Objective Morals, Free Will, Afterlife

[Richard_Powers]

I think it will hep to look at a hypothetical example and addressing a few questions.

We have nine people - A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I. Persons A and B take action Z that has a direct effect on persons C and D. Person A and Person B both judge action Z to be good. The two persons directly affected, Person C and Person D, both judge the action Z to bad. Person D and E observe action Z but are not directly effected. They both judge the action to be good. Person F and Person G hear about action Z and judge it to be bad. Person H and Person I observe the action and judge it to be bad.

Now looking at the people:
Person A’s observations are correct and his premises on objective matters are correct.
Person B’s observations are correct but premises on objective matters are incorrect.
Person C’s observations are correct and his premises on objective matters are correct.
Person D’s observations are correct but his premises on objective matters are incorrect.
Person E’s observations are correct and his premises on objective matters are correct.
Person F’s hears the correct facts about what happened correct and his premises on objective matters are correct.
Person G’s hears the correct facts about what happened correct but his premises on objective matters are incorrect.
Person H’s observations are correct and his premises on objective matters are correct.
Person I’s observations are correct but premises on objective matters are incorrect.

Looking at this hypothetical example we can see that individuals that are both correct on objective matters and their premises on objective matters may disagree on their subjective moral judgment toward an action even if this action affects other people. We can also see that those with false observations (or false reports) on objective matters and/or false premises on objective matters can agree with those with totally correct observations (or reports) on objection matters and totally correct premises on objective matters. Those that have incorrect observations (reports) on objection matters and/or incorrect premises on objective matters are not really wrong since they could still come to the same conclusion if they corrected their observations (or reports) and/or their premises on objection matters. The reason that morality is subjective is that individuals with the same (correct) objective observations and the with the same (correct) premises on objective matters can reach different judgments on the morality of actions.

Without establishing that there is an objective and absolute moral position that actually exists in reality there is no way to say to judge if the people above reached the right conclusion on the morality of action Z.

Is it your position that there is a judgment on the morality of action Z that is objective and absolute? How do you reach your conclusion? What other position is there for making moral judgments other than the individuals or through systems created by individuals?

 

[Richard_Powers]

I don’t believe it was the Cananites but another tribe.

I meant to ask this before just as a side question, who do you think it was? Also, in the Bible, Canaanites are not a tribe. It is a nation or ethic division that comes from the line of Canaan.

Canaan fathered Sidon his firstborn and Heth, 16and the Jebusites, the Amorites, the Girgashites, 17the Hivites, the Arkites, the Sinites, 18the Arvadites, the Zemarites, and the Hamathites. Afterward the clans of the Canaanites dispersed. 19And the territory of the Canaanites extended from Sidon in the direction of Gerar as far as Gaza, and in the direction of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, as far as Lasha.

biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%2010:15-19;&version=47;

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

The reason that morality is subjective is that individuals with the same (correct) objective observations and the with the same (correct) premises on objective matters can reach different judgments on the morality of actions.

The reason that morality is NOT subjective is that only God is the judge of the behaviors of men. It doesn’t matter if men could be incorrect about the “moral value” of some behavior of one of their fellows, because if they ARE wrong they will see the effect of their incorrectness either (or both) in this world or in the next.

Those who have no God can only see that morals are always subjective and ultimately meaningless because their is no way that misinterpretation of a “moral situation” can be ruled out.

And if all morals are subjective then ANY action is interpretable as “morally acceptable”, as there’s no absolute yardstick to judge it against.

Without establishing that there is an objective and absolute moral position that actually exists in reality there is no way to say to judge if the people above reached the right conclusion on the morality of action Z.

Absolutely correct! And there IS such a moral position.

Is it your position that there is a judgment on the morality of action Z that is objective and absolute? How do you reach your conclusion?

Yes, absolutely. But no human being is any more than a generally incompetent fumbling amateur in actually applying their miserable observational skill and partial understanding of the “yardstick” to judge the behaviors of their fellow men.

The basic problem that “atheists” have is that they think that only MEN use the “yardstick” of absolute moral law, when what men do is only either try to do their best or try to get away with their worst.

What other position is there for making moral judgments other than the individuals or through systems created by individuals?

Accept revealed truth as such, and deeply consider the consequences of them so that you are at least reasonably competent in making judgements regarding moral action.

If you simply “make it up” then where your invention differs from revealed absolute truth will be your lesson to learn, most likely inflicted on others who really don’t deserve the suffering you will have indirectly created.

 

[Joyousguard]

Looking at this hypothetical example we can see that individuals that are both correct on objective matters and their premises on objective matters may disagree on their subjective moral judgment toward an action even if this action affects other people.

This is not quite the issue. The issue is not whether these individuals could by hypothetical disagree on subjective morals but whether or not they are able to rationalize and explain their decison, of something being wrong or right, to individual perspective.

We can also see that those with false observations (or false reports) on objective matters and/or false premises on objective matters can agree with those with totally correct observations (or reports) on objection matters and totally correct premises on objective matters.

Those that have incorrect observations (reports) on objection matters and/or incorrect premises on objective matters are not really wrong since they could still come to the same conclusion if they corrected their observations (or reports) and/or their premises on objection matters.

Thats like saying I was not wrong about my view, that the moon was made of cheese, because after I landed on the moon I discovered it was made out of rock. I was still wrong yesterday but I am now right today. I did correct my inaccurate views and opinionsbut that does not change the fact that I was once wrong.

The reason that morality is subjective is that individuals with the same (correct) objective observations and the with the same (correct) premises on objective matters can reach different judgments on the morality of actions.

When we look at any event that may be considered immoral (subjectively or objectively) we see that all particular events must contain certain characteristics or criteria by their very nature. A baseball game has certain characteristics and criteria unique for it to be called a baseball game. An occurence (that is labeled moral or immoral) is very similiar.

Since we are looking at the very unpleasant situation of rape, I will continue to use this as an example. While the occurence of a rape is very complicated in philosophical terms, there are several criteria or parts to that event that must be met in order to qualify as an occurence or event.

The first temporal point in the time line of the event of rape could be said to be the choice to commit the actual action. We have no control over the happenings inside a persons mind. This choice can be said to be attributed soley to the individual (force, coersion etc aside) However, just because we do not have control over something does not mean we can not make some sort of statement or come to some sort of conclussion about that which we have no control over.

The second and third criteria for this event are the act itself and the action. Part of this entails the very necessary criteria that it involve more than one individual and can not be simply attributed to the individual perspective of one individual because that would be contrary to the nature of the act and the action. Can an Individual change the nature of the act or action in the case of rape? No, because this particular action has a particular nature if that nature were different, the event would be different. However, human beings do not have the ability to change the nature of a substance let alone an act. Soon as you accept the understanding that the act and the action are not under the reign of the individual and not able to encompass only that individual it becomes impossible to explain morality of an act or action as being subject to someones’ individual perspective. The act or the action can not be labeled moral or immoral by an individual based on individual perspective. Soon as that roadbloack is moved we return to the original Socratic objection. Then the whole perspective issue becomes a problem as well.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

We could have the same argument about beauty. I have argued with people that take the position that there is an objective standard of beauty.

We do not need an objective standard of morality to have this discussion. We need an objective standard of truth (to an extent), but we do not need an objective standard of morality.

I, for one, believe there is an objective standard of beauty.

In any case, I’m curious as to how there can be objective truth without objective morality.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Joyousguard]

Without establishing that there is an objective and absolute moral position that actually exists in reality there is no way to say to judge if the people above reached the right conclusion on the morality of action Z.

What we are establishing is that the understanding for subjective morality can not stand up to scrutinization and that we are not satisfied with the argument that has been persented on understanding the nature of morality. Part of the process for understanding what actual causes thunder is to eliminate those hypothesis that can not be true. It’s almost like attacking an argument from both ends. (We have only really started the objective end of the argument though).

Is it your position that there is a judgment on the morality of action Z that is objective and absolute?

Yes, but as I said before, it is going to take awhile to prove or at least get as close as I personally am able to get.

How do you reach your conclusion?

Part of it is the understanding that this world we live in can not always be explained in terms of philosphy, logic or science. There are many indicators that I have seen that have pushed me to question certain things. The idea of rape somewhere, somehow possibly being considered acceptable or right really caused me to pause and reflect. The question does ellicet and emotional respose but its not quite that. It is very difficult to put into words. I’m not sure if you have kids but certain things become a bit clearer when we all come to understand what it means to be a father. When you ask yourself, “could I possible see a situation where it would ever be right for my 8 month old daughter to be raped and it considered to be acceptable?” As you look down at your child sleeping in the crib peacefuly you begin to roll this question over in your mind and try and reconcile it with the stance that there really are no such things as moral rights and wrongs. This is quite a dilema. On one hand you would give up your life for your daughter’s saftey without a moments hesitaion and will protect her with every bit of strength you have but at the same time you feel that somewhere during some circumstances it would be possible to consider that harming your little girl in such a manner could ever be justified by someone and that justification would be just as valid as your justification for believing it would be unbelievably wrong. Believing it possible to justfiy such an event is contrary to the human condition. We woul have to force ourselves to do something that our very own humanity almost calls out to be wrong. Imagine the turmoil or problems necessary for an individual (emotional and psychological problems) to be capable of such an act and justify it. There would have to be something broken or disfunctional within their very nature as a human being (simplified analogy for expediency)

We see such order in this world, from gravity to our very own bodies being marvels of engineering. We see such order in this world with such phenomenal structure and stability. How far does that order extend?

Basically I have asked myself "Could this universe and absolute order have occurred as a random coincidence or is there something more than a Darwinistic approach to all of creation and existence?

What other position is there for making moral judgments other than the individuals or through systems created by individuals?

What we have is called divine law. It’s not quite what you might think it is and I’ll start formulating my further responses now even if I don’t post them quite yet.

 

[Richard_Powers]

Thats like saying I was not wrong about my view, that the moon was made of cheese, because after I landed on the moon I discovered it was made out of rock. I was still wrong yesterday but I am now right today. I did correct my inaccurate views and opinionsbut that does not change the fact that I was once wrong.

Your view that the moon was made of cheese would have wrong. If you further based a moral judgment on an action that used the idea that the moon was made out of cheese as premise is what cannot say is wrong. It is flawed because it based on false premises. But even if the premises are corrected you may come to the same moral judgment.

When we look at any event that may be considered immoral (subjectively or objectively) we see that all particular events must contain certain characteristics or criteria by their very nature. A baseball game has certain characteristics and criteria unique for it to be called a baseball game. An occurence (that is labeled moral or immoral) is very similiar.

Since we are looking at the very unpleasant situation of rape, I will continue to use this as an example. While the occurence of a rape is very complicated in philosophical terms, there are several criteria or parts to that event that must be met in order to qualify as an occurence or event.

The first temporal point in the time line of the event of rape could be said to be the choice to commit the actual action. We have no control over the happenings inside a persons mind. This choice can be said to be attributed soley to the individual (force, coersion etc aside) However, just because we do not have control over something does not mean we can not make some sort of statement or come to some sort of conclussion about that which we have no control over.

The second and third criteria for this event are the act itself and the action. Part of this entails the very necessary criteria that it involve more than one individual and can not be simply attributed to the individual perspective of one individual because that would be contrary to the nature of the act and the action. Can an Individual change the nature of the act or action in the case of rape? No, because this particular action has a particular nature if that nature were different, the event would be different. However, human beings do not have the ability to change the nature of a substance let alone an act. Soon as you accept the understanding that the act and the action are not under the reign of the individual and not able to encompass only that individual it becomes impossible to explain morality of an act or action as being subject to someones’ individual perspective. The act or the action can not be labeled moral or immoral by an individual based on individual perspective. Soon as that roadbloack is moved we return to the original Socratic objection. Then the whole perspective issue becomes a problem as well.

I am not even sure what your objection is here. It seems like you taking the subjective position of one of the individuals and trying to apply it absolutely.

If we just look at this from the position of the raper and the raped. The raper says I judge this action to be moral. And the raped says I judge this action to be immoral. Those judgments only apply to their own perspectives. The raper’s judgment that the action was good does not make the action good absolutely. It only means that the raper has judged it to be good from his perspective. The raped still can judge it to be bad from her perspective.

I do not know if your objection is to the idea of something along the lines of the raper saying I morally judge the rape to morally good from all perspectives. But I already covered this objection. The raper’s statement is illogical and makes no sense. It would be the same as him saying I morally judge water to freeze at 18 degrees. It is not a moral question.

I disagree that individuals cannot judge a rape to be moral or immoral. They do all the time. We see them make these judgments all the time. Just because an action (including rapes) involve more than one person does not create a new position that actually exists in reality from which the action can be judged. The only judging positions we have are individuals.

 

[Joyousguard]

This discussion is now going to require a lot of offshoots and discssing points in depth to move on.

Premise for Christain Understanding of Divine Law: “Suffice it to say, if there is a God and He is responsile for the creation of the Universe and all of existence He has sole authority over everything, even morals.”

Now, this creates some obvious questions and problems. One of which is “whether God actually exists” and the other that would follow after an existence of God can be established is “If God does exist, does existance mean He created the universe and everything in it”. Both of these points become problamatic because they are beyond the scope of this thread. So, we may either have to agree on certain points or take certain discussions elsewar. There are some threads where God’s existance has been debated and talked about if you do a search.

Here is the link for “exist and creates debate” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=206725&highlight=existance+of+god

I’m sure you will find many answers to your questions or objections listed in those threads, if not, start a new one general enough to further our discussion in this thread.

 

[Richard_Powers]

I’m not sure if you have kids but certain things become a bit clearer when we all come to understand what it means to be a father.

It strikes me as odd that you arguing for objective and absolute morality, but you resort to using a subjective position to illistrate your position. Do you see anything funny here?

When you ask yourself, “could I possible see a situation where it would ever be right for my 8 month old daughter to be raped and it considered to be acceptable?” As you look down at your child sleeping in the crib peacefuly you begin to roll this question over in your mind and try and reconcile it with the stance that there really are no such things as moral rights and wrongs. This is quite a dilema. On one hand you would give up your life for your daughter’s saftey without a moments hesitaion and will protect her with every bit of strength you have but at the same time you feel that somewhere during some circumstances it would be possible to consider that harming your little girl in such a manner could ever be justified by someone and that justification would be just as valid as your justification for believing it would be unbelievably wrong. Believing it possible to justfiy such an event is contrary to the human condition.

It is contrary to the condition of most people in our culture, but there are sociopaths (as you point out) and people in other cultures that take a somewhat different view. And even if this did apply to all human fathers (and it does not) we still all share a common evolutionary history. Nearly every human dislikes the taste of aluminum foil. this does not make taste objective and absolute. Our evolutionary history could have been different. But more importantly we still run into the naturalist fallacy (multiple versions) and the is/ought problem.

 

[Richard_Powers]

This discussion is now going to require a lot of offshoots and discssing points in depth to move on.

Premise for Christain Understanding of Divine Law: “Suffice it to say, if there is a God and He is responsile for the creation of the Universe and all of existence He has sole authority over everything, even morals.”

Now, this creates some obvious questions and problems. One of which is “whether God actually exists” and the other that would follow after an existence of God can be established is “If God does exist, does existance mean He created the universe and everything in it”. Both of these points become problamatic because they are beyond the scope of this thread. So, we may either have to agree on certain points or take certain discussions elsewar. There are some threads where God’s existance has been debated and talked about if you do a search.

Here is the link for “exist and creates debate” forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=206725&highlight=existance+of+god

I’m sure you will find many answers to your questions or objections listed in those threads, if not, start a new one general enough to further our discussion in this thread.

For the sake of the discussion, I will assume that a god exists and that this god created the universe. However, I will not assume that this god is the god of the Bible or that creation just gives this god ultimate authority over morality.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3178599]Your view that the moon was made of cheese would have wrong. If you further based a moral judgment on an action that used the idea that the moon was made out of cheese as premise is what cannot say is wrong. It is flawed because it based on false premises. But even if the premises are corrected you may come to the same moral judgment.

So basically they ends justify the means? Since the ends can not be disputed, it really doesn’t matter what the means are?

Let me use a legal argument in this regards. “Fruit of the posionous tree” is term used to typically describe evidence gathered in an unlawful manner or as the result of an unlawful manner. What you are basically saying is that it really doesn’t matter what type of moral decision is arrived at regardless of the inaccurate objectivity of the facts that it is based on, that the moral decision can not be wrong regardless of the method used to arrive at it?

This is one of the reasons that many people who claim subjective morals also dispute objective truth because objective truth can be used as means to dipute subjective morals. Soon as you admit that the original premise may in fact be wrong and thus the perspective we have of that original objective premise may in fact be wrong you are still opening the door for all perspectives having the possibility of being wrong. We consistently base all perspectives about truth on objective facts which can be wrong when the facts are wrong and the trails flows from there. Soon as we prove any perspective can in fact be wrong or in error, that opens the door irrevocably for the possibility that any perspective may suffer from the same flaw or fate.

You argue objectivty to arrive at conclussions but abandon an objective desire when it comes to what is moral. But not only that, you disregard the objectivity again by saying that any moral perspective can be alwasy right even if it is based on an incorrect premise. You seek truth but then say its okay to make a moral judgement stemming from a premise that you admit could be objectively false? I’m wondering if you are trying to convince me that morality is subject or yourself.

I am not even sure what your objection is here. It seems like you taking the subjective position of one of the individuals and trying to apply it absolutely.

If we just look at this from the position of the raper and the raped. The raper says I judge this action to be moral. And the raped says I judge this action to be immoral. Those judgments only apply to their own perspectives.

But that is the thing, the action and the act still exist independent of the individual and their moral perspective of choice (not indpendent of the individual and the act and action but rather just the choice (for now). You can not claim any moral authority on any acts or actions that you do not have sole dominion over. Fine, you can say that the choice to rape was the right one for you. This can be allowed, to a certain extent because you have (for arguments sake) full domionion over your ability to choose. But your individual perspective and domion end there if the choice is implemented and you no longer have the ability to claim the act or action is right for you because the action and the act are not under the reign of the individual or under the reign of your individual perspective.

The raper’s judgment that the action was good does not make the action good absolutely.

He could claim anything he wants but the fact still remains that he has no power over the nature of the act or the action to declare it to fit with his own moral perspectiv eor choice

It only means that the raper has judged it to be good from his perspective. The raped still can judge it to be bad from her perspective.

The raper still ends any domion he has soon as the choice turns to the action which obviously leads to the act.

 

[Joyousguard]

I do not know if your objection is to the idea of something along the lines of the raper saying I morally judge the rape to morally good from all perspectives.But I already covered this objection. The raper’s statement is illogical and makes no sense.

You can decided to go to the movies with friends, but once you decide to go to the movies with friends you have no domionion over the act and the action of going to the movies with friends. (you can stop and go home but that would be a new action so lets leave this be for now) Can you now say going to the movies was good and thus make the moral judgement that the act and action of going to the movies is indeed good? No, because the nature of the act and the action is something you do not have dominion over because it is not an act of the indivdual or of individual perspective. Could you say that going to the movies was good for me and thus the act and action of going to the movies was indeed good? You could say this, but you would still have no domionion over an action that is not soley encompassed or dependent upon you as an individual or your own perspective.

I disagree that individuals cannot judge a rape to be moral or immoral. They do all the time. We see them make these judgments all the time.

The question then becomes “do they judge the rape as being moral or immoral or do they judge the rape as being wrong because they have been told it was wrong (God/divine Law)?” We can come close to the conclussion that rape is indeed wrong from an objective position but as you pointed out “how do we know that rape is really wrong”. We can’t make that decision because we still do not have the authority to do so.

Just because an action (including rapes) involve more than one person does not create a new position that actually exists in reality from which the action can be judged.

it doesn’t create a new position but is meant to show that the essence of the action and the act already have a certain nature of themselves.

The only judging positions we have are individuals.

that’s where God comes in, or Dr. Phil.

 

[Richard_Powers]

You can decided to go to the movies with friends, but once you decide to go to the movies with friends you have no domionion over the act and the action of going to the movies with friends. (you can stop and go home but that would be a new action so lets leave this be for now) Can you now say going to the movies was good and thus make the moral judgement that the act and action of going to the movies is indeed good? No, because the nature of the act and the action is something you do not have dominion over because it is not an act of the indivdual or of individual perspective. Could you say that going to the movies was good for me and thus the act and action of going to the movies was indeed good? You could say this, but you would still have no domionion over an action that is not soley encompassed or dependent upon you as an individual or your own perspective.

I will start with what I think we agree with here. After you go to the movies you no longer have any control over that act. That act exists as something that occurred in reality. It will have certain properties that are unchangeable. But (and this is where I think we start disagree) these properties do not contain moral goodness itself (or badness). You cannot say this contains the property of moral goodness because it contains the property of pleasure to someone or say that this contains the property of moral badness because it contains the property of harm to another or any other property it does contain. The act itself cannot contain the property of being morally good. This requires a judgment of the act which can only be done from a perspective. And the only perspectives we have any evidence of there ever being a moral judgment made from are individual perspectives. It is the difference between saying what qualities make things valuable to someone and analyzing (objective and absolute) value itself.

The question then becomes “do they judge the rape as being moral or immoral or do they judge the rape as being wrong because they have been told it was wrong (God/divine Law)?” We can come close to the conclussion that rape is indeed wrong from an objective position but as you pointed out “how do we know that rape is really wrong”. We can’t make that decision because we still do not have the authority to do so.

So it is your position that when I (I choose myself since obviously do not subscribe to any divinely moral commanded moral systems) say that I find it moral wrong that X raped Y I am not making a moral judgment because I do not have the authority to make a moral judgment? Just what am I doing if I am not making a moral judgment? (I agree that I cannot say that it is objectively and absolutely morally good or bad, but that is because subjective morality prevents that sort of judgment from ever being made.)

it doesn’t create a new position but is meant to show that the essence of the action and the act already have a certain nature of themselves.

But it does not contain the nature of being morally good or bad. That takes a judgment of the properties that it does have.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3178700]It strikes me as odd that you arguing for objective and absolute morality, but you resort to using a subjective position to illistrate your position. Do you see anything funny here?

It’s like smacking a baby on the diaper.(not meant as an insult or inference to you in any way but the best example I could think of) I’m not really arguing anything but merely showing them that something is wrong or an “attention getter”. It’s not meant as an arguement or an explaination but something to get your attention and hopefully have you reflect upon the situation for a moment. Sometimes when people are in a very difficult situation they panic. You often see a someone slap them whenthey freak out. The slap doesn’t do anything to solve the perdicament they are in one way or the other.

It is contrary to the condition of most people in our culture, but there are sociopaths (as you point out) and people in other cultures that take a somewhat different view. And even if this did apply to all human fathers (and it does not) we still all share a common evolutionary history. Nearly every human dislikes the taste of aluminum foil. this does not make taste objective and absolute. Our evolutionary history could have been different. But more importantly we still run into the naturalist fallacy (multiple versions) and the is/ought problem.

The interesting point I’m trying to make is that people have to be conditioned or dysfunctional in some way to override certain human conditions.

Look at the term sociopath. A sociopath is “a person, has a psychopathic personality, whose behavior is antisocial and who lacks a sense of moral responsibility or social conscience.” It’s interesting that the understanding and definition of a sociopath is a scientific and medical understanding. Obviously it does not confirm that there are things as objective morals but only rather that there are things called morals.

The interesting thing is that according to your view on subjective morality the medical and scientific community are wrong in ascribing a sociopath to be lacking in moral responsibility, but should rather say they are lacking in legal responsibility because the morality of this country or any country would be based on the subjective and the only real rule these people could violate would be law. These doctors and scientists are studying a disorder that in actuality can not exist. If morals are subjective then sociopaths can not really violate any objective standard. Can scientists really study anything based on a subjective standard and claim anything to be accurate? It makes you wonder why we give out so much medication for so many problems or why there are so many medical journals and scientific studies for mental problems dealing with issues of conscious or moral standards.

This mental or brain disorder (whatever they understanding of it is) would really be classified as a medical fiction. A man in india who kills 60 people in whatever gruesome manner we could think of may be a sociopath by our standards and a sociopath by indias standards but in reality he would be as sane as the rest of us.

A sociopath is not a man who has no moral compass but rather is man who simply breaks the law. That is sort of distrubing considering most of us have probably broken the speeding laws. I wonder if technicaly we are all sociopaths or maybe sociopaths don’t exist at all. Either way, this brings up an interesting discussion because the understanding and definition of a sociopath is based on objective criteria. They spend all this time and money to find out why people commit such crimes when I guess in reality they are just as normal as you or I.

 

[Joyousguard]

Richard Powers;3179712]I will start with what I think we agree with here. After you go to the movies you no longer have any control over that act. That act exists as something that occurred in reality. It will have certain properties that are unchangeable.

I’ll agree with this.

But (and this is where I think we start disagree) these properties do not contain moral goodness itself (or badness). You cannot say this contains the property of moral goodness because it contains the property of pleasure to someone or say that this contains the property of moral badness because it contains the property of harm to another or any other property it does contain. The act itself cannot contain the property of being morally good.

We agree somewhat. I guess what you are saying is that the act is morally neutral. This could be comprable to saying we have no authority to declare it one way or the other.

This requires a judgment of the act which can only be done from a perspective. And the only perspectives we have any evidence of there ever being a moral judgment made from are individual perspectives. It is the difference between saying what qualities make things valuable to someone and analyzing (objective and absolute) value itself.

AThe action does require someone to declare it moral or immoral but that someone can not be a human being because they still do not have the power to declare the nature of any act we essentially agree upon. The question becomes “if human beings do not have the power or the authority to declare an act moral or immoral or change the act or actions nature, who does?”

So it is your position that when I (I choose myself since obviously do not subscribe to any divinely moral commanded moral systems) say that I find it moral wrong that X raped Y I am not making a moral judgment because I do not have the authority to make a moral judgment?

If by moral judgement, you mean declaring an act or act moral or immoral, then no you have no authority to do so yourself.

Just what am I doing if I am not making a moral judgment? (I agree that I cannot say that it is objectively and absolutely morally good or bad, but that is because subjective morality prevents that sort of judgment from ever being made.)

You could be said to be passing on a moral judgement from someone who has the authority to declare an act or action moral or immoral. I can call a tree a car till I’m blue in the face but it won’t matter because i do not have the power or the domain to change the nature and essence of the tree or the car. (obviuolsy this is more objective truth rather than something concerning morality but it is a similiar concept and idea)

But it does not contain the nature of being morally good or bad. That takes a judgment of the properties that it does have.

It will take on whatever nature it is declared by that which has the power and the authority to do so.

 

[Joyousguard]

Theology

For the sake of the discussion, I will assume that a god exists and that this god created the universe. However, I will not assume that this god is the god of the Bible or that creation just gives this god ultimate authority over morality.

Just to clarify:

1. You are assuming for arguments sake that God exists or you acknowledge that God exists? You don’t need to explain in any deatil, I just want to make sure we a clear moving forward.
2. Assuming (for arguments sake) or acknowlidging (depends on your stance regarding question 1) that God exists you dispute that God is the God of the Bible because…? (If you could just list your general stance and points so we can establish a framework for discussion. This will become difficult if you creat an argument based upon a premise that you don’t hold to be true though.)
3. I am going to progress further here taking several things for granted. You will accept the stance (based on your choice from question 1) that God created the universe but that does not mean that God has ultimate authority over morality? ( you don’t really need to explain any of these in great detail but rather state your stance as almost a hypothesis or direct statement so we can establish the foundation for the rest of the discussion)

 

[Richard_Powers]

Theology

Just to clarify:

1. You are assuming for arguments sake that God exists or you acknowledge that God exists? You don’t need to explain in any deatil, I just want to make sure we a clear moving forward.
2. Assuming (for arguments sake) or acknowlidging (depends on your stance regarding question 1) that God exists you dispute that God is the God of the Bible because…? (If you could just list your general stance and points so we can establish a framework for discussion. This will become difficult if you creat an argument based upon a premise that you don’t hold to be true though.)
3. I am going to progress further here taking several things for granted. You will accept the stance (based on your choice from question 1) that God created the universe but that does not mean that God has ultimate authority over morality? ( you don’t really need to explain any of these in great detail but rather state your stance as almost a hypothesis or direct statement so we can establish the foundation for the rest of the discussion)

1. For the sake of argument.
2. I see no evidence that the God of the Bible exists in reality. I do not even see a clear definition of God of the Bible. I do not know if you have read James Kugel’s How to Read the Bible, but he goes through the history of how the Bible (Old Testament) has been read and interpreted. Depending on the story and the era it has been interpreted in God is seen in very different ways.
3. I do see why the creation of the universe means that God has objective and absolute moral authority.

 

[Richard_Powers]

The question becomes “if human beings do not have the power or the authority to declare an act moral or immoral or change the act or actions nature, who does?”

I actually had something longer posted that went through some minor objections I had, but I think it might be better to just start here.

I think we both agree that without a god there can be no absolute and objective morality. (I would still say there can be subjective morality.)

I think our biggest disagreement will be that it is my position that even with a god that does not get us absolute and objective morality.

 

[CalmDownWisWins]

…
I think our biggest disagreement will be that it is my position that even with a god that does not get us absolute and objective morality.

What do you mean by “get us”?

Do you mean that it (absolute and objective morality) can’t be communicated to us?

I would agree wholeheartedly that if it weren’t communicable, God’s existence “gets us” nothing.

Since, to me, there must be God, a priori, He MUST make His objective and absolute morality communicable, which indeed He has.

You can look it up in the Church.

Since, to you, there “mustn’t” be a God, a priori, apparently, as I MAY be imagining that, as to me to say their MUST be God is to say there is “morality absolute”, absolute morality is not only not knowable but utterly unecessary.

In other words, God’s existence proves the communicabililty of absolute and objective morality.

If one doesn’t fully believe in God, one is free floating in relativity-land, which place is the result and “proving ground” (place where one struggles with the implications) of the sin of relativism.

 

[Richard_Powers]

What do you mean by “get us”?

Do you mean that it (absolute and objective morality) can’t be communicated to us?

No. I mean that even if there is a god that does not necessarily mean that there is objective and absolute morality. That would be a point that needs to be established.