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

[Doug Shaver]

If there is an objective moral standard, how do you know what it is?

Knowing what it is does not tell us whether is exists or not. But yes, I would start with the moral teachings of the New Testament. Then move to our God given conscience.

I didn't ask what your objective standard is. I asked how you know that it is an objective standard. How do you know that your standard is true and would remain true regardless of whether any human being believed it to be true?

[seer]

I didn't ask what your objective standard is. I asked how you know that it is an objective standard. How do you know that your standard is true and would remain true regardless of whether any human being believed it to be true?

Well I start with the presupposition that the bible is God's revealed word. What do you start with?

[seer]

The culture I was brought up in, plus any modifications I make to that morality which, for various reasons I think make sense.

For all your objective morality, you probably would have ended up in the Hitler youth yourself. Objectively then, it must have been a good thing.

If your moral sense is dictated by culture then again which culture is correct? Your claim was that we look to culture to define right and wrong, so I'm asking which culture. And if you say yours I ask what makes yours more valid or correct. Besides your opinion?

You made that up. You are wrong.

Don't get me wrong here. I am not claiming that the NT does not exist, nor that Jesus did not exist, nor that Jesus did not give the golden rule. I am asserting that your claim about the golden rule depending on your divine, is wrong.

If you are happy to argue by assertion then I am happy to do so as well.

Ok, prove that it is not a divine mandate.

So in your world of absolutes, which is the correct one to like seer? Which is the correct one to label "good" and the one to label "bad", such that bad things could happen if I choose "bad" over "good"?

Really? You really don't get the analogy? Some folks like to help the Jewish people, and others like to throw them in ovens. Why is one behavior more correct or valid than the other? BTW - you have not seen me use the term absolute.

Of course it's a question of who does better. I've framed the thread title in such a way, namely:-

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

But as we have seen you can not even define "good" or "harmful" in a non-subjective way. You still can not get off the ground.

A culture can decide that 1+1 makes 3 if it likes. But it will never use mathematics to put a human on the moon, given this. 

So your assertion makes no sense again. We have good practical reasons for accepting that 1+1 make 2.

We are an organism that seeks community and cooperation. Any behaviour which potentially destroys that, destroys some of the things we like as organisms with specific characteristics. There is a basis for morality, in who we are and how we behave.

1+1=2 is an objective fact. Universally true. Killing all the males in the neighboring tribe for their territory and females is not objectively wrong. It is really quite natural, there can be nothing inherently wrong in that act. And of course in the bigger picture it would not be morally or ethically wrong if our species didn't survive.

Objective morality makes no sense in your worldview, because you are the one who decides how to interpret what you see as God's morality. So there is nothing objective about it.

Again, even if I get it all wrong it doesn't mean that the standard doesn't exist. The color red would still objectively exist even if all creatures were born color blind. But we don't get it all wrong. We do understand what the golden rule means, what the love of neighbors means. We do understand what murder, rape, theft are. We do understand what selfishness and greed are. Doing what is right is another story.


Then make your point here, I really have no recall of what you were getting at. Just re-post it, I will answer. I told you to bring your argument to this board if you want me to answer. Keep it in this thread.

No. So what does your objective morality bring to the table that relativistic morality does not? When you actually answer a question, why should I necessarily trust your answer, given that on other questions your system lets you down? If it lets you down on some questions, then why should you necessarily be trusted on any question?

Really, so if the discipline of physics lets us down in some areas it shouldn't be trusted in all areas? Does that make any sense?


Again, if the what Europeans did was natural why would your negative opinion be more valid or correct than theirs? And where is your evidence that it was God's will. Look, in your world both the Europeans and the northern chimpanzee are only doing what is natural, keeping with evolutionary history. Not only is there nothing inherently wrong with both acts, there can not be anything inherently wrong with either. Just animals doing what animals do. And as far as the chimps, I have not personally worked through animal violence/suffering from a Christian perspective. But when I do you will be the first to know.

[shunyadragon]

First, if there is no objective moral standard then how do you even begin to define good or bad?

Second, even if no one agrees what constitutes God's will, the standard would still exist. Just as if all creatures were born color blind the color red would still exist.

The problem remains, 'What constitutes the objective standard of God's Will concerning morality? No one yet has defined this as an objective morality that any consensus of consistent agreement.

Please define this objective morality in terms that has any kind of universal agreement.

For example: Wrongful death is pretty much universal with all cultures and religions. The problem remains is the subjective nature of what constitutes 'Wrongful Death, and defining what killing is considered good or bad.' The Bible scripture is decidedly conflicting on this issue.

Over the Millennia different religious groups (Christian and others) have done a lot killing justified by their belief in scripture in very wide interpretation of what is justified and what is wrongful death.

[Teallaura]

RW, I haven't forgotten but it's gonna take more work to answer you fairly than I have time for right now. I may break it up in sections so I can at least get started - would you prefer that I post the sections as I finish or just wait and post the whole thing? Makes no difference to me.

Later!

[shunyadragon]

Well I start with the presupposition that the bible is God's revealed word. What do you start with?

OK. Can you define a consistent objective morality based on the Bible . . . that is not based on a subjective interpretation?

[Truthseeker]

The thread title is not really interesting. I think I can conceive someone with a mistaken or poor concept of objective morality that can be harmful. What is more interesting is at least this trio of questions: 1) Is there such a thing as objective morality? 2) Assuming it exists, how do we know or establish its existence? 3) How do we know what that is?

[rwatts]

Then make your point here, I really have no recall of what you were getting at. Just re-post it, I will answer. I told you to bring your argument to this board if you want me to answer. Keep it in this thread.

This one will do for now:-

In your world of absolute, objective morality, it seems that anything goes, providing two conditions are met:-

1) It's God's will and

2) You agree that it's God's will

So was it God's will in both cases seer- the Europeans and the chimps?

You have addressed the question with respect to the Europeans but not the chimps. You have continued to avoid the chimps. So how about telling me the answer, with respect to the chimps?

You asked us, in the context of the chimps whether or not it was good or bad.

You will have noticed that we were happy to answer your question. Now it's your turn, and it's been your turn almost from the beginning.

[rwatts]

RW, I haven't forgotten but it's gonna take more work to answer you fairly than I have time for right now. I may break it up in sections so I can at least get started - would you prefer that I post the sections as I finish or just wait and post the whole thing? Makes no difference to me.

Later!

Hi Teallaura,

It does not make a big difference to me. Take your time and do the whole thing. It does not matter if it's weeks away. If you think I might miss it, then send me a message when you post it, just to remind me.

[seer]

This one will do for now:-

In your world of absolute, objective morality, it seems that anything goes, providing two conditions are met:-

1) It's God's will and

2) You agree that it's God's will

So was it God's will in both cases seer- the Europeans and the chimps?

You have addressed the question with respect to the Europeans but not the chimps. You have continued to avoid the chimps. So how about telling me the answer, with respect to the chimps?

No I haven't avoided the chimps - I said I had no opinion on that, and in my last post I said this: And as far as the chimps, I have not personally worked through animal violence/suffering from a Christian perspective.

[rwatts]

No I haven't avoided the chimps - I said I had no opinion on that, ...

I guess it would be too much to ask where you wrote that?

... and in my last post I said this: And as far as the chimps, I have not personally worked through animal violence/suffering from a Christian perspective.

So when it comes to objective morality, God given morality, you have to work through it "from a Christian perspective"???

Then, having worked through it, you insinuate that it's morality from God? Like I said seer, this looks to me as if it's all your subjective opinion which you then like to tell us is from God.

How do I know it's from God, if you, seer, take such an awfully long time to work through it?

We too have to work through our relativistic morals. So how do you manage to work out that our's is not, in the end from God?

[Carrikature]

Thanks Carrikature.

I note at the end of that link was another to moral relativism.

On reading the link, there is a lot that makes sense. It made me think of the concept of the "ideal", as in "we all have our ideals". (In your link "uncoditional love" was discussed).

Perhaps that's all absolute objective morality really is, an ideal. It's an instinctive morality we think of as a part of a perfect world. Some folk go from this to thinking that it comes from something out there. Maybe even a type of Platonic form?

Like all ideals, circumstance, human deficiencies, and so on, all ensure that these ideals remain unachievable. And given human limitations and natural biases, I find it hard to see how we can ever take any moral action, and decide that it's really the one God agrees with.

Relativism is one of those words people bandy about while remaining ignorant of what it can mean. If you follow that link, you'll see it references meta-ethical and normative relativisms as distinct categories, and it even points out that a person can hold one view without necessarily needing the other. Part of the issue with seer's responses is that he presumes one necessarily means the other.

Terminology is kind of important, and it's easily glossed over, so let me quibble a bit. "Absolute objective morality" is two things. Objective morality is a claim that moral truths exist outside of a specific person. It's often assumed that it must be outside of all people, but that skips part of the question. A culture-specific morality could be both subjective or objective depending on the context. It's objective in that it exists beyond specific members of the culture, but subjective in terms of all cultures that exist. Moral absolutism, on the other hand, is a claim that certain acts are always morally good while others are always morally bad. Under moral absolutism, one would essentially state, for example, that lying is always wrong no matter the circumstance. It's possible to have a non-absolute, objective moral system.

Moral absolutism can be somewhat tricky. While there are certainly some actions that I don't condone (and couldn't imagine ever condoning), there are others that are held as absolute claims but that really aren't. Murder, for example, is generally held as absolutely wrong in all cases. Of course, we conveniently specify murder, not killing, and declare that murder is 'unjustified killing'. Who determines what is justified killing? You haven't really established an absolute. Rather, you've created a scenario in which you can apply a term to things you disagree with more or less as you see fit (even granting guidelines to determine which is which).

I could probably agree that objective morality concepts are usually instinctive (and somewhat learned) moralities that we consider part of a perfect world. Your concept of ideals and Platonic forms is a good one. However, I'd suggest that people often think a source of authority is required for these ideals to have normative force. That source of authority would have to be something that exists, but it's not necessarily the same as saying the ideals themselves exist as independent entities. Of course, it's possible to combine the ideal with the source, which is what is done with the Christian god in many cases.

[Carrikature]

Again, even if I get it all wrong it doesn't mean that the standard doesn't exist. The color red would still objectively exist even if all creatures were born color blind. But we don't get it all wrong.

This is false. 'Red' is a human description of a certain range of wavelengths. If all creatures couldn't see that range, there would never be a differentiation. Colors are not objective entities that exist whether or not they are observed. They're descriptions of sensory experiences.

Again, if the what Europeans did was natural why would your negative opinion be more valid or correct than theirs? And where is your evidence that it was God's will. Look, in your world both the Europeans and the northern chimpanzee are only doing what is natural, keeping with evolutionary history. Not only is there nothing inherently wrong with both acts, there can not be anything inherently wrong with either. Just animals doing what animals do. And as far as the chimps, I have not personally worked through animal violence/suffering from a Christian perspective. But when I do you will be the first to know.

No I haven't avoided the chimps - I said I had no opinion on that, and in my last post I said this: And as far as the chimps, I have not personally worked through animal violence/suffering from a Christian perspective.

You know what's really, really disingenuous? To go on and on about how it's obviously illegitimate to differentiate European actions from chimps when you haven't even bothered to sort out if there was really a difference. Disingenuous might not even be a strong enough description.

[rwatts]

No I haven't avoided the chimps - I said I had no opinion on that, and in my last post I said this: And as far as the chimps, I have not personally worked through animal violence/suffering from a Christian perspective.

Next, avoidance.

The conversation begins here:-

rwattsseer
And where does "good" come into the picture? Good for whom?


seer
And where does "good" come into the picture?

rwatts
Haven't you been told this repeatedly?


rwatts
Haven't you been told this repeatedly? Is it good that you completely ignore what we argue?

seer
Actually no, I haven't been.


seer
Actually no, I haven't been.

rwatts
Yes you have. Would you like the links?


So, would you like the links?


[seer]

So when it comes to objective morality, God given morality, you have to work through it "from a Christian perspective"???

Did I ever say or even hint that all moral questions were easily answered?

Then, having worked through it, you insinuate that it's morality from God? Like I said seer, this looks to me as if it's all your subjective opinion which you then like to tell us is from God.

No, scripture does not speak to animal suffering, but not all ethical questions are so illusive.

How do I know it's from God, if you, seer, take such an awfully long time to work through it?

I don't, and I don't have too. Even if I never have an answer for animal suffering that does not mean we don't have good answers for most things.

We too have to work through our relativistic morals. So how do you manage to work out that our's is not, in the end from God?

You again are missing the point. If there is no God, no objective moral law, then no ethical opinion is more correct or valid than it opposite, nor can it be. This is not about how we know what God's law is, it is about what follows if no such objective rule exists. But then it goes still deeper, to the greater question - what is man?