Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[Surgenator]

I'm failing to see how describing something that objectively happens becomes subjective. For it to be subjective, it needs to be relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind. That experience can be different to someone else's mind. Cause and effect does not behave like this.

Fair enough, "offends those who abide the law".

I've also noted that your objective moral law doesn't work like other objective laws. For example, I cannot break the 2nd law of thermodynamics no matter how hard I try. However, I can break any of the objective moral laws as much as I want. What makes the objective moral laws behave differently? This question might need its own thread.

Ok, as I understand the philosophical definitions... well, first let me make a comment about the eternal moral law. As I said before that is a mystery to me. As far as I can determine from scripture, the objective eternal law is as eternal as God. In other words, there is no beginning to it. This does not apply to the following:

All temporal laws extant on this earth are subjective or relative because they originate from either an individual (subjective) or from a culture (relative). These are definitions from philosophy. Ideas or laws aren't floating around in the air, they come from people. By observation, formulation or whatever... however laws or standards are derived in the mind of men, those laws or standards come from either a person or a convention of people. I understand what you are saying about how cause and effect behave... but... Mere empirical observation of cause and effect is not the defining factor here... cognation and evaluation are; at least as far as philosophical definitions are concerned. Cognation and evaluation have their source in the minds of a person or persons. If the source is a single person, it is subjective. If it is a culture, then it is referred to as relative.

I have to flatly disagree with your claim that subjectivity is related to the source of the rule. A rule is subjective if it behaves differently for some people by definition. A coin toss can and is used to objectively. The fact someone came up with an idea doesn't mean the coin chooses one side more often than another. It will still have 50/50 probability.

It is because people have different ideas about how things "ought" to be done, this is the reason for the disparity of legal systems in the world. You and I may be comfortable with observation of cause and effect, but others are not. This is why I pointed out Sharia law as an example. That system does not observe cause and effect in the same way as you or I might. Please believe me, I do understand why a scientific mind would consider cause and effect as the best source of moral law... I get it. But it is still subjective because it is filtered through a mind.

For the same reason, this is why there are so many religious denominations, even within Christianity.

People argue on what ought to be. However, cause and effect is what is. It is observable. The muslims also agree with the cause and effect rule.

Quick clarification, I do not claim that cause and effect as the best source of moral law. I view it as a source. I do not know if it is the best source.

Ah, we "filter" everything with our minds. Just because we filter them doesn't make them subjective. It just makes our interpretations subjective not the rule.

I agree with what you say about the way the laws of thermodynamics work as opposed to that of the objective moral law. As I indicated, there is a lot of mystery about it and its application. I understand however, according to scripture, that on judgment day, we will be judged according to that law. This law (or as much of it as is expedient for us to know) has been revealed to us through the prophets. Keep in mind that some laws given by God are for our temporal welfare while we are on earth and do not carry eternal significance.

That doesn't answer the question. So for the sake of the argument, I'm going to claim that "objective" moral laws only exist in minds. My argument supporting is simple. Since the moral laws do not behave like the natural laws we observe, they are not part of nature. Since we can think of, create, and argue about moral laws, then they, at minimum, reside in our minds. If they only exist in our minds, then they are subject to our interpretations and hence subjective. Therefore, no objective moral laws exist. Care to counter?

But the question is, why, if we know and understand the rules of whatever kingdom we are in, would we be interested in breaking them? There would be no reason. Once the penalty (if any) is paid, there will be no misery or fear.

Like usual, temptation would be a reason to break the rules.