Morality: Objective or Subjective?

[sharptiger999]

I will argue that morality is subjective. We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms. We rationally debate and discuss what would be a good moral law within our societies. Generally, in America for instance, we have good baseline (federal) laws, yet states still have differences for what fits within that local area. Simply stealing or killing someone because you feel like it has been determined not to be a good sense of morality because we all agree this hinders our own personal freedoms of living happy the way we want to. Anyone who wants to commit acts such as these will also in turn “end” their life as they know it by sitting in prison of which collective society has determined necessary in order to maintain their freedoms. So in a sense, we do come up with “objective” standards that apply to everyone in our local community/state/country, but these were subjectively thought-out and “designed.” It is not objective in the sense that most religions would imagine.

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period. Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common. But then collective societies began to look closer at moral laws as infrequent, tough moral dilemmas occurred such as killing is perhaps moral if you must protect others who are also about to be killed (i.e. intruder with intent to kill).

Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.

 

[tonyrey]

I will argue that morality is subjective. We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms. We rationally debate and discuss what would be a good moral law within our societies. Generally, in America for instance, we have good baseline (federal) laws, yet states still have differences for what fits within that local area. Simply stealing or killing someone because you feel like it has been determined not to be a good sense of morality because we all agree this hinders our own personal freedoms of living happy the way we want to. Anyone who wants to commit acts such as these will also in turn “end” their life as they know it by sitting in prison of which collective society has determined necessary in order to maintain their freedoms. So in a sense, we do come up with “objective” standards that apply to everyone in our local community/state/country, but these were subjectively thought-out and “designed.” It is not objective in the sense that most religions would imagine.

Science is also “subjectively thought-out”!

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period. Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common. But then collective societies began to look closer at moral laws as infrequent, tough moral dilemmas occurred such as killing is perhaps moral if you must protect others who are also about to be killed (i.e. intruder with intent to kill).

Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.

Do you reject the moral principle that we should always do what we believe to be right?

 

[Dan_Daly]

Morality is objective. Things are either good or evil. Vices or virtues. Sinful or holy. We will each go to either Heaven or Hell when we die.

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve.

That is a very good observation. It is why people have such a hard time with an objective morality. We WANT it to evolve…into whatever we want at that moment.

A subjective morality is no morality at all, if you are willing to follow the idea to it’s logical conclusions. If there is no objective standard of good and evil, why does the societal consenus on an issue (such as murder) carry any more weight than a lone individual’s? Who said the majority should rule? Obviously not the minority. If the standard can “evolve” what is good for you might not be good for me. And what is evil today might be good tomorrow and evil again on Friday.

How do we know what the objective morality is? God has told us through divine revelation. From his initial commands to Adam and Eve in the Garden, the 10 Commandments, the teachings of Christ, the Bible, the Church’s sacred Tradition and teaching authority, the Sacraments.

That’s what draws so much fire against the Catholic Church. We don’t claim to be just another religion with our own views on things. We claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The ONE True Faith. Not because Catholics are hot stuff. We are not. We are miserable sinners.

God is great. He loves us. He wants us to all be with Him in heaven.

Those are objective truths.

It doesn’t matter if you believe in God or not. He is still great. He still loves you. He still wants you to be with Him for all eternity.

Pax.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I will argue that morality is subjective.

Okay, understood

We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms.

I feel like there is something missing from this statement. Why “must/should” we? Perhaps something like “If we value the well beings of others and our society then we must…” There are people that don’t value such things (ex: sociopaths) that may refuse or be incapable of seeing things that way.

We rationally debate and discuss what would be a good moral law within our societies. Generally, in America for instance, we have good baseline (federal) laws, yet states still have differences for what fits within that local area.

I think there’s a mixture or rational and irrational elements to that discussion. That’s not to say that all of the irrational components are “bad” or that all of the rational ones are "good. " Empathy, which may qualify is producing irrational thoughts, is one of many factors that may influence ones decisions in this area.
Whether or not our baseline is “good” is a discussion for another day. Though I do think the general behaviour of present american’s is better than past behaviours; you find much less enslavement of people, genocide, religious brutality, and examples of clear racial discrimination in the USA now days than you would find in the early days.

So in a sense, we do come up with “objective” standards that apply to everyone in our local community/state/country, but these were subjectively thought-out and “designed.” It is not objective in the sense that most religions would imagine.

In what sense are they objective? It sounds like you are equating the decision of a collective to objective. I’d argue the decision of a collective is an indication of what is popular. I may misunderstand how you’ve determined it is objective.

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period.

That may depend on whose concept of a god is being considered. The attributes that people apply to their concept of god vary.

Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common.

They’ve existed along subtle to strong in-group/out-group considerations. Referring back to early USA if you killed some one in your out-group it may not be viewed the same as killing some one within your in-group. In general you can find some element of dehumanizing sentiments being inculcated where things like this were common in which some one is taught to view the out group as less human or of less value. That reduces the capacity for compassion that one person may have for another. There are still areas in the world in which people do this along religious lines or on superstitions (ex: search on the “witch children”).

Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.

Evidence, feellings, education, compassion, biases, agendas, phobias, and other factors also contribute to some one’s thoughts of morality among others. Some of those influences can be justifiably argued as “bad.” But bad or not, these are things that influence thoughts and thus their morality.

 

[sharptiger999]

Science is also “subjectively thought-out”!

Rules can be set to make things “objective,” I just don’t use the word in the same way that you think it is defined. Science works, no matter what or who is involved.

Do you reject the moral principle that we should always do what we believe to be right?

Does “we” mean me personally or “we” as society? I will do what I think is right, which 99% of the time also happens to be what collective society agrees with, because it just so happens that we all agree on the obvious and blatant evidence provided before us suggesting if an action will be beneficial or not. The other 1% I acknowledge that I take the chance and respect possible punishment for other things which may technically in the books be deemed wrong by the collective.

 

[sharptiger999]

Morality is objective. Things are either good or evil. Vices or virtues. Sinful or holy. We will each go to either Heaven or Hell when we die.

Morality must be subjective and evolve throughout cultures, time, and place. If it’s objective, what is wrong today was wrong yesterday and what’s wrong here is wrong everywhere.

You then run into the problem of the old testament with being put to death for working on the sabbath, stoning unruly children, killing adulterers, witches, raping townspeople, condoning slavery, and on and on…

You can’t have it both ways and say today is a different context and culture…

It is why people have such a hard time with an objective morality. We WANT it to evolve…into whatever we want at that moment.

I sure hope so. We must always strive for the best of everyone so that societies can prosper. If we didn’t, blacks would still be slaves (of which at the time the south used their bible to back up the idea of slavery stating it was moral). Where would we be with out Rosa Parks, MLK, etc.? In 100 years humans will look back at someone in our time who helped equality.

If there is no objective standard of good and evil, why does the societal consenus on an issue (such as murder) carry any more weight than a lone individual’s?

The majority comes together and imposes restrictions. We evolved from the majority of people killing the minority in previous wars to the majority imposing restrictions (jail time) on those that would hinder everyone else’s ability for freedom and happiness. People who have gotten stolen from and even those who contemplate the aftermath realize that they don’t want to live in a society like that, so they formed governments to impose restrictions. One single person could do something to take away another’s rights, but in turn he will have his taken away and be removed from the working parts of society that progress. Over time, more and more people are left that cooperate and get further along in life. That being said, the majority is not always right, such as before the civil rights movement. Through time, the minority with good reasoning and debate can always overcome a majority with sound ideas.

How do we know what the objective morality is? God has told us through divine revelation. From his initial commands to Adam and Eve in the Garden, the 10 Commandments, the teachings of Christ, the Bible, the Church’s sacred Tradition and teaching authority, the Sacraments.

The 10 commandments are in the old testament. So don’t cherry pick the good bits and leave out the other parts I mentioned earlier. Again, if it’s objective, the old testament would also be right today according to your argument.

We don’t claim to be just another religion with our own views on things. We claim to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. The ONE True Faith

. You realize every sect of every religion realizes thinks that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Don’t be arrogant.

 

[sharptiger999]

I feel like there is something missing from this statement. Why “must/should” we?

. If we don’t, there are no rules and everyone is barbaric. Notice how this was our history, but those that strived for something better are here today.

In what sense are they objective? It sounds like you are equating the decision of a collective to objective. I’d argue the decision of a collective is an indication of what is popular. I may misunderstand how you’ve determined it is objective.

See, we have different meanings of the word. It’s objective in the sense that if person x and person y commit the same exact crime and same circumstances, they will be given the same punishment based on the rules and regulations that were agreed to previously. It’s basically the “ultimate” law for the community, even though it was though out by community members subjectively. Rather than a bible commandment saying “thall shall not kill,” I argue we must rationalize everything based on evidence, so communities generally have concluded killing is ok if it is to protect yourself (i.e. robber with a gun threatens your rights first)

That may depend on whose concept of a god is being considered. The attributes that people apply to their concept of god vary.

Correct, the all vary because people think of the niche of their god that benefits or resembles their lifestyle the most.

 

[ANNE_2]

Practicing Catholics must use the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” to help form their conscience correctly.

Societies become corrupt and immoral and then decay when everyone just “does their own thing”.

Relativism is the concept that points of view have no absolute truth or validity, having only relative, subjective value according to differences in perception and consideration.
The term is often used to refer to the context of moral principle, where in a relativistic mode of thought, principles and ethics are regarded as applicable in only limited context.

 

[danserr]

I will argue that morality is subjective. We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms. We rationally debate and discuss what would be a good moral law within our societies. Generally, in America for instance, we have good baseline (federal) laws, yet states still have differences for what fits within that local area. Simply stealing or killing someone because you feel like it has been determined not to be a good sense of morality because we all agree this hinders our own personal freedoms of living happy the way we want to. Anyone who wants to commit acts such as these will also in turn “end” their life as they know it by sitting in prison of which collective society has determined necessary in order to maintain their freedoms. So in a sense, we do come up with “objective” standards that apply to everyone in our local community/state/country, but these were subjectively thought-out and “designed.” It is not objective in the sense that most religions would imagine.

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period. Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common. But then collective societies began to look closer at moral laws as infrequent, tough moral dilemmas occurred such as killing is perhaps moral if you must protect others who are also about to be killed (i.e. intruder with intent to kill).

Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.

I only have a moment, but there are at least two quick and obvious problems with what you say:

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period.

Not at all. On the other hand, Christians have agreed that God’s moral commands are gradually revealed and discovered by mankind. Second, as new situations arise, we apply the moral standards given by God to new situations.

Without God and objective morality, moral progress is impossible. With God, there is standard against which we can measure progress. If an objective morality exists, then we can say that things are becoming more good or more bad the same way that if one draws a picture of new york and then changes it, one can say the picture is becoming more or less accurrate. This is possible because NY is a real place that objectively exists.

Now if morality is not objective, then it is only subjective, that is, dependant on what humans think. It is simply a a matter of social convention. On your thesis, there is nothing really wrong about torturing and raping a little girl. Such an action has become taboo in society, but it is not really wrong.

Indeed, it gets worse, since there is no objective morality and you claim socities make their own, then we have no basis by which to judge another society. For us to say that the Hindu practice of sutee (burning widows on their husbands funeral pyres) or child sacrifice is morally obscene, would be a matter of cultural chauvanism.

Now maybe you will say these things are determined to be wrong by society. But what about societies that do not determine them wrong? Is it ok for that society to round up and exterminate the Jews or homosexuals? If morality is subjective (based on what people think) and determined by society alone, then we cannot say such societies are wrong. So we cannot say that Hitler was wrong, or Stalin. Here, anyone who acted for freedom was put in prison by the determination of society.

Maybe you will try to claim that societies should only make laws that help freedom. But why? You would have to say because it is simply right. And that takes us right to objective morality.

Arthur Allen Leff tried to ground morality without God, here is what he wrote in the Duke Law Journal:

He says any attempt to ground values is open to the playground bully’s retort, “Who sez?” And this is how his article concludes:

All I can say is this: It looks as if we are all we have. . . . Only if ethics is something unspeakable by us [that is, something transcendent], could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs.

Nevertheless:
Napalming babies is bad.
Starving the poor is wicked.
Buying and selling each other is depraved. . . .
There is in the world such a thing as evil.
(All together now Sez who?
God help us

reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8877

ps. do not confuse moral ontology, (the existence of objective moral values) with moral epistemology (the perception or knowledge of objective moral values). This confusion often happens in threads like this.

 

[danserr]

As to the Old Testament, this is very wearying because it always comes up in discussions like this as some sort of knock-down arguments against God as the basis of morality. The problem is that it is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

Why? Because it is possible that the OT writers were mistaken in attributing some of those commands to God. The were doing the best they could, but were simply mistaken about some things. This might mean we would have to see the Bible as inspired but not literally inerrant in every sense, which would be an adjustment, but is not a reason to doubt God as the basis of morality. So really, your objection is not an objection against rooting morality in God, it is simply an objection to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which is not the subject of this thread.
Other explanations exist as well, for instance, Paul Copan shows that many of those OT commands were simply a matter of hyperbole, common in the OT. If you are interested in seriously considering this issue, then his book is quite useful.
amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1313246643&sr=1-1

 

[Dan_Daly]

If it’s objective, what is wrong today was wrong yesterday and what’s wrong here is wrong everywhere.

Not necessarily. In one way you are right, throughout time it has, is, and always will be right to follow the will of God, and wrong to not follow His will.

However, that does not mean that God isn’t free to revise His commands to us on certain things. He’s God.

For example- today it is wrong to marry your sister. At the beginning of time, God did not forbid this practice because there would have been no other way for the children of Adam and Eve to populate the earth.

But in most matters, what is wrong today was wrong yesterday will be wrong tomorrow. The fact that evil existed in the past, such as slavery, doesn’t mean it wasn’t wrong then. Evils have been accepted by MEN throughout history- just as your present culture accepts abortion and contraception.

Pax.

 

[exnihilo]

You then run into the problem of the old testament with being put to death for working on the sabbath, stoning unruly children, killing adulterers, witches, raping townspeople, condoning slavery, and on and on…

You can’t have it both ways and say today is a different context and culture…

Raping townspeople? What are you referring to?

The strict rules of the Old Testament show just how demanding God is. We want to exercise our will and thus find trouble with them. Adultery might be so very terrible to God that death is the just penalty. And in fact death is the penalty for sin in the most general sense.

That we dont enforce such strong punishment today is merely a result of a greater tolerance for sin. The tolerance could be mercy or it could be injustice. But it does not necessarily invalidate the morality expressed in the Old Testament.

Why? Because it is possible that the OT writers were mistaken in attributing some of those commands to God. The were doing the best they could, but were simply mistaken about some things. This might mean we would have to see the Bible as inspired but not literally inerrant in every sense, which would be an adjustment, but is not a reason to doubt God as the basis of morality. So really, your objection is not an objection against rooting morality in God, it is simply an objection to the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, which is not the subject of this thread.
Other explanations exist as well, for instance, Paul Copan shows that many of those OT commands were simply a matter of hyperbole, common in the OT.

Another explanation is that God is a demanding God and truly hates sin. From these works we learn just how much God does hate sin. We should rejoice in the mercy of God. Because we dont want to accept just how sinful we truly are we look for ways to lessen the seriousness of sin. Jesus was pretty ‘harsh’ in his condemnation of sin as well. We tend to ignore that and focus on His great mercy.

 

[Little_One0307]

I would suggest reading Ethics by Dr. D.Q. McInerny
as well as Moral Relativsim by Peter Kreeft.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

That we dont enforce such strong punishment today is merely a result of a greater tolerance for sin. The tolerance could be mercy or it could be injustice. But it does not necessarily invalidate the morality expressed in the Old Testament.

That statement may be an oversimplification. At least here in the USA there has never been total agreement on what constitutes “sin.” even before the colonization of the USA there was a mixture and patchwork of spiritual and religious orientations. Not all of them were Christian. If I narrow my view to just groups that call themselves Christians there are differences in interpretations of the bible (ex:as mentioned in other threads differences in what is considered literal or metaphoric) which also impact interpretations of what constitutes “sin.”

Presently the USA is even more diverse. Many of my coworkers come from polytheistic and eastern cultures. I’m sure they have their own ideas on what constitutes a forbiddened act that may or may not have been considered forbiddened because of commandments from god. Some will have overlap with those with other cultural backgrounds. But I don’t think total agreement will ever be reached. (The very practice of a religion that has gods other than Yahweh or religions that have no gods may be viewed as a sin to some).

 

[Fr_of_Jazz]

I will argue that morality is subjective. We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms. We rationally debate and discuss what would be a good moral law within our societies. Generally, in America for instance, we have good baseline (federal) laws, yet states still have differences for what fits within that local area. Simply stealing or killing someone because you feel like it has been determined not to be a good sense of morality because we all agree this hinders our own personal freedoms of living happy the way we want to. Anyone who wants to commit acts such as these will also in turn “end” their life as they know it by sitting in prison of which collective society has determined necessary in order to maintain their freedoms. So in a sense, we do come up with “objective” standards that apply to everyone in our local community/state/country, but these were subjectively thought-out and “designed.” It is not objective in the sense that most religions would imagine.

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve. The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period. Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common. But then collective societies began to look closer at moral laws as infrequent, tough moral dilemmas occurred such as killing is perhaps moral if you must protect others who are also about to be killed (i.e. intruder with intent to kill).

Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.

A different set of definitions could include some universal moral truths that are nonetheless thought out by the natural light of human reason (as Aquinas called it) and therefore based on evidence.

QUESTION: So under the set of definitions below, are you really against ethical objectivism or just a divinely revealed moral law?

Ethical objectivism
Maintains that there are ethical statements that are true because they convey objective features of the human world that are inherent and independent of subjective opinion.

I.e., the truth or falsity of certain moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. These moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe (or fail to describe) a mind-independent reality. When they describe it accurately, they are true–no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels. When they fail to describe this mind-independent moral reality, they are false–no matter what anyone believes, hopes, wishes, or feels.

These ethical propositions expressing moral truths can be rationally justified. They are backed by reasoned argument about the human world based on data from life experience, history, literature, and the natural and human sciences.

These moral truths apply universally, that is, for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexuality, or other distinguishing features.

Ethical subjectivism OR ethical relativism
Maintains that all ethical statements are true only in that they convey facts about people’s attitudes or feelings.

Moral or ethical propositions do not ever reflect objective moral truths. Instead, moral propositions are only statements about people’s values, feelings, attitudes held by them, beliefs, or customs whose truth claims are strictly relative to social, cultural, or historical circumstances.

One is not able to reason to the conclusion that some human choices for all similarly situated individuals should be made or must never be made.

Therefore no universal standard or process of evaluation exists by which to assess an ethical proposition’s truth. Moral values as applicable only within certain cultural boundaries or in the context of individual preferences.

Incidentally, have you read Cicero’s De Legibus (On the Laws)? You might find it applicable to your investigation.

 

[grannymh]

er with intent to kill).

Simply put, I argue that morality is and has always been subjectively based on thought and evidence, rather than an ultimate moral law which must always stay the same.

My apology for being cranky. Simply put, very few people know the differences between a subjective and objective basis for morality nor do they know how to use the two together. For example. A truth such as* the human person is worthy of profound respect* is an objective basis for moral actions.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Ethical objectivism
Maintains that there are ethical statements that are true because they convey objective features of the human world that are inherent and independent of subjective opinion.

Ethical subjectivism OR ethical relativism
Maintains that all ethical statements are true only in that they convey facts about people’s attitudes or feelings.

If I understand the above definitions correctly then someone that follows “ethical objectivism” can both maintain that some statements on ethics true while others are dependent on other factors (ex:cultural). In other words the person’s views on ethics are not limited to those that are seen based on objective features. Is that correct?

 

[sw85]

I will argue that morality is subjective. We humans must develop our cultural moralities such that we can progress and live lives with freedoms that we choose, such that it does not hinder someone else’s freedoms.

We “must”? Why?

We rationally debate and discuss what would be a good moral law within our societies.

But no one does this. We rationally debate and discuss what the moral law is, not what we’d like it to be.

Generally, in America for instance, we have good baseline (federal) laws, yet states still have differences for what fits within that local area.

Yet you’ll notice there’s stunning similarity across them all, e.g., a prohibition on murder, theft, rape, etc. Where they differ are on questions that are technical and thus morally neutral (e.g., what is the optimal tax system and tax rate for that system) or morally gray (e.g., whether or not to subject a murderer to capital punishment).

Simply stealing or killing someone because you feel like it has been determined not to be a good sense of morality because we all agree this hinders our own personal freedoms of living happy the way we want to.

If we all agree that this is the case, that is evidence that it is not subjective.

I don’t see why anyone should value anything on the basis of “freedom” or “happiness,” but if you substitute those (meaningless nonsense) claims with what natural law, you derive the objective natural law prohibition on murder: we do not murder because murder constrains others from living in accordance with natural law.

Anyone who wants to commit acts such as these will also in turn “end” their life as they know it by sitting in prison of which collective society has determined necessary in order to maintain their freedoms. So in a sense, we do come up with “objective” standards that apply to everyone in our local community/state/country, but these were subjectively thought-out and “designed.” It is not objective in the sense that most religions would imagine.

I’m guessing you don’t know what most religions teach or why they teach them…

If morality was objectively given by god, then morality could not evolve.

…as witnessed by the fact that you think morality is “given by God” and not simply an objective fact arising from human nature.

At any rate, no, morality does not evolve.

The same moral laws would have to exist in every time period. Obviously, some of the basic one’s have existed for hundreds of years such as not killing or stealing because these acts were common. But then collective societies began to look closer at moral laws as infrequent, tough moral dilemmas occurred such as killing is perhaps moral if you must protect others who are also about to be killed (i.e. intruder with intent to kill).

The notion of justifiable homicide is not some recent innovation.

 

[exnihilo]

That statement may be an oversimplification. At least here in the USA there has never been total agreement on what constitutes “sin.” even before the colonization of the USA there was a mixture and patchwork of spiritual and religious orientations. Not all of them were Christian. If I narrow my view to just groups that call themselves Christians there are differences in interpretations of the bible (ex:as mentioned in other threads differences in what is considered literal or metaphoric) which also impact interpretations of what constitutes “sin.”

Presently the USA is even more diverse. Many of my coworkers come from polytheistic and eastern cultures. I’m sure they have their own ideas on what constitutes a forbiddened act that may or may not have been considered forbiddened because of commandments from god. Some will have overlap with those with other cultural backgrounds. But I don’t think total agreement will ever be reached. (The very practice of a religion that has gods other than Yahweh or religions that have no gods may be viewed as a sin to some).

There is always disagreement on what is sin and how severe any sin is. I certainly agree that America has more ethnic and cultural diversity than in the past. But even with a more homogenous people there was disagreement and change regarding sin. So I wouldn’t be willing to say disagreement is something new or unique to our age.

What is certainly not new is the desire for people to ally with each other to ignore the others in mutual agreement. The abortionist will align with the homosexual and both will say neither sins.

We know from our experience that man tends to view his current morality as more right than the past morality. Two hundred years from now our time will be viewed as immoral. Since we have every reason to believe the future will arrive and we will be judged immoral time itself presents a problem if morality is simply what is agreed upon. We know our morality that we call right will no longer be right. You’d have to believe this is a special time in history and we are the most holy people to think that our morality is the most right.

 

[grannymh]

If I understand the above definitions correctly then someone that follows “ethical objectivism” can both maintain that some statements on ethics true while others are dependent on other factors (ex:cultural). In other words the person’s views on ethics are not limited to those that are seen based on objective features. Is that correct?

Statements on ethics might be considered interpretations, adaptions, acceptance, or rejection. It seems an old definition of ethics was that it was applied actions to specific policies in a specific area, for example, in a medical facility. In the old days, writers would follow privacy ethics. In the very, very old days, courtesy ethics let women leave work five minutes early to use the elevators. Thus, “ethical objectivism” might become a mixed bag.

In my humble opinion, there are a few basic universal truths about human nature which serve as the basis of morality. It is from a simple basis of truth, that actions are evaluated as moral or immoral.