Religiosity, Spirituality and the Moral

[Surgenator]

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.

As I said earlier, I'm in the middle of moving and all my books are packed up, so I'm unable to give you the references I'd like. I was mostly relating them from memory, but the point is that the philosophical definitions were not mine, they came from my particular favorite philosophy book entitled "Whatever Happened to Good and Evil" by Russ-Shafer Landau who is a professor somewhere... I forget where..

I can wait for your reply on the topic.

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.

I can certainly understand your insistence that cause and effect are observable and 'objective' in and of themselves. But... to use the claim that Muslims agree with you, to me is a bit of a stretch. Cause and effect in a moral sense would suggest that to do harm to another person would be wrong. For example, rape is bad. How many heads has ISIS or other Islamic terrorists cut off so far? Or, how many "honor killings" of women have taken place within Islam in general?

All religions that I've encountered have a cause and effect moral rule. Christianity's is stated as "you will reap what you sow." Islam has it as moral law as I pointed out earlier.

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'm sorry, that just doesn't follow for me. A thought is the possession of the individual who has the thought. Attempting to separate "the rule" from the person having the thought about the rule, is to suggest that the rule is a self exiting entity floating out in space somewhere. Anything within a human's mind is subject to the thought patterns of that human and is therefore subjective.

I'm by no means suggesting that rules are exist independent of something. In fact, I would are that you're arguing for such a reality. Your suggesting that objective moral laws exist independently of anyone (otherwise they wouldn't be objective).

Interpretations of a rule are subjective, that doesn't make the rule subjective. If you write down the rule, then it is no longer bound to a mind. Only the interpretations of the written rule are bounded by the mind.

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?

I would agree that the only possible location for an eternally objective moral law is in a mind... the mind of God; for that law and God are both eternal. I disagree that moral laws are not part of nature. I do agree that they have a different nature than that of laws such as the law of thermodynamics, but they have a nature nonetheless... human nature. There exists the potential for an optimal condition for people to coexists with each other without conflict. This condition would be determined by an objective moral law.

Human nature is a byproduct of our minds. Since our minds do not directly dictate reality, we can break any "laws" that are products of our minds. Unlike the physical laws which are embedded into nature, we cannot break them.

How can an a moral law exist on its own?

"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."

By this observation, you are making my point about all moral codes on the face of this earth being either subjective or relative.

I do have a hidden agenda for doing so. Which I'll keep hidden for a couple more post.

As far as your claim... "Therefore, no objective moral laws exist." I accept that we do not have the entire code of the objective moral law on the earth. We have it in part; that part which is expedient for us to have while in mortality as revealed to us by God through His prophets. I believe that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is following that law.

Wait, an objective law has to be universal, independent of time or place. If we only have part of it here, then the moral law is not universal and not objective.

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

Should one be determined to break the law? Should one not learn self discipline for the sake of cause and effect as it pertains to getting along with others? I suggest to you that after this life is over, and all of our understanding is restored to us along with knowledge of the truth that we did not theretofore have; there will be no inclination to break the law. People will understand and abide the objective law because they will want to.

If what you said was actually true, satan would not exist.