Moral Behavior

[AntiTheist]

If what you are saying is true, then there is no such thing as objectivity. Now we know that isn’t true!

What is it about the word “objectivity” that makes people go mad?

The word “objective” has several meanings, one of which being “existing independently of a mind.” Now obviously there are objective things. There’s a whole objective world out there that isn’t dependent on any mind.

What I’m saying is that things like values – and those codifications of values that we call “moral systems” and “systems of law” – are subjective, i.e. they depend on minds thinking them into existence and that they do not exist outside of the sets of values contained in human minds.

Your position, as I understand it, is that morality and a system of law come from a god – which would, of course, make morality and this system of law subjective, seeing as it depends on a mind (in this case, the mind of a god) for its existence.

I’m going to assume that by “objective” you mean "existing independently of a human mind, though why you make that arbitrary restriction is beyond me.

You think morality/law comes from the mind of a god, and I think it comes from the minds of people. In no way is anything that I am saying suggesting that there is “no such thing as objectivity.”

Now, as I pointed out, lots of systems of law – from different religions and different cultures – claim the same kind of “objectivity” that you’re claiming. And you proceeded to agree with that (“Indeed”). So exactly on what basis do you reach the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian system of morality is the one that everyone should follow, whereas the Muslim system or the Hindu system or the Ancient Roman system is not? Take me through the steps you used to reach that conclusion.

I also pointed out that the Hebrews had laws that included owning other people as property. You responded:

Yes, but that God dropped a clanger in amongst them in the form of Ten Commandments which was supposed to smarten then up

You are mistaken. The rules for owning other human beings as property occur in the Old Testament in the context of the laws that follow the Ten Commandments: there are many laws that follow the Ten Commandments, and these include the rules for owning other human beings, including rules for passing them on to descendents like other pieces of property.

These rules supposedly come from “god.”

My point is that most societies attributed their rules to divine beings, and the Hebrews were no exceptions, even though we today – from the perspective of our modern values – might look back on them and be horrified.

I’m saying that the laws of the ancient Hebrews – like all laws – are the products of the minds of people.

Is the justice of the dictator, which is rooted in his law, truly ‘just’?

Here we go again. More with this “Is it really moral?” stuff.;

For the thousandth time, I don’t think anything is “objectively” or “truly” just – in the sense of existing indepedently of human minds. “Justice” is a concept that is socially defined, and no, by the standards of the values of my society, an evil dictator is not “just.”