Objective Morality?

[The Grand Nudger]

Good point about being the devil's advocate. I've never had any talent for it personally.

[StatCrux]

"My interpretation, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that things which are objective can be studied and measured in a science experiment whereas subjective matters are weighed out in philosophy discussions. Science is the study of the objective universe where philosophy is the debate of subjective matters. "

Would you say that mathematical truths exist? Are they objective using your definition? For example, science presupposes mathematics and Logic, some truths are abstract and conceptual but still remain objectively true, not all objective truths can be "measured in a science experiment". pax vobiscum

[Captain Scarlet]

"My interpretation, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that things which are objective can be studied and measured in a science experiment whereas subjective matters are weighed out in philosophy discussions. Science is the study of the objective universe where philosophy is the debate of subjective matters. "

Would you say that mathematical truths exist? Are they objective using your definition? For example, science presupposes mathematics and Logic, some truths are abstract and conceptual but still remain objectively true, not all objective truths can be "measured in a science experiment". pax vobiscum

Abstractions including mathematics are only exist within their own frameworks. Take them out of their frameworks and there is no separate concrete instantiation in the universe. Science does axiomatically presuppose certain things to be true. The thing about it though is it tends to work and we tend to live our lives every day as if it does work, whereas evidencing the supernatural always fails and we never live our lives expecting supernatural intervention. We therefore have powerful inductive reasons to believe the truth of science, but none at all to believe in the supernatural.

[lucent]

Absolute morality is morality that is static and unchanging, based on absolute values of right and wrong. Therefore, it is not subject to change due to human opinion. It does not change because God does not change. Therefore, absolute morality is impossible without God.

Absolute morality requires unchanging values for good and evil
Human opinions on these values change all the time
Therefore absolute morality is impossible for human beings

Therefore, humans are left with subjective morality, or morality by concensus. Since right and wrong are values subject to change by human opinion, what is moral is determined by the largest agreement on those values. Under this model, anything good at one time may become evil at another time, and vice versa, due to changing opinions on the values of right and wrong.

Therefore, under subjective morality, the holocaust could be declared morally right. If enough people agreed that the holocaust was good, it would be morally justified.

Therefore, since subjective morality could justify the holocaust it must be discarded as system of morality. The reason it must be discarded is because we know the holocaust is absolutely wrong. We know the holocaust is absolutely wrong because we all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. Since we know the holocaust is absolutely wrong, we know morality is absolute and not subjective. Since morality is absolute, and absolute morality is impossible without God, God exists.

The TAG argument for the Christian god is a fascinatingly fallacious argument, as it combines three spurious assumptions into a triple act of begging the question all in three short steps. Very efficient.

TAG Argument steps:

1. Without God, there can be no objective morality (assumption)
2. Objective morality exists (assumption)
3. Therefore, God exists (who must be the Christian god) (unstated assumption)

The assumption I want to focus on in this thread is the one about "objective morality". I'd like to ask anyone who believes it exists to explain to me what it is.

First, let's define the word objective (from dictionary.com)

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

My interpretation, please correct me if I'm wrong, is that things which are objective can be studied and measured in a science experiment whereas subjective matters are weighed out in philosophy discussions. Science is the study of the objective universe where philosophy is the debate of subjective matters.

If I have this right, then objective morals should be something we can scientifically study and measure. Just like we have units of measure for temperature, velocity and mass, we should be able to come up with units of measure for moral goodness. We could plug numbers into a spreadsheet and determine the best moral course of action in each case.

If this sounds silly, you understand why I'm skeptical of claims that "objective morals exist". Perhaps someone could explain it to me a little better?

At this point, I'd also like to mention that I believe that "subjective morality" =/= amorality, as often asserted by theists. Just because we acknowledge that moral questions are complex issues that involve empathy, judgment and conscience doesn't mean "anything goes". We can and do judge "honor killings" and other abuses by religion and still debate right and wrong. Just because we can't plug it into a spreadsheet doesn't mean it can't be rationally discussed.

[Zen Badger]

Absolute morality is morality that is static and unchanging, based on absolute values of right and wrong. Therefore, it is not subject to change due to human opinion. It does not change because God does not change. Therefore, absolute morality is impossible without God.

Absolute morality requires unchanging values for good and evil
Human opinions on these values change all the time
Therefore absolute morality is impossible for human beings

Therefore, humans are left with subjective morality, or morality by concensus. Since right and wrong are values subject to change by human opinion, what is moral is determined by the largest agreement on those values. Under this model, anything good at one time may become evil at another time, and vice versa, due to changing opinions on the values of right and wrong.

Therefore, under subjective morality, the holocaust could be declared morally right. If enough people agreed that the holocaust was good, it would be morally justified.

Therefore, since subjective morality could justify the holocaust it must be discarded as system of morality. The reason it must be discarded is because we know the holocaust is absolutely wrong. We know the holocaust is absolutely wrong because we all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. Since we know the holocaust is absolutely wrong, we know morality is absolute and not subjective. Since morality is absolute, and absolute morality is impossible without God, God exists.

Since there are plenty of people even now who think the Holocaust was a good thing(christians included) your argument is invalid.

An objective(or absolute) morality would not allow deviation. How could it?

Physical laws are objective( gravity, E=mc2) etc.
You might not like them but you have to obey them.

All morality is subjective, because for every act or thought you think is wrong there WILL be lots of people who think it ok(or even fun).

And since there is no "absolute" morality your argument for god is also invalid.

[lucent]

Absolute morality isn't subject to human opinion, as I said. Every human being may be able to ignore their conscience and say something is right when it isn't, but it won't change whether it is absolutely right or wrong. Widespread disagreement on morality has no bearing on the existence of absolute morality.

We may disagree on what our conscience tells us, but mine tells me the Holocaust is absolutely wrong. Perhaps you could explain what yours tells you?

Absolute morality is morality that is static and unchanging, based on absolute values of right and wrong. Therefore, it is not subject to change due to human opinion. It does not change because God does not change. Therefore, absolute morality is impossible without God.

Absolute morality requires unchanging values for good and evil
Human opinions on these values change all the time
Therefore absolute morality is impossible for human beings

Therefore, humans are left with subjective morality, or morality by concensus. Since right and wrong are values subject to change by human opinion, what is moral is determined by the largest agreement on those values. Under this model, anything good at one time may become evil at another time, and vice versa, due to changing opinions on the values of right and wrong.

Therefore, under subjective morality, the holocaust could be declared morally right. If enough people agreed that the holocaust was good, it would be morally justified.

Therefore, since subjective morality could justify the holocaust it must be discarded as system of morality. The reason it must be discarded is because we know the holocaust is absolutely wrong. We know the holocaust is absolutely wrong because we all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong. Since we know the holocaust is absolutely wrong, we know morality is absolute and not subjective. Since morality is absolute, and absolute morality is impossible without God, God exists.

Since there are plenty of people even now who think the Holocaust was a good thing(christians included) your argument is invalid.

An objective(or absolute) morality would not allow deviation. How could it?

Physical laws are objective( gravity, E=mc2) etc.
You might not like them but you have to obey them.

All morality is subjective, because for every act or thought you think is wrong there WILL be lots of people who think it ok(or even fun).

And since there is no "absolute" morality your argument for god is also invalid.

[Zen Badger]

Absolute morality isn't subject to human opinion, as I said. Every human being may be able to ignore their conscience and say something is right when it isn't, but it won't change whether it is absolutely right or wrong. Widespread disagreement on morality has no bearing on the existence of absolute morality.

We may disagree on what our conscience tells us, but mine tells me the Holocaust is absolutely wrong. Perhaps you could explain what yours tells you?

For it it be an absolute it would have to apply to everyone without exception, people wouldn't be able to have a differing opinion.
Just like gravity.

Morality is only within people, nowhere else.

[Zen Badger]

And since morality is absolute(i.e universal and unchanging)
you'd better get your ass down to Maccas Sunday morning and stone all those sinners who are going against gods commandment about working on the sabbath.

[DeistPaladin]

Absolute morality is morality that is static and unchanging, based on absolute values of right and wrong. Therefore, it is not subject to change due to human opinion. It does not change because God does not change. Therefore, absolute morality is impossible without God.

OK, can we agree to a rule that when you make statements about Yahweh, the Judeo-Christian god, that you need to cite your source or specify chapter and verse from the Bible? I have quoted you chapter and verse to let you know what your own holy scripture says. I would appreciate it if you could at least do the same. This ought to be a reasonable request of a Christian. Thanks.

And speaking of sources, let's stick with the dictionary's definition of what "objective" is and not just make up whatever definition will suit the needs of your argument, OK?

From Dictionary.com, looking up "objective"

5.not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6.intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7.being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject ( opposed to subjective).
8.of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

So the word "objective" means independence of one's feelings, personal tastes, preferences, bias, etc. It doesn't hinge on permanency, as you seem to assert.

So by definition, if any being, however powerful, old or wise, makes up a set of rules, whether they be temporary or permanent, than these rules create a subject set of morals. The only distinction you draw is instead of being subjective based on our evaluations, they are subjective based on another being's dictates.

If morality is truly objective, it exists outside of and independent to any being's whims, bias or judgment. That which is objectively wrong would continue to be objectively wrong, regardless of what God says, if God went away or turned out never to have existed at all.

Finally, your assertion that Yahweh is unchanging is false, as the Bible makes many changes to this being over the ages in which it was written. For example, I quoted you chapter and verse on how Yahweh had a physical form. He became a "spirit" with the Gospel of John (John 4:24).

The very beliefs of Christianity state that Yahweh created a new covenant and they've added a New Testament. What was wrong with the old ones? What happened to "eternal unchanging rules"?

Leviticus 11:10-12 And all that have not fins and scales in the seas, and in the rivers, of all that move in the waters, and of any living thing which is in the waters, they shall be an abomination unto you: They shall be even an abomination unto you; ye shall not eat of their flesh, but ye shall have their carcases in abomination. Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that shall be an abomination unto you.

Christians have no trouble eating shrimp today.

We know the holocaust is absolutely wrong because we all have a God given conscience which tells us right from wrong.

You are free to believe that God gave us our conscience. Mine finds the Bible, with all its rape, genocide, slavery and bigotry to be morally repugnant, but that's another issue. However, if you say morality hinges on conscience, then it is subjective by definition.

Again from dictionary.com

1.existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).
2.pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
4.Philosophy . relating to or of the nature of an object as it is known in the mind as distinct from a thing in itself.
5. relating to properties or specific conditions of the mind as distinguished from general or universal experience.

---

And since morality is absolute(i.e universal and unchanging)
you'd better get your ass down to Maccas Sunday morning and stone all those sinners who are going against gods commandment about working on the sabbath.

No, no, no. The Sabbath is on a Saturday.

Matthew 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
Mark 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

The eternal and unchanging god of the Bible moved the Sabbath to Sunday to accommodate the pagans who joined Christianity.

That Yahweh sure is a great salesman but then, what else would you expect from a deity that rose from the humble beginnings of volcano god of some obscure tribe to the empire he has today? A real all-American "rags to riches" story.

[Cinjin]

That Yahweh sure is a great salesman but then, what else would you expect from a deity that rose from the humble beginnings of volcano god of some obscure tribe to the empire he has today? A real all-American "rags to riches" story.

Careful Paladin, they can usually only handle so much truth in one dose. You may want to save the pagan backgrounds of Christianity for another day.


It was a beautiful exclamation point on a great post though.