Objective morality and why Subjectivism cannot work in ethics

[sophion]

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

abortion and sex before marriage arent in the 10 commandments. the bible has no idea what abortion is. you would say its murder. but thats debatable.

and murder? how is that objective morality when in the bible itself murder is negotiable. in fact babies were ordered murdered by your so called “prophets”.

 

[mymamamary]

It doesn’t have objective moral values, it has specific definition that’s relative and subjective in terms of what the culture believes.

Different cultures define “wrongness” under the law differently. In the past, a Pope killed a bunch of Franciscans because they disagreed with him about Jesus owning property. I think if the Pope did this to SSPX “Bishops” today, we’d think he was wrong.

What the culture believes is right or wrong doesn’t matter here. Germans who voted for hitler Im sure thought that they were right, while in reality, they were severely wrong.

Again, you are discussing human laws and cultures. Not the objective moral law I keep harping on about.

It is not my problem if humans want to take a subjective stance on an objective moral code, what matters, is that the actual objective moral code exists.

 

[mymamamary]

abortion and sex before marriage arent in the 10 commandments. the bible has no idea what abortion is. you would say its murder. but thats debatable.

and murder? how is that objective morality when in the bible itself murder is negotiable. in fact babies were ordered murdered by your so called “prophets”.

Again, a subjective stance to an objective code.

Also, can I please see the parts where we were ordered to kill babies??

 

[mymamamary]

abortion and sex before marriage arent in the 10 commandments. the bible has no idea what abortion is. you would say its murder. but thats debatable.

and murder? how is that objective morality when in the bible itself murder is negotiable. in fact babies were ordered murdered by your so called “prophets”.

That is a sola scriptura method of interpreting Scripture. Abortion is undebatably the murder of a defenseless human being.

Do not confuse the LORD with another human being. What I mean is, you forget that GOD is the author of human life. HE can exact some pretty “severe” parenting methods, becuase HE is a parent. HE made us, HE can take us. We do not have Authority over human life because we didn’t make it. Its sort of like copyright law on a much more transcendent scale

 

[sophion]

Also, can I please see the parts where we were ordered to kill babies??

I did not say you were ordered as well. however…

*1 Samuel 15

2 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and **.

they were murdered for what happened over a hundred years before. unbelievable!
that version of god cant be true.

 

[atheistgirl]

But now you have to ask yourself, WHY are those things always immoral. By what authority?

I said I think they were always immoral. The good God fearing Christians who happily drove my ancestors off their lands so they could steal it and watched dispassionately as they starved to death and died from sickness and disease saw nothing wrong with it at all

Was it human agreement that such activities are immoral ( because, if so, you have rendered your argument invalid by your own points)

Some great women and men of faith and no faith objected vehemently at the time. It took some time for the majority of the populous to agree with their objections. Slavery was objected to by lone voices from the beginning but it still took hundreds of years for agreement to be reached.

These lone voices had a more highly developed sense of human empathy, sympathy and bonding. If it’s right for one person to have autonomy and control over their fate, it’s right for all. Even though it might be more convenient to steal others lands, rather than work and earn to buy and develop your own. Even though it might be more convenient to just kill murderers (I object to the death penalty as nothing but State sanctioned murder but millions don’t hold my views and the Church does not condemn the death penalty ) rather than to try and understand their motives and rehabilitate them in order to better society.

But it was by human agreement that slavery was abolished, that a pathetic form of ‘‘justice’’ for Indigenous Peoples was arrived at in many countries in the world, that we now assess criminals for mental health issues, that women can vote, that women can have an education.

If it was not human agreement how are those acts are forever immoral? Where is the extra human moral authority coming from?

There’s no extra human moral authority. All our moral authority is human. We changed the laws based on better understanding of science, injustice, rights, what a healthy, productive, co-operative society looks like and human empathy.

It’s a one way street. There’s no going back. We can’t unlearn what we’ve learned. No one today, by force of law, can deny women a vote, or education, or discriminate against them at work.

Sadly, there are still pockets of people who think such things are morally fine, but can you really imagine any President of any country declaring women have to stay at home now and have children, women can no longer vote or get a formal education, that it’s fine to steal other peoples land so long as you don’t consider these people human, that cutting someones hands off is an appropriate punishment for theft (in any democracy! not a theocracy!) and sending someone who is mentally deficient to the electric chair is fine and dandy?

Of course not. But we did do these things.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

You are also wrong, it is because of my morality, which transcends the law, that protects me from you so to speak. It is because of my morality and the objectivenss that I don’t see you as an object, someone to degrade, enslave or mistreat. It is because of my morality that I see you as a Child of GOD and thus, respect You incredibly for it. It is because of my Love for GOD that I love You as well, as I love all human being. I even try to love those who hate me. Now that is a standard of morality that no earthly human law could even hope to approach…

That’s great. Seriously, I mean it, I’m not being snitty, so please don’t misunderstand me.

However, my fear is what happens to me when or if you (the vague plural you not you personally) lose this wonderful and very noble sense of morality?

I’d rather not be at the mercy of the whims of peoples morality.

I’d much rather be protected under the law.

Thanks all the same though.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

That’s great. Seriously, I mean it, I’m not being snitty, so please don’t misunderstand me.

However, my fear is what happens to me when or if you (the vague plural you not you personally) lose this wonderful and very noble sense of morality?

I’d rather not be at the mercy of the whims of peoples morality.

I’d much rather be protected under the law.

Thanks all the same though.

Sarah x

Again in your above post, you are thinking about subjective interpretation of an objective moral code. For obvious reasons, Morality does not come from man, and we can always observe, that when morality came from man, sadness always followed. GOD is the Author of morality, but as You do not believe in HIS existence, you cannot bring yourself to believe in an objective code. So the problem all stems from the fact that you dont’ believe in GOD, hence cannot believe in an objective moral code… which is another entirely different debate, one that I have had with you before…

 

[mymamamary]

That’s great. Seriously, I mean it, I’m not being snitty, so please don’t misunderstand me.

However, my fear is what happens to me when or if you (the vague plural you not you personally) lose this wonderful and very noble sense of morality?

I’d rather not be at the mercy of the whims of peoples morality.

I’d much rather be protected under the law.

Thanks all the same though.

Sarah x

If our Faith is true, why would those who practice faithfully lose this noble sense of morality? I sure don’t…

 

[mymamamary]

I did not say you were ordered as well. however…

*1 Samuel 15

2 Thus saith Jehovah of hosts, I have marked that which Amalek did to Israel, how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt.

3 Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant* and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***.

they were murdered for what happened over a hundred years before. unbelievable!
that version of god cant be true.

Protective Parenting, As the Jewish people were HIS handpicked people, its a miracle of divine Providence that the Jews have made it thus far, showing how much HE loves his people.

Again, GOD is the author of human life, and if so chose, can and will take it away, although HE doesn’t unless there really is a suffienct reason, in this case, perhaps there was, We cannot interpret the Divine Intellect of GOD…

 

[Brendan]

I’d rather not be at the mercy of the whims of peoples morality.

I’d much rather be protected under the law.

So could you explain the difference between ‘peoples morality’ and ‘under the law’

After all, since we are in a Democracy, all law is the people’s.

Do you define, then, morality, as what is permitted under the legal code of a country?

Or is there another source for moral truth. If so, what is that source, outside of ‘people’?

 

[mymamamary]

So could you explain the difference between ‘peoples morality’ and ‘under the law’

After all, since we are in a Democracy, all law is the people’s.

Do you define, then, morality, as what is permitted under the legal code of a country?

Or is there another source for moral truth. If so, what is that source, outside of ‘people’?

Eaxctly, so if the majority so chose, you could again, become a victim at the mercy of the whims of people. Don’t say it couldn’t happen. It happened in Nazi Germany, it happened in Atheistic Russia, Cambodia, China etc.

China is communistic, and atheistic as a result. They are commiting gendercide. So what about all those poor girls killed before they even see the light of day? They are at the mercy and whim of an atheistic government…

 

[sophion]

Protective Parenting, As the Jewish people were HIS handpicked people, its a miracle of divine Providence that the Jews have made it thus far, showing how much HE loves his people.

Again, GOD is the author of human life, and if so chose, can and will take it away, although HE doesn’t unless there really is a suffienct reason, in this case, perhaps there was, We cannot interpret the Divine Intellect of GOD…

see now you try to justify the murder of those infants.

fyi the reason was given there: “how he set himself against him in the way, when he came up out of Egypt”

and “protective parenting”? had those genocides really protected the jews? NO.

 

[atheistgirl]

For obvious reasons, Morality does not come from man, and we can always observe, that when morality came from man, sadness always followed.

I think it’s quite obvious morality does come from man.

GOD is the Author of morality,

Who’s God?

All people who believe in a God will declare their objective morality comes from their God

And since God doesn’t appear in Person to these people, they’re all subjectively interpreting what they think their God wants and what His objective morality is Which they then impose and enforce on others

Sarah x

 

[sophion]

Who’s God?

Exactly.

Will the real God please stand up!

and then i’ll take his ‘objective morality’.

lets hear it from the real god. not from mymamamary.

 

[atheistgirl]

So could you explain the difference between ‘peoples morality’ and ‘under the law’

After all, since we are in a Democracy, all law is the people’s.

Do you define, then, morality, as what is permitted under the legal code of a country?

Or is there another source for moral truth. If so, what is that source, outside of ‘people’?

There’s no source outside of people.

Even those claiming to know what God wants us to do and what’s right and wrong, objectively, are simply giving us their opinion, interpretation and understanding of what they think their God wants. From their human perspective. And occasionally that has been very conveniently matched to their cultural norms

Of course there’s a difference between what people think is morally fine, and what the law says, even in a democracy.

I don’t think it’s morally OK to abort a fetus. Many women do. The law says they can.

I think it’s just fine and dandy for me to drive well in excess of 100 on an empty highway at 3am in clear, good driving conditions, with the car, (and me!), in excellent condition, but the law says I can’t.

But I will live in a democracy, and curb my behavior, since I see how it pertains to the overall good of all within that society, every time, than live in any kind of theocracy that will impose it’s ‘‘objective’’ morality on me.

Sarah x

 

[Brendan]

I think it’s quite obvious morality does come from man.

Is it one particular man who decides what is moral. or is it a group effort.

Can it be changed by this man or men?

There’s no source outside of people

.

So whatever ‘people’ decide is moral, is in fact moral. Such as the slavery you mentioned and the denial of the vote to women.

That does not seem to ‘jive’ with your assessment that those things were always immoral.

We can all certainly agree that it was one legal to own slaves, but you seem to be telling me that it was once MORAL to own slaves, since morality comes from humans.
Did you change your view on the morality of slavery in the last few pages??

 

[McDale721]

 

[atheistgirl]

Did you change your view on the morality of slavery in the last few pages??

Did you read what I said?

I said ***I ***maintain it was always immoral to own another person.

I went on to say the Church, and Society, did not always support that view.

Were I alive at the time, no doubt I would be burned as a Witch, (we did that too remember, directed by many faithful men of God, doing God’s objective will ) proffering such anarchic and demonic ideas, that every individual has a right to autonomy and freedom.

Sarah x

 

[Brendan]

Did you read what I said?

I said ***I ***maintain it was always immoral to own another person.

I went on to say the Church, and Society, did not always support that view.

I know you said that. But if the morality of slavery came from men, and it was commonly held that slavery was a moral thing to do, what grounds to you have for maintain that it was always immorall

What human authority declared it to be always immoral? For morality to be of human origin, there would had to have been an authoritative human authority to judge the morality of an act, slavery or otherwise.

Who, exactly is that authority? It is a particular individual, a group, or some sort of common consensus?