Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
February 27, 2017 at 10:44 am
(February 25, 2017 at 5:43 pm)WisdomOfTheTrees Wrote: Even if it were neurological, that wouldn't prove anything except for that our brain developed certain evolutionary advantageous regions. Something's evolutionary usefulness is not a measure of it's morality. You'd still have to define what it is about those religions that produce "morality", based off of a definition of morality.
The present is not bound by the past. Just because something was useful in the past doesn't prove that it will be useful in the future. Evolution has left us with many vestiges, like goose bumps, that no longer serve their original purpose. (although this is not to say that God doesn't have a purpose for such things.)
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
February 27, 2017 at 10:56 am
Is God's future valuations bounded by those he's thought to have made in the past or is that just wishful thinking on the part of his believers?
Whether there is a god to have any purpose in anything whatsoever is pretty much what is in doubt.
Posts: 67190
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
February 27, 2017 at 12:25 pm
(This post was last modified: February 27, 2017 at 12:42 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(February 27, 2017 at 10:33 am)SteveII Wrote: The meaning of subjective/objective is based on a reference point. If we make up our own purpose/value/meaning, it is subjective. If God created us, then to us, our purpose/value/meaning is objective, while from his reference point, it is subjective. -as his from ours is subjective. Something doesn't become objective "because goddidit" - that's not even remotely what that word means, even if that's -all- you're using it as a stand in for....which is pretty clear at this point.
Quote:I should have phrased the sentence: A theist has no such obligation to recognize what they do not think is opinion.
This was supposed to be an improvement? Sure, a theist has no obligation coming specifically from theism..but a commitment to words and cogent thought -would- produce such an obligation regardless of a persons status of belief.
Quote:Except if God did create us, it would not matter what you thought about our purpose. We would have one that, from our reference point, is objective.
Wouldn't matter to who? You? Subjective. To god....subjective, again. It would still matter to me, and gods purpose still wouldn't. Let's try something...let's see if it's anything other than the "god" bit that makes things seem objective to you. If I created my own purpose, just as you propose god to have created a purpose..is it, then, objective? Since we can all see, from our reference point, the objective metric and my progress towards it or placement in it's range? If evolution endowed me with a purpose, as you propose god ha endowed us with a purpose...would it be objective?
If -anything- other than god does the things you ascribe to god are you willing to call those things by the same terms you call them...when, purportedly, "goddidit" - or do you reserve objectivity in each and all potential and actual examples as the proprietary domain of a god? If it's the latter, and it very much seems to be, your entire line of thought can be reduced to "if goddidit then it's goddidited". So, probably need some work.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 5399
Threads: 256
Joined: December 1, 2013
Reputation:
60
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
March 1, 2017 at 12:52 am
(February 27, 2017 at 12:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: (February 27, 2017 at 10:33 am)SteveII Wrote: The meaning of subjective/objective is based on a reference point. If we make up our own purpose/value/meaning, it is subjective. If God created us, then to us, our purpose/value/meaning is objective, while from his reference point, it is subjective. -as his from ours is subjective. Something doesn't become objective "because goddidit" - that's not even remotely what that word means, even if that's -all- you're using it as a stand in for....which is pretty clear at this point. Right. What Steve is arguing for is not moral objectivity, but theological relativism. It's odd because it doesn't seem that his God is really capable of adding anything to our concept of "Goodness." Goodness is a property that is intrinsic to certain objects or facts... or it is not. God cannot "make" anything good unless it is already assumed that God or his actions are intrinsically good... which is the very point that God is supposed to be necessary to explain. It is nothing but circularity.
He who loves God cannot endeavour that God should love him in return - Baruch Spinoza
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
March 1, 2017 at 1:02 am
(March 1, 2017 at 12:52 am)Mudhammam Wrote: (February 27, 2017 at 12:25 pm)Khemikal Wrote: -as his from ours is subjective. Something doesn't become objective "because goddidit" - that's not even remotely what that word means, even if that's -all- you're using it as a stand in for....which is pretty clear at this point. Right. What Steve is arguing for is not moral objectivity, but theological relativism. It's odd because it doesn't seem that his God is really capable of adding anything to our concept of "Goodness." Goodness is a property that is intrinsic to certain objects or facts... or it is not. God cannot "make" anything good unless it is already assumed that God or his actions are intrinsically good... which is the very point that God is supposed to be necessary to explain. It is nothing but circularity. Its not that God adds something but rather that God is that something. You should know from your study of ancient philosophy that God is described as 'the Good' a concept repeated in Aquinas's 4W, degrees of perfection.
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
March 1, 2017 at 3:24 am
I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that if God created people with a specific intent to behave a certain way, then that would be objective from our point of view.
Posts: 1092
Threads: 26
Joined: September 5, 2016
Reputation:
39
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
March 1, 2017 at 12:21 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2017 at 12:24 pm by Kernel Sohcahtoa.)
bennyboy Wrote:I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that if God created people with a specific intent to behave a certain way, then that would be objective from our point of view.
What about from a more universal point of view? Would it still be objective, or would subjectivity become more apparent at that level?
Neo-Scholastic Wrote:Its not that God adds something but rather that God is that something. You should know from your study of ancient philosophy that God is described as 'the Good' a concept repeated in Aquinas's 4W, degrees of perfection
Is it possible that there could be multiple sources of that something? Or put another way, is it possible that god is a source of that something but is not necessarily the only source?
Posts: 9147
Threads: 83
Joined: May 22, 2013
Reputation:
46
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
March 1, 2017 at 1:45 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2017 at 1:46 pm by bennyboy.)
(March 1, 2017 at 12:21 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: bennyboy Wrote:I'm perfectly willing to stipulate that if God created people with a specific intent to behave a certain way, then that would be objective from our point of view.
What about from a more universal point of view? Would it still be objective, or would subjectivity become more apparent at that level?
I think if God created the Universe, and the moral laws were part of that Universe, then I'd say that they would still be objective so long as objectivity is defined in terms of the Universe. Of course, if it were defined in whatever framework a sentient God lives in, and if that God had the power to arbitrarily choose laws, then they would be subjective.
But that doesn't matter to religious arguments about objectivity. If God is real, and if mores really relate to the outcome of one's spiritual fate in a consistent and reliable way, then I'd describe them as objective morality.
That's just a hypothetical, though. I don't think the Bible provides a consistent enough moral view to establish it as a source for objective morality. People in the Bible are sometimes told to murder, sometimes told "Thou shalt not kill."
Posts: 67190
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
162
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
March 1, 2017 at 1:50 pm
(This post was last modified: March 1, 2017 at 1:51 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Are they objective because they are the laws of the universe, or because a god made them? If they were still the laws of the universe, but did not originate with a god, would they then, also, be objective? Is that what you mean by defining objectivity in terms of the universe?
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 8711
Threads: 128
Joined: March 1, 2012
Reputation:
54
RE: Is it true that there is no absolute morality?
March 1, 2017 at 4:18 pm
(March 1, 2017 at 12:21 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Neo-Scholastic Wrote:Its not that God adds something but rather that God is that something. You should know from your study of ancient philosophy that God is described as 'the Good' a concept repeated in Aquinas's 4W, degrees of perfection
Is it possible that there could be multiple sources of that something? Or put another way, is it possible that god is a source of that something but is not necessarily the only source?
A fair question, but no, the structure of the Fourth Way demonstrates that that is not an option.
|
