My views on objective morality

[GrandizerII]

Usually when people have a hard time articulating about stuff they claim to understand, it's because they really don't have a solid understanding of it. And I suspect this to be the case here with you as well.

I think you just want to believe there is an objective morality originated by God, or you are psychologically conditioned with the intuition that objective morality must exist. But neither means that it does. At least not one coming forth from God.

No, I have no reason to want to believe anything. I believe in it because I do. Because it makes sense to me. Not because I "want" to. Life would probably  be easier if I didn't.

But you having such an intuition is no more closer to it being true. You've shown you can't even convince yourself rationally that there is this divine objective morality. You just feel it's true.

[Catholic_Lady]

No, I have no reason to want to believe anything. I believe in it because I do. Because it makes sense to me. Not because I "want" to. Life would probably  be easier if I didn't.

But you having such an intuition is no more closer to it being true. You've shown you can't even convince yourself rationally that there is this divine objective morality. You just feel it's true.

I'm not sure how I have shown that I "can't convince myself rationally in objective morality." It is perfectly rational to me, and I am perfectly convinced of it lol. 

It's a lot more rational to me that there is objective morality, than if there isn't and moral behavior is just whatever each individual person says it is (meaning things like rape and burning babies alive can be morally good if a person thinks it is). That makes no sense to me at all. 

Just because what makes rational sense to you is different from what I say makes rational sense to me, doesn't mean I'm just trying to convince myself of it.

[robvalue]

My challenge to anyone is simple:

1) Define what morality means, using terms that aren't subjective. If you can't do this, what you are taking about is not objective.

2) If you manage this, tell me why I should care about it.

CL: Would you care to take my challenge then?

[Angrboda]

If our understanding of God or of morals has changed, then who is to say that they have changed for the better? You're assuming that our understanding has improved. Yet everything has been getting worse since the Fall, why is our understanding any exception? How do you know that your current moral feelings about slavery aren't a misunderstanding rather than an increase in understanding. How do you know you have the best understanding of morals, and that say people in another country who stone people for homosexuality and rape are not superior. How do you decide what is a part of this objective morality?

[KUSA]

we believe morality does not come from us, but from a higher law maker who made these laws.

How can you definitively say what the laws are?

[robvalue]

More to the point, why should I care what god thinks? Why should I care what anyone thinks, if they don't support what they are saying with reason and evidence?

[robvalue]

If our understanding of God or of morals has changed, then who is to say that they have changed for the better?  You're assuming that our understanding has improved.  Yet everything has been getting worse since the Fall, why is our understanding any exception?  How do you know that your current moral feelings about slavery aren't a misunderstanding rather than an increase in understanding.  How do you know you have the best understanding of morals, and that say people in another country who stone people for homosexuality and rape are not superior.  How do you decide what is a part of this objective morality?

Indeed!

Reading the bible, it would seem our understanding is getting worse. We are less and less similar to what it describes there.

I don't know why anyone would assume we must be getting better, if they don't know what the standard is in the first place.

Of course, the further we are away from the bible the better, for the most part.

[Aoi Magi]

CL, is flushing your poop morally good?

[Catholic_Lady]

My challenge to anyone is simple:

1) Define what morality means, using terms that aren't subjective. If you can't do this, what you are taking about is not objective.

2) If you manage this, tell me why I should care about it.

Would you care to take my challenge then?

Sorry Rob, didn't mean to ignore you! Lots of comments and I don't have as much time today.

1. It means there is objective good and evil. Meaning some acts are objectively good (feeding a starving child) and some acts are objectively evil (raping a vulnerable child). Acting in a way that is good, is moral, and acting in a way that is evil, is immoral. The objectivity in this means we believe it isn't a matter of opinion, but rather, it is fact: good exists, evil exists, acting on them is either moral or immoral. As the video explains, good and evil are not physical. They are not made up of atoms. They are spiritual terms, stemming from the supernatural. That's why it is, in my opinion, impossible to believe in objective morality unless you believe in some form of god.  

2. I think you, Rob, don't need to because you are a good person. You have empathy. You are humble, and giving, and selfless. You act morally even though you don't believe in objective morality. But for people who don't have the same heart as you, I think it does matter that they understand that certain things are objectively wrong even if they don't feel empathy. A psychopath might think "well, why shouldn't I rape and kill that woman? I don't feel the least bit sorry for her, and I can pull it off in a way that no one would ever find out and come after me." In this case, it would be important for someone like him to have the understanding that certain acts are wrong even if he personally wouldn't otherwise feel they are.

[Catholic_Lady]

CL, is flushing your poop morally good?

Oh yes, it is very considerate. Sometimes I am naughty and purposely don't flush it to prank my unsuspecting husband.