My views on objective morality

[Catholic_Lady]

I think the point is we'd always find something to complain about. If stubbing a toe was the worst thing that could happen to a person, we'd be talking about how horrible it was and why would God allow us to feel that sort of pain. Assuming God is real, we should humble ourselves and trust that God knows this setup (not intervening, giving us free will, etc) is the best setup for us in the long run, and it's good consequences will far outweigh the bad ones.

I don't know, I think people can somehow manage to keep a sense of perspective about these things. I don't worry myself much about the petty indignities an ant suffers in its life, but I still avoid killing them until they enter my home uninvited.

Honestly, I think the more valid form of praying is to pray for mental state. Like, to pray for strength to get through a rough time, etc. Not necessarily to pray for something that you want to have happen, or for miracles. That's how my mom taught me to pray. I do believe miracles do occur but they are not common.

How is your god changing your mental state not divine intervention? This has more than a whiff of special pleading about it.

I think it's more of a mental thing of our own. Like, meditating. It can clear the mind, give comfort, and help you stay positive and focused. These things all help a person's mental state. And by praying, we stay focused on God in general and that gives us motivation.

[Catholic_Lady]

CL, you keep writing "we believe", all the while ignoring the fact that that is a direct admission of subjectivity influencing, and most likely shaping, your view on morality.

Well, it is what we believe, but that doesn't mean it can't be objectively true. 

I think I addressed this earlier on in the post  - I also believe my husband loves me. I could be either right or wrong about that.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm here to have discussions with people who aren't ass holes.

What kind of discussions? I'm serious, what's the aim exactly? Just to be heard?

I'm not sure what you mean by "what kind of discussion." 

What's the aim? Just to talk, share ideas, etc. It is a a thing, you know. Not everything has to be about debate, heated argument, or trying to change someone's mind. It's perfectly possible to talk about things you disagree with. 

It seems you want us to not challenge what you say.

No, that's not what I said. I said I'm here to have discussions with people who aren't ass holes. That means nothing other than exactly what it says. Obviously you can be an ass hole if you want, but I'll probably stop responding to you if you are because that's not what I want. There are plenty of people here who are challenging me and being civil about it, and I'm perfectly fine with it.

[Catholic_Lady]

Never said it was.

And neither is your alleged objective morality.  Feelings are not evidence.

Never said they were.

[Angrboda]

Then on this you're one up one me.  I can't see how objective morality can exist at all.  

Very understandable. Since you don't believe in God, objective morality doesn't really make sense.

I think that's a little unfair. Surely What'vrist is capable of imagining the hypothetical if you can paint it.

[Angrboda]

Then on this you're one up one me.  I can't see how objective morality can exist at all.  

I want to take a different angle to this all.

I've mentioned this issue before, but, how does a good action get inherited to a person's identity and become part of them? 
 (A) It is just memory and how we psychologically feel about it? (B)Or is part of us in a reality living existing type way?

Forget what you know for certain. The fucking dark forces don't stop shouting "how do you know for certain" or if you know at all.

I'm asking you sincerely and you don't even have to reply to me if you don't want to. Which of the two options do you feel is more right?

Neither. Both good and bad actions get inherited because our identity is constantly re/forming. Our identity is tracked by the subconscious.

[Mystic]

CL, you keep writing "we believe", all the while ignoring the fact that that is a direct admission of subjectivity influencing, and most likely shaping, your view on morality.

Well, it is what we believe, but that doesn't mean it can't be objectively true. 

I think I addressed this earlier on in the post  - I also believe my husband loves me. I could be either right or wrong about that.

You can be certain your husband loves you (I don't know if you are, but I mean you can be), but maybe uncertain the degree that he loves you.

Often when we say "this person doesn't love me" we are talking about particular type of love or level of love.

You cannot know the exact level your husband loves. How there maybe signs of it, that give you a good estimate. You can know for sure two extremes that the love falls within. That it cannot be under this point as well you know it's not over this point.

This is my view. Do you disagree?

Also if you believe in love, and love is the whole of the law (it is per verse 42:23 in Quran as well) per words of Jesus, then you cannot say that love is not part of nature. 

Everything is taught to love in it's own way (all animals, insects, plants, even pebbles), the thing is we been taught all inclusive descent of love. The love we been entrusted with unites all types of love in creation.

Everything glorifies God with that love/praise they are created with which is created in truth with respect to vision of God of himself to creation. 

That said, I don't think it's accurate to say there is no proof of love or it's nature in us. The moral aspect of love is manifest to me, it's beauty is so manifest, I know it's objectively beautiful. That objective beauty is a manifestation of God.

[Angrboda]

He knows that even though we all make immoral choices at times, in the end, the good of having free will is going to outweigh the bad. That's why He set it up like that.

What is the good of having free will? Say as opposed to being determined to act in the same way. How is free will necessarily good?

[Angrboda]

The difference between a human parent running out to grab their toddler son off the street, and God changing things that would naturally happen, is that for God to do it would require divine intervention. And like Tibs said, you start getting into a slippery slope. Why didn't God stop the toddler from getting hit by a car? Why didn't God stop my brother from getting severe food poisoning last week? Why didn't God prevent me from stubbing my toe? If God were to prevent every negative thing that were about to happen, we wouldn't have free will anymore.

This seems to be a common view, that without the possibility of bad things, we aren't really free. Why. Am I not still free to choose from an wide array of neutral and pleasant outcomes? How does elimination of some of my actions result in elimination of all of my free will? That doesn't seem to make sense.

[Thumpalumpacus]

CL, you keep writing "we believe", all the while ignoring the fact that that is a direct admission of subjectivity influencing, and most likely shaping, your view on morality.

Well, it is what we believe, but that doesn't mean it can't be objectively true. 

I think I addressed this earlier on in the post  - I also believe my husband loves me. I could be either right or wrong about that.

Subjectivity doesn't speak to the truth or falseness of a claim. It speaks to the basis of the claim, the epistemology of it.

Of course a subjective claim can be true. That doesn't mean it is any less subjective. In my subjective morality, murder is always wrong. That happens to coincide with your allegedly objective view. So clearly, you would agree that this subjective claim of mine is true, even though you might think I am right for the wrong reasons.

You seem to have this idea in your head that "subjective" automatically means "false". They aren't synonymous.