Objective morality and why Subjectivism cannot work in ethics

[mymamamary]

He’s a prophet and very holy man to many millions of other devout and reverential believers, not God

You say they’re wrong of course Jesus is God.

They say you’re wrong of course Jesus was a prophet but there is only one God, not One God with three persons. .

I say meh… who’s running the soup kitchen this weekend and who needs warm clothing bought for them. Who’s coming to the farm this weekend to pick their own food - have we enough meat killed for the steak supper for everyone? And call xxx’s parole officer and tell her he starts Monday, we’ve got everything covered including health care and housing but if he screws me around, he’ll wish he was back in prison, and if she ever comes in my office again packing heat I’ll shot her myself

Yet your objective laws are not the objective laws of others who also believe in God Funny that.

Sarah x

JESUS is no prophet. HE was GOD. HE said that about HIMSELF. HE couldn’t have been just some holy man. HE was GOD as HE said HE was. I know my objective laws aren’t objective to others, but almost, if not completley universal truths that are seen as wrong, regardless of the punishment, or lack thereof, inflicted upon the person.

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, hmmmm. I think that as animals we are naturally imbued with both.

We agree.

I think in spirit, these things are absent.

We agree.

So is there in your conception, which I understand is “deityless” of reality a body/spirit configuration for people? Or do you think all arises from materiality? (Not sure there is such a word, but you know what I mean!)

I think there is. I think there is an aspect to us, where we can ‘rise above’ things. I don’t know if that’s what you would call a ‘spiritual’ configuration, but I agree, I think we’re capable of doing so. I think this happens when we’ve reached a certain level of intellectual and emotional maturity though and I think it’s a deliberate decision to do so.

When I was 19, I’d have hunted down and skinned alive the guys who stole my car. I’d have been so angry they think they can walk right up and steal something I worked so hard for and am using to improve my life through my business at the time; it was essential for me, not something I cruised around town in!!!

Now, I want to talk to them, find out about them, try and help them overcome whatever it is that drives them to crime, challenge their perceptions of themselves and the society the live in, and help them better their lives, so no one else is a victim of any crime committed by them, because they’re not criminals any more.

I also appreciate the numinous and have been in touch with it, regularly, that is, something, somewhere, vague, non-descript… a place of calm and beauty and oneness with the whole of nature and life.

But I’m not able to see that as outside of the human experience, and the human experience is firmly rooted, for me, in reality. Not in the supernatural.

I hope that made some kind of sense because reading back I’m not sure I’m saying what I want to say, but tell me if it makes any sense to you and I’ll try again

To me, true morality is a spiritual knowledge, and action needs to be based on that. Which is what I think you are expressing below, in that the spirit has to rule in action. Otherwise, justice just becomes cruel vengeance for the sake of vengeance. Or following some rule and have an excuse to let our raging animal out and stone someone to death while pretending we serve God.

You know, I think you’re right. I think you said that very well. I struggle with the ‘spiritual’ though. To me, it’s a better, deeper understanding of our human condition.

I’m sorry to keep bringing it back to real life for examples, but it’s the way I make sense of things.

Years ago, I’d want the guys who stole my car locked up, and probably for a disproportionate amount of time to their crime. I was young, and didn’t know then what I know now about humanity.

On a more ‘spiritual’ level, (for want of a better word) now I want then punished, sure, but I also want to talk with them, learn from them, see what I can do to help them so they can get out of a life of crime and be a productive member of society.

It’s why I’m doing more and more work with convicts. Something I never planned to do by the way but things have been evolving that way for some time.

You might call that some kind of merciful, spiritual thing … I just think if I can give a convict back some dignity through work, through being able to hold his head up high in society and take some pride in himself, if I can give him back some of his ambition, and show him a world where his goals in life can be achieved … there’s one less criminal in the world for me and my family to worry about

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

JESUS is no prophet. HE was GOD. HE said that about HIMSELF. HE couldn’t have been just some holy man. HE was GOD as HE said HE was.

Not sure why you’re telling me. I know the Christian claims.

You need to be having this conversation with your billion or so Muslim and Jewish brothers and sisters.

I know my objective laws aren’t objective to others.

Right!

Sarah x

 

[Brendan]

What’s your starting point?

Starting points are immaterial. When a physicist notes that a star is 150 light years from year, he is not making a claim as to the star’s starting point.

If your starting point is I value my autonomy and freedom and since I’m a member of a specific species, it’s fair to assume others feel like me and value the same thing, you’ll see plenty wrong with the subjugation of women, and slavery.

But those are all subjective judgements, based on your own personal opinions. Are you then to claim that morality is based on each person’ opinions, and that none are more correct that another. To make such a claim, there has to be a perfect moral standard to compare, in much the same way that an astronomer will state that Mercury is closer to the Sun than the Earth is. Without a common reference point, no moral system can be said to be better than another. Genocide cannot be said to be better or worse than charity without that abosute moral ‘center’ for comparison.

But as you seem to claim, their is no moral center, so therefore no objective moral judgements can be made. You might claim that slavery is wrong, but a slave trader in Sudan might claim otherwise.

I don’t understand all this metaphysical stuff. It’s way above my head. It’s behavioral. We are a gregarious co-operative empathetic species. As for a genetic basis, we know when you look at me lift my right hand above my head, the same sparks fire off in your head, looking at me, as though you were also lifting your hand above your head. It’s why we are compelled to help another human that is hurt.

Compelled to help, how so? How is a Klansman ‘compelled’ to help a black man, or a Rwandan Hutu to help a Tutsi? Are you claiming that there is a genetic compulsion. Do you have medical evidence of this?

We recognize it, and in most cases, have to react. Interestingly, it tends to be people with extreme views, or fanaticism or fundamentalism, that are able to over-ride this empathetic response, usually for religious reasons.

You claim that such circumstances are ‘extreme’ but I would state that they are common place, both in the world today and in our historical past. You deny metaphysics, but are offering no medical evidence of this compulsion to help. What gene causes that compulsion? If there is nothing beyond a physical cause, then what EXACTLY is the physical cause of this compulsion?

It’s why some people can watch their loved one die, needlessly, for the want of an available blood transfusion. They’re able to block out that human empathy for religious reasons, and faith in their objective truths

Or those who block out human empathy towards humans that science says are species homo sapiens, but are killed in the womb?

We learn and develop and improve and implement what we know for the betterment of all. Look at the improvements in medicine and science. Look at the improvements in the care of the elderly and the vulnerable. Yes, I know there are still abuses, but for the most part, someone from the 17th century wouldn’t recognize the care we give today.

Yes, there are material changes

There is only ever human opinion. What you might call objective is nothing more than what you think is objective.

Are you claiming that as your opinion then? Because you are phrasing that statement as some sort of objective truth.

If that happens to conform to what is in the best interests of society as a whole, all well and good.

Or, that your opinion is that what is good for society as a whole is a moral good. Of course, someone else might have a different opinion and thus neither one of you have an objective truth. Slavery is therefore no more moral or immoral than charity. It is only a matter of human opinion that one is better than the other. Correct? After all, there is only humabn

But if it’s your moral objectivity that your child should be allowed to die rather than receive a blood transfusion, we as a society have every right to intervene and prevent you from allowing the death of your child, whatever your moral objectivity!

Actually, it would not be.MY moral objectivity.

Rather, it would seem that Moral Relavtists are the cause of substantially more ills of the world, for at least the Objectivists recognize that there really are ills in the world, instead of just personal opinions.

There’s no end state. See above

. Yes, you have already mentioned that there can be no moral progress, as there is nothing to progress towards. There is only change and nothing in that change can be good or bad, only opinion.

See my post where I said there is no going back, where we can’t unlearn what we’ve learned. It wouldn’t happen. It wouldn’t be allowed to happen.

So Your opinon states that the change 1910 Germany to 1940’s Germany was a step forward? Nothing can go backward? It cannot happen. But I suppose if one beleives that the view of any change is strictly that of opinion, that does make sense.

 

[mymamamary]

Not sure why you’re telling me. I know the Christian claims.

You need to be having this conversation with your billion or so Muslim and Jewish brothers and sisters.



Right!
Sarah x

You left the other half of my quote out…

 

[Brendan]

He’s a prophet and very holy man to many millions of other devout and reverential believers, not God

Or as CS Lewis pointed out, a Holy Man is the one thing Jesus could not be,

After all, He Himself said that He was God.

So he is either a Liar, Insane or God.

None of the above meet the common definition of a ‘Holy Man’

 

[atheistgirl]

Starting points are immaterial.

Not to me.

Genocide cannot be said to be better or worse than charity without that absolute moral ‘center’ for comparison.

It can, of course, but if you can’t see why charity is better than genocide, even on a secular level, well, I don’t know what to say to that really.

You might claim that slavery is wrong,

I do.

but a slave trader in Sudan might claim otherwise.

Many of the characters in the Bible wouldn’t agree with me either

Compelled to help, how so? How is a Klansman ‘compelled’ to help a black man, or a Rwandan Hutu to help a Tutsi? Are you claiming that there is a genetic compulsion. Do you have medical evidence of this?

I’m not sure you’re reading what I’m saying. Did you read where I noted it tends to be fanatics and fundamentalists that can over rider this urge within us to help our fellow man, an urge than comes from our sense of empathy.

I also said it’s behavioral. But there may be a genetic component. We know if you see me hold my hand up, the parts of my brain that light up when doing this action, also light up in yours, even though you’re not doing this action. I’m sure you can look that up for yourself.

Or those who block out human empathy toward humans that science says are species homo sapiens, but are killed in the womb?

I’ve already said in a reply to you, I think abortion is morally wrong because it is killing another human being. Other women, and the law, doesn’t. I’m quite sure now you’re not reading my posts

Are you claiming that as your opinion then?

Yep. That’s my opinion. Just like those who speak for God are really doing nothing else but expressing their opinion on what they think is God’s objective morality.

Why didn’t all these men of God speak up against slavery from the very beginning? Why did women have to fight men of God, for hundreds of years, to get recognition of basic rights? If these men really knew it was objectively wrong to own slaves, own women, deny human rights?

Or, that your opinion is that what is good for society as a whole is a moral good. Of course, someone else might have a different opinion and thus neither one of you have an objective truth.

Now you’re getting it

Psychopaths, cannibals, sociopaths, the Klan, and Jehovah Witnesses have a very different opinion to me of what makes a good society.

But we don’t let these people set the rules, or create a theocracy on earth, as the Jehovah’s Witnesses would like to because we recognize none of that is in the best interest of society.

Slavery is therefore no more moral or immoral than charity.

Of course it is, and I’m sure even from a secular point of view for the best interests of all in society, you can see why

Yes, you have already mentioned that there can be no moral progress, as there is nothing to progress toward. There is only change and nothing in that change can be good or bad, only opinion.

I don’t understand your mindset. Of course it’s better for women they get an education. Of course it’s better for children to be born, than to be aborted. Of course it’s better for people to be free, than enslaved.

If you can’t see how society as a whole benefits from all of the above, well …

So Your opinion states that the change 1910 Germany to 1940’s Germany was a step forward? Nothing can go backward? It cannot happen. But I suppose if one believes that the view of any change is strictly that of opinion, that does make sense.

Use the same argument you would for a bad Pope, or a bad Bishop

We progress and move forward. As a species we are nothing so ignorant as we were even just 200 years ago. Fields of human endeavor in science, sociology, criminology, medicine are all pursued for the betterment of mankind. The fact some lunatic can take charge somewhere (like a bad Pope) and do really bad things (like a bad Pope) is no reflection that mankind is going backward, or unlearning.

What happened after the WWII? Did we sit back and do nothing? Or did we learn the hard lessons as a species to try and prevent such a thing ever happening again? Did we update our understanding of international law and what constitutes genocide and war crimes, or did we shrug our shoulders and hope for the best?

Naw, we learned lessons, took actions, made treaties, formed international agreements.

Course, there’s still war with us, and always will be. It’s the nature of the beast.

But the objective God given morality of wartime behavior in 4000BC is no longer the objective morality of wartime behavior now.

Thank goodness.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Or as CS Lewis pointed out, a Holy Man is the one thing Jesus could not be,

After all, He Himself said that He was God.

So he is either a Liar, Insane or God.

None of the above meet the common definition of a ‘Holy Man’

Like I said, you need to be having that conversation with your billion or so Muslim and Jewish brothers and sisters, not me

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

Sarah, You are looking at an objective moral code, subjectively, the code itself is objective…

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah, You are looking at an objective moral code, subjectively, the code itself is objective…

Nope.

It comes from within, not without. There’s nothing objective in the supernatural sense about it. Just saying it’s objective doesn’t make it objective

This ‘code’ comes from us, not some supernatural source. You’ve done nothing but declare it’s supernatural and objective. You’ve not made any case, or proved your point.

If I don’t get back to this thread for a while, I’m not ignoring the points made to me, I’m in the middle of a wild election party - we’ve started partying early

Sarah x

 

[VeritasLuxMea]

Murder, Abortion, Sex before Marriage, Adultery, Basically, anything that violates the 10 Commandements or teachings of the Church is objectively wrong

How do we verify that these particular things are “objective”?

Objective right is basically, Love. I don’t mean the touchy feely warm fuzzy feelings love, I mean the Crucified kind of love.

That is objective morality.

I don’t know where this fear of “warm and fuzzy” comes from among Catholics. I just don’t get it.

 

[mymamamary]

Nope.

It comes from within, not without. There’s nothing objective in the supernatural sense about it. Just saying it’s objective doesn’t make it objective

This ‘code’ comes from us, not some supernatural source. You’ve done nothing but declare it’s supernatural and objective. You’ve not made any case, or proved your point.

If I don’t get back to this thread for a while, I’m not ignoring the points made to me, I’m in the middle of a wild election party - we’ve started partying early

Sarah x

It is supernatural. I proved my point back in my debate with you on the existence of GOD. That is not a road that you want to travel down again, at least not on this thread. Objective moral, comes from the ONLY true GOD, JESUS CHRIST, so yes, it does come from without. I keep using the “Little voice” inside your head, have you done searching on that yet?

 

[atheistgirl]

It is supernatural.

You say it is, I say it isn’t.

I proved my point back in my debate with you on the existence of GOD. That is not a road that you want to travel down again, at least not on this thread.

Well, it didn’t leave much impression on me, I don’t even remember ever discussing this with you. Link to the thread please so I can review what was said.

Whatever it might have been, you sure didn’t prove the existence of God

I keep using the “Little voice” inside your head, have you done searching on that yet?

Uh Uh, no you don’t - no one lives in my head rent free

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

You say it is, I say it isn’t.

Well, it didn’t leave much impression on me, I don’t even remember ever discussing this with you. Link to the thread please so I can review what was said.

Whatever it might have been, you sure didn’t prove the existence of God

Uh Uh, no you don’t - no one lives in my head rent free

Sarah x

It was on whether or not evil is a supernatural force, I recall winning as I always do. Sorry to sound cocky, but debating, especially philosophically is my forte. I did win as you did not provide direct refutation on the points I raised.

Now back to the original discussion on the little voice inside of our heads and objective morality

told you it exists…

labnews.co.uk/news/scientists-find-that-little-voice-in-your-head/

thoughtmedicine.com/2010/10/the-little-voice-in-your-head-friend-or-foe/

Catholic teaching has always taught that the Conscience, on which is written the natural moral law which is an objective code btw, no matter how subjectively you want to approach it, stems from our intellect, so studies are only continuing to show the logicity of the Church’s teachings…

 

[atheistgirl]

It was on whether or not evil is a supernatural force, I recall winning as I always do. Sorry to sound cocky, but debating, especially philosophically is my forte. I did win as you did not provide direct refutation on the points I raised.

Link please so I can review what was said.

As to the rest … well … just lol …

If you proved the existence of God, I’d believe in God.

Clearly, your cockiness is misplaced and sense of debating forte is somewhat overinflated

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Now back to the original discussion on the little voice inside of our heads and objective morality

told you it exists…

labnews.co.uk/news/scientists-find-that-little-voice-in-your-head/

Which just proves it’s not supernatural, but entirely based in natural physical processes

From your article:

Brain activity in the fronto-median cortex was monitored using fMRI brain-imaging while volunteers made up their minds when to push a button. Prior to the test participants were asked to change their minds occasionally by deciding against pushing the button at the last minute. A small area in the anterior fronto-median cortex of the brain was active only when people inhibited an action they had previously prepared. When people prepared and actually went through with the action, this area was considerably less active.

The researchers were able to predict to some degree how often individual volunteers inhibited actions from the brain activity in the fronto-median cortex.

Thanks for making my point so utterly and completely for me

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

Link please so I can review what was said.

As to the rest … well … just lol …

If you proved the existence of God, I’d believe in God.

Clearly, your cockiness is misplaced and sense of debating forte is somewhat overinflated

Sarah x

Well, I made a stronger arguement for HIS case then the opposition , now convincing you won’t work, it cant. Even if I debated dawkins and won, I doubt he would convert. Conversion’s do not happen because of winning in a debate (Highly, Highly unlikely) so even If I made a case, it won’t guarentee Your conversion (unfortunatley). So, that means more Prayer for you!!

I will link the thread, let me find it…

 

[mymamamary]

Which just proves it’s not supernatural, but entirely based in natural physical processes

From your article:

Thanks for making my point so utterly and completely for me

Sarah x

The Church has always taught that conscience stems from the intellect, I was making my point…

 

[mymamamary]

Here it is…

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=712250

But, I was saying that the Church teaches that Conscience stems from the intellect, so scientists discovering this is not new to the Church btw. Also, St. Augustine was arguing from an almost Creationistic evolutionistic standpoint on Genesis well before darwin wrote the theory. Catholics are finding all the info first, then everyone seems to twist it…

 

[Julia_Mae]

So Our LORD is not GOD?

You left HIM out of the equation, its a TRINITY. Our GOD is the MOST HOLY TRINITY. The real GOD is transcendent yes, but we know who HE is, because HE has revealed HIMSELF to us, in the PERSON of JESUS CHRIST.

Ummm, well, you left out everyone else so I was just filling in.

Srsly, dude, lighten up, okay? We’re all on the same side, you know. We all know about the Trinity, we all know about Jesus.