Morality or Obedience?

[element771]

Nor can you, Element, except to insist that "god says so." Except he doesn't really. Indeed, slavery is permitted in your holy book, and some here have even defended it. As I said to Seer, you are essentially in the same boat. You value your god, and because that is true, you have elected (subjectively) to align your moral framework to what you believe this god wants. But you have no basis for convincing me that I should do the same because I believe this god does not actually exist. Because I do not value what you value, your arguments for my agreeing with you about any given moral element will fall flat, as mine will for you. We will only agree if we a) agree on the underlying value structure, and b) reason properly from those premises to a moral code.

The Christian God doesn't have to be the source of objective moral values. It could be any God with similar characteristics. However, can you give me a passage for an example?

Also, Jesus is the fullest representation of God (for lack of a better word). He gave the Golden Rule and that would exclude slavery in my opinion.

I would resort to genetics to show that we share essentially the same genetic code, making a claim of "inferiority" incorrect on its merits. Ultimately, if that does not convince, and there remains no alignment between our moral frameworks, we will start down the progressive chain of handling such disconnects.

James Watson would disagree with you.

1) Dismissal: If the moral code does not impact our every-day life, it might be ignored. Slavery is a large enough part of my moral code that, if I found myself with someone who advocated for it, I would probably not simply ignore this distinction.

2) Isolation/separation: When we cannot agree, a common result is that we separate/isolate the other. This would probably the case with the person advocating for slavery. I certainly would not consider them a friend, would likely not invite them to my house. If they make this claim widely, they will probably find themselves widely shunned, because most of society would reject such a claim.

3) Contend: If the person was not just passive about their belief, but actively promoting it (i.e., trying to pass laws, trying to obtain a slave), then we would actively contend. We would speak out against the position. We would do everything possible to make sure such proposals were voted down in the public arena. If the person tried to obtain a slave in defiance of the social norm/law, we would arrest and incercerate them.

None of these approaches will change their moral view; sometimes those views cannot be changed. It is merely how society (and an individual) deals with the disconnect.

Sure but there is nothing in here that shows why your view is the correct one. That is what we are getting at ultimately. As Sparko points out...you dont agree with slavery but you have no rational way to show that you are correct without an objective standard. It is ultimately just your opinion.

But if you think that all morals are subjective, that is a heck of a lot more rational than saying that your subjective views are indeed objective.

[carpedm9587]

The Christian God doesn't have to be the source of objective moral values. It could be any God with similar characteristics. However, can you give me a passage for an example?

I think that is probably not a good idea. My point was not to frame an argument out of the bible; I don't use the bible as a basis for detemrining truth. My point was to note that I have had discussions here with people who actually defended slavery, "under the right conditions," and pointed to the bible as their justification. So it would seem that even slavery is not a uniformly/universally agreed upon objective moral code in the Christian world.

Also, Jesus is the fullest representation of God (for lack of a better word). He gave the Golden Rule and that would exclude slavery in my opinion.

Emphasis mine. It appears we both have moral codes that are informed by opinion...

James Watson would disagree with you.

Genetics is not an absolute science, and it has some grey areas. However, I think you will find the bulk of scientific opinion to be that the slight differences in genetic code from race to race do not alter our coexistence in the species "human." However, if someone sees those minor variations between races as a basis for "inferior," then there is not much I will be able to say to them to convince them otherwise. Likewise, if someone is using the bible you turn to and pointing to passages to defend slavery, I suspect there is not much you will be able to do to convince them otherwise.

For all of the claims of difference, Elem, we seem to be more alike than different in the challenges we face defining, asserting, and defending moral codes.

Sure but there is nothing in here that shows why your view is the absolutely/universally/eternally/objectively correct one. That is what we are getting at ultimately.

I took the liberty of adding the words you omitted in your statement. You are doing what Seer does: objecting to subjective/relative morality on the basis that it is not able to make an "absolutely correct" claim. I can show my it is correct to me, Elem. It is, after all, subjective/relative. I have already acknowledged it is not absolute/eternal/objective/universal - so I cannot show you how it is absolutely correct for everyone. As I have noted to Seer multiple times: that's not an argument - it's a restatement of the definition of the "subjective/relative."

And I note that you appear to have the exact same issue/problem with your moral framework. The difference between us, Elem, is I appear to acknowledge that my moral code is subjective/relative, and you do not - despite the fact that you and I do exactly the same thing and run into the same problems when articulating our moral frameworks to others.

But if you think that all morals are subjective, that is a heck of a lot more rational than saying that your subjective views are indeed objective.

I have never claimed by moral views are objective. The only degree of objectivity involved is that your moral code is objectively true to me: that is, it is not based on MY opinion/belief: it is what you tell me it is (as far as I know). We can also make objectively true statements (as Star has pointed out) about moral trends (i.e., most people in the world today believe taking the life of an innocent human is immoral). That is (presumably) an objectively true statement. That does not make it an absolute/eternal/universal moral code.

[seer]

Third, I do not see how this answer in any way addresses the question about law vs. morality. The former is not described as irrational by anyone I have ever met, but the latter you are calling irrational, though both share the same characteristics.

Well at times I do throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks - maybe that rational argument wasn't a good one... You still smell bad though...

[carpedm9587]

Well at times I do throw stuff against the wall to see what sticks - maybe that rational argument wasn't a good one... You still smell bad though...

LOL... true enough... I am overdue for a shower. Not sure how that got across the Internet though...

[element771]

I think that is probably not a good idea. My point was not to frame an argument out of the bible; I don't use the bible as a basis for detemrining truth. My point was to note that I have had discussions here with people who actually defended slavery, "under the right conditions," and pointed to the bible as their justification. So it would seem that even slavery is not a uniformly/universally agreed upon objective moral code in the Christian world.

Sure but unless there is an objective truth to this claim, we don't have a rational way to dispute it.

Emphasis mine. It appears we both have moral codes that are informed by opinion...

Right and we can argue who is correct...but we still argue because ONE of us has to be correct if and only if there are objective morals.

Genetics is not an absolute science, and it has some grey areas. However, I think you will find the bulk of scientific opinion to be that the slight differences in genetic code from race to race do not alter our coexistence in the species "human." However, if someone sees those minor variations between races as a basis for "inferior," then there is not much I will be able to say to them to convince them otherwise. Likewise, if someone is using the bible you turn to and pointing to passages to defend slavery, I suspect there is not much you will be able to do to convince them otherwise.

For all of the claims of difference, Elem, we seem to be more alike than different in the challenges we face defining, asserting, and defending moral codes.

That is the rub. I don't think that we are different in the least practically...I just think we differ in the theoretical framework.

I took the liberty of adding the words you omitted in your statement. You are doing what Seer does: objecting to subjective/relative morality on the basis that it is not able to make an "absolutely correct" claim. I can show my it is correct to me, Elem. It is, after all, subjective/relative. I have already acknowledged it is not absolute/eternal/objective/universal - so I cannot show you how it is absolutely correct for everyone. As I have noted to Seer multiple times: that's not an argument - it's a restatement of the definition of the "subjective/relative."

Right but you can't fault someone or say someone is immoral in an objective sense IF it is correct to you. That is the point we are making. You

And I note that you appear to have the exact same issue/problem with your moral framework. The difference between us, Elem, is I appear to acknowledge that my moral code is subjective/relative, and you do not - despite the fact that you and I do exactly the same thing and run into the same problems when articulating our moral frameworks to others.

Not quite...

I can say that I feel this way because I am aspiring to a set of objective morals grounded in God.

You have to say that I feel this way because I feel this way.

I have never claimed by moral views are objective. The only degree of objectivity involved is that your moral code is objectively true to me: that is, it is not based on MY opinion/belief: it is what you tell me it is (as far as I know). We can also make objectively true statements (as Star has pointed out) about moral trends (i.e., most people in the world today believe taking the life of an innocent human is immoral). That is (presumably) an objectively true statement. That does not make it an absolute/eternal/universal moral code.

Right but the ultimate thing we are saying is that if there is no objective moral to measure it against then anything goes and we cannot objectively say someone is immoral.

[Roy]

But I don't care what your moral framework tells you. You have no legs to stand on to tell me I am wrong, or that the Nazi's were wrong for murdering 6 million Jews, or that rape is wrong, or slavery.

You don't either, Sparko. If your moral framework is based on your personal choice of religion, that is no different from carpe's personal choice of philosophy.

You really don't have any grounds to claim that slavery is wrong, since your chosen religion permits it.

[Roy]

Also, Jesus is the fullest representation of God (for lack of a better word). He gave the Golden Rule and that would exclude slavery in my opinion.

Why would your opinion on slavery outweigh anyone else's? More specifically, why would your choice to exclude slavery outweight the Biblical laws that permit it?

[seer]

More specifically, why would your choice to exclude slavery outweight the Biblical laws that permit it?

Because the institution of slavery is not inherently immoral in your world or mine. Certain forms of slavery are - like those that rely on "man stealing." Like practiced in the Old South.

[element771]

Why would your opinion on slavery outweigh anyone else's? More specifically, why would your choice to exclude slavery outweight the Biblical laws that permit it?

Can you show me where Biblical laws permit slavery?

Do you know why the slave trade was abolished in Britain?

[seer]

Can you show me where Biblical laws permit slavery?

Well slavery was at least allowed under Mosaic law.

Do you know why the slave trade was abolished in Britain?

Christians like Wilberforce took it down...

[carpedm9587]

Sure but unless there is an objective truth to this claim, we don't have a rational way to dispute it.

You're making the same mistake Seer is making, confusing subjective/objective with rational/irrational.

Right and we can argue who is correct...but we still argue because ONE of us has to be correct if and only if there are objective morals.

...and you will both walk away believing your perspective of this "objective truth" is the right one, and rejecting the other one. The only difference I see is the claim, "my moral code is objectively true." Like JimL, you are arguing a theoretical you cannot substantiate, and you end up doing/saying the same things we subjectivists do.

That is the rub. I don't think that we are different in the least practically...I just think we differ in the theoretical framework.

Yes, we do. The difference is, my theoretical framework aligns with observed reality. Yours does not seem to.

Right but you can't fault someone or say someone is immoral in an objective sense IF it is correct to you. That is the point we are making.

I know you are making that point - over and over and over again. I have acknowledged that point, over and over and over again. But if you stop to think about it, all you are saying is "subjective frameworks aren't objective." We already know that. It's not an argument - it's a restatement of the definition of the terms.

Look at it this way. You and I engage in a discussion about the color of my car. I say it is blue, you say it is green. If you try to make your case by continually saying, over and over again, "blue is not green!" you will be making a true statement. But you won't be actually saying anything about the color of the car. This is what you and Seer are doing. We are discussing whether morality is subjective or objective, and all the two of you keep doing is saying, "subjective morality is not objective!" I agree - it's not. I've never said otherwise. But you're not actually satying anything about morality. You're just repeating, over and over again, that subjective things are not objective.

See the problem? Yet discussion after discussion, this is the objection that is raised to subjective/relative moral frameworks. Few people, even subjectivists, realize that the statement isn't saying anything!

Not quite...

I can say that I feel this way because I am aspiring to a set of objective morals grounded in God.

You have to say that I feel this way because I feel this way.

Actually, you have to say that your moral framework is grounded in a god you believe exists, and your opinion is that this god wants moral code X, and you feel we should be aligning our moral codes to this god's.

I do not believe this god exists. I do not find value in aligning my moral code to this moral code. Convince me that my moral code is wrong and yours is right. I think, as you try to do that, you will encounter the problem.

Right but the ultimate thing we are saying is that if there is no objective moral to measure it against then anything goes and we cannot objectively say someone is immoral.

Which is another way of saying subjective things aren't objective. Congratulations. You have successfully repeated the definition of "subjective" and it's relation to "objective." You still haven't said anything about morality.

[carpedm9587]

Because the institution of slavery is not inherently immoral in your world or mine. Certain forms of slavery are - like those that rely on "man stealing." Like practiced in the Old South.

It is inherently immoral in mine.

[Sparko]

It is inherently immoral in mine.

Nobody cares.

[carpedm9587]

Nobody cares.

I didn't ask them to...

[element771]

You're making the same mistake Seer is making, confusing subjective/objective with rational/irrational.

I know you are making that point - over and over and over again. I have acknowledged that point, over and over and over again. But if you stop to think about it, all you are saying is "subjective frameworks aren't objective." We already know that. It's not an argument - it's a restatement of the definition of the terms.

I think we are just talking past one another. I wish we could get a beer and discuss this as it is hard at times to get a point across.

Can you lay out what you think I am saying so I can understand that I am making my point clear?

Actually, you have to say that your moral framework is grounded in a god you believe exists, and your opinion is that this god wants moral code X, and you feel we should be aligning our moral codes to this god's.

I do not believe this god exists. I do not find value in aligning my moral code to this moral code. Convince me that my moral code is wrong and yours is right. I think, as you try to do that, you will encounter the problem.

Yes and I agree that our moral code is probably not that different with some exceptions.

But the point is this...grant me for a second that God exists and is all of what you said I would have to believe.

Just because you don't believe God exists, doesn't mean that God's morals were not hardwired into your brain (so to speak). That is like saying that if you didn't believe in air, you would not be able to breathe.