Objective morality

[Bonky]

13 minutes ago, Seanc said:

Not trying to answer for Shiloh but will address your reply. Objective morality is self evident just as homosexuality is evedintly wrong for obvious reasons as it goes against nature and halts further life.

Except that we see homosexual interactions in "nature", so how is it unnatural?  I also don't see how this is "wrong" as in immoral.   For the record I'm not gay but I have good friends and a brother who are gay.  So I speak from a place of experience about whether gay people really introduce harm to society and I see no evidence that they do.

13 minutes ago, Seanc said:

As for the Muslim comment most who believe in objective morality believe in a moral lawgiver who has to be the definition of perfect and just otherwise there would be no standard for good or evil. So although many evil things have and will be done in the name of god it doesnt at all mean it was his will.

Right and the Muslims believe the perfect definition of justice and morality lies in the nature of their God and his beliefs.  Now obviously some Muslims don't have the same views and they're not violent to non believers but many are.  The core principle is that whatever the God wants is what really matters.  That's where the slippery slope comes into play. 

The same defenses that Christians give for some of the shocking acts in the Old Testament can be given by Muslims today.  Who are you to challenge God?  He can do what he wants with us he created the Universe etc etc.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Bonky

[Seanc]

Nature doesn't justify homosexuality either since we live in an imperfect world where nature is affected by it just as we are. I also have a gay brother so we have this in common. Please don't think I hate all homosexuals or something, but you have to see where I'm coming from. Our bodies were not designed for it no matter if you believe in creation or not and no further life can come from it. That's as far as I will go as we are changing subjects.

 

This is not a Muslim forum nor do we believe in the Muslim god Allah from the koran. We are talking about Jehovah the God of the Bible who is a God of love, mercy, kindness and yes justice. You can't have one without the other just as a parent couldn't truly love their child if they allowed to do a certain thing which would harm themselves or others.

The things you might feel are subjectively wrong in the O.T are from your limited knowledge of the circumstances and certainly God almighty. 

Sounds like the conversation is about to hit its end where we will have to agree to disagree since I doubt I could convince you any further

[Bonky]

3 minutes ago, Seanc said:

Nature doesn't justify homosexuality either since we live in an imperfect world where nature is affected by it just as we are. I also have a gay brother so we have this in common. Please don't think I hate all homosexuals or something, but you have to see where I'm coming from. Our bodies were not designed for it no matter if you believe in creation or not and no further life can come from it. That's as far as I will go as we are changing subjects.

You don't sound like someone hateful at all.  I was more responding to some of the venomous views that some people get when they read the Bible. 

 

5 minutes ago, Seanc said:

This is not a Muslim forum nor do we believe in the Muslim god Allah from the koran. We are talking about Jehovah the God of the Bible who is a God of love, mercy, kindness and yes justice. You can't have one without the other just as a parent couldn't truly love their child if they allowed to do a certain thing which would harm themselves or others.

The things you might feel are subjectively wrong in the O.T are from your limited knowledge of the circumstances and certainly God almighty. 

Sounds like the conversation is about to hit its end where we will have to agree to disagree since I doubt I could convince you any further

I know this isn't a Muslim forum, I just wanted to give an example of a weakness that I think is inherit in the "God gives us morality" worldview.   That view assumes the only God that matters is the one favored by the individual.  That may be comforting and easy to digest to them but it don't see how it helps us with the bigger picture [the world at large]. 

Since you mentioned the old testament, do you agree or disagree that slavery [owning someone as property]  is immoral and why?

[Seanc]

I can understand where your coming from about other gods and the views held by the individuals who follow them. My stance is something you probably understand already since your on this forum but the gods they follow are not gods at all only idols made up by man so they will always cater to human deffecencies and world views since they were created by men. This is why I am a christian and follow the only true God of the universe whose plans and views are above my own so far that I could never have come up with them out of my imagination. They also do not align with what I would choose for myself mainly because I am a sinful being.

I'm going to have to refuse to get into slavery in the O.T. I'm assuming this wouldn't be your first time discussing it and I've also had that discussion. I don't believe I could add anything that you haven't already heard in it's defense.

[Bonky]

12 minutes ago, Seanc said:

I can understand where your coming from about other gods and the views held by the individuals who follow them. My stance is something you probably understand already since your on this forum but the gods they follow are not gods at all only idols made up by man so they will always cater to human deffecencies and world views since they were created by men. This is why I am a christian and follow the only true God of the universe whose plans and views are above my own so far that I could never have come up with them out of my imagination. They also do not align with what I would choose for myself mainly because I am a sinful being.

I'm going to have to refuse to get into slavery in the O.T. I'm assuming this wouldn't be your first time discussing it and I've also had that discussion. I don't believe I could add anything that you haven't already heard in it's defense.

Okay that's fair enough.  Thanks!

[eugenelester]

On 04.01.2017 at 7:13 AM, Seanc said:

I'm sure this has been discussed many times but the few active discussions I saw went off topic with evolution and such so I decided to start a new thread. 

I have been reading different apologetic books and pondering an answer from an atheist perspective(which I am not).

To start off I believe that C.S lewis explains best in that objective morality is not instinctual. His example goes like this: You see a man drowning, he's a stranger. Two instincts come up. The first being the "herd instinct" to save the man. The second is the "survival instinct" to keep yourself safe/alive. The second instinct is the stronger of the two but morality pushes you toward the weaker one. It tells you that you ought to save the man because it is "right".

The other point he makes is that its more than just a "social convention" that its more than just what is taught to you and that if you can judge two different peoples morals and say one is better and the other lesser then you are implying there is a Real morality or a Real right independent of what people think. 

So my question is and I'm basing this off a question I was posed with is would we only lean closer to what "you" were taught? Does it surpass my understanding and learning? Is it objective? 

Before I submit this I want to say that I believe in an objective morality but I need help to further understand it before i even try to explain it to someone else. Anyone got an answer?

I also pondered a lot and communicated with atheists about objective morality. And I once came up with an idea, I came up with a moral experiment that proves the existence of an objective moral law. The essence of the experiment is to offer a person a choice between the right (moral) and profitable. Since rational behavior is a personal, profitable choice. That moral choice that contradicts personal gain (provided that God does not exist) indicates the objectivity of the moral law and the existence of the Higher Reason, who this law came up with. Because there is nothing stronger than the mind, only one mind can be stronger than one mind. And to force our minds, to feel the correctness of a variant unprofitable to us, only another mind can. And to make us feel the objective correctness of the moral law, can only the Supreme, Almighty Reason, who created the laws of nature. Those. God.
By reference, invented by me, a moral experiment.
Moral experiment

[Bonky]

On 5/13/2017 at 8:56 AM, eugenelester said:

I also pondered a lot and communicated with atheists about objective morality. And I once came up with an idea, I came up with a moral experiment that proves the existence of an objective moral law. The essence of the experiment is to offer a person a choice between the right (moral) and profitable. Since rational behavior is a personal, profitable choice. That moral choice that contradicts personal gain (provided that God does not exist) indicates the objectivity of the moral law and the existence of the Higher Reason, who this law came up with. Because there is nothing stronger than the mind, only one mind can be stronger than one mind. And to force our minds, to feel the correctness of a variant unprofitable to us, only another mind can. And to make us feel the objective correctness of the moral law, can only the Supreme, Almighty Reason, who created the laws of nature. Those. God.
By reference, invented by me, a moral experiment.
Moral experiment

I find the experiment to be flawed I guess.  I mean if someone deeply loves their girlfriend/wife then I would expect that they would take the burden and keep them and take care of them.  If the relationship was rocky or not much deeper than skin deep then I could see the man moving on perhaps.  Let's say he chose the latter, it's not like this woman just sits in a wheelchair and eventually dies.  She would...or should have family and/or government assistance.  There are plenty of people that live in wheelchairs and they're not suffering.  

Interesting this is in America we have this waging war on healthcare and whether it's a right or not.   If you were to poll those who thought healthcare isn't a right and are upset their taxes are going to pay for "other people's problem", which party do you think they would fall under?   I'd bet money it's the same party that focuses on "family values" and a strong belief in God.   I don't mean to politicize the issue but the moral example talks about a health issue so I thought it was an interesting side point.

[eugenelester]

On 15.05.2017 at 9:03 PM, Bonky said:

I find the experiment to be flawed I guess.  I mean if someone deeply loves their girlfriend/wife then I would expect that they would take the burden and keep them and take care of them.  If the relationship was rocky or not much deeper than skin deep then I could see the man moving on perhaps.  Let's say he chose the latter, it's not like this woman just sits in a wheelchair and eventually dies.  She would...or should have family and/or government assistance.  There are plenty of people that live in wheelchairs and they're not suffering.  

Interesting this is in America we have this waging war on healthcare and whether it's a right or not.   If you were to poll those who thought healthcare isn't a right and are upset their taxes are going to pay for "other people's problem", which party do you think they would fall under?   I'd bet money it's the same party that focuses on "family values" and a strong belief in God.   I don't mean to politicize the issue but the moral example talks about a health issue so I thought it was an interesting side point.

The essence of my experiment is simple: to show the fundamental difference between right and beneficial, for life on earth. This is an abstract experiment, in fact. And for the best result, an experienced person should imagine someone whom he truly loves. It does not necessarily have to be a spouse. It can be: friend, father, mother, sister, brother, children and the like. The main thing is to imagine a loved one in a very difficult situation and dependent on the person being tested. Where there will be a fundamental choice: to be faithful, but to sacrifice oneself or to take advantageous path for oneself, but commit treason.
The political component in your comment is completely out of place here.

Edited May 17, 2017 by eugenelester

[PlanetChee]

On 1/4/2017 at 0:13 AM, Seanc said:

I'm sure this has been discussed many times but the few active discussions I saw went off topic with evolution and such so I decided to start a new thread. 

I have been reading different apologetic books and pondering an answer from an atheist perspective(which I am not).

To start off I believe that C.S lewis explains best in that objective morality is not instinctual. His example goes like this: You see a man drowning, he's a stranger. Two instincts come up. The first being the "herd instinct" to save the man. The second is the "survival instinct" to keep yourself safe/alive. The second instinct is the stronger of the two but morality pushes you toward the weaker one. It tells you that you ought to save the man because it is "right".

The other point he makes is that its more than just a "social convention" that its more than just what is taught to you and that if you can judge two different peoples morals and say one is better and the other lesser then you are implying there is a Real morality or a Real right independent of what people think. 

So my question is and I'm basing this off a question I was posed with is would we only lean closer to what "you" were taught? Does it surpass my understanding and learning? Is it objective? 

Before I submit this I want to say that I believe in an objective morality but I need help to further understand it before i even try to explain it to someone else. Anyone got an answer?

C.S. Lewis was an atheist first. Then God turned his heart and he became an evangelist of sorts. He journeyed where you are on the road asking your question from. Pondering the answer from the atheist perspective asking the Christian as one not atheist. 

 

Objective morality from a human perspective is impossible. 

[Bonky]

On 5/21/2017 at 9:20 AM, PlanetChee said:

Objective morality from a human perspective is impossible. 

I wanted to respond to this a while back and didn't get around to it.  So I thought I'd take the time now [I'm on vacation ;)].

What is impossible about objective morality?  When we discuss morality what are we talking about?