My views on objective morality

[Minimalist]

Why do you think I want to believe it though? How do you figure I don't have legitimate reasons for believing what I do, and that they don't involve me just believing it because I "want to?"

Because you proudly claim that you do.... at least the parts that aren't too embarrassing.  We call that cherry-picking.  And Caesar's quote refers to a stratagem by which one of his commanders, Quintus Titurius Sabinus, by name, sent a spy into a Gallic camp to tell them that he was a deserter and that the Romans were demoralized and planning to flee which, being exactly what the Gauls wanted to hear led them into an ill-conceived attack on Sabinus' camp and he then kicked the shit out of them.  The church has been telling people what they want to hear for a very long time.  They have made it an art form.  It's still just a scam.

[Whateverist]

Objectively speaking, whose morals are more objective .. yours Cath-y or Mystic's?

The thing I always want to ask is how do you in your subjectivity ever arrive at these objective morals?

[Thumpalumpacus]

But how do you know that what you do believe is true, given the fact that you don't have a metric for it?

The metric is divine light from light of God, eternal light mixed with light of time, the name of God, the concept is explained via allegory of the face of God in the Bible.

That's no metric for an objective morality, given that perception is itself subjective. You must interpret allegory, you must decide whether the "divine light" (whatever that is) is actually divine or simply extraordinary activity in your left parietal lobe, and whatever you mean by "eternal light mixed with the light of time" -- which is clearly a subjective metric on its own, given the vagueness of such terminology.

How do you know that what you think is free will is free will? 

Through direct experience of free-will of oneself, vision of the soul, and vision of God.

[Emphasis added -- Thump]

In other words through subjective means.

How do you know that what you regard as moral behavior stems from your god?

Through God's Name/light/face and the divine link between morality and God, he is the light of all light, the blessed one in the blessings through his name/face.

That doesn't answer my question at all. How do you know that?

Additionally, I have taken the liberty of empahsizing where you are engaged in circular reasoning.

If all you have to go on is faith, well then you're essentially saying that morality is subjective. 

This depends on how you define faith.

No. The pertinent denotation in this context, from the OED, is:

2 Strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

That is inherently a subjective state of mind. This means that if your morality is based solely on your faith, which is not shared by the majority of people the world over, your morality is itself inherently subjective.

But the fact is that it doesn't make sense to the majority of the people in the world, and while you're here expounding it, you cannot explain why anyone else should believe as you do. How is that not, in its very essence, subjective?

Most of the world believes in the supernatural spiritual nature of morality and most believe that it's ultimate origin is the Creator of the universe, the Great Spirit, God.

So what? Most of the world at one time believed that the Sun orbited the Earth. Subjectively, that seems true, but objectively it is false.

Also, appealing to the beliefs of any majority is ipso facto appealing to subjectivity. When we are talking about objective morality, we are talking about an ethical-moral system which is provable without appeal to human perceptions. Nothing you have written here -- nothing -- does not at one point or another eschew such an appeal.

I don't know what you guys are referring to the Bible, so I won't get into it.

The acts attributed to her god which defy the morality espoused by her god in that selfsame book are the referents.

[robvalue]

OK thanks for your answer CL

I didn't understand it, but I appreciate it nonetheless. Words like "spiritual" don't mean anything to me. I don't understand how morality is anything other than a judgement. I really don't know what you actually think it is.

And thank you for your kind words I agree that psychopaths are problematic, and getting them to fit in with society is difficult. This is the one case in which I think religion has half a leg to stand on, but I still think there are better ways.

I'm sorry but I don't buy you don't understand it. I don't. I think you can tell there is a difference in a judgement of for example what clothes look better to wear and what action is more morally right. You can also "judge" what tastes better or not. Chocolate or vanilla. Pizza or Chicken. Etc... It doesn't matter which one in this respect. But morals do matter more specifically because they are of a certain spiritual nature. Albeit, some are not better decisions then the other, but will none the less give different spiritual hues often depending on which path of spiritually beauty we incline to ( I think you understand this perfectly as well).

CL was talking about "spiritual" this and that. No, I honestly do not understand what that means. I know what morality is, but I don't understand what CL thinks it is. Nor do I understand what you think it is. I find theists tend to slip between common sense definitions of morality and some weird magical version, to try and equivocate.

I've made it clear hundreds of times I don't know what "spiritual" means, and I've never received a definition that isn't just meaningless word salad. As far as I'm concerned, it's entirely metaphorical and has no basis in reality. I know you don't agree with that. If it makes you happy to think you know me better than I know myself, fine. But it seems you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying since I joined the forum.

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC he hasn't...too busy staring at the CFL's mounted on his ceiling fan, imagining that it's gods face or some such gibberish. I've been wondering how he tells the difference between god and a glowstick ever since he came back spouting this shit off.

[robvalue]

I am very seriously worried about his sanity. Out of concern, I don't mean to insult. I can't even begin to make sense of most of what he writes since his recent return.

At least with others I have a vague idea what they're talking about, even if the concepts are incoherent.

[bennyboy]

I've been wondering how he tells the difference between god and a glowstick ever since he came back spouting this shit off.

ROFL

Never has the essence of a person been so succintly and humorously captured in these here threads.

[Catholic_Lady]

I'm hoping that my questions, earnest and respectful as they are, merit a reply at least as substantive as the attention given to the complaints here.

All my replies have been honest and complete to the best of my abilities. If I did not get to someone's post, I apologize, but I am human and I have a life. And there's one of me and 20 of you. I do my best, but can't always respond to every post. Thank you for being earnest and respectful as always.

[Catholic_Lady]

Why do you think I want to believe it though? How do you figure I don't have legitimate reasons for believing what I do, and that they don't involve me just believing it because I "want to?"

Because you proudly claim that you do.... at least the parts that aren't too embarrassing.  We call that cherry-picking.  And Caesar's quote refers to a stratagem by which one of his commanders, Quintus Titurius Sabinus, by name, sent a spy into a Gallic camp to tell them that he was a deserter and that the Romans were demoralized and planning to flee which, being exactly what the Gauls wanted to hear led them into an ill-conceived attack on Sabinus' camp and he then kicked the shit out of them.  The church has been telling people what they want to hear for a very long time.  They have made it an art form.  It's still just a scam.

My bold. Please point to where I "proudly claim" that I believe my faith "because I want to." 

Please point to what Church teaching I have denied or "cherry picked."

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I did not realize that me believing that morality is objective was a particularly "sensitive" topic... at least not any more than the usual sensitivity of theism vs atheism. It's not like I was talking about abortion or something. 

And my response wasn't dismissive AT ALL. I would have responded the exact same way regardless of whether or not the TV was on, because it is my honest answer. It's my only answer. Only thing is I had to edit it a few times before getting the grammar/etc how I wanted.

You were talking about an all-encompassing moral code which includes some ideas on abortion which are considered by many who are not as fortunate as you are (happily married and probably not financially struggling) to be oppressive and invasive. With respect, CL, we know that's what "objective morality" is to you, and you cannot pretend otherwise.

You seem to believe that the Catholic OM works for you, but this just isn't so for everyone. Another example of OM is North Korea, where the Dear Ruler is essentially a god, and other theocracies, however their OMs are defined. Yes, OM really is that dangerous, and it is only through the consensus of majority that such abuses can be held in check. Objective morality is tyrannical, while morality by consensus is democratic. I may be talking about government, and perhaps you were not, but the point remains the same - any serious deviation from majority moral consensus will be dealt with appropriately in a government which is democratic. Objective morality, on the other hand, leads to theocracy, which is the antithesis of democracy.

The only reason why Catholics in the US are not burning people at the stake for abortions today is that their objective morality is not accepted by all, and the US Constitution prohibits them from forcing it on all of us. I know you don't believe this, and that is because your understanding of human nature is so casual, but history has proven this true over and over again, and there's really nothing fundamentally different about the people who commit similar atrocities right now in the Middle East.

Morality is the basis for social policies and law, and when only one person's opinion counts, that is objective morality - this can only create a frightfully dangerous condition, which is nothing that any decent culture needs!

EDIT: Oh, but of course the problem always boils down to a failure to follow the correct objective morality, whichever that one really is, and then howcum when it comes directly from the bible that they never seem to get even that one right? Hmmmm....this is only one good reason to allow social consensus and a democratic political system to balance out the errors!