Non-theistic Moral Realism

[seer]

How can they be subjective to him if he cannot do other than his nature? I'm not sure I understand your reasoning here. By asserting that God's own law could be subjective to him, you rub very close to that side of Euthyphro's dilemma that states that the good that God commands is arbitrary. On the other side of the dilemma we rule out that God is subject to the good as something separate from himself, by pointing out that the good is tied to God's own nature.

No, I don't think so. Why does the law of God need be objective to be immutable? His law is grounded in His immutable nature, but God is the subject - hence subjective. Objective by definition means that which exist independently of the subject or viewer - but God's law does not exist independently of Him.

[Adrift]

God's morality? We are able to comprehend God's will, and attributes through God's Spiritual Law and Teachings. Morality cannot describe God's nature from the human perspective. That is ridiculous.

Elsewherefully comprehend God's divine nature, we can comprehend at least to some degree the nature of the divine through his creation.

[Adrift]

No, I don't think so. Why does the law of God need be objective to be immutable?

How could it be otherwise?

His law is grounded in His immutable nature, but God is the subject - hence subjective. Objective by definition means that which exist independently of the subject or viewer - but God's law does not exist independently of Him.

Perhaps this discussion between Kevin Harris and Dr. Craig will put some light on where I'm coming from,

Source: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/how-are-morals-objectively-grounded-in-god

Kevin Harris: Dr. Craig, the critic will often say that morals are subjective and even if they are somehow grounded in God they are still subjective because they are subject to him and what he thinks is moral. How does what you just said escape that subjectivity of moral values within God?

Dr. Craig:Kevin Harris: People would say God has his opinion and I have mine.

Dr. Craig:Kevin Harris: So for further study, we could contrast voluntarism and essentialism?

Dr. Craig:Kevin Harris: So there are various divine command theories and voluntarism would be one divine command theory that is pretty vulnerable to attack?

Dr. Craig: Yeah, I think it is unacceptable because, as you say, it is ultimately subjectivism really because God just makes these things up.

Kevin Harris:Dr. Craig: Yes, right. He is consistent with his own nature. Remember, it is his nature. It is not as though there is something outside God that compels him to act in a certain way. Rather, this is just the way God is. It is who he is.

© Copyright Original Source

[seer]

How could it be otherwise?



Perhaps this discussion between Kevin Harris and Dr. Craig will put some light on where I'm coming from,

I have seen this before. Perhaps you can define what you mean by objective (I gave my definition) and in what sense is God's law objective, objective to whom or what?

[Adrift]

I have seen this before. Perhaps you can define what you mean by objective (I gave my definition) and in what sense is God's law objective, objective to whom or what?

I mean objective as that which is "fixed" in God's permanent and perfect nature, without his personal influence or will conflicting with that divine nature, but in perfect harmony with it. I think that God is the exception to the rule that something that is objective must necessarily be outside of oneself. We understand things in this way because we are constantly at war with ourselves ("For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do"), and there does exist something beyond us that we must govern ourselves by, but for a perfect being like God, his nature and will are necessarily intrinsically tied. He could never do anything other than what was already in his perfectly divine nature. There is no room for subjectivity there.

I'll grant that I may be observing God's objectivity incorrectly here, but I also believe it's incorrect to say that God's laws are subjective to him. Maybe it's best just to say as Craig does above, that God is consistent with his own nature, and leave it at that.

[seer]

I mean objective as that which is "fixed" in God's permanent and perfect nature, without his personal influence or will conflicting with that divine nature, but in perfect harmony with it. I think that God is the exception to the rule that something that is objective must necessarily be outside of oneself. We understand things in this way because we are constantly at war with ourselves ("For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do"), and there does exist something beyond us that we must govern ourselves by, but for a perfect being like God, his nature and will are necessarily intrinsically tied. He could never do anything other than what was already in his perfectly divine nature. There is no room for subjectivity there.

I'll grant that I may be observing God's objectivity incorrectly here, but I also believe it's incorrect to say that God's laws are subjective to him. Maybe it's best just to say as Craig does above, that God is consistent with his own nature, and leave it at that.

I agree with most of this, but like a said I don't believe that because God's law is subjective to Him, that that necessarily means that it is arbitrary - subjectivity does not necessarily mean arbitrary. I deny that it is arbitrary. And God's law, as far as I can tell, would not fall under the accepted definitions of objective. Immutable, non-arbitrary, yes, but objective - no. In any case God's law is universal, transcendent, authoritative and binding on a humankind.

Here is a definition of subjective:

existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

[Adrift]

I agree with most of this, but like a said I don't believe that because God's law is subjective to Him, that that necessarily means that it is arbitrary - subjectivity does not necessarily mean arbitrary. I deny that it is arbitrary. And God's law, as far as I can tell, would not fall under the accepted definitions of objective. Immutable, non-arbitrary, yes, but objective - no. In any case God's law is universal, transcendent, authoritative and binding on a humankind.

Here is a definition of subjective:

But God's moral laws do not simply exist in his mind. They exist in his eternal nature. To say that they exist in his mind implies that his moral laws could change if God's mind could change (and even if God's mind can't change, it rubs too close for comfort to this idea). This leads skeptics to say that God's laws are arbitrary. We don't want to say this, we want to say something much greater than this, that the good is indivisible from God's very being.

[seer]

But God's moral laws do not simply exist in his mind. They exist in his eternal nature. To say that they exist in his mind implies that his moral laws could change if God's mind could change (and even if God's mind can't change, it rubs too close for comfort to this idea). This leads skeptics to say that God's laws are arbitrary. We don't want to say this, we want to say something much greater than this, that the good is indivisible from God's very being.

Well we will have to disagree since I don't believe that God's moral nature or His ethical ideals change. They are immutable - though subjective : ). And still His moral law would not fit the definition of objective. And I don't know of a third option.

[shunyadragon]

Again, why is the survival of our species an objective moral good?

. . . because by the 'objective verifiable evidence that it is good for the human species to survive. What is morally good contributes to the survival of the human species.

Again, that is subjective - why is the survival of the species an objective moral good?

No it is not by definition. It is based on objective verifiable observations concerning what is necessary and good for humans to survive. Survival of the species and life is good.

God is God, not bad, not good, not subjective nor objective. Morality is an attribute of human nature by definition, and God does not have morals.

True, subjective does not mean necessarily arbitrary.

[shunyadragon]

I agree with most of this, but like a said I don't believe that because God's law is subjective to Him, that that necessarily means that it is arbitrary - subjectivity does not necessarily mean arbitrary. I deny that it is arbitrary. And God's law, as far as I can tell, would not fall under the accepted definitions of objective. Immutable, non-arbitrary, yes, but objective - no. In any case God's law is universal, transcendent, authoritative and binding on a humankind.

Here is a definition of subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).

Good definition; This is the reason your argument is 'subjective,' because it is not based on objective evidence and observations rather than to the object of thought. NMN is based on the objective evidence concerning the nature of morals and ethics in societies and cultures. There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other cause.

[seer]

. . . because by the 'objective verifiable evidence that it is good for the human species to survive. What is morally good contributes to the survival of the human species.

That makes no sense Shuny, why is it good for the human species to survive? Was it an objective verifiable fact that it was good for the dinosaurs to survive? Says who?

No it is not by definition. It is based on objective verifiable observations concerning what is necessary and good for humans to survive. Survival of the species and life is good.

Did nature have a plan or purpose for us? Did nature have a teleology for humankind? Did it have a teleology for dinosaurs.

[seer]

Good definition; This is the reason your argument is 'subjective,' because it is not based on objective evidence and observations rather than to the object of thought. NMN is based on the objective evidence concerning the nature of morals and ethics in societies and cultures. There is no objective verifiable evidence for any other cause.

No Shuny, NMN says that objective duties and values exist. But they don't exist, and you have not been able to demonstrate that they do. Why for instance do I have a DUTY to help you? Where does this objective duty come from? What obligates me to this duty?

[shunyadragon]

That makes no sense Shuny, why is it good for the human species to survive? Was it an objective verifiable fact that it was good for the dinosaurs to survive? Says who?

The nature of life, evolution, and survival of the species is not an 'objective verifiable fact,' and I never claimed it was. I said, and it is based on objectively verifiable evidence, that the natural course of life is supported but science.

Some species survive and some do not survive this is the nature of life and the continuation of the survival of life and species, which is naturally good. Is it objectively good that some species survive and some do not. Even the human species on earth will not likely survive in the long run, either from the Theistic nor Naturalist perspective.

Did nature have a plan or purpose for us?

Plans are anthropomorphic considerations of philosophy and theology, and not considerations of nature as observed by science. The purpose of life, evolution, and the survival of the species as demonstrated by objective observation of the nature of life on earth, and it is, of course, good.

Did nature have a teleology for humankind? Did it have a teleology for dinosaurs.

Yes, a utilitarian teleology.

The work and paper of Weilenberg is only a philosophical argument for NMN, and in and of itself does not offer the whole argument, which as its foundation is the scientific argument for NMN. See the whole paper here:

http://www.apologeticsinthechurch.co...weilenberg.pdf

[seer]

Plans are anthropomorphic considerations of philosophy and theology, and not considerations of nature as observed by science. The purpose of life, evolution, and the survival of the species as demonstrated by objective observation of the nature of life on earth, and it is, of course, good.

Yes, a utilitarian teleology

First you say that nature did not have a plan for us (a teleology) then you turn around and says that nature did have a utilitarian teleology. Which is it?

[shunyadragon]

First you say that nature did not have a plan for us (a teleology) then you turn around and says that nature did have a utilitarian teleology. Which is it?

Utilitarian teleology does not have and anthropomorphic plan by definition. The nature of our physical existence and Natural Law are the foundation of the utilitarian teleology and not plans.

God is the Creator, and not an engineer with plans.