A concept of objective morality is not necessarily a good thing. It can be harmful.

[Paprika]

I guess I am trying to say that I have a big problem with this notion of a God given objective morality. If there is such a thing as a God given "thou shalt not kill", then an awful lot of people find times when it is better to kill than not to kill.

Well then, we should all be thankful it isn't "thou shalt not kill", but "thou shalt not murder".

[Paprika]

This is because (in the context of Christianity) it requires two conditions to be met:-

1) That an action be God's will, or in accordance with God's will.

2) That a person accept or agree that it is God's will.



It's at point 2) that the concept of objective morality either does good or does harm, because it's what the person perceives about God that is key here.

As Teal said, 2) has nothing to do with the existence about objective morality, but how someone noetically approaches it. You'll need to substantially restate your problem.

[Truthseeker]

I am puzzled. Someone rejects the notion of objective morality and then points out things that he considers to be evil. For example, Christianity is evil.

[NormATive]

I am puzzled. Someone rejects the notion of objective morality and then points out things that he considers to be evil. For example, Christianity is evil.

I did not see where rwatts said that Christianity is evil. Please refer me to this post, as I must have missed it.

NORM

[Paprika]

So, in other words, if our moral epistemology informs us that it is morally correct to own slaves (as long as we treat them nicely), this could have harmful ramifications (like the slave trade).

This can happen whether an objective moral reality exists or not, and in the latter I doubt it's possible to use "harmful" with any more meaning besides "I (and possibly a group of other people) think it is".

[Paprika]

To all:

A concept, X, can be "harmful" (whatever on earth that means) but that doesn't falsify the preposition that "X is true". Moreover, I would love to see how you can use "harmful" meaningfully without smuggling some objective standards into it.

(Edit: I see Seer has already pointed out the latter half.)

[NormATive]

This can happen whether an objective moral reality exists or not, and in the latter I doubt it's possible to use "harmful" with any more meaning besides "I (and possibly a group of other people) think it is".

Exactly. It's what we call the "social contract." Human society is based upon it.

NORM

[Truthseeker]

A contract in usual diction is an agreement between two or more parties (e.g., an individual and another individual). But what the heck is a "social contract"? Is it binding on a baby about to be born?

[Paprika]

Exactly. It's what we call the "social contract." Human society is based upon it.

Right, so it shouldn't be counted as an objection against objective morality, which I gather rwatts is implicitly trying to do.

[Carrikature]

A contract in usual diction is an agreement between two or more parties (e.g., an individual and another individual). But what the heck is a "social contract"? Is it binding on a baby about to be born?

Social Contract Theory

[Carrikature]

Right, so it shouldn't be counted as an objection against objective morality, which I gather rwatts is implicitly trying to do.

That's not quite right. Objective morality is generally treated as an ideal state against which everything else is compared. The problem is that even granting an objective morality ontologically, it cannot be established that any person has access to it epistemologically. More to the point, it's entirely possible for someone to hold what they believe is an objective morality and to perform actions which they consider 'good' but which cause harm to another. That includes harm as defined by the actor.

[Carrikature]

Um, what? Condition 2 makes no sense. An objective reality doesn't depend on the perception of it or the acceptance of it.

I presume with Condition 1 you're referring to moral acts - if it is meant to refer to morality as a case, then that doesn't make sense, either.

Seriously, I don't get your logic here.

The keywords are "a concept of".

[Paprika]

More to the point, it's entirely possible for someone to hold what they believe is an objective morality and to perform actions which they consider 'good' but which cause harm to another. That includes harm as defined by the actor.

You're stating something different from "objective morality can be harmful". Which is not to say that it isn't something to be addressed, but that it's not quite rwatts was getting at (as I read it). He was saying that "a concept of objective morality...can be harmful", and "concept of objective morality either does good or does harm" which, I suppose, is shorthand for "operating under a premise that objective morality exists can and does lead to harm".

[Carrikature]

You're stating something different from "objective morality can be harmful". Which is not to say that it isn't something to be addressed, but that it's not quite rwatts was getting at (as I read it). He was saying that "a concept of objective morality...can be harmful", and "concept of objective morality either does good or does harm" which, I suppose, is shorthand for "there is (or can be) harm caused operating under a premise that objective morality exists".

The part I've bolded is not being argued so far as I can tell. The shorthand is probably close, but you have to take into account his #2. It's not caused by operating under the assumption that it exists, but by operating under the assumption that you have it right as to what that moral system allows/disallows.

[NormATive]

A contract in usual diction is an agreement between two or more parties (e.g., an individual and another individual). But what the heck is a "social contract"? Is it binding on a baby about to be born?

Not a new concept boys and girls:

social contract, in political philosophy, an actual or hypothetical compact, or agreement, between the ruled and their rulers, defining the rights and duties of each. In primeval times, according to the theory, individuals were born into an anarchic state of nature, which was happy or unhappy according to the particular version. They then, by exercising natural reason, formed a society (and a government) by means of a contract among themselves. - http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...ocial-contract

NORM