Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
October 19, 2013 at 9:13 pm (This post was last modified: October 19, 2013 at 9:20 pm by bennyboy.)
(October 19, 2013 at 8:59 am)genkaus Wrote:
This should be interesting.
"From my perspective, it still stands as an objective measure... I can't sensibly redefine it."
Make a good note of this statement. Either you didn't mean to make such a statement and would wish to retract it or if you meant it, it contradicts your own arguments and ends up showing that P1 is false and P2 is true.
When you are considering the question of morality, then you are the subject of consideration (one who considers) and morality is the object of consideration (that which is considered). And your argument is pretty straightforward - if morality is independent of the subject (you) then it is objective and if it is dependent on the subject, it is subjective. So, I'll go ahead and accept these definitions of subjective and objective for this post.
(October 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think the WLC premise that God is required for an objective morality holds. True, you can say it's subjective for God, but that argument doesn't work. The cubic centimeter was arbitrarily made by others than me, but from my perspective, it still stands as an objective measure of volume. I can't sensibly redefine it. And if God is real and right, then you couldn't really sensibly redefine morality.
So, according to you, since a bunch of people arbitrarily came up with a measure for volume - the cubic centimeter - one which you cannot redefine, then that is objective. So, if a bunch of people come up with a measure for actions - which would be their morality - and you cannot redefine it, then you should also regard it as objective. Which means, god is not required for objective morality.
You see, Craig's argument is not that if god existed, his given morality would be objective, his argument is that god is necessarily required for the existence of objective morals. But if we go by your definition of "objective", then, obviously, god is not required - thus defeating P1.
(October 19, 2013 at 12:08 am)bennyboy Wrote: I think it is P2 that totally fails. I don't think there is any moral that is truly objective, EVEN IF there is some kind of Deity. What we have are instincts that we place in a bell curve and say, "normal, therefore objective." But some people probably think killing babies, or raping little boys, or stealing, are perfectly moral, due to a world view of twisted justifications.
But, going by your definitions, there are objective moral values out there. There are a whole bunch of moral theories, like Contractarianism, Utilitarianism, Ethical Egoism, Kantian Ethics, Virtue Ethics etc. none of which you can sensibly redefine. The fact that all of them are different from each-other is irrelevant. After all, you have a whole bunch of standards for measuring volume other than the cubic centimeter - such as gallons, quarts, teaspoons, bushels, cubic inches etc. - and all of them are regarded as objective. Which means P2 has been proven as true - there are objective moral values out there.
Interestingly, does this argument mean that Biblical morality is objective as well? After all, those morals are written down in a book, so it shouldn't be possible for the subject to sensibly redefine them. I'd be inclined to say yes - IF the subjects didn't actually keep redefining it. In my experience, the subject considering Biblical morality goes about picking and choosing - this doesn't apply today, this is metaphorical, this is an allegory, this doesn't mean what it says it means but something completely different, but THIS part is to be taken literally. Which is why I'd regard Christian morality as subjective.
So, now that you've made an argument that contradicts both of your stated positions, do you care to reconsider how you define the terms objective and subjective?
You've argued well. I think I have to revise my position.
Whether P1 or P2 must be discarded depends on your view on the word "objective," which ironically is subjective. If you think something objective must exist outside ANY subjective determination, by any entity, then if God decided on our moral code, P2 fails because He made a subjective determination.
If you accept that a subjective entity can create an objective system of morality (for example, if an Earthwide code of laws could be established that were so complete you'd know whether each and every action should be judged moral or immoral), then P1 does indeed fail, as you say, since under that definition, God is not required.
So however you define the word "objective," ONE of the two premises must fail to that definition, but not necessarily both.
The only way to reconcile this is to say that there is no subjective decision in God's morality. For example, you could argue that God's morality is not an idea, but the human-behavioral expression of the nature of God. I think this is where the Christian argument has arrived. However, something is still fishy, here: if WHATEVER good behavior we can do is defined as an expression of the nature of God, and goodness in people is used as evidence of God, we have a super-nasty begging of the question going on.
