Morality: Objective or Subjective?

[sharptiger999]

I am simply saying that the Christian has a moral basis to make this sacrifice, where the atheist does not. If he does, as many do, it is simply because he is better than his principles, which I applaud. But I would also prefer, he have the right principles.

You are always free to reason with anyone what you think the right principles are.

That doesn’t answer the question. What it is was? Would it be ok? Remember, we are discussing your specific principles here. According to your principles, in this situation, we would have to do the morally obscene thing.

I think I understand what you are trying to say, but let me know if I’m on track. If something “morally obscene” is good for society, than not doing it would in fact be morally obscene. We want the maximum goodness. But you need to come up with a real example rather than a non-realistic one like in order for 1 million people to live you have to torture/rape/kill, etc. just one child. Come on now… My point is what is morally obscene is to reason that rather we must do nothing and allow 1 million people to die. But yes, this part of the discussion is awkward without a real-world example.

If God did not exist, I might feel such things were wrong because of evolution and sociological conditioning, but there would be no objective basis for which they could be wrong, and this would lead to many of the problems I mention above.

Right, there would be a subjective basis why they are reasoned wrong, which is how we live today.

That’s a dodge. Could you be happy with that view? Do you find your own view that such a thing is not objectively wrong (except by your own eccentric definition of objectivity), satisfying?

I can be happy with that view that it is only wrong if we have reason to believe so. If I didn’t have reason to believe it was wrong, what would make me think that it is wrong? I find reason very satisfying, and without it, we would still be in the dark ages.

You have at least been able to agree that there are some unpleasant consequences to your view,

If we are faced with a dichotomy we must choose the best.

Why do believe that an objective morality doesn’t exist?

Because it hasn’t been proven so to be the case, and likewise the opposite view has very substantial evidence as to why things are the way they are and what works and what doesn’t work. For objective morality to exist, it must mean that we do not question the notion with reason. For instance and sake of argument, if the bible said to kill the weakest among us every 7 days to cleanse the Earth of evil, would some really do that? The answer is yes, as the extreme believers in any religion use it as an argument to do some of the things they do (of which we consider horrid because we use reason).

 

[grannymh]

While you all are trying to figure out what morality is, I shall point out that good morality is based on two objective truths and bad morality rejects the same two objective truths.

The first objective truth is that there is a transcendent, pure spirit Creator Who has a personal relationship with His human creatures. He is God. The fact is that the whining denying His existence is powerless.

The second objective truth is that the human person is worthy of profound respect. The fact that only a handful of people know how to deal with this objective truth over the course of centuries does not eliminate the existence of human nature.

Thank you for your attention to this brief message.

 

[shoe]

And God’s objective morals never change. Stoning an unruly child was morally right yesterday, morally right today, and will be morally right tomorrow?

I believe that this law did not actually pertain to either a child or a daughter: it only applied to an adult son who was “rebellious and stubborn…giveth himself to revelling, and to debauchery and banquetings” (Deuteronomy 21:20). It was a law specifically designed for the tribe of Israel in order to keep their families from breaking up into factions and feuds (and the parents could not cast stones). It was a law that upheld and reinforced the relationship principle that says “Honour thy father and thy mother” (Exodus 20:21). Both parents had to agree on the complaint that was then brought to the elders, who then made their investigation and based their decision on their findings. It was also a law that was never recorded to have been used.

Atheists, however, never seem to hesitate to use whatever subjective moral laws that they deem beneficial to the masses. But since their subjective moral system is based on nothing more than their own subjective experiences of the world, then their moral laws are relativistic in their nature, always changing, and often self contradictory and dangerous. We saw this danger when Hitler tried, by banishing the God of the Bible as the source of objective morality, to build a strong moral society in the last century based on relative and subjective thinking. (Had Hitler succeeded in his pursuit for world control, then, according to atheistic morality, Nazi morality would be universally right today). If ethics and morals are relative and subjective to the individual, as evolutionists say they are, then obviously the manner in which individuals behave will also be.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

danserr;8247177:

A little more clever, perhaps, but this does not shows that we are morally significant. So on atheism, we may have evolved to think rape is bad and so it has become socially taboo, but this means a rapist is doing nothing more than flouting the herd mentality and breaking a social taboo. Not doing something morally wrong. Do you find this view satisfying?

Half right - what you are referring to as social taboo is our morals. I have already argued that only we can justify morals.

Examples of people that engage in extraordinarily cruel crimes is a frequent example in discussions about morality. When ever I see these examples I wonder if parts of the discussion have crossed into the boundaries of psychiatry because some of the example behaviours are what one might expect from a sociopath (or to use a more modern phrase such people have anti-social personality disorder). People normally have a capacity for emotional empathy and can be influenced by the emotional state of others. Sociopaths have a diminished capacity for emotional empathy. A person can develop into a sociopath because of biological or psychological reasons.

Because of empathy the happiness of another can in part be a reason for your own happiness. The pain of another can in part become your pain. I won’t explain how the emotional connection to others can play a role in motivating behaviour that you might call “moral” by what ever method that you use for evaluation.

This capacity to have empathy for others can be eroded through training and inculcation. Dehumanizing statements made about an out-group or one method of doing so. In history we have seen this done along lines of culture, race, religion, family association, and political party just to name a few. With diminished empathy one can more easily treat some one else with rudeness, disrespect, cruelty. With enough “training” the person’s treatment of some one in the out group may start to approach that of the sociopath while the person may still maintain what seem to be healthy normal relationships with those in their in group.

 

[sharptiger999]

Not at all, good and evil are objective in nature, not subjective. Simply because people disagree doesn’t change the fact that they are objective. For instance: slavery is an evil.

Why is it evil? You can answer why because there is reason. With underlying objectiveness, there is no reason, rather it just is the way it is without reason.

Doesn’t matter how many people think it is permissible, it is still evil. Personal opinions do not sway the objective moral value of any given act.

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. The Bible clearly approves of slavery in many passages, and it goes so far as to tell how to obtain slaves, how hard you can beat them, and when you can have sex with the female slaves.

Many Jews and Christians will try to ignore the moral problems of slavery by saying that these slaves were actually servants or indentured servants. Many translations of the Bible use the word “servant”, “bondservant”, or “manservant” instead of “slave” to make the Bible seem less immoral than it really is. While many slaves may have worked as household servants, that doesn’t mean that they were not slaves who were bought, sold, and treated worse than livestock.

The following passage shows that slaves are clearly property to be bought and sold like livestock:

• However, you may purchase male or female slaves from among the foreigners who live among you. You may also purchase the children of such resident foreigners, including those who have been born in your land. You may treat them as your property, passing them on to your children as a permanent inheritance. You may treat your slaves like this, but the people of Israel, your relatives, must never be treated this way.* (Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)

The following passage describes how the Hebrew slaves are to be treated:

• If you buy a Hebrew slave, he is to serve for only six years. Set him free in the seventh year, and he will owe you nothing for his freedom. If he was single when he became your slave and then married afterward, only he will go free in the seventh year. But if he was married before he became a slave, then his wife will be freed with him. If his master gave him a wife while he was a slave, and they had sons or daughters, then the man will be free in the seventh year, but his wife and children will still belong to his master. But the slave may plainly declare, ‘I love my master, my wife, and my children. I would rather not go free.’ If he does this, his master must present him before God. Then his master must take him to the door and publicly pierce his ear with an awl. After that, the slave will belong to his master forever. * (Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)

Notice how they can get a male Hebrew slave to become a permanent slave by keeping his wife and children hostage until he says he wants to become a permanent slave. What kind of family values are these?

The following passage describes the sickening practice of sex slavery. How can anyone think it is moral to sell your own daughter as a sex slave?
When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are. If she does not please the man who bought her, he may allow her to be bought back again. But he is not allowed to sell her to foreigners, since he is the one who broke the contract with her. And if the slave girl’s owner arranges for her to marry his son, he may no longer treat her as a slave girl, but he must treat her as his daughter. If he himself marries her and then takes another wife, he may not reduce her food or clothing or fail to sleep with her as his wife. If he fails in any of these three ways, she may leave as a free woman without making any payment. (Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)

So these are the Bible family values! A man can buy as many sex slaves as he wants as long as he feeds them, clothes them, and screws them!

What does the Bible say about beating slaves? It says you can beat both male and female slaves with a rod so hard that as long as they don’t die right away you are cleared of any wrong doing.
When a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod so hard that the slave dies under his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his own property. (Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.

• Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.* (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
• Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed. If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts. Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. * (1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn’t know they were doing anything wrong.

• The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it. “But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly. Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given.”* (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

 

[sharptiger999]

Sure, there is a universally accepted view of freedom. But good = free and evil = not free. Lets take an obvious example: drugs. The first time someone tries drugs it would be a totally free act. However, over time, the person becomes addicted to the drugs. Then, when the person chooses to do drugs, it is no longer as free of a choice as the first time. Hence, we see how evil restricts freedom. This is why laws banning drugs are not a restriction on freedom, but actually make us more free.

I assume you mean hardcore drugs like cocaine, because obviously some drugs have been developed to help people , but yes I know what you mean. I generally agree with you here. Societies can determine that banning hardcore drugs end up helping the community as a whole with everything that comes with and around drug use. This is the greater good with reason. We seem to agree here.

So then the ends justify the means? As long as good effects outweigh the bad effects the action is morally acceptable.

This is half correct. It’s not about simply good outweighing the bad, but rather the best possible alternative. For instance, we couldn’t simply steal something valued at $10 from someone but then donate $100 to charity and say that therefore the equation equals a greater benefit. Rather, the best possible alternative must always be chosen. Now we are getting to how we determine this measure as I explain below…

How do you even judge that when one is deciding between two choices? We can’t know the effects in advance.

There is a reason why morality develops and changes very slowly. We can only develop the best morality for our communities at a given time based on known information (evidence). Things are generally moral unless we have logical reasoning to realize why they shouldn’t be. We do not go debate every possible action until we have reason to. Just as we don’t debate about making something legal that has been developed. It is automatically assumed so until we have evidence otherwise to overturn it by showing that it hinders the best overall happiness.

 

[sharptiger999]

If morality is necessary for the survival, development and success of a civilisation it must have an objective basis and is not simply the result of human decisions.

Morality is a part of speech, not a physical entity. The fact that humans were able to test different ways of life and see what worked has no relation to there having to be objective morality.

There is objective morality in the universe with regard to personal relationships and harmony in society.

How do you know this?

Moral laws are rules we have discovered not created.

How do you know? Morality isn’t even an entity that exists, it’s just a word that describes our way of set rules in life.

So morality is not relative in every respect.

I agreed with your statement *we should always try to do what we believe is right - after serious reflection and consultation. *
Which seems to be relative. Reflection and consultation is evidence and discussing with others what is right and what we should act on.

 

[danserr]

amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1313460710&sr=8-1

ST, I’ll try to get to your post tomorrow, but you really need to drop this schtick of pulling out troubling passages in the Bible in some childish game of gotcha. I’ve already shown you why this provides no reason against the Christian God as the basis of objective morality. If you need something further, I highly recommend Paul Copan’s recent book on God in the Old Testament. He consider the passages in context, including the language of the passage, Semitic fondness of hyperbole and metaphor, and a host of other factors that show a serious analysis of the Old Testament rather than just running though it for hard to understand passages and saying “ahha! explain that you silly Christian!”

 

[sharptiger999]

While you all are trying to figure out what morality is, I shall point out that good morality is based on two objective truths and bad morality rejects the same two objective truths.

The first objective truth is that there is a transcendent, pure spirit Creator Who has a personal relationship with His human creatures. He is God. The fact is that the whining denying His existence is powerless.

The second objective truth is that the human person is worthy of profound respect. The fact that only a handful of people know how to deal with this objective truth over the course of centuries does not eliminate the existence of human nature.

Thank you for your attention to this brief message.

*The first objective truth is that there is a transcendent, pure spirit Creator that has a broomenal relationship with it’s human creatures. It is a broom named Broomy. The fact is that the whining denying it’s existence is powerless.

The second objective truth is that dogs are worthy of profound respect. The fact that only a handful of people know how to deal with this objective truth over the course of centuries does not eliminate the existence of human nature.*

Thanks for the message granny but I think we’ll get back to the debate now lol.

 

[razredge]

Well obviously for atheists and those with a naturalistic worldview, morality is subjective. (though few seem to actually practice what they preach)

Objective moral values are dependent on a transcendant anchor (ie. God).

And the morality of passages in the Old Testament is only an issue if you hold to biblical inerrancy.

 

[sharptiger999]

Objective moral values are dependent on a transcendant anchor (ie. God).

So what God set’s as morals you follow without question…

(Although really, you do still rationalize them). Most of them make sense and if they are still present today you say see that’s God, but you must rationalize against the bad one’s and say I misinterpret them or that was another time period, even though if that were the case then morals would not be objective since they changed over time.

I have already shown why reason is the only thing that has allowed the world to progress. I guess we’re coming to an end with not much else to say on this topic…

 

[grannymh]

The first objective truth is that there is a transcendent, pure spirit Creator that has a broomenal relationship with it’s human creatures. It is a broom named Broomy. The fact is that the whining denying it’s existence is powerless.

The second objective truth is that dogs are worthy of profound respect. The fact that only a handful of people know how to deal with this objective truth over the course of centuries does not eliminate the existence of human nature.

Thanks for the message granny but I think we’ll get back to the debate now lol.

Thank you for your sense of humor.
My apology for interrupting your debate. You may continue since I have already made my point.

 

[razredge]

So what God set’s as morals you follow without question…

Yes, the issue is we do not know with 100% accuracy what God set’s as morals.

(Although really, you do still rationalize them). Most of them make sense and if they are still present today you say see that’s God, but you must rationalize against the bad one’s and say I misinterpret them or that was another time period, even though if that were the case then morals would not be objective since they changed over time.

So basically - what people think are God given morals can change over time - of course, but from the fact that ‘people’s morals which they perceive to be objective, can change over time’ it does not then follow that ‘there are no objective moral values’.

At the most it suggests that people are simply unable to properly ascertain these objective moral values, not that they don’t exist.

 

[sharptiger999]

Yes, the issue is we do not know with 100% accuracy what God set’s as morals.

Then why can you make the claim that you somehow know there is objective morality? I’ve made pretty good arguments showing how and why they are only subjective.

So basically - what people think are God given morals can change over time - of course, but from the fact that ‘people’s morals which they perceive to be objective, can change over time’ it does not then follow that ‘there are no objective moral values’.

At the most it suggests that people are simply unable to properly ascertain these objective moral values, not that they don’t exist.

I think it suggests that until we have reason to believe that there are objective morals, then we shouldn’t believe it. However, even the thought of an objective moral sounds preposterous, because the definition means it is what it is without question or reason. The only things I can thing of that fit that definition are the laws of the universe. They are what they are and whether we like it or not it is the way it is.

 

[tonyrey]

If morality is necessary for the survival, development and success of a civilisation it must have an objective basis and is not simply the result of human decisions.

A part of speech is merely a word! If you believe morality is no more than that it is insignificant…

The fact that humans were able to test different ways of life and see what worked has no relation to there having to be objective morality.

It does if one way works better than others!

There is objective morality in the universe with regard to personal relationships and harmony in society.

How do you know this?

From the fact that “When moral rules did not exist there was in essence no morality, and civilizations didn’t live long like that”.

Moral laws are rules we have discovered not created.

How do you know? Morality isn’t even an entity that exists, it’s just a word that describes our way of set rules in life.

Words are symbols which refer to reality. Science also consists of words…

So morality is not relative in every respect.

I agreed with your statement *we should always try to do what we believe is right - after serious reflection and consultation. *
Which seems to be relative. Reflection and consultation is evidence and discussing with others what is right and what we should act on.

They are the prelude to the decision and action. The principle remains absolute…

 

[danserr]

Because it hasn’t been proven so to be the case, and likewise the opposite view has very substantial evidence as to why things are the way they are and what works and what doesn’t work. For objective morality to exist, it must mean that we do not question the notion with reason. For instance and sake of argument, if the bible said to kill the weakest among us every 7 days to cleanse the Earth of evil, would some really do that? The answer is yes, as the extreme believers in any religion use it as an argument to do some of the things they do (of which we consider horrid because we use reason).

Well, I think i’ve shown there are substantial problems with your views especially
1). You do admit that if the well-being of a majority involved torturing and killing a small minority, then we would be obligated to do it.
2). Your principles “what’s good for society is good for me” does not provide a basis for heroic self-sacrifice. I don’t think many of your arguments were very good, but in these 2 instances I think your system especially falls apart. And if it falls apart here, then it doesn’t work as a system.

But I want to focus on this bit at the end rather then repeat myself. You keep saying that you have given good reasons morality is not objective. This is not true. You have not even given one. I have already told you why your nonsensical appeal to the OT atrocities is misguided.

• Second, it is simply untrue that an objective morality would mean we don’t question things with reason. We would still use reason to determine what that morality is, as indeed ,Christians have always done. The current pope, in one famous address has said “faith must be purified by reason.”

 

[smichhertz]

Why is it evil? You can answer why because there is reason. With underlying objectiveness, there is no reason, rather it just is the way it is without reason.

I can say it is evil because it violates an objective moral law. How can you say it is evil if morality is subjective? You can’t as long as they believe what they are doing is right, it is right.

Except for murder, slavery has got to be one of the most immoral things a person can do. Yet slavery is rampant throughout the Bible in both the Old and New Testaments. …

With due respect, how is this relevant? We’re discussing whether morality is objective or subjective in nature. We can’t even begin to discuss Scripture without a basic agreement on morality. And you didn’t even address my point, so I’ll restate it: “Doesn’t matter how many people think it is permissible, it is still evil. Personal opinions do not sway the objective moral value of any given act.” Do you agree that personal opinions can’t make something bad good or visa versa?

This is half correct. It’s not about simply good outweighing the bad, but rather the best possible alternative. For instance, we couldn’t simply steal something valued at $10 from someone but then donate $100 to charity and say that therefore the equation equals a greater benefit. Rather, the best possible alternative must always be chosen. Now we are getting to how we determine this measure as I explain below…

There is a reason why morality develops and changes very slowly. We can only develop the best morality for our communities at a given time based on known information (evidence). Things are generally moral unless we have logical reasoning to realize why they shouldn’t be. We do not go debate every possible action until we have reason to. Just as we don’t debate about making something legal that has been developed. It is automatically assumed so until we have evidence otherwise to overturn it by showing that it hinders the best overall happiness.

How does our knowledge or lack of knowledge have anything to do with the objectiveness of morality? If something is evil, then it is evil, and ignorance doesn’t change that. Take an insane person for instance. They might not understand that murder is evil, but if they commit murder, then they are still doing evil. Granted, they may be removed from the responsibility of the act, but the act in and of itself is still evil.

 

[exnihilo]

And please don’t bring up the Old testament without responding to my previous post where I responded to that. All the OT atrocities prove is that the Israelites may have been wrong in attributing such commands to God.

I think we need to be careful not to jettison the OT in order to make Christianity more palatable. The OT contains among other things the story of how God chose and disciplined a people in order to bring for the Messiah through those people. God is wholly righteous and man struggles with his just judgements. I do think it is possible to mix up command with history. But we must be very careful otherwise we undermine Christianity itself.

Through evolution, we advance by being helpful and nice. “I scratch your back and you will scratch mine.” (Watch a documentary “nice guys finish first”). If we are nice and helpful, even though we do not expect immediate payback, it is likely that others too will be there for us if we need it. Imagine Israel for instance. Imagine the support they would get if they ever needed it in times of war.

Those who would advance the most would be those who seem to help others but truly do things for themselves. We tend to call those folks sociopaths since evil is not a diagnosis in modern psychiatry. Many successful businessmen and politicians are probably sociopaths (evil).

Frankly, I’m a bit disappointed that so often atheists have to “prove” or “explain” why they would sacrifice, but theists are so seldom asked to explain why they’d sacrifice. Whether you believe in a god or not, if you are a rational person, you must come to grips with your own mortality. We’re all going to die. This life is going to end. We all strive to make the most of what we have. But there are some who realize, completely and fully, that they are really only one, that while their own personal existence will end, humanity will continue. For some, benefiting humanity is more important than living out their remaining days without doing that benefit.

The atheist who gives his life knowing full well what will happen is a heck of a lot braver than the theist who believes he’s about to be rewarded with eternal bliss.

Why *should *I care about humanity? I certainly could. But what imperative is there to do so? There is no such command absent true objective morality. Your caring for humanity would just be your preference. If it agreed with mine I might prefer it. But I’d have no grounds to declare it superior to the idea of not benefiting humanity. And if someone said benefiting humanity is riding it of the idea of empathy, which is just a holdover from religion, I’d have no grounds to condemn that belief other than to say I dont prefer it.

Regarding giving your life as an atheist by your reasoning you have then made the most brave person the one who gives up his life believing in a God but also believing that God is going to send them to Hell for eternal torment. So the theists still win!

Examples of people that engage in extraordinarily cruel crimes is a frequent example in discussions about morality. When ever I see these examples I wonder if parts of the discussion have crossed into the boundaries of psychiatry because some of the example behaviours are what one might expect from a sociopath (or to use a more modern phrase such people have anti-social personality disorder). People normally have a capacity for emotional empathy and can be influenced by the emotional state of others. Sociopaths have a diminished capacity for emotional empathy. A person can develop into a sociopath because of biological or psychological reasons…

I use the word sociopath myself sometimes but my firm belief is that psychiatry replaces religion for the denier. Psychiatry borrows ideas of normalcy from religion. But they really have no basis in the discipline itself. A crazy person is just someone who things differently. To say that that thinking is good or bad requires objective morals. To even say it is beneficial or not beneficial first requires defining the objective. But again the objective is always assumed to have snuck in the idea of morality or imperatives on how one should live.

 

[marine13]

To sharptiger999:

Based on what I have read in your comments, to remain consistant, you should agree with the following:

-If morality is subjective then no single culture or society is more “right” than any other.
-If morality is subjective then we have no basis to judge another’s actions outside our society/community.

Following this line of reasoning an Islamic fundamentalist/extremist is justified in conducting a suicide bombing targeted at civilians in our society because he feels threatened by us. If morality is subjective then we have no basis to condem that kind of action outside our society because that is an accepted practice in that society. To them that action promotes the “greater good” but to us it does not. Who is right?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I use the word sociopath myself sometimes but my firm belief is that psychiatry replaces religion for the denier.

Psychiatry is branch of medicine that deals with mental disorders. The related field psychology is a science of human behaviour. I can’t say that I understand how medicine and psychology are said to replace religion. But that’s a discussion for another day and another thread.

A crazy person is just someone who things differently.

“Crazy” is an informal term so there’s not a criteria for applying it to some one. The context in which I was speaking was medical and the criteria for various mental disorders can be found in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.