Objective morality

[grannymh]

So my question remains:

If objective morality exists then shouldn’t we condemn God?

This question follows from your question – If objective morality exists, then why can’t I touch it?

In my humble opinion, there is no need to condemn God because by definition He is not a material being with a rotting anatomy.

(small clarification. Just because God doesn’t lose His hair and gain a beer gut is no reason to assume He doesn’t exist. When it comes to God, our amazing tools of rational thought are capable of looking outside the box of the natural world. That is why God is often termed supernatural**.)**

Neither do people need to condemn pink unicorns because they are not material beings with decomposing anatomies. Personally, I condemn the gremlins which live in my computer, but my common sense tells me that my accusations of them will never stand up in court.

There is a common sense difference between a material designation and a spiritual designation.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hazmat

**it was a simple question so the answer came quickly. you asked “how [you’d] use subjective judgment to choose one over the other.” the answer is: you would choose. just by choosing either one (doesnt matter which), youre selecting what you prefer based on criteria you prefer. **

I think I see what you are getting at.

But choosing itself is not a strictly subjective act. If we choose one moral value over another, we have a reason for doing so. We distinguish objective from subjective choices by the extent to which their consequences can be measured.

Example:

The thief justifies his acts just by the fact that they enhance his wealth. That is, he is into himself (subject), rather than into the people around him (objects).

The person who chooses not to be a thief, but to work honestly for a living, chooses that value because it works not only for himself (subject) but for others (objects).

So yes, the subject makes every moral choice, but some choices are purely subjective, while others include objective as well as subjective benefits.

This principle of objective morality is embodied in the teaching of Christ.

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

The subjective principle of morality is its opposite:

“Do unto others before they can do it unto you.”

 

[hazmat]

we have our own reasons for doing so is all im saying. i dont think your explanation fits conventional definitions for subjective and objective, but doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is practical; i generally agree with that advice.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hazmat
**
i dont think your explanation fits conventional definitions for subjective and objective**

I guess that depends on what you mean by conventional definitions. Would you care to elaborate on conventional definitions?

 

[grannymh]

we have our own reasons for doing so is all im saying. i dont think your explanation fits conventional definitions for subjective and objective, but doing unto others as you would have them do unto you is practical; i generally agree with that advice.

When considering the difference between objective and subjective reasoning, the key is to figure out the **source **for your reasons.

 

[grannymh]

hazmat

i dont think your explanation fits conventional definitions for subjective and objective

I guess that depends on what you mean by conventional definitions. Would you care to elaborate on conventional definitions?

The conventional definitions for subjective and objective can be found in any collegiate type dictionary. Often the standard dictionaries will do.

 

[grannymh]

I think I see what you are getting at.

But choosing itself is not a strictly subjective act. If we choose one moral value over another, we have a reason for doing so. We distinguish objective from subjective choices by the extent to which their consequences can be measured.

Actually, in the **real **world, we distinguish objective from subjective choices by the source of the information for the choice. It should be obvious that choice is based on some kind of information that has to come from somewhere as in source. The exception would be actions done out of habit.

 

[hazmat]

but we are talking about morality, choices on what is morally right and wrong. sure, when you choose to own one car instead of two cars, you can demonstrate youve chosen one car; the difference between one and two is objective, factual. its not like that for morality.

 

[grannymh]

but we are talking about morality, choices on what is morally right and wrong. sure, when you choose to own one car instead of two cars, you can demonstrate youve chosen one car; the difference between one and two is objective, factual. its not like that for morality.

Of course, it is up to the person to walk into the office of a car dealer and say – I am going to flip a coin. Heads, I will buy the car at the end of row 3 and tails I will buy the car third from the front in row 1. And if the coin falls to the ground I will buy both cars.

And a person can flip a coin and say – heads I will shoot the fourth person who crosses my path and tails I will give a hundred dollars to the fourth person who crosses my path.

If those are the ways that a person wants to deal with moral actions, what can I say except that I hope I am never the fourth person to cross that person’s path. I happen to value my life more than betting my life for a mere one hundred dollars depending on the flip of a coin.

As long as a person does not care about the base for information regarding moral actions, that person might as well skip thinking and carry a coin.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

granny

The conventional definitions for subjective and objective can be found in any collegiate type dictionary. Often the standard dictionaries will do.

with respect to moral laws I doubt the dictionary will help very much. There are many different approaches, but a dictionary of philosophy would be better than a standard dictionary.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hazmat

the difference between one and two is objective, factual. its not like that for morality.

Do you mean that morality is neither subjective nor objective; or that it is not objective; or that it is not subjective; or that it is objective only; or that it is subjective only?

Do you mean it is not a fact that Hitler did many evil things?

 

[hazmat]

i mean morality is not objective. it is a fact that many feel hitler did evil things, but it is not a fact that what he did was evil. ive encountered many who call god evil for his actions, but that doesnt mean those actions were, in fact, evil–that is just their view on what is morally wrong.

 

[grannymh]

granny

with respect to moral laws I doubt the dictionary will help very much. There are many different approaches, but a dictionary of philosophy would be better than a standard dictionary.

What do moral laws, ice cream cones, and a car with flat tires, have to do with objective and subjective sources of information? Actually, I do know the answer, but you are the one who has to figure it out.

Did you try any dictionary?

In the past, I did try a number of websites. One of them could be the philosophy dictionary; however, some sites are more comfortable than others. So pick one that you like.

 

[grannymh]

i mean morality is not objective. it is a fact that many feel hitler did evil things, but it is not a fact that what he did was evil. ive encountered many who call god evil for his actions, but that doesnt mean those actions were, in fact, evil–that is just their view on what is morally wrong.

If you have a few moments, you may see what is objective and which is subjective in what you wrote. Provided you looked up objective and subjective in some kind of dictionary.

A starting point would be the human person. Human people basically exist outside of ourselves. Next look at “morality”. Do you see" morality" standing or sitting or lying down? Please do not tell me your cousin is named morality and he just walked in.

 

[hazmat]

granny, i find your posts obscure. what im talking about is moral objectivity, and not objectivity in general. if im understanding you correctly, you conflate the two, but i do not.

 

[grannymh]

granny, i find your posts obscure. what im talking about is moral objectivity, and not objectivity in general. if im understanding you correctly, you conflate the two, but i do not.

Wait a minute. The thread title is objective morality and you just said you were talking about moral objectivity. Those are two different things–two different nouns. At least it used to be that in English the noun followed the adjective.

As for conflating the two whatevers, I would conflate everything I could if it would bring these morality discussions back into the real world. In the meantime, it is valuable for me to learn the different subjectivities. In addition, it keeps this brain going to see how many ways I can explain objectivity.

On the serious side, when one understands how to use objective reasoning, it would be possible for both non-theists and theists to share the same basic moral code for their actions and I do mean the word actions. In the meantime, I drop in and out, because of the challenges of values…

 

[hazmat]

im using moral as an adjective. i dont doubt atheists and theists can share in this context, but this is beside the point for me. im only talking about objective morality, or moral objectivity. there are actually many atheists who believe in objective morality also.

 

[grannymh]

im using moral as an adjective. i dont doubt atheists and theists can share in this context, but this is beside the point for me. im only talking about objective morality, or moral objectivity. there are actually many atheists who believe in objective morality also.

I will try not to bother you again.

What I am trying to figure out is – What is the standard upon which this objective morality is based? I’m thinking that maybe the word “standard” is more recognizable than foundation.

I see real existence in life such as the existence of the human person. I can kick or kiss (both real actions) a person and then evaluate whether these actions are moral or immoral. My evaluation is based on the objective fact that humans are worthy of profound respect. “Profound respect” is the real life standard upon which actions are evaluated; however, that does not exclude responsibility for one’s actions. Nor does it exclude retribution for wrong actions which disrespect another person.

Unless there is a real objective fact as a standard or guide for evaluating actions, values and/or objecitve morality can change whenever someone has a different feeling about humanity.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

hazmat

**there are actually many atheists who believe in objective morality also. **

Ayn Rand, for example.

If a complete stranger walked up to you and stabbed you in your chest, then took your money … how would you describe this as anything less than objective evil? Are you going to say it’s only an evil by appearance, rather than in reality … and therefore is only subjective?

 

[tonyrey]

On what basis do you deny that they do so, since Jesus Christ actively preached, according to the Gospel texts, that the Jewish scriptures were to be followed, to the letter and beyond?

How do you explain the fact that He constantly said “But I say to you…”?

Do you think He was unaware His teaching that we have a loving Father conflicted with the prevalent Jewish concept of a Wrathful God? He quoted Hosea:

“I want mercy not sacrifice…”