Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[SteveII]

Certainly some commands are specific to a people, time, nation or objective. 

In what way are such commands objective?  As in, why would it be "moral" for one band of raiders to go off a-viking in the Levant.....but not some other?  [1]

Double standard implies that you both have the same standing. You don't.

An objective standard necessitates that there is no consideration of a subjects "standing".  That's the -entire- premise of an objective morality.  This comment, alone, represents a categorical failure to understand the subject matter.  Relative "standing" is the territory of subjective moralities, wherein something is variously right or wrong or both at once based not upon the object of discussion, the moral fact of a matter, but something about the subject in question - the purported moral agent. [2]

Objectivity requires that the standards not be influences by things that change (opinion, circumstance, etc.), The eternal nature of God is such a thing and so is clearly objective. Since our moral values and duties stem from the nature of God (via God's commands--because otherwise we would not be aware of them or how to apply them), they are objectively moral. 

Just stop talking about objective standards of morality, you clearly have no idea what that term means, not fundamentally, and not in the specifics.  Again, -our- moral values and duties do not stem from the nature of -your- objectively evil god, whom..you insist, applies a double standard righteously due to his "standing" - a simpletons way of saying that gods might, makes god right.  It would be, frankly, impossible...to form an objective moral schema from any of the nonsense you've been peddling these many posts. [3]

Your leap from there being a set of objective values to you having the right to enforce them or deliver the consequences of breaking them is unwarranted. Our moral values and duties stem from the commands of God. An example is needed if you want to discuss this issue further--you must have one in mind.

Are you here to discuss the articles of your faith in divine command, or objective morality?  Do you want to discuss any of the number of specific examples given..or just keep asking till judgement day as though the last 40 pages never were? [4]

Sit down Steve, you're tired.  "God" moved on objective morality like a bitch....but couldn't get there....  

It's shit like this that leads people to conclude that there is no objective morality, because..to hear Some People™ describe it..it is not only -not- an objective morality, but based upon a work of petty fiction.  Useless, and less-than-wrong. [5]

1. Who said the commands were objective? The objectivity is found in the nature of God. We cannot fully understand that nature (it would be impossible). 

2. You are confusing objective morality with application. We are rarely in a position to apply anything objectively. 

3. You keep missing the point. The objective part comes from the nature of God. We can know of this through God's commands. We are not in a position to apply HIS standards for him in the absence of a command. This is not hard.

4. I would respond to an example if done in context and not framed in derision. 

5. You don't want to understand any of this. You think you do already and just throw out statements that are equivalent to talking over the top of someone in a discussion. You suck at discussion with someone of a different opinion and I wouldn't bother with you except there are others reading that might think you have a point.

[Mister Agenda]

Objective does not mean universal or immune to circumstance. An objective morality can lead to different actions in different circumstances or different actions by different people. If I vaccinate your child, and it is the objectively right thing to do, it does not follow that your child would be right to run around sticking people with syringes. When your child has the training to administer vaccinations, then they can do the same.

I think the main problem with Steve's depiction of God's morality as a brute fact is that it removes God's moral agency. God does not discern morality and act accordingly, God just happens to be moral and cannot be otherwise. God is incapable of moral decision-making, and is no more responsible for the morality of his behavior than a rock.

All that to avoid morality being subjective to God, because God created it, and also avoid morality being objective to God, because God follows it. Which is why someone originated the thought: 'Hey, what if God and morality are one and the same? Guys, I've solved morality!'

[The Grand Nudger]

1. Who said the commands were objective? The objectivity is found in the nature of God. We cannot fully understand that nature (it would be impossible). 

Not by -any- description you've given.  This claim amounts to nothing more than a proclamation of faith.

2. You are confusing objective morality with application. We are rarely in a position to apply anything objectively.

You've been arguing for a divine command based subjective system of arbitrary proscription.....calling it an objective morality, and you think I'm the one that;s confused about something.....?

3. You keep missing the point. The objective part comes from the nature of God. We can know of this through God's commands. We are not in a position to apply HIS standards for him in the absence of a command. This is not hard.

You don;t have a "point" to miss.  You have the articles of your faith, which you repeat ad naus in spite of all comments, criticism, evidence, and reason to the contrary. 

4. I would respond to an example if done in context and not framed in derision. 

I know, my questions are mean and super hard, therefore you fail to respond on point.  

5. You don't want to understand any of this. You think you do already and just throw out statements that are equivalent to talking over the top of someone in a discussion. You suck at discussion with someone of a different opinion and I wouldn't bother with you except there are others reading that might think you have a point.

Regardless of whether or not a person wanted to understand any of this, you wouldn't be able to help them do so. You don;t understand it, not just objective morality, you clearly don;t understand the articles of your own faith. You're simply here to regurgitate whatever was mama-birded to you by whomever took you for a fool.

Who, in your opinion, shows their contempt for you, in this little drama? That asshole, or the person who tries to goad you into using that big brain of yours? I'm here, if you want to talk to me about objective morality, in a thread entitled "Objective morality as a proper(ly) basic belief"....but if you want to talk to someone about what a ghost told you to do..maybe you should head on back to that guy....eh?

[Silver]

1. Who said the commands were objective? The objectivity is found in the nature of God. We cannot fully understand that nature (it would be impossible). 

1. Yet you do your damnedest to defend a deity you have admitted to not properly understanding or knowing. Theists cannot properly understand the nature of god, yet theists continually refer to the nature of god as all-good, all-loving.

Even if the nature of god can be minimally understood via biblical scripture and god's actions within the book, it becomes all too apparent that the god character is a primitive mirroring of man's own inner, tyrannical mind.

[The Grand Nudger]

Much of the issue /w god as a moral creature can be wiped away simply enough..by saying "we both know god didn;t do that shit".  Steve, purportedly -not- a biblical literalist, could do so at any time..and yet fails, for reasons™. Instead preferring to mount an incompetent defense of the morally indefensible.

[Inkfeather132]

-Edited because my point was wrong-

[SteveII]

Objective does not mean universal or immune to circumstance. An objective morality can lead to different actions in different circumstances or different actions by different people. If I vaccinate your child, and it is the objectively right thing to do, it does not follow that your child would be right to run around sticking people with syringes. When your child has the training to administer vaccinations, then they can do the same. [1]

I think the main problem with Steve's depiction of God's morality as a brute fact is that it removes God's moral agency. God does not discern morality and act accordingly, God just happens to be moral and cannot be otherwise. God is incapable of moral decision-making, and is no more responsible for the morality of his behavior than a rock. [2]

All that to avoid morality being subjective to God, because God created it, and also avoid morality being objective to God, because God follows it. Which is why someone originated the thought: 'Hey, what if God and morality are one and the same? Guys, I've solved morality!' [3]

1. Thanks for helping me with that point.
2. I don't disagree with the logic, but I would with the characterization. They way you put it seems like God is amoral. He is responsible for his commands and revelation about his nature.  
3. Yes, it answers the dilemma but it also moves morality from the subjective column to the objective column, defends it against claims of being arbitrary or changing.

[The Grand Nudger]

Being subject to circumstance isn't an impediment to an objective morality, unless that circumstance is the moral subject in question.  For example....the theft of a loaf of bread is not more or less wrong because of who does it, but because of the circumstance in which that subject finds themselves and it's relationship to the object, the moral fact of the matter.  

Nevertheless, some things are considered to be so beyond the pale of circumstance, that there is no moral amelioration for that act, due to the nature of -the act-...which is the object..in an objective morality. As examples.

Man steals loaf of bread because he wants it. Flatly wrong.
Man steals loaf of bread because he is starving. Still wrong, but less wrong.

Man commits genocide Because Jews. Flatly wrong.
Man commits genocide because "god" told him to. Flatly wrong.
God commits xenocide because he's super pissed about people not doing what he wants them to. Flatly wrong.

It takes a morally compromised person, to take issue with the latter statements, and perhaps -worse- to argue that they are..in fact..not only good, but perfectly so.

[Inkfeather132]

Being subject to circumstance isn't an impediment to an objective morality, unless that circumstance is the moral subject in question.  For example....the theft of a loaf of bread is not more or less wrong because of who does it, but because of the circumstance in which that subject finds themselves and it's relationship to the object, the moral fact of the matter.  

Nevertheless, some things are considered to be so beyond the pale of circumstance, that there is no moral amelioration for that act, due to the nature of -the act-...which is the object..in an objective morality. As examples.

Man steals loaf of bread because he wants it. Flatly wrong.
Man steals loaf of bread because he is starving. Still wrong, but less wrong.

Man commits genocide Because Jews. Flatly wrong.
Man commits genocide because "god" told him to. Flatly wrong.

That still seems like subjective morality to me. The way I understand it, objective morality leaves no room for "gray areas". Which is why I don't think it can ever exist because those "gray areas" are everywhere. Is there something I'm missing here?

[The Grand Nudger]

I've opined on this in thread, but I strongly suspect that your idea of what an objective morality is has been colored by centuries of christer bullshit.  An objective morality -must- take into account competing moral facts of a matter.  Grey areas.

Theft is wrong, in my hypothetical objective morality, because it causes harm. Theft when starving still causes harm, but the harm caused by the theft of a loaf of bread is objectively lesser than the harm caused by starvation. In a field of suboptimal choices - steal a loaf of bread or starve my family, one seeks to choose the option of lesser harm. The least harmful, among sub-optimal decisions. Just because there is an objective moral standard..doesn;t mean that we will always have choices congruent with it's adherence.

Note that in the hypothetical, both examples of theft are still wrong, but without a reference to conflicting objective moral facts of a matter..we would be at a loss to explain why we considered one less shitty than the other - and any morality than flaty requires no theft ever for any reason is a morality that, itself, becomes the cause of harm. The thief, for his part, will still be punished for his theft..but only insomuch as he has lived to -be- punished for it.

You're conflating moral absolutism, with moral objectivism...just as Steve has, repeatedly, in every "timeless and unchanging" line of tripe.