What are the “objective moralities/truths”? Is there a list?

[Even_Keal]

Lately, whenever I’m debating Athiests and I appeal to “objective truths” or “objective moralities”, in my aurgument for the existance of God, l’ve been getting countered with “which objective morals are we supposed to follow?” Is there a list somewhere? How do we know one set of objective morals/truths is better then another set?

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

I don’t know if it’s ever been distilled into a list, like on a page or in a pamphlet.
I’ve read apologetics books, but because they’re about explaining things, they tend to be lengthy.
I’ll be watching this thread with interest!

 

[rossum]

There is more than one list. Christians have a list, Jews have a different list (no pork). Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists, Humanists etc all have lists.

The problem is not finding a list; the problem is justifying one list over another.

Even if you just use the Bible, there are different lists possible. Is the Sabbath a Sunday (most Christians) or a Saturday (SDAs)? Which of the Old Testament rules still apply and which do not? Should Christians kill people who worship different gods (Deuteronomy 13:6-11)?

rossum

 

[Dan123]

The issues you’re running into imho are why the objective morality arguments aren’t the strongest. For any ‘objective moral truth’ you can name there’s going to be people who disagree, or an argument for a situation in which that rule wouldn’t seem as just as normal.

There are certainly laws and guiding principles that the majority of us agree on, most of those are codified into law in whatever country and culture we live in.

 

[Even_Keal]

Wow…a lot of great perspectives right from the start. Thanks!

So I’m gathering that there ARE many lists (Christians, Jewish, Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists, Humanists, etc) yet, there IS an amazing amount of overlap (Murder is bad, marriage between man and woman is sacred, rape is bad, molesting children is bad, etc). Why is that (question for the Atheists)?

Can it be that with reason and logic we can reach these conclusions as to what the ultimate list of objective truths/morals are?

Or does there still needs to be a power above these “lists” to determine which list is better or worse? Something above the natural world. (i.e. Super Natural)?

With Atheists, they typically just stop at the natural world, and any argument the goes beyond the material world seems to get dismissed.

 

[TheOldColonel]

The concept of Objective Morality does not require that there be a list. Indeed, the question put to you was meant to imply that there is only Subjective Morality. Objective Morality, rather, is exemplified not in a litany of do’s and don’ts, but is the Natural Law, itself, arising from the goodness of God and His creation. This is why atheists struggle so with the concept. That morality could be objective leads them dangerously close to having to admit that it is of one source… God.

 

[rossum]

That is a very dangerous position to take. There is a great deal of what God says in the Old Testament that most Christians would rightly reject. If God’s standard is “unchanging” then any atheist is going to argue that Christians ignore God’s “unchanging” standard. If Christians can ignore God, then why can’t everyone else?

Examples are: killing unbelievers, (Deuteronomy 13:6-11), killing disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and human sacrifice of firstborn sons (Exodus 22:29).

You need to find a better argument here; this one is weak.

rossum

 

[Bradskii]

Lately, whenever I’m debating Athiests and I appeal to “objective truths” or “objective moralities”, in my aurgument for the existance of God, l’ve been getting countered with “which objective morals are we supposed to follow?” Is there a list somewhere? How do we know one set of objective morals/truths is better then another set?

Do you mean absolute rather than objective? There are objective facts (my car is red) versus subjective ones (I think that chocolate ice cream tastes great). But when it comes to morality, there are no absolute moral rules. They all need to be qualified in some way.

So killing is not objectively wrong. To define it as such you need to qualify it: ‘Killing is wrong if…’. It s then a relative statement.

 

[Dan123]

That morality could be objective leads them dangerously close to having to admit that it is of one source… God.

The issue you’ll run into is that the source of morality being any entity, even God, makes it subjective. It may be unchanging, it may be the ultimate standard against which all are judged, but it’s still the moral standard set by God. Really it goes back to the original argument of prescriptive vs descriptive morality. Is murder wrong because God says it’s wrong or is it wrong intrinsically and God is informing us of this truth? Again why I don’t think these ‘source of morality’ arguments are the strongest to support the existence of God.

 

[Dan123]

Examples are: killing unbelievers, (Deuteronomy 13:6-11), killing disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21) and human sacrifice of firstborn sons (Exodus 22:29).

I think this one is big. Make all the arguments you want about whether we’re bound by the old covenant or whether that’s been fulfilled, but a more important question isn’t whether you must kill people who work on the Sabbath for example, but if you do kill someone who works on the Sabbath, is it moral? If morality is unchanging then we shouldn’t have a different answer between then and now.

 

[Bradskii]

Wow…a lot of great perspectives right from the start. Thanks!

So I’m gathering that there ARE many lists (Christians, Jewish, Hindus, Sikhs Buddhists, Humanists, etc) yet, there IS an amazing amount of overlap (Murder is bad, marriage between man and woman is sacred, rape is bad, molesting children is bad, etc). Why is that (question for the Atheists)?

Can it be that with reason and logic we can reach these conclusions as to what the ultimate list of objective truths/morals are?

Or does there still needs to be a power above these “lists” to determine which list is better or worse? Something above the natural world. (i.e. Super Natural)?

With Atheists, they typically just stop at the natural world, and any argument the goes beyond the material world seems to get dismissed.

If you take out any reference to sacred, then yes, there is a commonality to what we all consider to be moral or immoral. There has never been a culture that considers, for example, murder to be acceptable (if you define murder as the unjustified killing of another). Yes, there have been societies at time where it was prevelant, and the chances of being punished were minimal, but I would suggest that even those who murdered in those situations knew it was wrong but didn’t care about the consequences. To the victim or themselves.

And the reason for the commonality is first that we have empathy. We understand the pain that someone else would go through if we were to harm them. So we understand, almost at a sub conscious level, that if it was acceptable to hurt others, then it would be acceptable for others to hurt us. It’s the Golden Rule. Matthew 7:12.

And secondly, there is reciprocal altruism. No man is an island unto himself. So we survive better if we share the burden. If we watch each other’s back. We wouldn’t have survived as a species if that were not the case. There would be no social groups, no tribes, no villages. Civilisation would not emerge from the trees as it has. Those who did not have this gene for ‘socialising’ didn’t survive long enough to pass on their genes to their offspring. So the vast majority now have it (psychopaths and sociopaths being an obvious exeption).

So what we class as being morally correct (don’t steal, don’t kill, don’t lie) is simply that which has worked to get us to this point. So we, obviously, consider it to be ‘good’.

 

[Dan123]

And the reason for the commonality is first that we have empathy. We understand the pain that someone else would go through if we were to harm them. So we understand, almost at a sub conscious level, that if it was acceptable to hurt others, then it would be acceptable for others to hurt us. It’s the Golden Rule. Matthew 7:12.

It’s worth adding that we see lots of behaviors we’d identify as moral in the animal kingdom in other ‘social species’ as well. It might be ‘simple’ by our standards but it seems to be an emergent property of animals with a certain level of intelligence who live in communities with each other.

 

[Bradskii]

‘God has changed how He relates to us as we have changed through time’.

I couldn’t imagine a better example of relativism.

And in passing, God doesn’t seem to mind either killing innocent people Himself or encouraging it. I guess God’s rules are not ours though. But I personally would prefer someone leading by example.

 

[Hugh_Farey]

And God, of course, who ordained the evolutionary method of enjoying creation, ensured that his moral standards exactly matched the standards that anybody could work out simply by reference to the survival and furtherance of the species, which is why atheists often come up with exactly the same morals without recognising that God is behind them. A group of rats that killed each other or parents their children, or dependent children their parents, or generally failed to co-operate in their struggle for survival, would soon cease to be. There are lots of rats because they don’t behave like this. How similar their actual behaviour is to conformity with the commandments!

 

[rossum]

I’m afraid it does sound exactly like that. This thread is talking about “objective moralities”, and you agree that the rules in the Bible change with geographic location and over time. Whether of not God changes, everyone agrees that in practice the rules change. Christians no longer kill witches, though they did up to about 1700.

Hence an unchanging God is not really relevant to establishing the current set of moral rules because the rules change with time.

Also, about the killing certain people, keep in mind that God has always been against murder.

Since murder is defined as “immoral killing”, in contrast to “moral killing”, it is not particularly useful to discuss only murder. It is more useful to discuss where the boundary between moral and immoral killing lies. For example, some US states retain the death penalty while other states and European countries do not. Are those states acting immorally in retaining the death penalty?

rossum

 

[stpurl]

Ok. If they are saying, ‘there is no objective truth’. . .that statement itself is an objective truth --to THEM. So they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

Objectivity is not limited to ‘yes there are’, it is equally applicable to ‘no, there are not’.

 

[Dan123]

Ok. If they are saying, ‘there is no objective truth’. . .that statement itself is an objective truth --to THEM. So they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

It’s their subjective opinion that the universe holds no objective moral standards. They haven’t shot themselves in the foot you’re just trying to use clever word play. Easier way to win the argument is to demonstrate objective moral truths exist.

 

[stpurl]

No, really. The fact that they are stating that there IS no objective truth means that they expect to argue from that basis, cutting away any attempt by you or other to say otherwise. “But what about?” “SORRY, there IS no objective truth” (repeat, repeat).

Objective truth means something that is really the case, whether somebody believes or not. It isn’t relative, meaning that it’s only true if somebody ‘wishes’ to accept it, or at certain times, or for certain people.

So claiming that there are NO objective truths (and yes, shooting down every single example’ and claiming, “you cannot show me an objective truth” is stating that, because one knows from experience that there is, and has been, NOTHING that will be accepted as objective truth by the person), is stating, “There is no objective truth. Truths are ONLY relative”, and again, that is a statement claiming as objective truth that there can BE no objective truth.

 

[Dan123]

Yes it’s a statement about objective truth but it’s a subjective opinion ON the subject. An individual cannot make objective statements only offer subjective opinions and ideas.

If one could demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that objective truths exist then no one would be arguing whether they exist, not would they be arguing what those truths are. So this goes back to the original post of this thread, if they exist, what are they.

 

[Bradskii]

Ok. If they are saying, ‘there is no objective truth’. . .that statement itself is an objective truth --to THEM. So they’ve shot themselves in the foot.

Objectivity is not limited to ‘yes there are’, it is equally applicable to ‘no, there are not’.

What the…? But…Ahhh. I see what you did there. You tried to pull a fast one by repeating something that you read elsewhere and thought at the time: Baddabing, that’s a zinger!

Except that when you read it, it refered to absolute moral truths (which do not exist) or objective moral truths. Because when I say: ‘My car is red’, that’s an objective truth. It isn’t subject to anyone’s beliefs or preferences. So there are objective truths.

Now an objectively moral truth would be one which is true irrespective of people’s beliefs or preferences. And I don’t mind holding my hand up and saying that, for example, burning small children alive is objectively immoral. It doesn’t matter what I personally think of it or what your preferences might be, I am calling that objectively immoral.

And please note that it is not absolutely wrong as causing harm is entirely dependent on the conditions, which makes it relatively wrong. It is relatively wrong depending on the scenario.