Objective Morals, Free Will, Afterlife

[Richard_Powers]

First and foremost, let us look back at the converstaion bewteen Socrates and Protageras:

If truth is not subjective, because subjective truth is self defeating, then truth must be objective instead.

Can we agree upon thes previous statement before we attempt to try and “test moral truth”?

I am not really sure why it is necessary to discuss this Plato dialogue. I thought we had both agreed that such a strong position of relativism is wrong. We have both agreed that there are objective truths in mathematics, logic, and science. The question is really if morals truths would be of the same nature.

Let’s start by looking at another subject such as beauty. Is there an objective truth to beauty? Now we can see similarity in the standards that are used for judging beauty. Most people in London would probably judge Keira Knightley to the extremely beautiful. However, if we went to Riyadh the people would find big problems with her look. If we went back to the ancient Greeks they would judge her to be too thin. Romans would not think she is not pale enough. Would you say that society has evolved toward a better understanding of the objective standard of beauty from the Greeks and Romans? Is there an objective standard by which we can absolutely judge her to be beautiful? Is there an objective standard by which we can judge Keira Knightley to more or less beautiful than someone else? Now, there are going to see similarities between the different subjective standards (such as preferring bilateral bilateral symmetry), but cultural influences and idiosyncratic preferences are going to be a part of any judgment of beauty. That is to say in the end it will be subjective. This is the same thing we see with morality. Morality is closer to beauty than a mathematical or scientific truth.

 

[Joyousguard]

I am not really sure why it is necessary to discuss this Plato dialogue. I thought we had both agreed that such a strong position of relativism is wrong. We have both agreed that there are objective truths in mathematics, logic, and science. The question is really if morals truths would be of the same nature.

Let’s start by looking at another subject such as beauty. Is there an objective truth to beauty? Now we can see similarity in the standards that are used for judging beauty. Most people in London would probably judge Keira Knightley to the extremely beautiful. However, if we went to Riyadh the people would find big problems with her look. If we went back to the ancient Greeks they would judge her to be too thin. Romans would not think she is not pale enough. Would you say that society has evolved toward a better understanding of the objective standard of beauty from the Greeks and Romans? Is there an objective standard by which we can absolutely judge her to be beautiful? Is there an objective standard by which we can judge Keira Knightley to more or less beautiful than someone else? Now, there are going to see similarities between the different subjective standards (such as preferring bilateral bilateral symmetry), but cultural influences and idiosyncratic preferences are going to be a part of any judgment of beauty. That is to say in the end it will be subjective. This is the same thing we see with morality. Morality is closer to beauty than a mathematical or scientific truth.

The difference with beauty and morality is that beauty falls more into a category of taste. While all humans are beautiful ( i don’t think I need to explain that one) we are drawn in attarction to certain elements and characteristics that we find attractive inthe opposite sex. Why do I like pizza? Why do I find her attractive? These are more on the lines of taste rather than objectivity. While all humans are beautiful we do not have a prefered taste for all humans. Likewise with food.

The question with morality is different. It’s not a question of taste and it’s not a question of subjectivity, therfore it must be objective in some manner or another. This is very important to understand. This is very similiar to rolling dice. If you didn’t roll an odd you must have rolled an even. There are only two choices. If morality can not be subjective, it must be objective. We already have the answer but we must understand how to we get there.

Now the question you raised is how do we know if something is moral or not or whether things can be universally moral or immoral.

Now you and I would no doubt agree that murder, in its complex definition, is wrong no matter what the case. Every civilized society in the world shares this belief although they may have different standards to decide what would constite murder. Murder is basically taking someones life without just cause. How can we prove this to be universally true?

This were I’m going to lose you. The only way morality can be objective is if there is a God. I have already shown that truth is not something that can be subjective and beauty is something alone the lines of taste rather than an analysis of truth. If truth can not be subjective, then it must be objective in nature. If truth is objective in nature then it must have been created from a higher power. (we are inevitably going to have to go through the existence of God discussion. This link should help to start off, it’s one that is going now: forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=206725)

I’ll stop there for now and then anaylze how human beings attempt to reach the objecive moral truth given by God through finite means and how these finite means further solidfy objective moral truth.

 

[Richard_Powers]

The question with morality is different. It’s not a question…]it’s not a question of subjectivity, therfore it must be objective in some manner or another. This is very important to understand.

Aren’t you just begging the question? The issue is whether morality is objective. You cannot just declare it objective. You should provide evidence that is objective. If we were discussing mathematics we could lay out proofs. If we were discussing science we could lay out evidence and do empirical testing of hypotheses and theories to determine objectives truths. How can we determine the objective moral truths? How can we even determine that there are objective moral truths?

continued in next post

 

[Richard_Powers]

This were I’m going to lose you. The only way morality can be objective is if there is a God.

Why is that true? If we look at Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma we see an argument about the relation of morality to God (Plato says Gods). To paraphrase the dilemma, is the good good because it is declared good by God, or does God declare it good because it is good? Now, if it is the second option then God in unnecessary because the good exists independent of God. If it is the first option then it is just God as an agent choice to declare certain things good. Basically, it is just God’s whim. We also run into an is-ought problem among other issues.

Perhaps it would if you stated whether you think he good good because it is declared good by God, or does God declare it good because it is good? Also, what is God’s relation to something we agree is an objective truth - is 2 + 2 = 4 dependent on God to be an objective truth or is it independent of God?

I have already shown that truth is not something that can be subjective and beauty is something alone the lines of taste rather than an analysis of truth. If truth can not be subjective, then it must be objective in nature.

No, you have not. We have already agreed that certain truths are objective - scientific truths, mathematical truths, logical truths are objective. But you have not established that morality is that type of truth. See the questions above

 

[Joyousguard]

Aren’t you just begging the question? The issue is whether morality is objective. You cannot just declare it objective. You should provide evidence that is objective. If we were discussing mathematics we could lay out proofs. If we were discussing science we could lay out evidence and do empirical testing of hypotheses and theories to determine objectives truths. How can we determine the objective moral truths? How can we even determine that there are objective moral truths?

continued in next post

Sometimes we know what things are by eliminating what they are not.

You have two choices for the nature of morality and I even threw in a third possibility. If we eliminate 2 of those possibilities then only one remains. I am reminded of a quote from the stories of Sherlock Holmes “It is an old maxim of mine that when you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.”

If moral truth can not be something that is subjective then the only alternative is that it must be objective. That is to say, we know what the nature of moral truth is but we must fill in the rest of the path to reach that end. Truth either lies to the left or to the right and if it does not lay to the left, it must lay to the right. We can not say it is neutral, neither wrong nor right because this is self defeating in the same manner as subjectivity. So we can sit still and remain neutral and we can not turn left.

I believe to my very core that murder is wrong and can not be justified, I’m sure you feel similiar. This is an absolute, the problem arises is how to we prove it is an absolute. In many islamic republics it is exceptable to murder people who you may have thought (erroneously in many cases but only intent is needed) where enaging in immoral activity. That is to say, you can kill any woman on the street and claim that you truly felt that she was being immoral (extreme case but possible) and then get away with it if the court feels you really believed she was being immoral. If a woman in these countries is raped, often times she is whipped and beaten as a punishment by the authorities for “being with a man who is not a member of the family”. An Iranian cleric just stated yesterday that any women not wearing the traditional muslim garb should be killed.

Now, I realize these are basically anecdotes. However, I think for both of us these laws and moral understanding that many Islamic nations have are apalling. Now, I think for most of us there is no doubt whatsoever that whipping a rape victim is wrong and can not be justified no matter what the law may say. From a subjective point of view we would all be hypocrites for condemning any other country and their beliefs. Now these are not meant as iron clade proofs just yet but rather road signs and red flags popping up all over the place saying “morality can not be this subjective”, “the world is not full of subjectivity but objectivity”, “Is morality any different?”

continued…

 

[Joyousguard]

I think it’s fairly safe to say that you are asking this question about morality because you yourself are not satisfied with the belief that morality has no constants, that murder can be wrong here but right over here. I think it has become fairly obvious that humans can not prove objective morality by intellectual means of themselves because our justification would be too darwinistic and too much of a “function in society” argument along with hedonistic understanding.

I realize I may seem like I’m simply rambling on and on without getting to the heart of the matter. But what you should start to see is not one ironclade proof being formed here but rather many small little markers guiding you to some final conclusion. Each little marker and argument by themselves is unconvincing but gradually they begin to multiply and gain momentum.

You asked in an early post about the passions and emotion. Whether the passion a mother has for her child is any less real or important than the objective view that mother has for the child. Our passions are not always right as I mentioned earlier. However they can help point us in the correct direction. A father’s natural instinct is to protect their child. If a baseball, or God forbid, a bullet is coming and their child is in the way it is the natural reaction of the father to protect that child. There is almost no thought process whatsoever but the natural reaction of the father to put his body in front of this child. To a certain extent we naturally know what the good is, our emotions in conjunction with our intellect help point us further in the correct direction.

The passions help (not by themselves obvioulsy)tell us that something is right or wrong naturally. Our anger naturally tells us that some situation should not be happening but sometimes our anger is directed at the wrong object and soemtimes should be directed towards ourselves. Our sorrow and sadness helps tell us that something is wrong. Now, at this point you must be asking yourself how this differs from subjective morality. Subjectivity says that nothing can be right or wrong and its all up to you. But the passions are motions of the sensitive appetite in man which tend towards the attainment of some real or apparent good, or the avoidance of some evil. Even our passions naturally seek the objective good.

Let me summarize here for a moment:

1. morality must be objective because it can not be subjective
2. it is the natural state of man to seek the obejective good
3. the passions in conjunction with the intellect naturally help man in his desire to attainment the objective good
4. the passions in conjunction with the intellect help man discern what is a true good (moral) and a false good (immoral)

I think I included everything. All of these are indicators and the natural drive of all mankind to seek the objective moral good. Man naturally seeks the objective good. However there is no possible way for man to solidify the objective moral good completely without a presence of the divine. Man can not say for certain what is morally wrong or right without the presence of a God. Each of the instances I have talked about point to an objective moral good and show that an objective moral good does in fact exist but not what it is and how we can prove beyond a shadow of a doubt what that moral objective good is. The only possible solution is there must be a God for there can be no other possible scenario that would explain otherwise. We have indicators and that by themselves prove nothing but together they start to form a path towards only one possible solution that settles all.

Man by themselves can not reach this moral understanding that we have today. I think Islam has shown quite clealry what can happen when the true understanding of a God is perverted and twisted into the desires and views of an average man. (on a side note, all religions should not be grouped together. There are several threads under the “Non-catholic” thread concerning the differcnes between Islam and Christainity that you might find very interesting)

So before we move on to the next part. Can we agree that there is an objective moral good and it is natural for mankind to seek that moral good but ultimately impossible for mankind by themselves to prove their is an objective moral good under their own power?

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3105796]Why is that true? If we look at Plato’s Euthyphro dilemma we see an argument about the relation of morality to God (Plato says Gods). To paraphrase the dilemma, is the good good because it is declared good by God, or does God declare it good because it is good?

First and foremost if God created all then God created the good as well. Or another way of looking at it is that God is the ultimate good Himself and no good can exist outside of God…

Now, if it is the second option then God in unnecessary because the good exists independent of God.

God creates the good but also is the ultimate good.

If it is the first option then it is just God as an agent choice to declare certain things good.

Again, God creates the good but also is the Ultimate good it is a action and being or action and essence.

Basically, it is just God’s whim. We also run into an is-ought problem among other issues.

Not God’s whim but His very essence is good. (i think we will have to go through several proofs for several of these answers that I have posted as well.)

Perhaps it would if you stated whether you think he good good because it is declared good by God, or does God declare it good because it is good?

??? Just need to know what one of these words was suppose to be.

Also, what is God’s relation to something we agree is an objective truth - is 2 + 2 = 4 dependent on God to be an objective truth or is it independent of God?

2 + 2 is a man made system to understand the reality around us. 2 + 2 is a representation of an objective truth and objective reality. God did not create the system of numbers but He did create the reality of which the system of numbers come to represent.

No, you have not. We have already agreed that certain truths are objective - scientific truths, mathematical truths, logical truths are objective. But you have not established that morality is that type of truth. See the questions above

It is objective because it can not be subjective and can not be neutral. In addition, if there is a God then moral truth must be objective but we’ll get to that argument in a bit once we hash out the details here. I made the mistake of posting too many arguments at the same time on another thread and me and some other guy where talking back and forth on about 30 or 40 different points at one time.

 

[Richard_Powers]

It is objective because it can not be subjective and can not be neutral.

You keep saying saying this but you have not backed it up with any kind of proof or evidence. It is entirely possible that there is no universal moral good. You need to establish that there is such a thing. The basic question is whether there is a universal moral good or do individual agents (and the societies they make up) just create their subjective moral goods. You seem to take the position that individual moral agents creating their own subjective moral goods is not proper because they could justify anything being a moral good enough things you abhor. But that does not mean that an objective universal moral good must exist. But there is no good and it all just something humans create.

??? Just need to know what one of these words was suppose to be.

Sorry. I typed that wrong. It should have read:

Perhaps it would if you stated whether you think the good good because it is declared good by God, or does God declare it good because it is good? But I think you already answered this question.

I think it’s fairly safe to say that you are asking this question about morality because you yourself are not satisfied with the belief that morality has no constants, that murder can be wrong here but right over here.

Actually, I have no problem with this. Nor do I think that an objective moral good would really change human behavior. In fact, since you believe that an objective moral good exists you would have to agree that it has not done very much to prevent things like murder and things the two of us would probably agree are wrong. And when I look at the actions of the God in the Bible (especially the Book of Joshua), I strongly disagree with the moral system that this being has.

 

[davidv]

Actually, I have no problem with this. Nor do I think that an objective moral good would really change human behavior. In fact, since you believe that an objective moral good exists you would have to agree that it has not done very much to prevent things like murder and things the two of us would probably agree are wrong. And when I look at the actions of the God in the Bible (especially the Book of Joshua), I strongly disagree with the moral system that this being has.

I’m not sure how the human behaviors have anything to do with some thing’s objectivenes. For example, if 90% of a class of 4th grades get a math problem wrong, does this have anything at all to do with there being an objectively correct answer to the problem?

 

[Richard_Powers]

I’m not sure how the human behaviors have anything to do with some thing’s objectivenes. For example, if 90% of a class of 4th grades get a math problem wrong, does this have anything at all to do with there being an objectively correct answer to the problem?

I was not addressing whether there is an objective moral good in that part of my post. Just why I have no problem that there if is not.

 

[planter654]

First and foremost if God created all then God created the good as well. Or another way of looking at it is that God is the ultimate good Himself and no good can exist outside of God… God creates the good but also is the ultimate good. Again, God creates the good but also is the Ultimate good it is a action and being or action and essence. Not God’s whim but His very essence is good. (i think we will have to go through several proofs for several of these answers that I have posted as well.)

??? Just need to know what one of these words was suppose to be. 2 + 2 is a man made system to understand the reality around us. 2 + 2 is a representation of an objective truth and objective reality. God did not create the system of numbers but He did create the reality of which the system of numbers come to represent.

It is objective because it can not be subjective and can not be neutral. In addition, if there is a God then moral truth must be objective but we’ll get to that argument in a bit once we hash out the details here. I made the mistake of posting too many arguments at the same time on another thread and me and some other guy where talking back and forth on about 30 or 40 different points at one time.

Please go read Job Chapter 38…41. God puts us all in our place there. Thanks be to God.

Now I know why little St. Teresa said: books give her a headache. What a waste of precious time. She simply talk to God and asked for his teaching.

God Bless

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3108801]You keep saying saying this but you have not backed it up with any kind of proof or evidence. It is entirely possible that there is no universal moral good. You need to establish that there is such a thing. The basic question is whether there is a universal moral good or do individual agents (and the societies they make up) just create their subjective moral goods.

I see your point now. If i follow you correctly. Even though subjective good argument is self defeating that does not mean that societies do not stiff create subjective goods. I believe this is your point???

Science is objective as we both agree. What you might not know is the Moral Theology is considered a science as well. While I will not dsipute certain measurments for things like proving gravity exists and is an actual law. I could make the argument that the law of gravity is not a law at all because the way we measure the law of gravity is incomplete.

How do we know that gravity exist the same way everywhere on the planet in the same formula/ Did we test it? Similiarly in mathmatics, how do we know that 2 + 2 equals 4 in all instances? Does it always equal 2 + 2 in all instances? We have simply accepted that it does because it is not pratical to go through every possible scenario we can think of and test them all. Same too with gravity. Cause and effect that we can all see that is accepted as a law even though I have never seen gravity work in Cuba. (there are even people who believe the earth is flat and we never landed on the moon:shrug: )

Scientific laws are forumulated from cause and effect. I.E. gravity> tv crashes to the floor. Morality is very similiar but much more complex then scientific objectivity. Murder> takes a human life. It has a cause and an effect that can be measured. How do we know murder is wrong? Well the same question can be asked about the TV, "How do we know the tv crashes. As you probably know with little kids, their favorite question is “why?” We could keep on asking why for the question “how do we know the tv crashes” until oblivion and not end up an answer. "How do we know the tv crashed> because I saw it with my eyes> how do we know you saw it with your eyes or how do we know that your eyes really saw it. You see my point. We all know the TV really hit the floor and probably blew apart. We do not ask the questions about gravity but accept them as a given. Why is moral objectivity questioned then when scientific objectivity is not?

Lets stick with murder as being an objective immoral truth. The cause is murder, the effect is taking a human life. The problem like the tv lies in the fact of how do we know the tv crashed or in this case how do we know the person died and how do we know it was a result of murder and further more how do we know murder is universaly wrong?

What are the effects of murder? I think we can list a whole bunch. Some are more closely realted to observations rather than any moral evalutaion. The body ceases to function. Someone has to come pick it up etc. The other effects are less neutral. A human life has been taken unjustly. Sorrow was caused to other people who lost this person etc. etc. Murder can be measured just like gravity (although a few obvious differences). Why would gravity be considered an objective truth but not murder? Gravity is the effects of the universe upon an object. Murder is the taking of a human life without justification. Gravity causes things to fall. Murder causes lives to needlessly be taken and hearts to be broken. Whatever objections you bring to one you must bring to the other. Why is gravity’s influence upon everything taken as objective truth and murder as being wrong in ever instance taken as being a subjective truth? If murder is subjective, then so is gravity.

Roll this one over and see if I missed anything or if something needs better explaining or refinement.

The subjective moral good is self defeating. You seem to take the position that individual moral agents creating their own subjective moral goods is not proper because they could justify anything being a moral good enough things you abhor. But that does not mean that an objective universal moral good must exist. But there is no good and it all just something humans create.

We can measure the good and the bad although it might be a complicated analysis. I really don’t want to know how they are able to measure gravity and its effects in all the instances they do. Math was never my strong suit but the mesasuring of a morality would follwoo the same criteria. We could measure whether something is good or bad by the effects just as gravity but for some reason when it comes to morality and the good, people always continue to ask “why” whereas the gravity thing they accept as universal.

 

[Joyousguard]

Actually, I have no problem with this. Nor do I think that an objective moral good would really change human behavior. In fact, since you believe that an objective moral good exists you would have to agree that it has not done very much to prevent things like murder and things the two of us would probably agree are wrong. And when I look at the actions of the God in the Bible (especially the Book of Joshua), I strongly disagree with the moral system that this being has.

But a central moral system has improved things dramatically in this world. Before “an eye for an eye” people would kill their enemies entire families and then some some. There was no sense of real justice and balance. It is difficult to measure the immorality of a the “pre God” era as opposed to the “post God” era. (my terms; just for the sake of clarity) However, we can see the effects of religion upon those active in their faith as opposed to those who are either atheists or undecided. They have numerous studies on this that I could probably find for you.

The Old Testament must be viewed in the light of the New Testament. Jesus came and said to the Jews that basically I have come because you are not doing what God has asked of you and you really don’t understand what God has been saying. “It was said that an eye for an eye but I say to you love your neighbors as yourself”. The old Testament is important to Christainity because it contains the foundation sof christainity. Jews are the children wheras christains are the children all grown up. The jews were a bit slow and did not realize what God was telling them. Christ came and set the record straight sort of speak. The Old Testament is the foundation and understanding of a child but the New Testament is the true understanding all grown up. Its a bit complicated but if you have any specifc questions I’ll try to help sort them out about the Bible.

 

[Richard_Powers]

I see your point now. If i follow you correctly. Even though subjective good argument is self defeating that does not mean that societies do not stiff create subjective goods. I believe this is your point???

Actually, that was not my point. I should have tried to be clearer. I do not think that a subjective moral good is self defeating. I agree that Protagoras view of truth is self defeating, but let’s look at the argument if we switch beauty for truth.

Protagoras: [Beauty] is relative, it is only a matter of opinion.
Socrates: You mean that [beauty] is mere subjective opinion?
Protagoras: Exactly. What is [beautiful] for you is [beautiful] for you, what is [beautiful] for me, is [beautiful] for me. [Beauty] is subjective.

The very question we are asking is if the moral good is closer to opinions of beauty or is it closer to truth (which by it very nature is universal). That is to say is there really an objective universal moral good? If we look at Socrates objections we see they would not work if the subject being discussed is really subjective and I believe we already agreed that beauty is subjective. If fact if you really look at the Plato dialogue you will that subject has to be truth (or something) related for it to work. The subjective position is only self defeating if claims that something is subjective that is by definition universal.

continued

 

[Richard_Powers]

We can measure the good and the bad although it might be a complicated analysis. I really don’t want to know how they are able to measure gravity and its effects in all the instances they do. Math was never my strong suit but the mesasuring of a morality would follwoo the same criteria. We could measure whether something is good or bad by the effects just as gravity but for some reason when it comes to morality and the good, people always continue to ask “why” whereas the gravity thing they accept as universal.

Science can answer questions about how the natural world is, but it cannot answer why questions or tell us what to value. Science cannot tell you not kill your mother. It tell you some things about the probable consequences, but it cannot tell you what to do or not do or why you should or should not do something. Science can only tell about what is and this raises the is-ought problem.

Also, with science and gravity we can do extremely detailed tests. Newton and Einstein’s theories made extremely detailed predictions that could be repeatedly tested. There is just nothing similar that we can do test whether something is right or wrong.

 

[freesoulhope]

I have a couple of more minutes.

Why does morality have to be objective to have meaning? Is a woman’s love for her children any less important because it is subjective to her?

It might be important to you; but thats besides the point. I’m talking about objective moral values; not subjective love or the importance it might hold for somebody.

If the vast majority of the people in American?

What about what the rest of the world thinks?

subjectively find that slavery is wrong, how is that position any less valid if they find (and they will have to do this subjectively) that slavery is objectively wrong?

It makes no sense to me to judge others according to a moral standard, if the moral standard is not expressing something true of the real world. If it isn’t, then it is a lie. If Christianity isn’t based on an objective truth, then it is based on a fallacy, and the same applies to any moral standard.

Slavery is either wrong or it isn’t; its right or wrongness has nothing to do with what you think.

Its either true of the real world, or it isn’t. It might be my subjective opinon, that having sex with my mother and father, and then eating them alive, is a moral imperitive once i reach the age of 18; you are free to disagree, but if it is true that my opinion says anything objectively and morally relevent about the real world, it is only by mere coincidence— and if the act is objectively correct, then your opinon simply becomes a mere prejudice of reality. What is trully moral, must be reflective of a real objective standard—not just what i want the world to be like in my opinon . If the true definition of right and wrong exists at the roots of objective reality, wholly apart from human opinon, one can surley see that such a definition would have more authority over human subjective opinon. To say that my life is of value, regardless of what humanity thinks, is a nice thought; but unless this is objectively true, it can only remain a nice thought and nothing more.

In the end do not all agents have to determine actions to be good or bad based on the their own choice? What difference does it make if the agent feels the basis of the determination is objective or subjective?

If that is what you want; many cultures have invented truth to be reflective of what they desire. But again, this is besides the point. What is true according to your subjective standard of morality, has no authority, whats-so-ever, over what is true of the objective world. What is true of the objective world, is abosolute and cannot be changed no matter how much fantasy we invent; and what ever it is that you would like to be true, can only be true if it conforms to an objective standard of truth.

If you cannot see that, then there is nothing else i can do for you.

Peace.

 

[freesoulhope]

but let’s look at the argument if we switch beauty for truth.

This will only serve to cloud the truth of objective moral values.

The very question we are asking is if the moral good is closer to opinions of beauty

Are we talking about “Objective Moral Values”, or mere opinons about morality?

beauty is subjective.

How we percieve bueaty, is not relevent to “Moral Law”, but i think the same rules apply. The fact that people have different opinons about bueaty; only tells me the objective truth about peoples subjective perceptions; that people have different veiws about the real world (however, this doesn’t challenge the fact that the world is “real”). It tells me nothing about beauty. It doesn’t tell me whether or not the subjective opinons in qeustion, actually conforms to an objective standard of bueaty. One thing we can be sure of, is that we all believe that there is such a thing as bueaty and that there is such a thing as right and wrong, even if we have different opinons about what that is.

If there is an objective standard of beauty; then any subjective standard which doesn’t conform, is simply mistaken, whether you agree with me or not. A man might percieve a women as beautiful, but that only tells me that, in his opinon, the women is beautiful; it doesn’t tell me if it is objectively true that the women is bueatiful. If there is no such thing as objective beauty, then human perceptions of bueaty are simply illusions. There not real.

It is my belief that true bueaty is objective. Bueaty is trancendent of matter and personal opinon. There are also different kinds of bueaty; the world of matter can serve as a metaphore and a representation; but it is not matter that is the root of all bueaty. Matter simply serves as a canvas which is used to actualise certain states of being. It is God that makes a thing bueatifull. Perfect love is objectively beautiful, regardless of what you personally perceieve it to be. Those that say other wise, have flawed perceptions of perfect love; for if they could see it for what it trully is, they would call it beautfull, because that is what it objectively is.

 

[Richard_Powers]

freesoulhope, do you have evidence that beauty and morality exists objectively in the world independent of human opinion? You seem to just be asserting that these things exist, but you have not established that they do. The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether objective morals exists. Your posts seem to just beg the question.

 

[freesoulhope]

freesoulhope, do you have evidence that beauty and morality exists objectively in the world independent of human opinion? You seem to just be asserting that these things exist, but you have not established that they do. The whole point of this thread is to discuss whether objective morals exists. Your posts seem to just beg the question.

The basis of my arguement was only to show that it is reasonable for a Christian to think that something was wrong; and that athiests have absolutely no fundemental objective basis for thinking that any particulor action was “morally wrong”; despite what one personally likes or dislikes.

So far as the evidence is concerned, i cannot show you any empirical evidence; however, one only has to look at the absurdity of the world without God, in order to see that it is most probably true that there is an Objective Moral law.

Why should a collection of atoms, which, by themselves, show no obvious potential for sentience(and are not sentient), actualise a state of mind that would think and have an opinon about moral law, or that life was a beautiful thing? One can reasonably imagine a random series of events bringing about a non-sentient, non-personal organism, which works and develops according to cuase, effect, and other natural laws, becuase this is reflective of an impersonal universe with blind forces; but its an illogical leap from a sophisticated robot, to a collection of atoms becoming personal.

To not see the contradiction, is to simply take life for granted. One is refusing to see life for what it really is if we remove objective law and an objective God.

When we say that something is wrong, we usually mean “Objectively”; we natural feel that this is true of the real world. We are not talking about which flavor of ice cream we like best. When we do wrong, its usually the case that we feel guilty. Why would a collection of atoms feel guilty? We feel guilty because we are “personal beings”, not just a collection of atoms (we are more then matter), and it is wrong to hurt personal beings. It is not wrong to hurt objects. But it is wrong to inflict suffering out of spite.

“Moral choice” is one of the few freedoms we have; what is it about being a “personal being”, that we should feel bound by an objective moral standard? What is it about being a “personal being”, that is wholly different from the fact that we are also a complex collection of non-personal atoms in a vast chain of cause and effect? Could it be that a human being is in fact a unification of an “immaterial personal soul” and an “Object”?

If an Objective standard of beauty doesn’t exist, then why has a collection of impersonal atoms, decided to think up the concept in the first place? Why do we regognise that a thing is beautiful? It really doesn’t matter if people have different tastes; what is crucial to my point, is that, there is in fact, a concept of “bueaty” in the first place.

Why should an organism have free will, if the foundation of an organism, is the impersonal cold forces of nature? Though these questions are far from empirical proofs, i think they show that a world with out God and objective standards, just doesn’t add up.

 

[Richard_Powers]

freesoulhope, have you read The Origin of Virtue by Matt Ridley or Freedom Evolves by Daniel Dennett?