(April 1, 2013 at 11:38 am)Texas Sailor Wrote:(April 1, 2013 at 11:27 am)MysticKnight Wrote: Me: This is non-sequitur. Moreover objective morality and relative morality are not mutually exclusive from my perspective, because I believe ultimately morality boils down to the intention behind the act.
I agree that knowing what a person's true intentions behind an act would help me to personally decide what I think about their actions, whether right or wrong.
But as you said, without redefining the word "objective" in the absolute sense, the reminder of that which may be percieved as good by you and could still be viewed as bad by me, regardless of understanding the intentions. We may very well agree on the intentions but disagree on the action or any other combination of the variables.
I just think there are too many variables to incapsulate any one descision in a definitive category. There are too many angles too consider and we could both logically arrive at different conclusions. This is not the case with any other logical absolutes. This is what we would expect of something should it be purely subjective.
I believe this is where Divine Command Theory enters. Rightness or wrongness is judged on intent. But if God commands or prohibits something specific, your refusal to comply constitutes a negative intention. Instead of loving God (Luke 10:27), we go our own selfish way. Anything God commands is objective because there can be no exceptions--subjective human opinions mean nothing. Of course, we can choose to disobey. But that estranges us from our fountain and creator, our life-preserving force. If we disobey, that flow of life ends and we die. That's about as objective as it gets.
Does any other student of the Word have insight on this?
