koth wrote: » I've been trying to follow this thread, and I just wanted ask (a possibly) question, if I may. when people are talking about objective morality, is it only something that applies to humans or to all life-forms? ask I said, possibly a stupid question, but I'd rather not presume something and misunderstand the discussion.
Pushtrak wrote: » What is objective morality? Is it something that is true in all times and places?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » If we say a thing is objective we mean that this thing exists and has certain properties independently of an observer. The statement "God exists" is either true or false irrespective of what people think today tomorrow or next millennium. Moreover, it will always be true or false. Which leaves me wondering why you are rejecting a concept you don't understand. Or was that just a rhetorical question?
Pushtrak wrote: » PDN earlier pointed out torturing children is immoral. Yet, in one of my previous posts, treatment of infants might be seen as somewhat dubious.
Virgil° wrote: » Hold on a second, back up. Correct me if I'm wrong but you and a few other Christians on here are trying to argue that there is an objective morality and that subjective morality is ultimately meaningless. You then went on to list two colours(objective) as meaningless. So are objective morals meaningful by the virtue of being objective? Then why aren't colours meaningful?
One is a system which promotes death by default to individuals simply because of who they are(through no real choice of their own). The other is a system to keep people safe and anyone who stands up and declares that they will not drive on the left puts others in danger too. If we're talking in terms of their value or worth then I would say the former holds little regard for the good of the species(which is where I believe morality evolves from). You can't equate the two.
PDN wrote: » No, I'm trying to stay on topic rather than us getting sidetracked into discussing your misunderstandings about Christian beliefs concerning the Bible. And your desire not to stay on topic is very telling. Do you want to discuss whether morality is objective or subjective?
PDN wrote: » If morality is subjective, then the above statement is meaningless. Being 'good' has no more meaning than being tall or being white, and being 'evil' has no more meaning than being red-haired.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » The claim is that if God exists - specifically the God of the Bible - then objective morals exist. We take this one step further and claim that it is logical to infer that morality only applies to moral beings capable of making moral decisions.
Pushtrak wrote: » The discussion is objective morality. And differentiating it from subjective morality.
Pushtrak wrote: » With an intention of, I suppose finding which one has a basis in reality.
Pushtrak wrote: » It is independent of what you think or what I think, as it is what god thinks is what I am to believe. Is that the situation with morality, objective moral goods and how they relate to the bible? Is one who works on the sabbath doing an objective evil thing?
Fanny Cradock wrote: » How odd. I don't think that any Christian here arguing for objective morality has suggested that subjective morality has no place in reality. It does. I can't understand what you are saying here. But it seems apparent that you are labouring under some misconception that a) objective morality exists apart from God b) that everything written in the Bible is something we believe to be an objective law. Given that we aren't Jews living several thousand years ago in what we now call Palestine , no, I don't believe that working on the Sabbath is objectively evil.If it dosen't then it subjective, just the subject has moved from human to God. Do you actually understand what the Psalms are? Have you read them?
Pushtrak wrote: » Actually, I'm trying to discuss whether subjective or objective morality is superior. Philologos has said that something is objective morality if god says it. So, to take the case of slavery, if that were objectively true, on what grounds would one refute it? I would say subjective morality is superior because you can have a discussion around a topic rather than the topic closer that would be the case with objective morality. If we were to all hold to objective morality, we would have no basis for discussion. Things would just be what they are. Not a particularly moral system by my estimation if some of the things that are allegedly objectively moral were to be an every day reality. Again, if the christian god was to ask believers to kill non believers, would this be an objective good or not? I don't see how I'm veering the topic anywhere. The topic is about subjective/objective morality. What other places might I source from when discussing objective morality with christians?
tommy2bad wrote: » Not necessarily, God exists dose not infer that morality exists independent of moral beings. God may judge beings on how moral they are but He dose not have to be the source of that morality. Or bound by it.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » I can't understand what you are saying here. But it seems apparent that you are labouring under some misconception that a) objective morality exists apart from God b) that everything written in the Bible is something we believe to be an objective law.
Given that we aren't Jews living several thousand years ago in what we now call Palestine , no, I don't believe that working on the Sabbath is objectively evil.
Do you actually understand what the Psalms are? Have you read them?
PDN wrote: » It is pointless to discuss how we reach an accurate view of true morality unless we first believe that it exists. After pages of discussion we are back to you muddying the waters in the same way as marienbad did by confusing two distinct issues: a) Is morality objective or subjective? b) If it is objective then how do we know it? We are discussing (a). Discussion (b) is worth having with others who believe in an objective morality. But it is a waste of time discussing it with Nietzscheans (yes, Sci-Fi fans, that was intentional ).
This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » If we say a thing is objective we mean that this thing exists and has certain properties independently of an observer. The statement "God exists" is either true or false irrespective of what people think today tomorrow or next millennium. Moreover, it will always be true or false.
tommy2bad wrote: » Are you saying that christian morality is a mix of objective and subjective or that God is the only yardstick of whats moral? I'm confused, how would that work? As creator of everything then morality would apply equally to everything ???
Fanny Cradock wrote: » It's certainly theoretically possible. But only if we are no longer talking about the same God. When I was talking about the God of the Bible I was referring to the classical understanding of what that means. If you want to assert that objective moral standards can exist apart from God then you are welcome to believe it.
I've no idea what that second sentence you put in bold is about. Are you making a statement, asking me a question or both.
Pushtrak wrote: » No, apparently something is an objective truth/objective moral good on the basis god says it.
Pushtrak wrote: » So, what happened? It wasn't an objective moral law? Or are you taking the idea objective morality changes?
Pushtrak wrote: » What are you getting at? Is there an underlying point I'm missing?
Pushtrak wrote: » I'd rather understand what objective morality is, and what its believers feel it to be. I can't see any means of discussing it meaningfully without a discussion on what objective morality is supposed to be, and in what way it is supposed to be better/have more explanatory power than a subjective morality.
PDN wrote: » Colours are meaningful in respect to their properties as colours.
Your argument is akin to arguing about whether selfishness is blue or green.
Unless, of course, you could be persuaded to believe that Jews have a detrimental effect on the species. In that case it would be 'good' to exterminate them, wouldn't it?
Virgil° wrote: » What happens if God told you that it was objectively morally right to kill Jews?
PDN wrote: » When did you stop beating your wife? We might get further by avoiding nonsense questions.
Virgil° wrote: » God dictates objective morality. So if God dictates that slaughtering Jews is morally objectively right then it is so. I'll be taking it as an admission that you're incapable of answering it until you do.
PDN wrote: » Sigh. Let's induldge you by going down a transparent rabbit trail. God has, according to my understanding, given us a New Covenant which will be in force until the end of days. That Covenant forbids murder. Therefore, if someone I thought was God gave such an order, then that would mean one of two things: a) It is not the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who gave such a dictate - so I would reject it. Therefore I would still believe that is objectively wrong to slaughter Jews. b) The God who I was worshipping has turned out to be totally different from how He represented Himself when I chose to follow Him. Therefore all bets are off. Therefore I still believe it is objectively wrong to slaughter Jews. Do you want to continue down this rabbit trail?
Pwpane wrote: » When Christians say this about morality, and then say that this objective morality is made clear to us by God in the Bible, this perhaps is the source of the incredulity of listeners.
Pwpane wrote: » It seems to mean that the morality expressed in the Bible especially by quotes of God in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New will always be true or false. Yet much of it is now ignored, claimed to be 'misunderstood', abandoned or rejected.
Pwpane wrote: » Even here, the topic of slavery is being studiously ignored in the last several posts. The only defence offered by Philologos in a link some pages back seems to say that it wasn't really slavery back then since the slaves were treated better than more modern ones. Alternatively from another reference that this was God's way of weaning the people off previous behaviour - to allow them some slavery but put constraints on it. And this is one of the things that are always true?
Virgil° wrote: » A is a get out clause. How would you verify such a thing? How do you know that the objective morals laid out before you now as you see them were this God in the first place?
B is just flat out nonsensical. God makes something objectively morally right or wrong. If you decide not not obey him then you've just given the two fingers to objective morals. And decided instead to rely on your own subjective ones.
Fanny Cradock wrote: » On the other hand, the Israelites had the concept of servitude - were a person sold themselves (or their property) into their master's workforce for a time in exchange for things like shelter, food, transport and debt repayment. Servants were to be treated according to certain laws. For example, in Exodus 21 the notion of Jubilee is codified along with other rudimentary rights.
39 “‘If any of your fellow Israelites become poor and sell themselves to you, do not make them work as slaves. 40 They are to be treated as hired workers or temporary residents among you; they are to work for you until the Year of Jubilee. 41 Then they and their children are to be released, and they will go back to their own clans and to the property of their ancestors. 42 Because the Israelites are my servants, whom I brought out of Egypt, they must not be sold as slaves. 43 Do not rule over them ruthlessly, but fear your God. 44 “‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.
2 “If you buy a Hebrew servant, he is to serve you for six years. But in the seventh year, he shall go free, without paying anything. 3 If he comes alone, he is to go free alone; but if he has a wife when he comes, she is to go with him. 4 If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the woman and her children shall belong to her master, and only the man shall go free.
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.
koth wrote: » Thanks for that, Fanny.
koth wrote: » I only ask, as to me, morality would be subjective for God but objective for humans.
koth wrote: » Also, it would me that if two people have opposing views on a moral decision, that objective morality would mean that one person would be immoral and one would be moral. If subjective morality was in play, then both could be moral people even though they have opposing views.
koth wrote: » Still trying to wrap my head around all of this, so need to try and set some markers in the hope to better understand each side of the morality discussion.
Zombrex wrote: » It is up to you, but I certainly find the reality far more fascinating than any supernatural stories people made up thousands of years ago to explain this stuff.
Originally Posted by Fanny Cradock We aren't saying that morality is independent from God. In fact, we are claiming exactly the opposite - that God can not be broken down into parts. Morality is part of God's nature and God nature doesn't change.
