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

[Gorgias]

Why? Something independently written is objective, not subjective. You may not agree with the contents of the Bhagavad Gita but you must agree that it objectively exists.

Existence of a work is not the same as what is written in that work. Think about it for just a second: by your standard, there is no idea or assertion that is subjective, since any idea or assertion may be written down, and therefore, by your argument, it thereby becomes objective.

In your example, there are three items to consider:

• The assertions in question
• The work (the BG itself) in which the assertions are written down
• A person’s opinions about the assertions in question.

We’re talking about the assertions themselves here, not the objective fact of their presence in the BG, nor the opinions of anyone about the assertions. The assertions do not become objective by virtue of having been written.

Some writings are rules, others are not. The Abrahamic God’s admonition not to eat pork is certainly a rule. There is an argument about how far the rule applies.

A rule is not necessarily an expression of objective moral truth. I mean… would you claim that the ‘infield fly rule’ is an expression of objective moral truth?

 

[Gorgias]

You said ““Consenting to harm” doesn’t change the objective truth that there is, in fact, still harm”

And I said if you want to claim there’s harm demonstrate it. It was pointed out that in your list of examples all but one included direct measurable harm as the reason why some are enforced and others aren’t.

Yes, but I’m not claiming that ‘harm’ is the standard by which to measure objective truth. In addition, I pointed out the bait-and-switch between ‘harm’ and ‘consent’…

Do you believe one or more of those books to be the inerrant word of God?

You’re speaking to the fact that it’s untenable to force a morality on a person (although you think you’re getting at an argument of ‘subjective’ nature). Christians would claim that the Divine Law is an objective fact – and that the subjective element comes into play with an individual’s system of belief.

I’m sure you didn’t mean that women consent to be abused. Perhaps you could confirm that.

I’m sorry… where did I mention women? You seem to have introduced that element into the discussion. I’m sure you didn’t mean to introduce a loaded question fallacy into our discussion. Perhaps you could confirm that.

And it’s no good using examples of harm as your definition. We need to define it so that we can see if it applies to any examples we use. And the definition must be demonstrable. As it is with harm.

My definition is that ‘harm’ isn’t the definition of what constitutes objective morality.

 

[Lucretius]

Exodus 22:29

That commandment has nothing to do with human sacrifice.

Christi pax.

 

[rossum]

That commandment (Exodus 22:29) has nothing to do with human sacrifice.

Maybe not, but that is what a literal reading says. There are others. For over 1700 years Christians interpreted Exodus 22:18 as meaning exactly what it said.

rossum

 

[Kei]

Did you read the whole paragraph? They’re sacrificing lambs or birds, not people.

Human sacrifice was condemned in the OT.

 

[Lucretius]

Maybe not, but that is what a literal reading says. There are others. For over 1700 years Christians interpreted Exodus 22:18 as meaning exactly what it said.

Literal meaning doesn’t mean read in isolation, neither from the actual culture and religion nor from the rest of the book itself.

It is pretty clear from Jewish historical practice and the book of Exodus itself that they didn’t interpret “offer” as child sacrifice.

Christi pax.

 

[rossum]

Did you read the whole paragraph? They’re sacrificing lambs or birds, not people.

Yes I did. As written it describes sacrificing firstborn male children. Just as Exodus 22:18 requires killing witches.

Human sacrifice was condemned in the OT.

Eating pork or clams is condemned in the OT. Wearing a polyester-cotton shirt is also condemned in the OT. Well, at least God got one thing right.

rossum

 

[Kei]

When reading a particular chapter one should consult the surrounding material. For instance, this particular verse is harkening back to ie Exodus 13:2, wherein every single firstborn was to be consecrated to God, and you were to redeem with a lamb (i.e., sacrifice the lamb) your firstborn sons. Also, you were able to do 2 doves instead of a lamb, as was done with Jesus.

Witchcraft would be a sort of treason, but indeed capital punishment is not sacrifice. But in ANE culture, punishments were able to be bargained for, say for a fine, excepting the punishment for murder.

The laws that promoted uniformity among the Israelites (i.e., only regular fish, not crustaceans) which could also by way of signs point to deeper spiritual truths as well (such as the cleanliness of the animals being a metaphor for gentiles), or the uniformity of clothing being a metaphor for purity. But that’s a tad beside the point.

 

[Bradskii]

OK, you got me on using women as the example. Either way, I’m not sure a spouse consents to a beating.

And if harm doesn’t define what is morally wrong, then what does (and please don’t say ‘just whatever God says it is’)? I’m bemused by the fact that anyone could describe something as being wrong if there is no harm done.

In fact I am sure that you could not come up with anything that you class as morally wrong without also personally thinking it is wrong. Otherwise:

G: That’s morally wrong.
B: Why?
G: I have no idea. Oh, except God says so.

So on the assumption that you would think that all immoral acts cause harm, then we need your definition of harm to proceed.

 

[Bradskii]

Two doves for a lamb? Good grief, that’s cheap. I can’t get a lamb for anything less that 4 doves 50. But I don’t have to sacrifice my first born, so you have to take that into consideration.

 

[Kei]

Keep in mind, these are like PERFECT doves, not stuff with a cleft foot or anything. And it was for those who couldn’t afford the lamb…

Not to insult your doves. I’m sure they’re still beautiful, you know, on the inside, somewhere.

Thankfully the doves are what ultimately gets sacrificed and it represents redemption through sacrifice as the firstborn son is fine.

 

[Bradskii]

Just in passing, I assume that when you have sacrficed your lamb, you can eat it?

Sounds just an excuse for a barbie to me.

 

[Kei]

Some sacrifices could be eaten…others, however, had to be completely burned up to a crisp, which sounds much less appetizing than the Seder meal (roasted lamb, etc.), but it probably signified loss and giving it completely up to God.

 

[Lucretius]

No one actually thinks anyone should follow his whims, nor does anyone think that “anything goes,” even though many live as if they believe those to be true.

I think it useful, when we discuss ethics, that we look for examples of real people living an approximately good life. From there, we can start to determine what our ideal is, or rather, what the end or purpose of human life is.

Another rule of thumb is that any real ideal has to present a hiearchy of values, where a lesser value ought to be sacrificed for a higher one, especially if they conflict. If the Kingdom of God is the most important thing, then we should hate our parents if they they get in the way of it. If the goal is the distinction and holiness of Israel, then we should cut off adulterers, rebellious children, idolers, pork eaters, etc. from her.

A third principle is to remember that all complete ideals ought to challenge us and consider man’s interior life. Any morality that makes us think we are moral or pretty much so is simply incomplete, and any one that doesn’t touch on how we should feel and think about things is avoiding dealing with the human heart.

Christi pax.

 

[Gorgias]

And if harm doesn’t define what is morally wrong, then what does (and please don’t say ‘just whatever God says it is’)? I’m bemused by the fact that anyone could describe something as being wrong if there is no harm done.

It all comes down to how one defines ‘harm’, doesn’t it? And that’s the rub: what one person considers harm, another does not. What both consider ‘harm’, one might consider insuffiently so to warrant the claim of ‘immoral behavior’, while another disagrees. Using ‘harm’ as the measuring stick makes this an exercise that is inherently subjective.

And if harm doesn’t define what is morally wrong, then what does (and please don’t say ‘just whatever God says it is’)?

C’mon, now… another loaded question? I’m a Christian, for crying out loud – of course I’m going to claim Divine Law as the objective measuring stick!

So on the assumption that you would think that all immoral acts cause harm

I wouldn’t. Some sins (i.e., immoral behavior) may offend only God. By definition, God cannot be harmed. Therefore, there are actions which “do not cause harm” but which are immoral. (To deny this claim, you have to assert something which, if memory serves, you refused to believe back in the days of the old board: all sins affect others.) So… which is it? Are there sins which offend only God (e.g., sitting in a room by yourself and taking the Lord’s name in vain), or do all sins offend others as well?

 

[goout]

Basic Christian principle:
Morality is not sourced in a list, but in a person. Morality is not a list of rules. Morality is personified in Christ.

 

[HarryStotle]

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

I couldn’t imagine a better example of relativism.

Seems to me that you are proposing something like an unfalsifiable claim vis a vis God’s supposed ‘relativism.’

So if God punishes the guilty and rewards the innocent, he is acting “relativistically,” because he treats them differently. And if he were to reward both the guilty and the innocent, or punish both the guilty and the innocent he would also be acting relativistically because the guilty are not the innocent and the innocent not guilty, so to treat them as if they are the same would be capricious – and relativistic – from the point of view of justice.

Either way, both would be examples of “relativism” for you, it seems.

So how is God to act, vis a vis human beings, to not be acting relativistically?

If God’s justice remains the same but humans have changed through time, and therefore God’s response to human beings changes, why is that an example of relativism?"

It seems, by your view, that God couldn’t treat the innocent and the guilty differently without being relativistic. Nor could he respond appropriately, from the standpoint of justice or morality, without also being relativistic.

 

[Bradskii]

If you think that there are some immoral acts that cause no harm, then we are done. There is no common ground.

 

[Bradskii]

The post I referred to stated that God changes his attitude to us as we change ourselves. That is, as we change, so does He.

Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[Lucretius]

Bradskii,

Would you agree that the aim of your ethical thesis is to structure a society where its citizens can run wild and act on whatever impulse, desire, taste, sentiment, reason religion, philosophy, worldview, itch, etc. they happen to have without destroying each other? Like, a mass of balls rolling in whatever direction they want without colliding into each other?

Christi pax.