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

[HarryStotle]

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.

To say God “changes” his “attitude” is somewhat misleading, no?

God has a certain “attitude” towards the good and a certain “attitude” towards evil. Those don’t “change.” They appear quite fixed. It isn’t as if he has a positive “attitude” towards the good at one time and then, some time later, takes on a negative “attitude” towards that same good.

God isn’t “relative” in the sense of things being deemed good by him are later deemed evil and vice versa. His “attitude” to the good is constant because the acts and events that are deemed good by him are consistently so. The good, in that sense, is not relative to time, place or circumstance.

Moral agency has built into it a kind of changeableness because moral agents, in order to be morally responsible in the first place, and have free agency, must be capable of choosing actions which are or are not morally good.

How could God not respond differently to moral agents when they do good as compared to when they do evil? Are you claiming God ought not have any response whatsoever to moral agents acting as moral agents? That he ought merely be impassive to moral actions altogether in order not to be “relativistic?”

Seems odd to me.

 

[Dan123]

Using ‘harm’ as the measuring stick makes this an exercise that is inherently subjective.

If two people disagree on whether running people over with their car causes harm then I don’t think it’s subjective, they just clearly aren’t in agreement on what the word harm means.

What objective measuring stick would you like to use? If you want to say God’s law, one might ask which god? Presumably you’d use the god you believe in over say, Thor, but then we’re back to subjectivity.

 

[HarryStotle]

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

You are going to have to link “harm” to some objective standard. You cannot merely mean physical injury to a living thing or cessation of that being’s existence. There must be some larger reality encompassed by the word “harm” that would include things like property, infringement of rights, and so forth.

If that is the case, you then need to have a method for prioritizing “harms,” otherwise your ethical system becomes rather whimsical and ineffectual rather quickly.

So, let’s begin by offering a workable categorization of “harm.”

 

[Dan123]

How about the legal system of any developed nation? Probably most recognizable in western countries. They all have legal systems setup to evaluate relative harm and attempt to do so as objectively as possible given the limitations of such systems.

 

[MCH1]

God doesn’t seem to mind either killing innocent people Himself or encouraging it.

Why do you think that?

 

[Lucretius]

I think what Gorgias is trying to say is that the principle “cause no harm” presupposes an unclear hierarchy of values rooted in the emotions (i.e. the subjective) of the general population (or those who can manipulate the mob).

I think that the purpose of such a principle is to tap into everyone’s general sentiments of harmony with others and disgust with the more violent crimes like rape, murder, theft, etc.

But even though many cases of rape, murder, and theft are pretty clear cut what is good and what is evil, there are many that aren’t. Furthermore, there are other things that we want to be crimes that aren’t clearly “violent” or “harming,” and there are many things we would call the harming that we allow the police to do bona fide.Even though this principle grounds the immorality of many extreme injustices, it doesn’t help us at all in the controversial and unclear situations that we would bother with an ethical theory for.

But more deeply, since it is a theory that taps into our contemporary culture’s general sentiments, it ends up by itself being unstable, contradictory, open to influence from many negative forces, and ultimately leads to all kinds of injustices. In a medieval Spanish society sentimental morality led to the Spanish Inquisition, in Indian society, the horror stories of the caste system, but also the foolishness of the Sophists in Socrates’ life and even the self-righteous of the Pharisees in Christ’s own life.

In our society, for now, it leads to things like sexual immorality and its consequences, especially abortion, racism, self-righteousness, feminism, and a general dislike of traditions, especially traditional religions.

Sentimental moralities assume that everyones sensiblities are properly disposed, but the only people who have properly disposed wills are the saints in heaven.

Christi pax.

 

[PetraG]

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?

Where is their list of objective physical facts? Do they think there is such a thing as an objective truth or not? If they don’t, then what is the point of trying to prove anything to them? If they do, then there are a lot of things they have come to accept as objectively true that don’t appear on a single list anywhere.
So, ask them if it is OK to end the life of another person because you can. Why or why not? What if you have a good reason to want to see them dead? Do you have the authority to decide who lives or dies? Well, why not? Do you think you should? Why?
There really are people out there who don’t believe it is possible to know the truth. A few “debates” with them could easily explain why Our Lord didn’t look to score debate points with Pontius Pilate. It is pointless.

 

[Escabrosa]

Is murder wrong because God says it’s wrong or is it wrong intrinsically and God is informing us of this truth?

The Euthyphro dilemma is false because it doesn’t entertain the correct answer, that God is goodness itself. Or if you prefer, being itself. God is. It’s His nature.

 

[rossum]

God kills many innocent people. How many innocent unborn children were killed when their pregnant mothers drowned in the Flood? Many first born Egyptian babies were innocent. God ordered the killing of pregnant Midianite women, again killing their innocent unborn children. When God ordered the killing of all the people of Jericho, and other cities, He did not make an exception for pregnant women. Similarly, there was no exception made for pregnant Amalekite women.

God has no problem killing innocent unborn children, or innocent babies.

The OT God was not a nice God.

rossum

 

[Gorgias]

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

Take my example: ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain while alone’. You would agree that a Jew or Christian would see this as breaking one of the Ten Commandments, right? Would you also say that “no one is harmed by this act”?

 

[HarryStotle]

God has no problem killing innocent unborn children, or innocent babies.

The OT God was not a nice God.

As has been pointed out before in a number of forum threads, there is no moral equivalency between what God does or permits and what humans do.

The lives, existences and states of those ostensibly killed by God were, first off, created by God. If human beings had the wherewithal to bring those who die back to life immediately, murder or homicide wouldn’t be the heinous crime it is. Think of how doctors routinely “kill” persons on the operating table while undertaking a surgical procedure and then bring them back to life. We don’t charge them with murder or call them “not nice” because they they do. Since God has complete control over what happens to those who were killed in the flood, or plagues or are killed every day in the present, until it is known precisely what happens to those individuals after they die, it is a bit premature to impugn God with moral faults.

Second, any declarations concerning the innocence of victims by morally constrained and inept human beings is also overreach. Being all-knowing and goodness itself, God is in a far better position to determine the guilt or innocence of those who are taken abruptly from this life. We ought to save our moral condemnations of God until we are in better possession of the full array of the moral facts about those persons. Our determinations concerning the innocence of others and even ourselves seems a bit prejudiced given that we cannot even agree on pretty obvious moral facts and live in a kind of moral oblivion regarding what morality is or if it even exists. We are in no position to make settled moral judgements regarding the guilt, innocence or niceness of God.

 

[HarryStotle]

Bradskii:

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

Take my example: ‘taking the Lord’s name in vain while alone’. You would agree that a Jew or Christian would see this as breaking one of the Ten Commandments, right? Would you also say that “no one is harmed by this act”?

Not to argue on Bradskii’s behalf, but merely to make a couple of observations.

It could be argued that taking the Lord’s name in vain when done with some level of intent is harming the person doing so. And this, not because the person will be penalized in some capricious way by an easily offended “God,” but because of the inherent lack of due respect the person shows for truth, for reality and for being which brings with it natural consequential harms.

Second, Bradskii is somewhat selective on his application of the harm principle. He wouldn’t, for example, cite harm as the determining principle where a woman’s right to not be inconvenienced supersedes the actual harm done to the human being she chooses to abort.

 

[HarryStotle]

I think what Gorgias is trying to say is that the principle “cause no harm” presupposes an unclear hierarchy of values rooted in the emotions (i.e. the subjective) of the general population (or those who can manipulate the mob).

I think that the purpose of such a principle is to tap into everyone’s general sentiments of harmony with others and disgust with the more violent crimes like rape, murder, theft, etc.

This trend seems pretty clear from the rising tide of making “hate crimes” more particularly heinous than those not involving hate, as if cold, calculating, and dispassionate crimes ought to be treated as less blameworthy.

So intention involving the subjective state of “hate” within one person can easily be determined by the courts, but the judicial system is completely incapable of determining intention in the case, say, of Hillary Clinton and her email server.

 

[goout]

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.

The favorite fundamentalist Christian straw man of atheist objection.
It makes an easy punching bag, but unfortunately it’s not the Christian God.

 

[Gorgias]

God kills many innocent people. How many innocent unborn children were killed when their pregnant mothers drowned in the Flood?

For a Buddhist, you sure read like a Fundamentalist Christian…

God has no problem killing innocent unborn children, or innocent babies.

The OT God was not a nice God.

The people of OT times didn’t understand secondary causation. They believed that everything that happened – and I mean literally everything! – was the direct result of God willing it to happen. We see that kind of philosophical outlook in the descriptions of the OT: God is said to cause all sorts of nastiness. Being anachronistic in your outlook doesn’t help in attempting to interpret the Bible…

 

[Dan123]

The Euthyphro dilemma is false because it doesn’t entertain the correct answer, that God is goodness itself. Or if you prefer, being itself. God is. It’s His nature.

My only issue with this argument is it just seems to kick the can down the road another step.

Did God choose his own nature? Can he change his own nature? If yes then it’s not objective ‘good’ it’s just good from the perspective of the nature he’s selected.

If he cannot choose or change his nature, then where did his nature come from? If the argument is that everything which exists needs a creator and God isn’t the creator of his own nature then who created it?

Seems to be issues regardless of the answer.

 

[Dan123]

Second, Bradskii is somewhat selective on his application of the harm principle. He wouldn’t, for example, cite harm as the determining principle where a woman’s right to not be inconvenienced supersedes the actual harm done to the human being she chooses to abort.

Ah yes, because after the fall God said “And Eve, childbirth shall forever be an inconvenience to you”. The debate over which side of the line we should fall on regarding the balancing of rights between the unborn and the pregnant woman is an interesting one and one I suspect we not only will always have but should keep having. But characterizing one of God’s punishments for the fall as an ‘inconvenience’ is actually devaluing the seriousness of it. Pregnancy remains even in developed countries one of the most medically dangerous times for a woman.

Given we do not require corpses to let us use their body to keep another alive via organ transplants, the decision on whether to compel someone to accept significant risk to do the same should be considered carefully.

 

[Gorgias]

But characterizing one of God’s punishments for the fall as an ‘inconvenience’ is actually devaluing the seriousness of it.

Pregnancy isn’t a punishment of the fall. Increased pain in childbirth is.

the decision on whether to compel someone to accept significant risk to do the same should be considered carefully.

If you choose an action which has a potential outcome, has anyone compelled you to do it? The ‘acceptance’ is the choice to engage in the activity. After that, it’s all natural consequences. So, there’s no such thing as “compelling one to be pregnant”.

Did God choose his own nature? Can he change his own nature? If yes then it’s not objective ‘good’ it’s just good from the perspective of the nature he’s selected.

God is goodness itself. It’s illogical to ask “can God change being God”, which is what you’re asking here. Strictly speaking, He can, but He would not.

If he cannot choose or change his nature

The question is not whether he can, but whether this is something that even makes sense to actually do. Since it does not, the paradox you think you’ve uncovered doesn’t actually exist.

 

[rossum]

As has been pointed out before in a number of forum threads, there is no moral equivalency between what God does or permits and what humans do.

As I have pointed out before on this forum before, I am Buddhist, not Christian, and in Buddhism none of the gods is above morality/karma. Your point is specific to the Abrahamic religions, it is not general.

You are in essence claiming “might makes right”, which I do not accept as a good basis for morality.

The lives, existences and states of those ostensibly killed by God were, first off, created by God.

Do parents have the right to kill their children? After all, the parents did create their children.

Second, any declarations concerning the innocence of victims by morally constrained and inept human beings is also overreach.

How are unborn children not innocent? Was King Herod right and all those protesters outside clinics wrong? Should their signs read “Slaughter of the Guilty” instead of “Slaughter of the Innocents”? You are not convincing me here.

Being all-knowing and goodness itself…

You are assuming what you have to prove. The OT God kills the entire population of the earth – less eight – including all the unborn children cannot be described as “goodness itself”. He condemns entire cities and tribes to mass slaughter. God’s actions in the Old Testament show that He is not good.

rossum

 

[MCH1]

It took me a while to get back, but @HarryStotle and @Gorgias provided great answers.