Responding to "Homosexuality is wrong, the same way incest is wrong"

[robvalue]

As an example of this, I made a video rebuttal to Orangebox in another thread, who claims that his morality is based on "god's character", and nothing else. He seems to be claiming further that other forms of morality are not just useless but actually impossible. Of course, I disagree all the way, and I explain why. He is a type 3 in my list, as far as I can tell. To get anywhere we must discuss why his goals for morality are different from mine, to see if we can reach any middle ground. I get to this at the end of the video, although briefly. I ask what practical use his system of morality is. I don't care about his specific criteria, as far as my own morality goes, but I do care about discussing it to try and reach an understanding.

I just made a video response to Orangebox's reply, which I've put in hide tags below. Everyone else is of course welcome to comment on my vid, as with my video responses to Roadrunner on the previous page.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJ46w6J10GI

---

To summarize for a newcomer to the thread.  Objective:  not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts  Subjective:  based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions.  Both autonomy and utilitarianism are ontologically or foundationally derived from subjectivity and are therefore categorically subjective moralities.  Autonomy is inherently subjective in that the moral truth value of a given action is entirely up to the personal feelings, and opinions of each individual.  A statement that has been affirmed within this thread.  Utilitarianism is subjective in that it derives the moral truth value of a given action based upon maximizing well-being, and well-being is entirely determined by the personal feelings or opinions of the individual's involved.  This is also a statement that has been affirmed within this thread.  However, both autonomy and utilitarianism are inconsistent and should therefore be rejected as a reasonable explanation for the ontology of morality.

Autonomy is inconsistent with reality in that while it maintains morality is not objective, society applies moral laws objectively.  If autonomy were true then no single moral truth claim could be applied to multiple individuals as this would be inconsistent with the foundation of autonomy.  In other words, autonomy as a moral framework, prevents any universal application of a moral truth claim.  Yet, we as a society function in just the opposite way.  Society functions by universally applying moral truth claims.  Take the moral truth claim:  it is wrong to murder.  Society has establishes a law, based upon this moral truth claim, stating that murder is illegal, and that anyone who murders will be punished.  If autonomy were true, then a person who murders wouldn't be punished.  If autonomy were true, society would respond to the murderer by saying, well that's immoral for me, but moral for you, therefore we have no basis by which to punish you.  It is in this way that autonomy is inconsistent with reality and should therefore be rejected as an explanation of the ontology of morality.

Utilitarianism is logically inconsistent.  Utilitarianism determines the moral truth value of a given action based solely upon whether or not the action maximizes well-being, and well-being is ultimately subject to an individual's opinions and preferences.  Therefore the foundation or origin of morality within the utilitarian framework is subjective.  The foundation of utilitarian morality is at it's essence one single moral rule:  Do what maximizes well-being.  Any action concurring with this rule is moral, and any action contradicting the rule is immoral.  Functioning within utilitarianism however, requires applying the moral rule universally and thus subjecting every individual to it.  Therein lies the inconsistency.  If something is applied universally it is no longer subject to an individual's feelings or opinions and is therefore no longer subjective.  This is a category mistake.  Because utilitarianism derives it's moral truth values subjectively but functions objectively it makes a category mistake.  Therefore, because utilitarianism is logically inconsistent it should be rejected as an explanation of the ontology of morality.

So what about God?  Isn't He a person?  Isn't His asserted morality subjective in that His morality is derived from His personal feelings or opinions?  If God is a person and He determines morality then isn't morality subjective after all?  Is the Christian moral framework logically inconsistent as well?  These are common objections that demand an answer.  In Christianity, the moral truth value of a given action is determined not by God's personal feelings or opinions but by His inherent nature.  This is why Christians can consistently claim that morality is objective.  Morality is determined as an extension or expression of God's eternal nature, it is not determined by His personal feelings or opinions.  Therefore it is by definition objective.  From our perspective, it is also objective in that it is determined outside of mankind's personal feelings, tastes, or opinions and is therefore universally applicable to us.  Between utilitarianism, autonomy, and Christianity, only Christianity can provide a logically consistent framework of morality, and thus a reasonable ontology of morality.

---