Nope because your innate morality is akin to a subjective morality (supposedly inspired by God, but you’ve no way of ensuring that)Unless what you define as objective morality is closer to what I define as innate morality.
No, objective morality (e.g. “thou shalt not kill”) isn’t mob mentality since it tells the guy (e.g. man who murders man who committed adultery with his wife = in his mind he “thinks” its correct"). There is no mob mentality because the Objective morality is COMMUNICATED BY GOD, not WRITTEN BY MENEven the bible says that a person can behave in a way he “thinks” is correct but still be wrong. Objective morality in this sense is a kind of mob mentality or perverted justification of ones behavior depending on how out of line with innate morality it is.
Our loving father? You didn’t just apply Objective Morality to God , did you? I don’t believe even 10 commandments have restrictions on God. SO that’s a strawmanYou cant simply define objective morality as what prohibits non-consensual use of force since morality occasionally deals with acts of force. Think of our loving father who punishes those he loves…so says scripture. Anyone who consensually asks to be punished would in my view be a masochist.
Only in the sense that each subject reacts uniquely to their innate morality which was given universally by God to all humans. A truly subjective morality would be uniquely caused by each individual and individually defined by their unique experiences or physiology.your innate morality is akin to a subjective morality
Not inspired by God, directly instilled by God within human nature. Other than faith in scriptural revelation which says God sustains and is the source of all things, your right I have no way that I currently know of to ensure this is correct. It is conjecture based upon the premise that God exists and the Christian scriptures are his revelations.(supposedly inspired by God, but you’ve no way of ensuring that)
I may seem stuck to you but you fail to realize this is a conjecture based upon my experience, others reported experiences and knowledge and scriptural revelations.You seem stuck in this false binary choice between
(1) Every society chooses its morality (“objective morality”)
(2) Every individual has morality ('innate morality", as provided by God)
That is one way to look at morality. I do not believe that words on a stone tablet are themselves morality. They communicate information about what is moral but they themselves are not the morality within us. I do not believe the giving of the ten commandments were merely for defining what is moral so that all people would have something to go by in order to be moral. I believe the ten commandments were given to man so as to give objective authority to the expression of the innate morality within us. Humans were created with an innate sense of morality. What I call objective morality is the morality which developed/s within societies - tribes, nations, cultures, individuals - which has developed within the context and influential experiences in which it has been defined. Being defined through worldly experience and influences Objective morality in this sense is necessarily to varying degrees in conflict with our innate morality sourced directly from God, and conversely some objective moralities are more in line with our innate morality and thus may cause less turmoil within the soul and more universal appeal. For instance, it is clear that the scriptures say that having sex with members of your own gender is immoral, I would consider this innate morality. However may societies today are working hard to moralize homosexuality. I would consider this to be Objective morality. Because the two natures are not in sink with each other we have much turmoil in society. I cannot prove that homosexuals have an innate sense of morality which at some level informs them that it is wrong. That is Gods territory and I have no authority to judge another beings struggles. I can only conjecture that this is so.(3) Objective morality communicated by God = 10 commandments is just ONE example
As I’ve said before, the commandments themselves are not morality. No more so than the word tree is the tree the word references. The commandments communicate moral examples given authority by God and given substance within our innate morality. Can you name one commandment which upon reflection does not feel like correct action? The mob mentality I spoke of is simply that…the mentality of the mob in which each individual tends toward conformity even in defiance of their own unique convictions. Objective morality often exploits mob mentality. The objective morality applied to the ten commandments would be in differences of defining what constitutes the applicability of certain situations to certain commandments.No, objective morality (e.g. “thou shalt not kill”) isn’t mob mentality since it tells the guy (e.g. man who murders man who committed adultery with his wife = in his mind he “thinks” its correct"). There is no mob mentality because the Objective morality is COMMUNICATED BY GOD, not WRITTEN BY MEN
No, it was an example of the highest demonstration of moral conduct. That part of scripture which speaks of God punishing those he loves is instructive of the correct conduct of human fathers with their own children whom they love. Spare the rod and spoil the child etc. All scripture is good for instruction…so says itself.Our loving father? You didn’t just apply Objective Morality to God , did you? I don’t believe even 10 commandments have restrictions on God. SO that’s a strawman
This is a perversion of proper conduct, a quality of masochism. What I meant and hoped you would have gotten out of my statement was that no person who wishes to conduct themselves in a moral manner - That is perform correct action - would wish to be punished for that correct action. Consensually committing a crime is conducting oneself immorally thus rendering the consensual part of the act of punishing a criminal morally invalid. In other words if one thinks that one can become moralized by acting immoral on purpose then this is a perversion of moral thought. Incidentally I would classify this way of thinking as being under objective morality as individualized.People do consensually ask to be punished, since they CONSENSUALLY COMMIT CRIME. When you CONSENSUALLY commit a crime, you waive your consent to punishment. Your consent was waived in the commission of the crime for which the punishment is given.