.

wicked

adjective, wick·ed·er, wick·ed·est.
evil or morally bad in principle or practice; sinful; iniquitous:wicked people;wicked habits.
mischievous or playfully malicious:These wicked kittens upset everything.
distressingly severe, as a storm, wound, or cold:a wicked winter.
passing reasonable bounds; intolerably bad:wicked prices;a wicked exam.
having a bad disposition; ill-natured; mean:a wicked horse.

evil

adjective
morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked:evil deeds;an evil life.
harmful; detrimental:evil laws.
noun
that which is evil; evil quality, intention, or conduct:to choose the lesser of two evils.
the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin.
the wicked or immoral part of someone or something:The evil in his nature has destroyed the good.
adverb
in an evil manner; badly; ill:It went evil with him.

iniquitous
adjective
characterized by injustice or wickedness; wicked; sinful.

seems to become rather circular

Now you've spent some time confirming what we both new about the definition of morality, you can concentrate on the question that was asked. Or I'll have to assume that there is none.

 

[Belk]

What do you mean by the material world? Do you think reality doesn't exist without material? What about space or the laws of physics? Are these material?

These are all, indeed, material.

You don't suppose photons are material, right? In an enclosed space, once you ground it all down into elementary particles, this would include all light sources, I'm not certain about how you would show me the substance of light or shadow.

Once again, Photons are the material component of light.

The point is reality is abstract, and it exists abstractly, as in "separated from material objects."

Can you show me how this was determined?

And yet substance is substantial, reality is real. That a thing is not classifiable as material doesn't mean it isn't real. Materialism -- the view that supposes all that is real is material -- is wholly inadequate.

I think the jury is still out on this. I have yet to see anything real that exists outside the material realm.

 

[childeye 2]

So we have two people who can do that. But they disagree on a moral matter. Yet again, how do we tell who is right?

Respectfully, yet again your above statements and accompanying question asserts a premise that there is a circumstance, or circumstances, where two people can both agree in principle to loving others as themselves and are not hypocritical by any measure in their judgments because they both truly see the other as themselves, and yet they do not agree on a moral matter. You would need to provide an example of such a circumstance that meets the criteria of your own premise so that your premise is not simply a blank assertion articulated as a trick question. I need a case example to fully appreciate your point, otherwise it's purely hypothetical.

 

[eleos1954]

Now you've spent some time confirming what we both new about the definition of morality, you can concentrate on the question that was asked. Or I'll have to assume that there is none.

well the subject was in regard to morality so it's natural to consider what is immorality ... they do have the same root word.

yes and I gave the explanation ... there is absolute morality ... found in the life of Jesus ... that is not acceptable to some (understood) ... outside of the life of Jesus it is an unanswerable question and therefore is debatable and will always be debatable.

 

[Bradskii]

Respectfully, yet again your above statements and accompanying question asserts a premise that there is a circumstance, or circumstances, where two people can both agree in principle to loving others as themselves and are not hypocritical by any measure in their judgments because they both truly see the other as themselves, and yet they do not agree on a moral matter. You would need to provide an example of such a circumstance that meets the criteria of your own premise so that your premise is not simply a blank assertion articulated as a trick question. I need a case example to fully appreciate your point, otherwise it's purely hypothetical.

Some people who believe in God and say that they are following His guidance accept early term abortion as morally acceptable. Others say it's not. Both would say that their position is objective.

How do we tell who is right?

 

[Bradskii]

well the subject was in regard to morality so it's natural to consider what is immorality ... they do have the same root word.

yes and I gave the explanation ... there is absolute morality ... found in the life of Jesus ... that is not acceptable to some (understood) ... outside of the life of Jesus it is an unanswerable question and therefore is debatable and will always be debatable.

Thank you. So it seems the answer is...we don't know and can never know. It will always be a matter of debate between people as to what is right.

Which kinda makes it subjective, don't you think..?

 

[TheWhat?]

These are all, indeed, material.





Once again, Photons are the material component of light.




Can you show me how this was determined?


I think the jury is still out on this. I have yet to see anything real that exists outside the material realm.

If you're going to tell me that a vacuum is material I think we have a semantics problem. 'Material' does not mean the thing that you're using it for, which is basically "everything that is."

 

[childeye 2]

Some people who believe in God and say that they are following His guidance accept early term abortion as morally acceptable. Others say it's not. Both would say that their position is objective.

How do we tell who is right?

I would say the one who believes the mother will love that baby if it is ever born has objectivity.

 

[TheWhat?]

Can you show me how this was determined?

Eliminative materialism, where we started, is unable to cope with emergent phenomena or properties of systems not shared by the component parts of those systems.

Grinding a marble figure to powder does not prove that there was no likeness of a person to begin with. It doesn't prove that light or shadow are not real phenomena once, in our enclosed environment, all of the light energy has been converted and no light is visible. Nor does it eliminate the laws that govern such phenomena, etc, etc.

It's like an empirical solipsism: doubt everything, doubt the observations, and the semantics of the findings -- usually as long as it is convenient to do so, or until you're willing to take the full plunge into solipsism.

 

[Bradskii]

I would say the one who believes the mother will love that baby if it is ever born has objectivity.

I would say that all mothers will love their babies. But you're still avoiding the question. How do we know who, out of the true believers who hold opposing views, are correct?

And just a heads up on this. I've been asking the same question on different threads to 4 or 5 members over the last week or so. In all cases, including this one, the question has been asked multiple times. And everyone has done their best to avoid giving an answer. I can only ask so many times. I have already concluded that there is no answer. There can be no other conclusion.