Morality or Obedience?

[element771]

Yes, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. That which is in the best interests of human society is objectively true, not subjective opinion, and it would be objectively true even to an alien.

If it could be wrong, then it cannot be objectively true.

That is a contradiction.

[JimL]

I think that this is the point that everyone is trying to get at.

If there are objective moral standards, then people who live by them could not be wrong.

True, they would be morally right in the sense that they would be acting according to that which is ultimately in their best interests.

[Sparko]

Yes, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. That which is in the best interests of human society is objectively true, not subjective opinion, and it would be objectively true even to an alien.

Something that is in the worse interests of human society can be just as objectively true:

"If the sun exploded, the Earth would be destroyed"

That statement is objectively true. It is decidedly NOT in the best interest of human society.

[element771]

True, they would be morally right in the sense that they would be acting according to that which is ultimately in their best interests.

But then that is not an objective fact or moral...if it could be wrong, it cannot be objectively true.

[seer]

True, they would be morally right in the sense that they would be acting according to that which is ultimately in their best interests.

Again Jim, the best interest of humanity (in general) is a subjective goal. Why not the best interest of the tribe? Or race? Or political party? Or ruling elite?

[JimL]

Something that is in the worse interests of human society can be just as objectively true:

"If the sun exploded, the Earth would be destroyed"

That statement is objectively true. It is decidedly NOT in the best interest of human society.

We're talking morals here, Sparko. If a behavior say, is in the worse interests of human society, then yes, it would be objectively true that such a behavior is what we call immoral. But as a rule it has no more existence in and of itself than does a moral rule that is to our good.

[carpedm9587]

This is circular. You say that which is best for human society is best for human society. You are trying to figure out what is best for human society, that is the problem.

What if everyone agrees that torturing animals is in the best interests of human society?

I think what Jim is trying to say is that "in the best interests of" is not subject to opinion - there is an objective "best interests of" and we all should try to identify it and that becomes the objective basis for the moral framework. Unfortunately, he has also acknowledged that there is no way to actually know what this "best interests of" actually is, and I do not see how one can say "this is in the best interests of" without knowing what metric is being used to make that determination.

This tends to be the problem we end up with when an attempt is made to frame morality in objective/absolute/eternal/universal terms. Everyone understands the idea of such a moral framework - but no one can actually identify or defend its constituent elements, or show what makes them objective/absolute/eternal/universal. And when asked to explain why a relative/subjective moral framework is a non-starter, the same answer always comes back: because it's not objective/absolute/eternal/universal.

That's kind of like saying, "orange is bad," and then defending it by saying, "because it's a combination of yellow and red." That is not actually saying anything other than repeating the definition of "orange."

[Sparko]

We're talking morals here, Sparko. If a behavior say, is in the worse interests of human society, then yes, it would be objectively true that such a behavior is what we call immoral. But as a rule it has no more existence in and of itself than does a moral rule that is to our good.

huh???

Something being good or best for humanity has nothing to do with whether it is objectively TRUE or not. "good" is a subjective value.

Hitler and the Nazis said "Gassing Jews is good for humanity"

He would say it was in the best interest of human society, we would say it was the worst. Because we disagree on "good" with people like Hitler.

[Sparko]

I think what Jim is trying to say is that "in the best interests of" is not subject to opinion - there is an objective "best interests of" and we all should try to identify it and that becomes the objective basis for the moral framework. Unfortunately, he has also acknowledged that there is no way to actually know what this "best interests of" actually is, and I do not see how one can say "this is in the best interests of" without knowing what metric is being used to make that determination.

This tends to be the problem we end up with when an attempt is made to frame morality in objective/absolute/eternal/universal terms. Everyone understands the idea of such a moral framework - but no one can actually identify or defend its constituent elements, or show what makes them objective/absolute/eternal/universal. And when asked to explain why a relative/subjective moral framework is a non-starter, the same answer always comes back: because it's not objective/absolute/eternal/universal.

That's kind of like saying, "orange is bad," and then defending it by saying, "because it's a combination of yellow and red." That is not actually saying anything other than repeating the definition of "orange."

Well if he is trying to say there is some objective standard of "good" that is valid, even though various people might not agree with that value, then he is correct.

But he is trying to say that objective value is "the good of humanity" - but that is not an objective standard. Because not everyone agrees on what is good for humanity or human society.

JimL is recognizing that there is a moral standard that exists even if every one on earth disagrees with it. That what we think doesn't matter. And that standard is God.

[element771]

I think what Jim is trying to say is that "in the best interests of" is not subject to opinion - there is an objective "best interests of" and we all should try to identify it and that becomes the objective basis for the moral framework.

But this falls short because why should we try for the best interests of? That, in of itself, is a value judgment.

Unfortunately, he has also acknowledged that there is no way to actually know what this "best interests of" actually is, and I do not see how one can say "this is in the best interests of" without knowing what metric is being used to make that determination.

This tends to be the problem we end up with when an attempt is made to frame morality in objective/absolute/eternal/universal terms. Everyone understands the idea of such a moral framework - but no one can actually identify or defend its constituent elements, or show what makes them objective/absolute/eternal/universal. And when asked to explain why a relative/subjective moral framework is a non-starter, the same answer always comes back: because it's not objective/absolute/eternal/universal.

That's kind of like saying, "orange is bad," and then defending it by saying, "because it's a combination of yellow and red." That is not actually saying anything other than repeating the definition of "orange."

I think it boils down to this.

We all feel moral obligations.

Atheists cannot rationally justify that these obligations are objective because they are not grounded in anything permanent.

Theists can justify that they are objective because they are grounded in God.

That is all that is being said.

[JimL]

I think what Jim is trying to say is that "in the best interests of" is not subject to opinion - there is an objective "best interests of" and we all should try to identify it and that becomes the objective basis for the moral framework. Unfortunately, he has also acknowledged that there is no way to actually know what this "best interests of" actually is, and I do not see how one can say "this is in the best interests of" without knowing what metric is being used to make that determination.

We can't know anything with certainty, if we could we'd have figured it all out long ago. The metric though I think is human happiness and the closer a society comes to achieving that for all its members shows it to be on the right moral track at least.

[JimL]

huh???

Something being good or best for humanity has nothing to do with whether it is objectively TRUE or not. "good" is a subjective value.

Good is a subjective value? hmmm, that's sounds odd coming from a theist.

Hitler and the Nazis said "Gassing Jews is good for humanity"

So, they were subjectively wrong concerning what was objectively good.

He would say it was in the best interest of human society, we would say it was the worst. Because we disagree on "good" with people like Hitler.

Because we both disagree doesn't mean that neither one of us is correct. You guys seem to be of the opinion that opinions can neither be right or wrong, that they can only be opinions.

[seer]

Good is a subjective value? hmmm, that's sounds odd coming from a theist.

So, they were subjectively wrong concerning what was objectively good.

Because we both disagree doesn't mean that neither one of us is correct. You guys seem to be of the opinion that opinions can neither be right or wrong, that they can only be opinions.

Jim you keep ignoring me:The best interest of humanity (in general) is a subjective goal. Why not the best interest of the tribe? Or race? Or political party? Or ruling elite?

[Charles]

Jim you keep ignoring me:The best interest of humanity (in general) is a subjective goal. Why not the best interest of the tribe? Or race? Or political party? Or ruling elite?

Seer, you yourself keep ignoring difficult questions: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post524163

[Charles]

Jim you keep ignoring me:The best interest of humanity (in general) is a subjective goal. Why not the best interest of the tribe? Or race? Or political party? Or ruling elite?

I think you need to read Starlights post again. It seems you either cannot or will not understand the reason why your question is misunderstood: http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...l=1#post523920