Christian morality delusions

[The Grand Nudger]

You are a much needed breath of fresh air on these forums.  May I be so annoying as to answer your question with a question? Where do god’s morals come from, and by what method or criteria can it be concluded that they are objective?

That is the big question why is it my opinions on morality are subjective, but this god's opinions on morality aren't? If they come from an individual, they're subjective. Hence why a lot of people nowadays are against ethnic cleansing, whereas the god of the bible uses that as his standard response to things not going right.

That's not only not the big question..it's not a question at all.  An objective morality, if there is one, would also come from an individual.  This is the other side of the coin that I was referring to...with the irreligious incorrectly describing their moral systems as other-than. That's part of why the religious think that they have some unique purchase, when..in most cases, they have no purchase at all.

[tackattack]

Rather than have a wall of text replying to each question I'll do my best to encompass them all because I appreciate the responses.

There is subjective morality- what I feel internally to be right and wrong as according to my experience and beliefs. It is subjective because it is personal to the observer. A psychopath believes it's right to kill someone I do not.

There is societal morality-Which can be an objective morality and informs our subjective morality. 100 years ago segregation was a common societal belief that informed the current populous. today, it is striving to evolve away from that.

There probably isn't universal morality because we're all like herding cats so I'll scrap that concept. You win Min I can't think of one, maybe breathing is good?

There is objective morality - a being that exists prior to creation and is outside of our known reality has nothing to do with being objective? Exquease me but this does not compute. I see other points that it is not a necessary objective morality (plop here's the miracle) to the equation because our personal morality can be affected by societal morality. But as that changes I prefer a firmer yard stick by which to measure by.

Operationalization of conceptual variables dictates I have a method by which to measure morality and I prefer a constant to a variable. That's about as simple as I can put it. That plus faith and experience informs my subjective morality but seems to have little effect on societal morality.

I understand that not everyone buys into, experiences or believes in God and I agree, that's kinda why I hang out here man
to answer and retort on other things:

"Where do god’s morals come from, and by what method or criteria can it be concluded that they are objective? "
-By my understanding and personal experience of the nature of God being Holy. I'm certain God's morals are subjective to him, but as he is outside of my known universe they're about as constant as I could fathom. That's not to say they're not mercurial, but I've not had that experience.

"species evolved to socialize and THAT, not old mythology, not old writings, but our evolution, is where we develop our sense of morality."
-is emphatically false if mythology and old writings exist and were discussed during socialization then every experience thought and input we receives changes who we are as a society and affects our subjective morality consequently.


I think that covers 90%

[The Grand Nudger]

All of your beliefs and experiences are personal to you.  Even the objectively true ones.  

Correct, a being that exists prior to creation and lives outside of our known reality has nothing to do with whether or not there is an objective morality.  An objective morality only hinges on one thing.  The existence of mind independent facts of a moral matter.  That's it, that's all.  Nothing else.

[Reltzik]

Here are my thoughts on morality
There is subjective morality- what I feel internally to be right and wrong as according to my experience and beliefs
There is societal morality- what is commonly accepted to be right or wrong for a people within a particular society
There is universal morality (possibly)- things that rational people of any time and any place find right or wrong
There is objective morality- A being I call God exists outside the universe that influences us through the Holy Spirit to inform of objective morality.

You were simply asking if your framework qualified as what someone else was describing in the context of another conversation, so I won't tear into this like I would if you were trying to lecture us on these points. I do have questions, but since I'm a third party to this conversation and not familiar with the original context you should feel more than free to ignore them.

Regarding objective morality (as you describe it):

How is objective morality knowable, either in its existence or its content? I don't mean just what steps can people take to know it, but also how they can confirm and verify that those steps are the correct one? (So, "read the Bible" doesn't count as a way of confirming unless we can also have a way to confirm that reading the Bible is the right approach. Otherwise we have no way to confirm that method over, say, reading Dianetics.)

By what means do we distinguish between objective morality and universal morality? If every rational person in the world perhaps thought that, say, cannibalism was bad, that would be a universal morality, but how would we then know it was objective morality? If the Holy Spirit was influencing large numbers of people to believe a certain way, that would count as objective morality as you have defined it. But if large numbers of people believe a certain way, how could we tell whether that was because it was (approaching) universal morality or because of objective morality?

What is the distinction between objective morality and God's subjective morality? Is there any difference, as you have defined them, beyond the extra step of God then being able to communicate his subjective morality to people through the Holy spirit? If not, why have the extra category?

Suppose that instead of God there were some non-conscious, non-personal supernatural essence of right action, akin to the Tao, that humanity could sense through some spiritual means. Would that also count as objective morality? If so, what other things besides this or a god's decree could count as objective morality?

EDIT: And you snuck in a reply while I was typing which seems to cover some of the questions I asked. I'll look at it later this evening.

[Angrboda]

"Where do god’s morals come from, and by what method or criteria can it be concluded that they are objective? "
-By my understanding and personal experience of the nature of God being Holy. I'm certain God's morals are subjective to him, but as he is outside of my known universe they're about as constant as I could fathom. That's not to say they're not mercurial, but I've not had that experience.

God's morals are not constrained by anything, nor is his nature, from a moral perspective. His moral nature and his morals could be anything, and the rest of the theist logic about morals being based in God, yada yada would follow without a smidgen of difference. Because his nature can and is simply a random, brute fact of him and the world, that nature is by definition arbitrary. Arbitrary morals are not moral. Hence God is not a source of morals. (And theology backs me up on this point, as it's asserted that God requires nothing from outside himself.) Additionally, if his nature constrains his actions, then his actions are not free. Morality requires a free agent (as traditionally conceived); the actions of a determined automaton are not moral, they are simply stuff happening. And finally, it is inconsistent with accepted metaphysics to assert that anything has a nature possessed of a moral dimension. If a person had never done anything wrong, we would consider it inconsistent to assert that he was an evil person, yet the assumption that nature or one's being has a moral aspect allows us to say that this innocent person may in fact be evil, and that yields the required absurdity to complete the reductio ad absurdum proof that we don't have moral natures, and neither does God. God, if he is a moral agent, is fully contingent, capable of good, evil, and arbitrary morals, and there is no way to differentiate the list, if they even are differentiable.

As to Min's challenge, that fairness is good might be a universally embraced moral norm. It would exclude psychopaths, but one might plausibly assert that psychopaths don't have a functionally healthy mind and thus their morals are a pathology, and do not threaten the validity of the proposal. It's also possible to postulate that psychopaths may not belong to our species and so the divergence of their morals is moot as they do not belong to the relevant class.

[Brian37]

Rather than have a wall of text replying to each question I'll do my best to encompass them all because I appreciate the responses.

There is subjective morality- what I feel internally to be right and wrong as according to my experience and beliefs. It is subjective because it is personal to the observer. A psychopath believes it's right to kill someone I do not.

There is societal morality-Which can be an objective morality and informs our subjective morality. 100 years ago segregation was a common societal belief that informed the current populous. today, it is striving to evolve away from that.

There probably isn't universal morality because we're all like herding cats so I'll scrap that concept. You win Min I can't think of one, maybe breathing is good?

There is objective morality - a being that exists prior to creation and is outside of our known reality has nothing to do with being objective? Exquease me but this does not compute. I see other points that it is not a necessary objective morality (plop here's the miracle) to the equation because our personal morality can be affected by societal morality. But as that changes I prefer a firmer yard stick by which to measure by.

Operationalization of conceptual variables dictates I have a method by which to measure morality and I prefer a constant to a variable. That's about as simple as I can put it. That plus faith and experience informs my subjective morality but seems to have little effect on societal morality.

I understand that not everyone buys into, experiences or believes in God and I agree, that's kinda why I hang out here man
to answer and retort on other things:

"Where do god’s morals come from, and by what method or criteria can it be concluded that they are objective? "
-By my understanding and personal experience of the nature of God being Holy. I'm certain God's morals are subjective to him, but as he is outside of my known universe they're about as constant as I could fathom. That's not to say they're not mercurial, but I've not had that experience.

"species evolved to socialize and THAT, not old mythology, not old writings, but our evolution, is where we develop our sense of morality."
-is emphatically false if mythology and old writings exist and were discussed during socialization then every experience thought and input we receives changes who we are as a society and affects our subjective morality consequently.


I think that covers 90%

Please use the quote function. You are blending your quotes with mine. It makes it harder for readers to separate the two.

Again, you want to claim "God"as the objective source of morality. 

You have lots of problems with that naked assertion.

1. INFINITE REGRESS

2. Which one? You are not the only one with a god belief.

3. If this alleged "God" you claim was real and the source of "objective" reality, then times would not need to change at all. We would still live under kings, still own slaves, and females would be deemed the property of the male head of the household.

Try this as a thought experiment.

Read your bible, and every time you see the word "God" replace it with "Brian37" and ask yourself if the logic still makes sense?

Then after that, try replacing "God" with "Apollo" or " Vishnu" or even "Yoda". 

What would be so frightening to you if you figured out what we have? That we are finite and there is no super hero here to help us?

I am fine with being finite. I still have my ups and downs, but am no more frightened by a fictional afterlife, than I am frightened by my non-existence before I was born.

You go to a movie knowing it ends, but you still go and enjoy it. You go to a music concert knowing it ends, but you still go. You go to a sporting event knowing it ends but you still go and enjoy it. 

Our planet is 4 billion years old. Humans in our current forum have only been around roughly 200,000 years. Human writing has only been around roughly 10,000 years. And our planet has had 5 mass extinction events in that 4 billion year period. And that is also in a universe of 13.8 billion years old, in a universe of roughly 2 TRILLION galaxies.

Sorry, but I see nothing in life that is magic, much less our morality. I do see good, and empathy sure, but no magic, no super hero. I only see humans who can, when they want to, grow to understand the universe without old claims.

[RoadRunner79]

There's an interesting misconception that the faithful have, with regards to which side of that line they find themselves on, on account of their faith.  The religious often call their other-than objective moral system objective..and the irreligious mistakenly describe their objective moral system as other-than objective.

So I've been told that I might have a misconception and I didn't want to put this in philosophy because it's on account of my faith as a Christian.

Here are my thoughts on morality
There is subjective morality- what I feel internally to be right and wrong as according to my experience and beliefs
There is societal morality- what is commonly accepted to be right or wrong for a people within a particular society
There is universal morality (possibly)- things that rational people of any time and any place find right or wrong
There is objective morality- A being I call God exists outside the universe that influences us through the Holy Spirit to inform of objective morality.


Do I fall under the misconceptions you were referencing?

If it's in reference to the moral argument, then I think you are a little confused on some things.  One it's about what it is for something to be moral; not how we know if it is moral or not.  That is, what is the basis for calling anything at all right or wrong, rather than whether a particular thing is immoral or not.  Second, objective vs subjective is just saying what is the foundation for something being called moral or immoral.   With objective meaning that it is independent and apart from the individuals thoughts or feelings on the matter, and subjective being dependent on the person (and therefore also relative to the person.   I think that all four of your definitions above, could apply at once.   

It could be influenced by God, universally recognized in scope, which would make it commonly accepted within a given society.  and therefore you would likely feel that it is wrong.  With the meanings used in the moral argument, this would lead to a contradiction, if you where saying that it was both subjective, and objective at the same time, in the same way.   

Another way to look at it, may be from a standpoint of what is true, and what is being described as true.  If it's subjective, then what is true for one person, may not necessarily be true of another, or even most.  And there is no issue, here, because they are telling us about something different (giving you information about the person).  However something that is objective is true regardless of the person, their knowledge or opinions of it.  It's not effected by the person speaking the truth, and any particular person may be more or less correct in their opinion of it.  It's telling you about something external and not changed by opinion, preference, or feelings.

Now if you are talking about how we know what is moral, then that is going to be more subjective, because knowledge is subjective.

[Brian37]

So I've been told that I might have a misconception and I didn't want to put this in philosophy because it's on account of my faith as a Christian.

Here are my thoughts on morality
There is subjective morality- what I feel internally to be right and wrong as according to my experience and beliefs
There is societal morality- what is commonly accepted to be right or wrong for a people within a particular society
There is universal morality (possibly)- things that rational people of any time and any place find right or wrong
There is objective morality- A being I call God exists outside the universe that influences us through the Holy Spirit to inform of objective morality.


Do I fall under the misconceptions you were referencing?

If it's in reference to the moral argument, then I think you are a little confused on some things.  One it's about what it is for something to be moral; not how we know if it is moral or not.  That is, what is the basis for calling anything at all right or wrong, rather than whether a particular thing is immoral or not.  Second, objective vs subjective is just saying what is the foundation for something being called moral or immoral.   With objective meaning that it is independent and apart from the individuals thoughts or feelings on the matter, and subjective being dependent on the person (and therefore also relative to the person.   I think that all four of your definitions above, could apply at once.   

It could be influenced by God, universally recognized in scope, which would make it commonly accepted within a given society.  and therefore you would likely feel that it is wrong.  With the meanings used in the moral argument, this would lead to a contradiction, if you where saying that it was both subjective, and objective at the same time, in the same way.   

Another way to look at it, may be from a standpoint of what is true, and what is being described as true.  If it's subjective, then what is true for one person, may not necessarily be true of another, or even most.  And there is no issue, here, because they are telling us about something different (giving you information about the person).  However something that is objective is true regardless of the person, their knowledge or opinions of it.  It's not effected by the person speaking the truth, and any particular person may be more or less correct in their opinion of it.  It's telling you about something external and not changed by opinion, preference, or feelings.

Now if you are talking about how we know what is moral, then that is going to be more subjective, because knowledge is subjective.

No, knowledge is not subjective. Easy way to test that is to jump off a skyscraper with nothing to aid you from falling. I wouldn't recommend that though.

Scientific method updates when new data comes in yes, but it isn't the naked assertion "knowledge" religions like to claim as absolute fact. 

Religion is NOT subject to the same strict standards of scientific method. It gets passed down through marketing, not peer review through testing and falsification.

Morality is what a female alligator does to protect it's eggs. Morality is what a lioness does to protect it's cubs. Morality is what humans do in protecting their young. Mythology is what humans make up and buy and sell, and gets mostly sold to young long before they can formulate adult critical thinking skills.

You are trying to muddy the waters by claiming "knowledge" of a tradition, or a history of making a claim, as being the same as provable fact beyond personal bias.

[tackattack]

Reltzik, I don't remember the context either and I try not to prostelitize, I don't want my peepee smacked, but I do like questions.

Sorry for the edit but more things flooded in which they might this time as well. Anywho,

"How is objective morality knowable, either in its existence or its content?"
-consistent subjective observation and testing.
"By what means do we distinguish between objective morality and universal morality?"
-We don't I don't think universal morality exists now
"But if large numbers of people believe a certain way, how could we tell whether that was because it was (approaching) universal morality or because of objective morality?"
-Let's just use societal morality as approaching universal. It would be hard to distinguish between societal morality influence (In a large group like believers) of personal morality if a universal morality influenced the subjective morality as well, but not impossible. Common to most religion is the idea of a creator and that something created us. We may disagree on the particular aspects of the how, why and when, but I believe it passes universally enough to be objective.
"What is the distinction between objective morality and God's subjective morality?"
-God as an outside the universe observer has a different perspective than finite beings in the universe. His perspective on his nature would then be subjective to Him and objective to finite beings, plus I was asked so hence the more detailed description on the morality of God.
"Would that also count as objective morality?" Yes
"could count as objective morality?" I suppose a flying spaghetti monster outside of the universe could also be considered objective.

Jor, (Is that what you prefer to be called, I'm just working on getting familiarized with people and their preferences)

That nature is by definition not arbitrary. His nature is defined in scripture and through experience. His nature constrains his actions no more than your do you. You could never not be you even though who you are changes. It has nothing to do with free will. Volition and choice are free and how we were made in his image.

You don't have to tell me. I agree morals of a determined automaton are not moral nor are arbitrary morals. I agree Morality requires a free agent. You can act morally. God can act morally to. It's not arbitrary, it may not be fully understood (I believe you're heading into the PoE, which would be for another thread) but not arbitrary.

I'm not aware of "And finally, it is inconsistent with accepted metaphysics to assert that anything has a nature possessed of a moral dimension." so I'd like you to elaborate more on this if that's ok. I'm a little lost on that one.

"God, if he is a moral agent, is fully contingent, capable of good, evil, and arbitrary morals, and there is no way to differentiate the list, if they even are differentiable." - I disagree with. God is fully contingent and capable, but not arbitrary. A creator God is intentional as well by His very nature, not arbitrary.


-I'll have to review the three that came in while I was typing tomorrow and probably get no work done. And no I will not use quotes for ne person to quote 7 responses and give each one their due retort would be an immense amount of work. I appreciate the conversation though peeps

[brewer]

All of your beliefs and experiences are personal to you.  Even the objectively true ones.  

Correct, a being that exists prior to creation and lives outside of our known reality has nothing to do with whether or not there is an objective morality.  An objective morality only hinges on one thing.  The existence of mind independent facts of a moral matter.  That's it, that's all.  Nothing else.

Does that exist?