Objective morality and why Subjectivism cannot work in ethics

[atheistgirl]

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

That’s what’s so troubling about a theocracy, and the idea of letting ‘‘leaders’’ speak on God’s behalf, claiming they know His objective will. They decide things like stealing peoples land, forced conversions, slavery, and denying women just about anything other than bread and water, and treating them as baby machines, is perfectly moral.

Can it be changed by this man or men?

Women like Lucy Stone were lone voices in the wilderness speaking out against slavery and the subjugation of women and fought for the rights of women and against slavery, until her voice, and the voices of those like her, could be ignored no more.

They were fighting society, government and good God fearing men of the Church. The very same men who would tell us what is objectively moral or not

But it took a mighty long time for women to get from there to where we are now, and for slavery to be abolished.

Sarah x

 

[Julia_Mae]

I’ll further clarify. If morals are not objective and only subjective, not from a transcendent authority but from each man and culture, then a dictatorship is inevitable and necessary.

For example one might argue that it is moral to feed the hungry. But from where do we derive this? If not from God then from our own conscience. But the conscience of a psychopath might say it is okay to kill the hungry. What makes you right and the psychopath wrong? Only power. You have numbers and strength on your side, so that is why the psychopath is wrong. If morality is subjective, then life is nothing but a power struggle. The one who has the most power wins. If sheer power decides what is right and wrong there is nothing wrong with doing anything you please to be at the top. Once you are at the top, simply declare that all your actions were good and enforce it. Since you have power, other have to accept your declarations. There is nothing objectively wrong with this because there is no objective right or wrong.

I completely agree with this. This is the state of the world without absolute moral values being applied.

And there are such things as absolute moral values. In fact, I’d venture to say that atheist girl and I could actually agree on what those are. I’d even venture to say that she agrees with Jesus Christ.

The problem arises when people substitute rules and laws for moral values. The moral values comprise things like charity, selflessness, truth, mercy. The natural morality of the human spirit eschews judgement, rigidity and vengeance.

Moral decisions in life need to be based on these moral absolutes and societies function well where there are shared values based on them.

Laws can and should spring from these moral absolutes. When people are unable to grasp the true moral absolutes and want to exert power and control over others to do things the same way they do, we have tyranny.

To view absolute morality in action, we can read the Gospels.

 

[Julia_Mae]

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

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

Sarah, I took your name in vain in post #102 above. I would like to hear a comment from you on the absolute morality presented there.

namaste-

 

[Brendan]

That’s what’s so troubling about a theocracy, and the idea of letting ‘‘leaders’’ speak on God’s behalf, claiming they know His objective will. They decide things like stealing peoples land, forced conversions, slavery, and denying women just about anything other than bread and water, and treating them as baby machines, is perfectly moral.

Women like Lucy Stone were lone voices in the wilderness speaking out against slavery and the subjugation of women and fought for the rights of women and against slavery, until her voice, and the voices of those like her, could be ignored no more.

They were fighting society, government and good God fearing men of the Church. The very same men who would tell us what is objectively moral or not

But it took a mighty long time for women to get from there to where we are now, and for slavery to be abolished.

Sarah x

But you still didn’t answer the question. You claim that morality is of human origin. Which humans?

You seem to reject the single human source of morality.

Do you claim that group consensus is the human source of morality?

 

[atheistgirl]

But you still didn’t answer the question. You claim that morality is of human origin. Which humans?

I thought I did. I pointed people claim to speak on behalf of God, and to know what He approves of and disapproves of, and I pointed out I am extremely wary of such people, since much of what they claimed to be moral in the past lined up nicely with their own cultural norms.

Which humans? All of us, learning and growing together. Learning from the lessons of the past. Learning from the sciences. Learning what makes a productive and co-operative society, in which we all benefit and can thrive.

For this reason, for example, we no longer lock the ‘‘mad’’ up in work houses or tour with them as freaks in circus shows. As a species, we’ve always to some degree or other, looked after the vulnerable and weak, but not always in a way that recognized or enhanced their dignity as human beings. We recognize that dignity through empathy.

You seem to reject the single human source of morality.
Do you claim that group consensus is the human source of morality?

The source of morality is within all of us and stems from the fact we are a gregarious empathetic co-operative species. How that manifests has often been problematic, occasionally obscured by mental illness and environmental and societal factors but as a species, we tend to get there in the end.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

Sarah, I took your name in vain in post #102 above.

I would like to hear a comment from you on the absolute morality presented there.

namaste-

I think we most likely can agree on what these are, and I like Jesus, at least what I’ve read of Him in the Gospels.

I wish He’d said more, and spoke more clearly, and less in parables, but that’s just me.

I’m not so sure the natural morality of the human spirit shuns vengeance or judgement. I think that’s part of who we are, and useful survival techniques at times. It’s what we do about it that matters and how we enact that judgementalism and vengeance. Is it proportionate and designed to improve, or disproportionate and designed to exact cruel revenge? The former is acceptable, the latter not.

Sarah x

 

[Brendan]

Which humans? All of us, learning and growing together. Learning from the lessons of the past. Learning from the sciences. Learning what makes a productive and co-operative society, in which we all benefit and can thrive.

But if the Romans of the First Century deducted that slavery and genocide ended in a productive society, then such things were moral, under your description.

After all, each society or era has it’s own definition of what mutual benefit and thriving are.

The Aztecs felt that human sacrifice was necessary for society to thrive, therefore it would seem to you that human sacrifice is a moral act, or can be a moral act.

The source of morality is within all of us and stems from the fact we are a gregarious empathetic co-operative species. How that manifests has often been problematic, occasionally obscured by mental illness and environmental and societal factors but as a species, we tend to get there in the end.

What do you mean ‘within all of us’ are you speaking of form of genetic coding (in which or of some sort of metaphysical concept.

If it is some sort of genetics, where is that found in the human genome. If it is not genetic or physical, do you hold to metaphysical reality?

As far as ‘the end’ is there a objective definition of the ideal society that there can be motion ( progress) towards. And where does this objective definition come from. Which website hosts that information?

If there is not a objective definition, one not subject to human opinion, then how can we know when we achieve this moral nirvana? How can progress be measured when the goal is not known. In the sciences, motion is always measured in regards to two points “The star is 102 light years from Earth” or “the plane is 50 miles from LA”

In each case, those are objective measurements.

In your moral world, it would seem that there is an objective moral end state that is independent from human opinion. that we can then measure progress against. Where can I find the specifics on that end state.

Or can this state change, for example, if the majority human consensus was that all Latinos were socially inferior and could\should be exterminated. Would it then be a moral act?

 

[atheistgirl]

But if the Romans of the First Century deducted that slavery and genocide ended in a productive society, then such things were moral, under your description.

After all, each society or era has it’s own definition of what mutual benefit and thriving are.

The Aztecs felt that human sacrifice was necessary for society to thrive, therefore it would seem to you that human sacrifice is a moral act, or can be a moral act.

What’s your starting point?

If it’s I want a form of cheap labor, and women as playthings, then you won’t see anything wrong with slavery. The Romans, and Greeks of old, along with many faith systems, didn’t.

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.

What do you mean ‘within all of us’ are you speaking of form of genetic coding (in which or of some sort of metaphysical concept.
If it is some sort of genetics, where is that found in the human genome. If it is not genetic or physical, do you hold to metaphysical reality?

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. 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.

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

As far as ‘the end’ is there a objective definition of the ideal society that there can be motion ( progress) toward. And where does this objective definition come from. Which website hosts that information?

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.

If there is not a objective definition, one not subject to human opinion, then how can we know when we achieve this moral nirvana?

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

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

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!

How can progress be measured when the goal is not known.

The goal is the constant improvement of the human condition. Something I think now most Churches also agree with. There’s no end point. We will never stop improving our lot, there will always work to be done.

Then the planet will implode and unless we’ve managed to get to another part of the universe, that’s it. Game over But what an interesting and challenging and tough and fun ride it will have been

In your moral world, it would seem that there is an objective moral end state that is independent from human opinion. that we can then measure progress against. Where can I find the specifics on that end state.

There’s no end state. See above.

Or can this state change, for example, if the majority human consensus was that all Latinos were socially inferior and could\should be exterminated. Would it then be a moral act?

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.

No now. Time was when it might not have been such a big deal though. Convert or die?

And, like I said, I have my ‘getaway’ stash just in case

Sarah x

 

[Jaaanosik]

OP, it seems you are young and learning.
Here is something to think about. Yes, there is an objective morality. Having said that, this morality is outside of you and the only way to reach it is through your subjectivity. You’ll never see it objectively enough.
This is true for every person.

Can you grasp how big the issue is?

 

[mymamamary]

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.

The real GOD is JESUS CHRIST

 

[Julia_Mae]

:
I’m not so sure the natural morality of the human spirit shuns vengeance or judgement.

Well, hmmmm. I think that as animals we are naturally imbued with both. I think in spirit, these things are absent. 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!)

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.

 

[mymamamary]

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

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

Well, As I have debated with you before, the only true GOD IS JESUS CHRIST.

HE has appeared to us, and not that, HE has given us a law on our hearts, which is objective.

 

[Julia_Mae]

The real GOD is JESUS CHRIST

The real God is the Holy Spirit.

The real God is the Father.

The real God is beyond human conception.

 

[mymamamary]

What’s your starting point?

If it’s I want a form of cheap labor, and women as playthings, then you won’t see anything wrong with slavery. The Romans, and Greeks of old, along with many faith systems, didn’t.

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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

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

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!

The goal is the constant improvement of the human condition. Something I think now most Churches also agree with. There’s no end point. We will never stop improving our lot, there will always work to be done.

Then the planet will implode and unless we’ve managed to get to another part of the universe, that’s it. Game over But what an interesting and challenging and tough and fun ride it will have been

There’s no end state. See above.

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.

No now. Time was when it might not have been such a big deal though. Convert or die?

And, like I said, I have my ‘getaway’ stash just in case

Sarah x

my morality doesnt want to see Children dead or etc. You seem to put your faith in human law. History has been riddled with genocide after genocide. They said WW1 was the “war to end all wars” then, 20-30 years later, along comes WW2. Then along comes Rwanda. Then along comes Roe Vs. Wade. Are you really so certain that nothing can happen? Postive? I dont think so. Yes, Humanism seems to propogate the advancement of humanity, yet secular humanism is sadly, doomed to fail. Its like trying to build the tower of babel. How can you advance the cause of the human race when there is no set guiding principle for all to use, aka natural moral law? Its going to crumble, then yes, you will get a chance to use your getaway stash…

 

[mymamamary]

The real God is the Holy Spirit.

The real God is the Father.

The real God is beyond human conception.

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.

 

[mymamamary]

What’s your starting point?

If it’s I want a form of cheap labor, and women as playthings, then you won’t see anything wrong with slavery. The Romans, and Greeks of old, along with many faith systems, didn’t.

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.

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. 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.

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

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.

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

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

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!

The goal is the constant improvement of the human condition. Something I think now most Churches also agree with. There’s no end point. We will never stop improving our lot, there will always work to be done.

Then the planet will implode and unless we’ve managed to get to another part of the universe, that’s it. Game over But what an interesting and challenging and tough and fun ride it will have been

There’s no end state. See above.

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.

No now. Time was when it might not have been such a big deal though. Convert or die?

And, like I said, I have my ‘getaway’ stash just in case

Sarah x

There has to be an end state, we are all finite, it is an illogical theory to not have an end state. What is more perfect than perfection? What if humanity gets there? Then will we need to keep improving? however, like I said repeatedly, this will not happen until all hearts are won for CHRIST. So until then, we can all envision our lovely little utopias, but they will be just that :“Wishful Utopias”…

 

[mymamamary]

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.

No I am not. You are confusing the nature of GOD. HE created us, so HE can kill us. Harsh, perhaps, but very true.

Check this medicine out, I think It sets your claims down…

thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2010/12/06/the-best-defense-of-old-testament-ethics/

 

[atheistgirl]

There has to be an end state, we are all finite, it is an illogical theory to not have an end state. .

I think you misunderstood the context. I was answering the question what is the end state by Brendan. I said there’s no end state, meaning, there’s no point at which we will not have more work to do.

The end state, physically, as I followed on to say, is when the earth implodes. Which it will. If we’ve not managed to find a place to live in another part of the universe before our sun burns out, it’s game over. That’s the end.

Whether we do or don’t, there’s a definite end for the earth, but up to that point, we just keep working on making things better for all of us.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

I think you misunderstood the context. I was answering the question what is the end state by Brendan. I said there’s no end state, meaning, there’s no point at which we will not have more work to do.

The end state, physically, as I followed on to say, is when the earth implodes. Which it will. If we’ve not managed to find a place to live in another part of the universe before our sun burns out, it’s game over. That’s the end.

Whether we do or don’t, there’s a definite end for the earth, but up to that point, we just keep working on making things better for all of us.

Sarah x

Exactly, we will never perfect this world. Never. Its an unfortunate fact. We can try, but I am very sure that it will not happen…

 

[atheistgirl]

Well, As I have debated with you before, the only true GOD IS JESUS CHRIST.

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

HE has appeared to us, and not that, HE has given us a law on our hearts, which is objective.

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

Sarah x