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

[QwertyGirl]

It is objective. Your paradigm of my belief/your belief is not objective, it is definitively subjective.

We talked past eachother. I am well versed on the meaning of “objective” and “subjective”. My point is that everything is “subjective” when it comes to this topic. What you may think is objective, is actually subjective. The same goes for me. I realize this isn’t what the Church teaches, but it is my belief. Which is actually quite subjective!

 

[HarryStotle]

goout:

For example: all human life and existence is good and has an inherent value that should be honored.
In that statement we honor a value that is not subject to any particular opinion. The meaning and value of human life stands on it’s own.

The fact that you can’t see that that statement is subjective is mind-boggling.

The aborting woman’s decision to end the life of her baby is, likewise, SUBJECTIVE. Yet, I don’t see you decrying the mind-boggling subjectivity of women who abort their babies based upon that level of subjectivity.

So, @goout’s subjectivity in valuing all life has far less potential for objectively harming other human beings than abortion advocates who use “subjective” determinations for killing those vulnerable human beings.

Objectively speaking, human beings develop organically (from conception) into fully-fledged human persons. It is making a serious error to view the development of human beings as the assembly of, say, cars on an assembly line that only become fully a Ford Mustang or Toyota Corolla when the final part is attached. Human beings develop integrally from a fertilized egg and not by assembly. That means a human being needs to be treated as the same entity through their entire span of existence, not as different entities with different values at different times.

 

[goout]

goout:

It is objective. Your paradigm of my belief/your belief is not objective, it is definitively subjective.

We talked past eachother. I am well versed on the meaning of “objective” and “subjective”. My point is that everything is “subjective” when it comes to this topic. What you may think is objective, is actually subjective. The same goes for me. I realize this isn’t what the Church teaches, but it is my belief. Which is actually quite subjective!

This at least can be accepted as an honest statement of disagreement. I appreciate that we at least understand each other, though we disagree.

 

[HarryStotle]

goout:

It is objective. Your paradigm of my belief/your belief is not objective, it is definitively subjective.

We talked past eachother. I am well versed on the meaning of “objective” and “subjective”. My point is that everything is “subjective” when it comes to this topic.

This amounts to an assertion without any warrant, akin to "I have arbitrarily decided that everything about this topic is subjective, so I will dismiss everything you have to say about it that disagrees with what I think, just 'cuz it isn’t what I think.



Well done, you.

 

[Gorgias]

What are you comparing God to to determine he’s ‘goodness’? Or is ‘goodness’ simply a synonym for ‘godness’ and not actually have any connection to the traditional use of the word ‘good’.

@goout and you have had a reasonable discussion on this point. despite the fact that @KevinK seems confused by it. I think I would make similar points as @goout:

• Yes, we’re using different definitions of ‘good’. I think it would be helpful for you to read up on Aquinas and his distinctions between various types of meanings (univocal, equivocal, and analogical). Here’s a good summary of the way Aquinas distinguishes between them. So, yeah: God – univocally – is ‘good’. Being positive / helpful / beneficial – analogically – is ‘good’. (Here’s the thing, though: Aquinas would say that the perfection of goodness is God, and anything else that we claim is good is really just a comparison to God and His Goodness.)
• I like @goout’s approach to the question: existence is better than non-existence, and God is existence itself. Therefore, God is good.

And yes the paradox does exist, saying ‘he can but he wouldn’t’ is still saying he can. If God could potentially change his nature then it’s not objective.

How so?

Let’s be a bit more precise, though, before we go down that rabbit hole. Let’s not talk about God ‘changing’, because that derails your argument (after all, God is immutable; we could discuss that if you want, but it’s a separate question). Instead, let’s just ask “could God’s nature be that instead of this?”

So, your claim becomes “if God’s nature were that instead of this, it would mean that His nature isn’t objective.” I’m not seeing where you’re coming from. Why would it mean “not objective”?

I imagine any change to God’s nature could only ever serve to make him less-good, which is why you pointed out he would never change.

That’s the argument for immutability, by the way – a change implies that God becomes either more perfect or less perfect by virtue of the change. Both are paradoxical, so we conclude that God’s immutable.

But that would mean there’s a definition of goodness external to God, so where did that come from?

No, I think I would argue that the definition comes from the nature of God Himself.

 

[HarryStotle]

HarryStotle:

Objectively speaking, human beings develop organically (from conception) into fully-fledged human persons. It is making a serious error to view the development of human beings as the assembly of, say, cars on an assembly line that only become fully a Ford Mustang or Toyota Corolla when the final part is attached. Human beings develop integrally from a fertilized egg and not by assembly. That means a human being needs to be treated as the same entity through their entire span of existence, not as different entities with different values at different times.

The value of human life…be it yours, mine, or a fertilized egg’s, is a matter of opinion. It may be that to me your life has absolutely no value whatsoever, and the same may be true of your valuation of my life. That makes such valuations subjective.

Try arguing that before a judge as a defense on behalf of a murderer:

“Your Honour, the value of any human life is a matter of opinion. It may be that the life of the victim had absolutely no value whatsoever for the accused. The same may be true of the valuation of the life of the accused. That makes all such valuations subjective and the “value” of all of our lives insignificant.”

The judge may well reply, “Then you will not object if I sentence your client to death since I am now determining, subjectively, of course, that the value of his life is nothing?”

I suppose that if you cannot see the absurdity of your view there is no helping you. You simply do not comprehend what it means to be a moral human being.

 

[Bradskii]

Those few cells in my mother’s whom weren’t me. They had the potential to become me. But desroying them didn’t harm me. I didn’t exist.

It is no more harming a ‘potential’ person than it would be to decide not to have another ‘potential’ child. I’m in agreement with Jewish beliefs on this.

 

[Dan123]

One interesting example I heard someone give that I think was well put went as follows:

You find yourself in a hospital on fire and are one of the last to leave. You hear a noise in an adjoining room where you find a terrified 3 year old child hiding and refusing to move. Also in the room is a cooler labeled “1000 viable fertilized embryos” from the hospitals IVF program. You realize no one is around and you can carry the child or the cooler to safety, but not both. Which do you save?

If one sees an embryo as exactly the same as a person there should be no question about saving 1000 lives over 1. You might feel bad that you couldn’t find a way to save 1001 lives but by any measure the person who saves a thousand children is a hero. I’m not certain many would take that action though.

 

[Even_Keal]

If the human race completely depended on those “1000 viable fertilized embryos” in order to survive, then choosing them over the child would clearly be the more moral thing to do.

 

[Even_Keal]

Yes, those cells were you (even from a scientific perspective). After all, aren’t we all just cells, tissue, and DNA? Other then conception, what exact, magical, scientific moment occurred to convert those cells into “you” and at what point did “you” gain your human rights? Other then conception, you are just subjectively determining what humans have rights and which ones don’t. You don’t "gradually come into existence. You either exist or you don’t.

 

[Escabrosa]

I would choose the kid because it would be apparent that he or she is still alive. I suppose you could use the same dilemma by saying there’s the kid and any number of people who are frozen in suspended animation who would likely recover if saved. I would still go for the kid.

Using the kid is an appeal to emotion because compassionate people instinctively protect kids. The protector in me would likely kick in and save the kid in most situations.

The problem with this dilemma is that the vast majority of women who kill their children in the womb are not choosing one life over another, they’re choosing convenience over their child’s life.

 

[Dan123]

No analogy is perfect but I do think it keys in on the fact that I suspect most people, including me I’ll readily admit, would save the kid not the frozen embryos.

To boil abortion down to simply ‘convenience’ is to overlook a lot of nuance. If you want to actually reduce abortions understanding the nuance would be more useful than labeling it in vague terms and moving on. There can be huge financial concerns with the pregnancy and early life, so consider supporting paid maternity programs and support for new parents and daycare availability. There can be huge medical risks during pregnancy, so consider supporting programs that help ensure access to adequate healthcare. Consider supporting programs that provide education on and access to various forms of birth control based on efficacy.

You can still view it as convenience but understanding the actual motives will help reduce the number of them.

 

[o_mlly]

Consider supporting programs that provide education on and access to various forms of birth control based on efficacy.

Efficacy? Everyone has access to the only absolutely certain birth control technique: abstinence. If you don’t want children then don’t have sex.

 

[Dan123]

And what’s the efficacy of programs that only teach abstinence compared to ones which education people on all the options available to them and let them make the decision on what to use?

 

[goout]

is it a coincidence that a society that contracepts almost reflexively also has abortion by the millions?

 

[goout]

Those few cells in my mother’s whom weren’t me.

Pardon me for chuckling at the absurdity of this statement.
Should we call them “Steve”?

You’re going to counter with “stage of development” and “only potential”…etc
The truth is that human life has an objective value is not (thankfully) subject to your opinion on the matter.

You will choose to put your opinion over the objective value of human life, without reflecting on the various holocausts that human beings perpetrate on other human beings who are not quite “:up to their potential”.

 

[Gorgias]

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.

Cute. Picking the obvious case, rather than the boundary case, is always the best way to test a hypothesis.

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.

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.

No – the case that I’m making is that God is an objective reality that is believed (or disbelieved) subjectively.

 

[Escabrosa]

For the majority of cases it is for convenience and actually promoted as a back up for birth control. Just look at the stats.

A better way would be to teach your kids to not have casual sex, to make sex outside of marriage socially unacceptable again. Absolutely help those who those who will inevitably be irresponsible, but prevention is best.

 

[o_mlly]

And what’s the efficacy of programs that only teach abstinence compared to ones which education people on all the options available to them and let them make the decision on what to use?

The program that teaches abstinence outside of marriage and no contraception in marriage has over 2,000 years of efficacy.

Those who would turn Mat 26:41 on its head and teach our children that if it is so hard to not do it then it is OK to do it should read Mat 18:6.

 

[Gorgias]

Those few cells in my mother’s whom weren’t me. They had the potential to become me.

Ahh… but they were alive, weren’t they? They were human life, weren’t they?

You aren’t the pimply-faced, awkward 13-year-old at a junior high dance years ago, either. Can we assert that it would have been OK to kill that young teen simply because he isn’t who you are today?

But desroying them didn’t harm me. I didn’t exist.

When did @Bradskii come into existence, then?