Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[JimL]

It also means: relating to or denoting a case of nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence. In other words, belonging to a particular subject. Something that is subjective to me is, in some way, unique to me. I am the subject that holds the view. That is how I believe the word is being used here. It is in contrast to objective, which is something that lies outside the person and not subject (if I may use the word) to that person's perspective.

An elephant is an objective reality. My view of that elephant is subjective to me. It has nothing to do with opinion, but it does have to do with the specific perspective/vantage I have.

Yes, I understand, I just find it odd when the mind to whom the moral laws are said to be subject is also a mind that has no choice in the matter. It's as if the mind is just as subject to the moral laws as the moral laws are subject to the mind.

[Tassman]

Can you prove that you love your mother?

Well sin has stunted you ability to accept these things.

To quote Paul: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

What would Paul know?

If most people got their math sums wrong or got contradicting answers it does not follow that there isn't a right answer.

[JimL]

Jim subjective means that God is the subject. His law proceeds from His immutable and supremely good nature. They come from His mind.

Yes, I know what it means seer, but the mind from which you say moral laws come has no choice in the matter, correct? Is murder immoral simply because god has no choice in the matter, or did god decide murder should be immoral based on his reaoning? If the former, which being that a god would by necessity be eternal, the former would need be the case, i.e murder is simply immoral, then to call that source of morality a mind, I think is bit of a stretch. Don't you think?

[seer]

I do not take them as a personal attack. I do take THAT one as an unscrupulous twist of what has been said. No moral framework, yours nor mine, guarantees a world with no attrocities. In the name of universal/absolute/eternal moral codes, horrendous atrocities have been committed over the ages. Functional, as I used it, refers to the way moral codes are formed, and the mechanisms used to resolve moral conficts between individuals and groups.

That is the point Carp, in a subjective world atrocities are just as much a part of human nature as anything else. That may or may not be a "perfectly functional" model for you, but that is merely a matter of opinion.

Subjective morality becomes dysfunctional in the same ways and places that your universal/absolute/eternal framework does: when people fail to live up to their moral framework.

So in a Communist China where killing dissentients was common, and considered necessary, that was living up to to their moral framework. Given that fact Maoism was not dysfunctional even though murder was the order of the day.

I agree none of us are unbiased. I disagree that all of existence points to a creator. When you call it "creation," you are necessarily led to a creator. For me it is merely "existence;" the universe. It does not point to a creator from my perspective.

I don't expect you to believe, nor do I expect to convince you. Just know, that according to my worldview the sticking point is not evidential, but moral/spiritual. How does the saying go - a sinner looks for God like the bank robber looks for a cop.

No - not just as easily. Compromising a moral code can only be rationally done in one context: when the options are constrained to immoral choices. Then we are obkigated to chose such as to minimize harm. It does not make the act moral, but the moral choice is to choose the least immoral act.

Even in the context of your god being existent, Seer, your argument makes no sense, for the reasons I cited. Even universal/absolute/eternal moral codes do not require a limited/finite/temporal being to make choices on unknown outcomes, nor is there a history of this god providing individuals with all of the information necessary to make decisions based on virtually limitless future consequences of present choices. You are presenting a meaningless hypothetical. I do not even understand why you are trying to go here.

My point is we are not in position to judge the acts or commands of God. So when you say that something like homosexuality is perfectly moral, and if God said it isn't He is in a better position to know the long term consequences of libertine sexual behaviour.

Seer, at one point in my Christian life, I remember talking to a young man who was of a different faith, and I was "very" Christian. We were exchanging views about our religions. At one point, believing I was being incredibly ecumenical, I said to the young man, "I believe that, whatever you may call your god, we all fundamentally worship the same god." It wasn't exactly that set of words, but the context of the statement left the clear impression that, whatever he called "god," he was actually worshipping the same god I worshipped, making us all "children of god." He looked at me, shook his head, and said, "I don't think you have a clue how incredibly arrogant what you just said actually is." He got up and walked away. I remember taking that back with me, praying and reflecting on it. It took me a while, and some conversations with my spiritual director, before I realized what he was trying to tell me. His faith was important to him, and I just told him that, whether or not he knew it, he was actually worshipping my god, not his. I dismissed hundreds of years of theology with one quick wave of the hand.

Well I certainly agree with that young man. And I don't know how any biblically literate Christian could say that me, and a Muslim for instance, worship the same God.

You essentially just did the same thing with your "blind man" comment. You eliminated the possibility that someone who doesn't believe as you do could ever actually understand it. You eliminated, in one fell swoop, any reason for further discourse. Why bother? I lack the ability to see, and apparently your god wants it that way, because that is the way I am. How can anyone control "blindness." It's a circumstance of fate that one has to live with.

But see what you are doing Carp, you want me to deny Scripture and my worldview - in one fell swoop...

There is enormous difference between "understanding" and "agreeing." You appear to be of the view that someone who has been atheist and then became Christian can easily understand and appreciate both worldviews, but someone who has been Christian for half of his life, and then becomes atheist is not. That's an arrogant perspective. It is the same road traveled in opposite directions. I'm going to assume you actually don't think that way, and simply spoke without thinking. You're not a stupid person, and it would be an act of utter folly to continue, as you say, a conversation about color with a blind man. But if you actually DO think that way, then I would ask that you acknowledge it, and let's be done with the discussion. As I have noted, I think you are a good person. But if your mind is THAT closed, and if that is how you truly see me, then further discussion truly IS pointless, and I don't enjoy wasting my time.

When it comes to acknowledging God and receiving Christ as your Lord I do believe sinners are blinded to that reality. That however doesn't mean that we can't discuss other things.

[seer]

Yes, I know what it means seer, but the mind from which you say moral laws come has no choice in the matter, correct? Is murder immoral simply because god has no choice in the matter, or did god decide murder should be immoral based on his reaoning? If the former, which being that a god would by necessity be eternal, the former would need be the case, i.e murder is simply immoral, then to call that source of morality a mind, I think is bit of a stretch. Don't you think?

Jim it is grounded in His immutable nature. For instance, God can not lie. He can not turn around and start lying. Though I suspect that reasoning is part of the equation as He applies these truths to His commands and men.

[seer]

So you can't prove that you love your mother. I didn't think so. And yet you believe that matter or energy are past eternal without one lick of substantive evidence.

[carpedm9587]

That is the point Carp, in a subjective world atrocities are just as much a part of human nature as anything else. That may or may not be a "perfectly functional" model for you, but that is merely a matter of opinion.

From where I sit, the "universal/absolute/eternal moral framework" is no less prone to atrocities than what I have outlined. From my perspective, that is because the eternal/abslute/universal moral framework is actually a subjective framework with one slight twist: it has been attributed to a god and claimed to be universal/absolute/eternal, with little or no compelling evidence that this is actually true.

So in a Communist China where killing dissentients was common, and considered necessary, that was living up to to their moral framework. Given that fact Maoism was not dysfunctional even though murder was the order of the day.

I have answered this multiple times. Anasering again does not appear to be helpful.

I don't expect you to believe, nor do I expect to convince you. Just know, that according to my worldview the sticking point is not evidential, but moral/spiritual. How does the saying go - a sinner looks for God like the bank robber looks for a cop.

Which is yet another way of saying, "you are blind." Have you considered the possibility, Seer, that the theist looks for god because they are emotionally and cognitively incapable of dealing the the reality of a godless universe? If I made that accusation, would that advance our discussion one iota?

If your god chooses to share such information so I can see it too, I'll consider the argument. Meanwhile, to differentiate the love between two people on the basis of the genitals between their legs is, in my moral code, immoral. I could no more do that than I could differentiate it by the color of their skin, or any other physical attribute they may possess.

Well I certainly agree with that young man. And I don't know how any biblically literate Christian could say that me, and a Muslim for instance, worship the same God.

If you beleive there is one god, a natural consequence of that is that people who worship "god" are actually workshipping that same god. They may have very different ideas of what that god is and say and commands - but there is only one god in existence. So the difference between two Christian sects that have different views of god and a Christian and Muslim religion is a matter of degree, not kind.

But see what you are doing Carp, you want me to deny Scripture and my worldview - in one fell swoop.

I want nothing, Seer. You must do as you wish. But if your faith tells you that it is pointless to converse with me - I'm going to stop wasting my time.

When it comes to acknowledging God and receiving Christ as your Lord I do believe sinners are blinded to that reality. That however doesn't mean that we can't discuss other things.

Since everything you say here seems to flow from your beliefs - I don't see the point. Certainly we can converse about the mundane things of life. It is pointless to converse about the deeper things. I am "blind," remember? I cannot see or even begin to understand.

It's an arrogant position, Seer. I used to have it. I am gladly shed of it. It means I can interact with others as reasonable, competent, and intelligent adults. I hope, for your sake, you someday find a way to see those who do not happen to believe as you do in the same light.

I'll leave you to it.

[seer]

From where I sit, the "universal/absolute/eternal moral framework" is no less prone to atrocities than what I have outlined. From my perspective, that is because the eternal/abslute/universal moral framework is actually a subjective framework with one slight twist: it has been attributed to a god and claimed to be universal/absolute/eternal, with little or no compelling evidence that this is actually true.

Well of course that is your opinion. But it doesn't follow that if universal values exist that they can't be violated. We call that sin... So that is no argument against said values.

I have answered this multiple times. Anasering again does not appear to be helpful.

No, because you just brought up the dysfunctional thing. And Communist China would not have been dysfunctional - according their moral lights. You may not agree, but what would that matter? In other words there is no objective way to decide what is functional or not. "Whatever is, is right."

Which is yet another way of saying, "you are blind." Have you considered the possibility, Seer, that the theist looks for god because they are emotionally and cognitively incapable of dealing the the reality of a godless universe? If I made that accusation, would that advance our discussion one iota?

Yes, I actually think we can be incapable of dealing with reality in a godless universe. We were made for God, we were made for hope.

If your god chooses to share such information so I can see it too, I'll consider the argument. Meanwhile, to differentiate the love between two people on the basis of the genitals between their legs is, in my moral code, immoral. I could no more do that than I could differentiate it by the color of their skin, or any other physical attribute they may possess.

Right, God must explain every detail to you. Others of us trust that He knows what He is doing. It is called faith.

If you beleive there is one god, a natural consequence of that is that people who worship "god" are actually workshipping that same god. They may have very different ideas of what that god is and say and commands - but there is only one god in existence. So the difference between two Christian sects that have different views of god and a Christian and Muslim religion is a matter of degree, not kind.

Sorry, that is like saying that just because the cyanide pill looks like the aspirin pill that it will cure your headache. Not that God couldn't take the worship of a false god as worship towards Him, knowing the person's heart.

Since everything you say here seems to flow from your beliefs - I don't see the point. Certainly we can converse about the mundane things of life. It is pointless to converse about the deeper things. I am "blind," remember? I cannot see or even begin to understand.

I think we were having a interesting discussion on ethics, but really Carp, you can not ask me to leave my beliefs outside the door. I never asked you to do that.

[carpedm9587]

I think we were having a interesting discussion on ethics, but really Carp, you can not ask me to leave my beliefs outside the door. I never asked you to do that.

I would never ask someone to set their beliefs aside, Seer. Your beliefs are yours, for reasons you feel to be good. But I think you have to admit that it is somewhat pointless to continue a discussion with someone you believe to be incapable of grasping what you are saying. By your own beliefs, I do not understand why you are wasting your time. And I have no desire to waste mine.

A major difference between us, Seer, is that my worldview admits of error. I know that what I believe may be wrong, and I am continually on the lookout for it. One new piece of evidence can change what I believe about any given thing, even the existence of god. Your worldview precludes error, at least with respeect to your god. The very idea of it is not possible.

Ultimately, such a perspective makes conversation that has to do with worldviews somewhat pointless. Sports, what the family is doing, news reports, all remain on the table. But a discussion of worldviews is somewhat pointless. Don't get me wrong - I'm not upset with you. You remain, in my eyes, a fundamentally good person. You are who you are. I just don't see the point when the mind is so completely closed and I am seen as incapable of understanding.

[seer]

I would never ask someone to set their beliefs aside, Seer. Your beliefs are yours, for reasons you feel to be good. But I think you have to admit that it is somewhat pointless to continue a discussion with someone you believe to be incapable of grasping what you are saying. By your own beliefs, I do not understand why you are wasting your time. And I have no desire to waste mine.

A major difference between us, Seer, is that my worldview admits of error. I know that what I believe may be wrong, and I am continually on the lookout for it. One new piece of evidence can change what I believe about any given thing, even the existence of god. Your worldview precludes error, at least with respeect to your god. The very idea of it is not possible.

Ultimately, such a perspective makes conversation that has to do with worldviews somewhat pointless. Sports, what the family is doing, news reports, all remain on the table. But a discussion of worldviews is somewhat pointless. Don't get me wrong - I'm not upset with you. You remain, in my eyes, a fundamentally good person. You are who you are. I just don't see the point when the mind is so completely closed and I am seen as incapable of understanding.

OK carp, it was nice talking to you...

[JimL]

Jim it is grounded in His immutable nature. For instance, God can not lie. He can not turn around and start lying. Though I suspect that reasoning is part of the equation as He applies these truths to His commands and men.

What stops him from being able to lie? Isn't he omnipotent?

[seer]

What stops him from being able to lie? Isn't he omnipotent?

Omnipotent means the God can only do what can be done, He can not violate His moral nature - it is unchangeable. He can not will to not exist, etc...

[carpedm9587]

OK carp, it was nice talking to you...

Hopefully we will be chatting about other things.

One thing, Seer, that I feel compelled to say. The theism you subscribe to has an insidious hold. You believe yourself to be the recipient of a revealed truth from an omnipotent/omniscient being. By definition, it is a worldview that brooks no questioning, and permits no error. To question your own beliefs is to question this omnipotent/omniscient being. If you are indeed wrong, you are locked into the worldview with little chance of escape. I know how hard it was for me to eventually let go of that belief system.

At the end of the day, I am not sure how much difference it makes. If the worldview generally leads to good things, and you go to your grave with wrong beliefs, the world will not end. But if holding beliefs that are true is important to you, questioning/searching must always be part of the package. None of us is perfect, and we all hold views at any given moment that are simply wrong.

Just a thought. I have enjoyed the conversation. I just wish I had realized, from the outset, that you did not see me as capable of understanding. We could have saved a lot of time/effort.

[JimL]

Omnipotent means the God can only do what can be done, He can not violate His moral nature - it is unchangeable. He can not will to not exist, etc...

Yes, but not having the ability to will oneself to not exist is understandable and is different than not having the ability to change ones mind. What power is it that stops god from changing his mind?

[seer]

Hopefully we will be chatting about other things.

I'm sure we will.

One thing, Seer, that I feel compelled to say. The theism you subscribe to has an insidious hold. You believe yourself to be the recipient of a revealed truth from an omnipotent/omniscient being. By definition, it is a worldview that brooks no questioning, and permits no error. To question your own beliefs is to question this omnipotent/omniscient being. If you are indeed wrong, you are locked into the worldview with little chance of escape. I know how hard it was for me to eventually let go of that belief system.

I spent the first 37 years of my life questioning almost everything Carp. Now I have certainty and most importantly hope and peace and purpose. If I'm wrong and die holding these beliefs - what have I lost?

Just a thought. I have enjoyed the conversation. I just wish I had realized, from the outset, that you did not see me as capable of understanding. We could have saved a lot of time/effort.

Carp that only has application to one small part of our discussion, about the existence of God. The rest was quite open and wide ranging... Remember I was quite specific in limiting that claim to God's existence.