Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

How could God imply objective morality?

Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.
In case of relativism, it's single agents or groups of agents. In case of universalism, it's all moral agents.

You can combine these however you like, e.g.

objective universalism, aka moral realism (mind independent facts, applies to everyone)
subjective relativism, includes what is usually understood as subjectivism and cultural relativism (mind dependent facts, applies to an agent/ a group of agents)
subjective universalism, ideal observer theory, we should do what an ideal observer would judge to be right (mind dependent facts, applies to everyone)

Divine command theory is a subcategory of ideal observer theories. It is a form of subjectivism.
Morality is up to God's whims.
DCT does not ground the objectivity of ethics, it undermines it.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

OK. I've seen that kind of idea reflected in other conversations I've seen.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.
In case of relativism, it's single agents or groups of agents. In case of universalism, it's all moral agents.

I have considered something along the lines of this, but I think universalism more reflects the concepts that accompany religions claims.

You can combine these however you like, e.g.

objective universalism, aka moral realism (mind independent facts, applies to everyone)
subjective relativism, includes what is usually understood as subjectivism and cultural relativism (mind dependent facts, applies to an agent/ a group of agents)
subjective universalism, ideal observer theory, we should do what an ideal observer would judge to be right (mind dependent facts, applies to everyone)

Divine command theory is a subcategory of ideal observer theories. It is a form of subjectivism.
Morality is up to God's whims.
DCT does not ground the objectivity of ethics, it undermines it.

In regards to an omnipotent/omniscient being, doesn't that necessitate that the ideal is not so, because the mere existence and possibility of immorality is under the absolute control of such a being. That would imply, to me, that ALL of reality reflects what is moral to the ideal. If this is objectively true, then that renders the concept of morality useless, because all that exists is moral.

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 10:22:27 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.
In case of relativism, it's single agents or groups of agents. In case of universalism, it's all moral agents.

I have considered something along the lines of this, but I think universalism more reflects the concepts that accompany religions claims.
I am one of these pesky objective universalists, without being in the slightest way religious. Do you mean universalism about the afterlife?

You can combine these however you like, e.g.

objective universalism, aka moral realism (mind independent facts, applies to everyone)
subjective relativism, includes what is usually understood as subjectivism and cultural relativism (mind dependent facts, applies to an agent/ a group of agents)
subjective universalism, ideal observer theory, we should do what an ideal observer would judge to be right (mind dependent facts, applies to everyone)

Divine command theory is a subcategory of ideal observer theories. It is a form of subjectivism.
Morality is up to God's whims.
DCT does not ground the objectivity of ethics, it undermines it.

In regards to an omnipotent/omniscient being, doesn't that necessitate that the ideal is not so, because the mere existence and possibility of immorality is under the absolute control of such a being. That would imply, to me, that ALL of reality reflects what is moral to the ideal. If this is objectively true, then that renders the concept of morality useless, because all that exists is moral.
I am not quite sure, if I understand you correctly, how this relates to the issue of objectivity.

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.
Well, I did not argue for moral objectivity here. That I have done elsewhere.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/25/2015 12:37:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/25/2015 10:22:27 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.
In case of relativism, it's single agents or groups of agents. In case of universalism, it's all moral agents.

I have considered something along the lines of this, but I think universalism more reflects the concepts that accompany religions claims.
I am one of these pesky objective universalists, without being in the slightest way religious. Do you mean universalism about the afterlife?

"Pesky"? That's a word I would more attribute to myself. I am aware that one not be religious to have such a stance; it is just common from a religious stance, hence the title of this thread referencing God. I did this because I have also heard people say that God is the "source" of objective morality, which is part of what I find somewhat confusing. It seems to be a different kind of claim that an atheistic person would provide.

You can combine these however you like, e.g.

objective universalism, aka moral realism (mind independent facts, applies to everyone)
subjective relativism, includes what is usually understood as subjectivism and cultural relativism (mind dependent facts, applies to an agent/ a group of agents)
subjective universalism, ideal observer theory, we should do what an ideal observer would judge to be right (mind dependent facts, applies to everyone)

Divine command theory is a subcategory of ideal observer theories. It is a form of subjectivism.
Morality is up to God's whims.
DCT does not ground the objectivity of ethics, it undermines it.

In regards to an omnipotent/omniscient being, doesn't that necessitate that the ideal is not so, because the mere existence and possibility of immorality is under the absolute control of such a being. That would imply, to me, that ALL of reality reflects what is moral to the ideal. If this is objectively true, then that renders the concept of morality useless, because all that exists is moral.
I am not quite sure, if I understand you correctly, how this relates to the issue of objectivity.

Sorry for my less than clear statements. I'll try to articulate my thoughts a little better in a bit.

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.
Well, I did not argue for moral objectivity here. That I have done elsewhere.

I guess the second point on my thread more reflects this point of my inquiry.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing [which is often claimed to be objectively immortal], that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 8:17:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.

I consider morality to be a very simple concept, very much objective at it's core (although, I came to this conclusion after a lot of over thinking on it.), so perhaps I can help you to understand. To be clear, by Fkkize's explanation, I would be an objective relativist.

When I say the core of morality, I mean the consequences of any given action. God has absolutely no relevance to whether that action would be labeled moral, immoral, both moral and immoral, or amoral. We can get into moral obligation and moral integrity if you'd like (God would have heaps of relevance in both) but that should probably be done in separate threads, or pm's.

Morality is a concept meant to label the effects ones' actions have upon others. Obviously, moral is for positive effects (beneficial), and immoral is for negative effects (detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has had an effect on someone else was, in fact, either moral or immoral (I.e., the effect it had upon them was either beneficial or detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has affected multiple people was, in fact, either moral or immoral, or both (I.e., beneficial to one person, but detrimental to another).

Any action you've ever taken that had no effects on anyone else was, in fact, amoral. If it has nothing to do with others, then it has nothing to do with the concept of morality.

That is the core of morality as far as I can tell. From here, we can get into moral determination (which label of morality does action X fall under). This would be the relative part. However, I don't want to throw a massive post at you, so I'll wait for you to respond to the above first.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 3:49:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.

False opposites if there are mind dependent statements that are true throughout the universe.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 8:10:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 3:49:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.

False opposites if there are mind dependent statements that are true throughout the universe.
What do you have in mind?
I wouldn't know about any statement true in virtue of what I think but applies to everything in the universe. Yet such a statement would fall in the category subjective universalism.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:29:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.
Any time, lol.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 11:21:08 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 3:49:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.

False opposites if there are mind dependent statements that are true throughout the universe.

Which opposites would be the false ones? I don't see how that would affect either of them.

Also, I'm not sure a statement meeting that criteria is even plausible. Any chance you've an example in mind, or is this purely hypothetical?
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 2:13:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 8:17:11 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.

I consider morality to be a very simple concept, very much objective at it's core (although, I came to this conclusion after a lot of over thinking on it.), so perhaps I can help you to understand. To be clear, by Fkkize's explanation, I would be an objective relativist.

When I say the core of morality, I mean the consequences of any given action. God has absolutely no relevance to whether that action would be labeled moral, immoral, both moral and immoral, or amoral. We can get into moral obligation and moral integrity if you'd like (God would have heaps of relevance in both) but that should probably be done in separate threads, or pm's.

Morality is a concept meant to label the effects ones' actions have upon others. Obviously, moral is for positive effects (beneficial), and immoral is for negative effects (detrimental).
So, I am more than capable of walking to and from my job. Instead, I spend money on a vehicle. That vehicle needs maintenance, gas, insurance, licensing etc. Donating the money ,that I would in the long term spend on my vehicle, to feeding starving children would be beneficial to the saving of lives of the starving children. Therefore my purchasing of a vehicle, given my ability to walk ,would be an immoral act. I'm sure someone can justify the need for transportation, nevertheless buying a car is immoral if there are of course starving children that wouldn't starve with the help of my money. Or is morality merely a matter of what is immediately connected to what you think can be proven as detrimental and to whom? Whose opinion on the overall connection to the rest of humanity is applied to beneficial act or detrimental act? How many levels, if there need be levels, of a connection within humanity and from person to person is going to be used to determine beneficial or detrimental?

Any action you've ever taken that has had an effect on someone else was, in fact, either moral or immoral (I.e., the effect it had upon them was either beneficial or detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has affected multiple people was, in fact, either moral or immoral, or both (I.e., beneficial to one person, but detrimental to another).

Any action you've ever taken that had no effects on anyone else was, in fact, amoral. If it has nothing to do with others, then it has nothing to do with the concept of morality.

That is the core of morality as far as I can tell. From here, we can get into moral determination (which label of morality does action X fall under). This would be the relative part. However, I don't want to throw a massive post at you, so I'll wait for you to respond to the above first.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 3:31:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 11:21:08 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/27/2015 3:49:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.

False opposites if there are mind dependent statements that are true throughout the universe.

Which opposites would be the false ones? I don't see how that would affect either of them.

Also, I'm not sure a statement meeting that criteria is even plausible. Any chance you've an example in mind, or is this purely hypothetical?

The equivocation of objective with static and universal truth, and subjective with relative truth is a dangerous idea.

For one it is incorrect to assume something relative is not true. Physically we have relative events better understood from different frames of reference when using Einstein's and Lorentz's equations. Electromagnetism is one example.

New quantum tests imply that particles don't exist until they are being measured, observed, to say interacting with something else. So universally everything is relative.

Is that to say universally everything is subjective? Pythagoras said man is the measure of all things. Logic at times seems to be a discipline of semantics over a process of discernment. discerning "truth". But what could any of us discover about reality that is not relative and potentially different in another frame of reference?

The distinction between objective and subjective is the source of influence. Honestly that is all these terms should mean. People already make the erroneous leap that objective means true for all and subjective true for one person. You have Atheist asking for objective evidence of God, as if the subjective evidence has no bearing on reality. This simply is illogical.

Ultimately if such equivocations as the Previous Poster posits and followed them their logical end we rest at epistemological nihilism. To me this is like a math problem solution equaling infinity. Something went wrong.

An article I found while discussing this very equivocation fallacy in another thread.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu...

No as for an example of a subjective truth that would be universally true. One example that comes to mind is "I think therefore I am". We would call this a subjective statement in that it is mind dependent. That it is specific in it's application to one person's perspective. From this subjective reference the claimer is asserting a universal truth "I am" that he/she exists in this universe. Who are we to argue?

To summarize:
So subjective sources and references can still be universally true.

Equating subjective with relative would imply many facts we accept as objective are in fact subjective given the relativity between different frames of reference in this universe. To the point, the truth would be true for one observer and not another. Definition of subjective.

Equating objective with only way to truth is contrary to all tools of discerning truth. because all tools discerning truth are inferences and explanations made by a mind. It is also restrictive and blindly traps a person into rejecting avenues of research.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 3:36:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 8:10:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 3:49:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.

False opposites if there are mind dependent statements that are true throughout the universe.
What do you have in mind?
I wouldn't know about any statement true in virtue of what I think but applies to everything in the universe. Yet such a statement would fall in the category subjective universalism.

You made some false equivocations. Mind dependent doesn't mean relative, non-universal. People make the mistake that subjective implies non-true. Or not true in all cases.

If something is true it is true. And remains so. It is probably a lack of better quantifiers when people think something is true for one person and false for another.

But as I described in my post to mrsatan, one example would be "I think therefore I am". it is a personal reference, subjective source of knowledge, concluding in a universal fact I exist.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:02:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 3:36:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:10:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 3:49:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.

False opposites if there are mind dependent statements that are true throughout the universe.
What do you have in mind?
I wouldn't know about any statement true in virtue of what I think but applies to everything in the universe. Yet such a statement would fall in the category subjective universalism.

You made some false equivocations. Mind dependent doesn't mean relative, non-universal.
But I explicitly made clear, that subjective doesn't mean relative lol.

People make the mistake that subjective implies non-true. Or not true in all cases.
I never made such a claim.

If something is true it is true. And remains so. It is probably a lack of better quantifiers when people think something is true for one person and false for another.
But what has this to do with my post?

But as I described in my post to mrsatan, one example would be "I think therefore I am". it is a personal reference, subjective source of knowledge, concluding in a universal fact I exist.
The fact that you exist, because you think is not true because you think it. Is is not up to your opinion on "I think, therefore I am" that you exist.
It would be a crazy suggestion that your existence is a mind dependent fact.
It is not.
As you say "all tools discerning truth are inferences and explanations made by a mind"
Inferences like "I think, therefore I am". The inference is made by a mind, the conclusion is not true, because you made that inference using your mind.

The article you posted agrees with me on every issue.

Further, your usage of universal has to be different from mine. Here you are equivocating objective and universal.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:14:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 4:02:23 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 3:36:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/27/2015 8:10:38 AM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 3:49:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.

False opposites if there are mind dependent statements that are true throughout the universe.
What do you have in mind?
I wouldn't know about any statement true in virtue of what I think but applies to everything in the universe. Yet such a statement would fall in the category subjective universalism.

You made some false equivocations. Mind dependent doesn't mean relative, non-universal.
But I explicitly made clear, that subjective doesn't mean relative lol.

People make the mistake that subjective implies non-true. Or not true in all cases.
I never made such a claim.

If something is true it is true. And remains so. It is probably a lack of better quantifiers when people think something is true for one person and false for another.
But what has this to do with my post?

But as I described in my post to mrsatan, one example would be "I think therefore I am". it is a personal reference, subjective source of knowledge, concluding in a universal fact I exist.
The fact that you exist, because you think is not true because you think it. Is is not up to your opinion on "I think, therefore I am" that you exist.
It would be a crazy suggestion that your existence is a mind dependent fact.
It is not.

I exist is the universal truth substantiated by the subjective experience I think. This clearly demonstrates in a simple case that subjective experiences (mind dependent) do indeed lead to universal truths. ((assuming all things that thought would conclude they exist))

As you say "all tools discerning truth are inferences and explanations made by a mind"
Inferences like "I think, therefore I am". The inference is made by a mind, the conclusion is not true, because you made that inference using your mind.


The point I'm making is someone wanted to get technical about a distinction between objective and subjective they would be forced to conclude that the "facts" they so generally operate on are subjective explanations of real observations.

The article you posted agrees with me on every issue.

Further, your usage of universal has to be different from mine. Here you are equivocating objective and universal.

I was making an Reductio ad absurdum. I simple define objective is external observation and uninfluenced by emotions. I do not go as far as to say mind. Because then this would make all observations and explanations subjective. Objective would have no real meaning at that point.

And I define subjective as based on personal experience or feelings.

Either one can state actual truths. Either process can lead to universal truths.

"I think" is as subjective as you can get. And yet it implies "I exist" a statement of actual truth. And I say it is universally true in that if I were to think at all times and at all places I would still exist.
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:36:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 4:14:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I wouldn't know about any statement true in virtue of what I think but applies to everything in the universe. Yet such a statement would fall in the category subjective universalism.

You made some false equivocations. Mind dependent doesn't mean relative, non-universal.
But I explicitly made clear, that subjective doesn't mean relative lol.

People make the mistake that subjective implies non-true. Or not true in all cases.
I never made such a claim.

If something is true it is true. And remains so. It is probably a lack of better quantifiers when people think something is true for one person and false for another.
But what has this to do with my post?

But as I described in my post to mrsatan, one example would be "I think therefore I am". it is a personal reference, subjective source of knowledge, concluding in a universal fact I exist.
The fact that you exist, because you think is not true because you think it. Is is not up to your opinion on "I think, therefore I am" that you exist.
It would be a crazy suggestion that your existence is a mind dependent fact.
It is not.

I exist is the universal truth
How exactly does your existence apply to everyone?

substantiated by the subjective experience I think. This clearly demonstrates in a simple case that subjective experiences (mind dependent) do indeed lead to universal truths. ((assuming all things that thought would conclude they exist))
Wait, I have never said that subjective means only true for some people. Subjective, according to my distinction, is about in virtue of what some proposition is true.
Of course the proposition "I think" is true because of mind dependent facts, I never said anything contrary.
However the fact that you exist is not dependent on any mind.
At any rate, according to my taxonomy subjective universalism is a perfectly viable option.

As you say "all tools discerning truth are inferences and explanations made by a mind"
Inferences like "I think, therefore I am". The inference is made by a mind, the conclusion is not true, because you made that inference using your mind.


The point I'm making is someone wanted to get technical about a distinction between objective and subjective they would be forced to conclude that the "facts" they so generally operate on are subjective explanations of real observations.

The article you posted agrees with me on every issue.

Further, your usage of universal has to be different from mine. Here you are equivocating objective and universal.

I was making an Reductio ad absurdum. I simple define objective is external observation and uninfluenced by emotions. I do not go as far as to say mind. Because then this would make all observations and explanations subjective.
No, not at all. No observation gains its veracity because of what you think about it.

Objective would have no real meaning at that point.

And I define subjective as based on personal experience or feelings.

Either one can state actual truths. Either process can lead to universal truths.

"I think" is as subjective as you can get. And yet it implies "I exist" a statement of actual truth. And I say it is universally true in that if I were to think at all times and at all places I would still exist.
Again, you are not really objecting to what I have said.
Under a subjectivist theory murder would be wrong because of the mind dependent fact that I disapprove of it.
This subjectivity does in no way imply that any of this is not a proper part of reality.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 4:47:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 4:36:51 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/27/2015 4:14:33 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
I wouldn't know about any statement true in virtue of what I think but applies to everything in the universe. Yet such a statement would fall in the category subjective universalism.

You made some false equivocations. Mind dependent doesn't mean relative, non-universal.
But I explicitly made clear, that subjective doesn't mean relative lol.

People make the mistake that subjective implies non-true. Or not true in all cases.
I never made such a claim.

If something is true it is true. And remains so. It is probably a lack of better quantifiers when people think something is true for one person and false for another.
But what has this to do with my post?

But as I described in my post to mrsatan, one example would be "I think therefore I am". it is a personal reference, subjective source of knowledge, concluding in a universal fact I exist.
The fact that you exist, because you think is not true because you think it. Is is not up to your opinion on "I think, therefore I am" that you exist.
It would be a crazy suggestion that your existence is a mind dependent fact.
It is not.

I exist is the universal truth
How exactly does your existence apply to everyone?

Because I either Exist or do not exist. If I exist I exist in reality. The real and actual world. making my existence fact and true. My existence is true universally.

Take for instance the idea that unicorns exist on a planet near alpha centari. They either do exist or don't. Whether I am aware of their existence or not is irrelevant to the truth of their existence.


substantiated by the subjective experience I think. This clearly demonstrates in a simple case that subjective experiences (mind dependent) do indeed lead to universal truths. ((assuming all things that thought would conclude they exist))
Wait, I have never said that subjective means only true for some people. Subjective, according to my distinction, is about in virtue of what some proposition is true.
Of course the proposition "I think" is true because of mind dependent facts, I never said anything contrary.
However the fact that you exist is not dependent on any mind.

That's my point however is that some people ask for objective evidence. But here we have an example of subjective evidence concluding in a real fact. Any rebuttals about my existence from the claim would be directed against subjective premises.

At any rate, according to my taxonomy subjective universalism is a perfectly viable option.

As you say "all tools discerning truth are inferences and explanations made by a mind"
Inferences like "I think, therefore I am". The inference is made by a mind, the conclusion is not true, because you made that inference using your mind.

It doesn't matter if I make the leap in logic objectively or subjectively. The conclusion is either true or false irrelevant of the manner in which it is achieved. And clearly subjective inferences lead to universal truths or if you prefer real actual factual truths.



The point I'm making is someone wanted to get technical about a distinction between objective and subjective they would be forced to conclude that the "facts" they so generally operate on are subjective explanations of real observations.

The article you posted agrees with me on every issue.

Further, your usage of universal has to be different from mine. Here you are equivocating objective and universal.

I was making an Reductio ad absurdum. I simple define objective is external observation and uninfluenced by emotions. I do not go as far as to say mind. Because then this would make all observations and explanations subjective.
No, not at all. No observation gains its veracity because of what you think about it.

Objective would have no real meaning at that point.

And I define subjective as based on personal experience or feelings.

Either one can state actual truths. Either process can lead to universal truths.

"I think" is as subjective as you can get. And yet it implies "I exist" a statement of actual truth. And I say it is universally true in that if I were to think at all times and at all places I would still exist.
Again, you are not really objecting to what I have said.
Under a subjectivist theory murder would be wrong because of the mind dependent fact that I disapprove of it.
This subjectivity does in no way imply that any of this is not a proper part of reality.

Then we are in agreement. I am contentious when I see people equating characteristic descriptions like objective and subjective to dichotomies of validity or actualities.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 5:43:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 2:13:09 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:17:11 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.

I consider morality to be a very simple concept, very much objective at it's core (although, I came to this conclusion after a lot of over thinking on it.), so perhaps I can help you to understand. To be clear, by Fkkize's explanation, I would be an objective relativist.

When I say the core of morality, I mean the consequences of any given action. God has absolutely no relevance to whether that action would be labeled moral, immoral, both moral and immoral, or amoral. We can get into moral obligation and moral integrity if you'd like (God would have heaps of relevance in both) but that should probably be done in separate threads, or pm's.

Morality is a concept meant to label the effects ones' actions have upon others. Obviously, moral is for positive effects (beneficial), and immoral is for negative effects (detrimental).
So, I am more than capable of walking to and from my job. Instead, I spend money on a vehicle. That vehicle needs maintenance, gas, insurance, licensing etc. Donating the money ,that I would in the long term spend on my vehicle, to feeding starving children would be beneficial to the saving of lives of the starving children. Therefore my purchasing of a vehicle, given my ability to walk ,would be an immoral act. I'm sure someone can justify the need for transportation, nevertheless buying a car is immoral if there are of course starving children that wouldn't starve with the help of my money.

This line of thought is only relevant to what I've said if we assume there are moral obligations. That is an assumption I do not accept, but as I said in my previous post, that subject is deserving of its own thread, so I will not discuss it here.

Or is morality merely a matter of what is immediately connected to what you think can be proven as detrimental and to whom? Whose opinion on the overall connection to the rest of humanity is applied to beneficial act or detrimental act?

No, to the first question, which leaves the second inapplicable. Moral determinations would have no bearing on moral truths. They would simply be our understanding of moral truths, and could very well be misunderstandings as we are all imperfect creatures.

How many levels, if there need be levels, of a connection within humanity and from person to person is going to be used to determine beneficial or detrimental?

That's a good question, but I'm sorry to say I don't have a good answer.

Any action you've ever taken that has had an effect on someone else was, in fact, either moral or immoral (I.e., the effect it had upon them was either beneficial or detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has affected multiple people was, in fact, either moral or immoral, or both (I.e., beneficial to one person, but detrimental to another).

Any action you've ever taken that had no effects on anyone else was, in fact, amoral. If it has nothing to do with others, then it has nothing to do with the concept of morality.

That is the core of morality as far as I can tell. From here, we can get into moral determination (which label of morality does action X fall under). This would be the relative part. However, I don't want to throw a massive post at you, so I'll wait for you to respond to the above first.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
skipsaweirdo
Posts: 1,861
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 6:51:09 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 5:43:41 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/27/2015 2:13:09 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:17:11 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.

I consider morality to be a very simple concept, very much objective at it's core (although, I came to this conclusion after a lot of over thinking on it.), so perhaps I can help you to understand. To be clear, by Fkkize's explanation, I would be an objective relativist.

When I say the core of morality, I mean the consequences of any given action. God has absolutely no relevance to whether that action would be labeled moral, immoral, both moral and immoral, or amoral. We can get into moral obligation and moral integrity if you'd like (God would have heaps of relevance in both) but that should probably be done in separate threads, or pm's.

Morality is a concept meant to label the effects ones' actions have upon others. Obviously, moral is for positive effects (beneficial), and immoral is for negative effects (detrimental).
So, I am more than capable of walking to and from my job. Instead, I spend money on a vehicle. That vehicle needs maintenance, gas, insurance, licensing etc. Donating the money ,that I would in the long term spend on my vehicle, to feeding starving children would be beneficial to the saving of lives of the starving children. Therefore my purchasing of a vehicle, given my ability to walk ,would be an immoral act. I'm sure someone can justify the need for transportation, nevertheless buying a car is immoral if there are of course starving children that wouldn't starve with the help of my money.

This line of thought is only relevant to what I've said if we assume there are moral obligations. That is an assumption I do not accept, but as I said in my previous post, that subject is deserving of its own thread, so I will not discuss it here.
Aha, I simply overlooked where you said "meant", so I assumed you were actually saying moral has (positive effects), immoral has (negative effects). So no obligations means morality really isn't a reality unless you think people are obligated to adhere and recognize the effects. Of course, if there are moral truths, I'd be surprised if someone could get a universal agreement to support one or more. 7 billion people make for a wide range of opinion.
Or is morality merely a matter of what is immediately connected to what you think can be proven as detrimental and to whom? Whose opinion on the overall connection to the rest of humanity is applied to beneficial act or detrimental act?

No, to the first question, which leaves the second inapplicable. Moral determinations would have no bearing on moral truths. They would simply be our understanding of moral truths, and could very well be misunderstandings as we are all imperfect creatures.

How many levels, if there need be levels, of a connection within humanity and from person to person is going to be used to determine beneficial or detrimental?

That's a good question, but I'm sorry to say I don't have a good answer.

Any action you've ever taken that has had an effect on someone else was, in fact, either moral or immoral (I.e., the effect it had upon them was either beneficial or detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has affected multiple people was, in fact, either moral or immoral, or both (I.e., beneficial to one person, but detrimental to another).

Any action you've ever taken that had no effects on anyone else was, in fact, amoral. If it has nothing to do with others, then it has nothing to do with the concept of morality.

That is the core of morality as far as I can tell. From here, we can get into moral determination (which label of morality does action X fall under). This would be the relative part. However, I don't want to throw a massive post at you, so I'll wait for you to respond to the above first.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:13:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 6:51:09 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/27/2015 5:43:41 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/27/2015 2:13:09 PM, skipsaweirdo wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:17:11 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.

I consider morality to be a very simple concept, very much objective at it's core (although, I came to this conclusion after a lot of over thinking on it.), so perhaps I can help you to understand. To be clear, by Fkkize's explanation, I would be an objective relativist.

When I say the core of morality, I mean the consequences of any given action. God has absolutely no relevance to whether that action would be labeled moral, immoral, both moral and immoral, or amoral. We can get into moral obligation and moral integrity if you'd like (God would have heaps of relevance in both) but that should probably be done in separate threads, or pm's.

Morality is a concept meant to label the effects ones' actions have upon others. Obviously, moral is for positive effects (beneficial), and immoral is for negative effects (detrimental).
So, I am more than capable of walking to and from my job. Instead, I spend money on a vehicle. That vehicle needs maintenance, gas, insurance, licensing etc. Donating the money ,that I would in the long term spend on my vehicle, to feeding starving children would be beneficial to the saving of lives of the starving children. Therefore my purchasing of a vehicle, given my ability to walk ,would be an immoral act. I'm sure someone can justify the need for transportation, nevertheless buying a car is immoral if there are of course starving children that wouldn't starve with the help of my money.

This line of thought is only relevant to what I've said if we assume there are moral obligations. That is an assumption I do not accept, but as I said in my previous post, that subject is deserving of its own thread, so I will not discuss it here.
Aha, I simply overlooked where you said "meant", so I assumed you were actually saying moral has (positive effects), immoral has (negative effects). So no obligations means morality really isn't a reality unless you think people are obligated to adhere and recognize the effects. Of course, if there are moral truths, I'd be surprised if someone could get a universal agreement to support one or more. 7 billion people make for a wide range of opinion.

No, I was/am saying that moral is a label for an action with positive effects on others, and immoral is a label for an action with negative effects on others.

Your previous reply suggested that buying/driving a vehicle is immoral because of inaction. However, inaction can only be considered immoral if one is obligated to be moral. My post included no reason to assume moral obligation, and so your conclusion wasn't a reflection of my statements. If you would like to discuss moral obligation, then please start it it a new thread. Feel free to message me the link.

---

Anyways, we can discuss the morality of buying and driving vehicles if you'd like. My post would imply that buying a vehicle is moral. This is because it benefits the person selling the car (presumably, not necessarily). There are likely other reasons to argue it as being moral, but that's unimportant. There could also be reasons it is immoral. Perhaps your family can't afford the costs, and so the purchase would be detrimental to them.

Driving a vehicle can be moral. Perhaps you are giving someone a ride somewhere, or dropping something off for someone. Benefitting someone, somehow, through using your vehicle. Driving a vehicle is also immoral (usually). I think it's safe to say the majority of vehicles on the roads today contribute to pollution in various ways. It's likely a small contribution, but if the pollution effects others in a negative way, then contributing to it is immoral. Again, there may be more reasons for either side, but that's unimportant.

People often think of good and bad in black and white. Either an action is good, or it's bad. But, that's simply untrue. More often than not, It's both.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/27/2015 9:22:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/27/2015 3:31:48 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/27/2015 11:21:08 AM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/27/2015 3:49:15 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:20:33 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.

I've never seen it explained that way, so thank you. It was very well said.

False opposites if there are mind dependent statements that are true throughout the universe.

Which opposites would be the false ones? I don't see how that would affect either of them.

Also, I'm not sure a statement meeting that criteria is even plausible. Any chance you've an example in mind, or is this purely hypothetical?

The equivocation of objective with static and universal truth, and subjective with relative truth is a dangerous idea.

For one it is incorrect to assume something relative is not true. Physically we have relative events better understood from different frames of reference when using Einstein's and Lorentz's equations. Electromagnetism is one example.

New quantum tests imply that particles don't exist until they are being measured, observed, to say interacting with something else. So universally everything is relative.

Is that to say universally everything is subjective? Pythagoras said man is the measure of all things. Logic at times seems to be a discipline of semantics over a process of discernment. discerning "truth". But what could any of us discover about reality that is not relative and potentially different in another frame of reference?

The distinction between objective and subjective is the source of influence. Honestly that is all these terms should mean. People already make the erroneous leap that objective means true for all and subjective true for one person. You have Atheist asking for objective evidence of God, as if the subjective evidence has no bearing on reality. This simply is illogical.

Ultimately if such equivocations as the Previous Poster posits and followed them their logical end we rest at epistemological nihilism. To me this is like a math problem solution equaling infinity. Something went wrong.

An article I found while discussing this very equivocation fallacy in another thread.
http://instruct.westvalley.edu...

No as for an example of a subjective truth that would be universally true. One example that comes to mind is "I think therefore I am". We would call this a subjective statement in that it is mind dependent. That it is specific in it's application to one person's perspective. From this subjective reference the claimer is asserting a universal truth "I am" that he/she exists in this universe. Who are we to argue?

To summarize:
So subjective sources and references can still be universally true.

Equating subjective with relative would imply many facts we accept as objective are in fact subjective given the relativity between different frames of reference in this universe. To the point, the truth would be true for one observer and not another. Definition of subjective.

Equating objective with only way to truth is contrary to all tools of discerning truth. because all tools discerning truth are inferences and explanations made by a mind. It is also restrictive and blindly traps a person into rejecting avenues of research.

Some of this strikes me as off-topic, and I don't have sufficient knowledge to give an adequate reply to much of it, anyways. Fkkize has already said pretty much everything I would say, so I'll just let him/her discuss it with you.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:30:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.
In case of relativism, it's single agents or groups of agents. In case of universalism, it's all moral agents.

You can combine these however you like, e.g.

objective universalism, aka moral realism (mind independent facts, applies to everyone)
subjective relativism, includes what is usually understood as subjectivism and cultural relativism (mind dependent facts, applies to an agent/ a group of agents)
subjective universalism, ideal observer theory, we should do what an ideal observer would judge to be right (mind dependent facts, applies to everyone)

Divine command theory is a subcategory of ideal observer theories. It is a form of subjectivism.
Morality is up to God's whims.
DCT does not ground the objectivity of ethics, it undermines it.

Not really. Maybe if you're a DCTist like Pascal or something, but historically most DCTists haven't been like that. (See: RM Adams, etc)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Fkkize
Posts: 2,147
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/28/2015 3:36:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/28/2015 3:30:14 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

In metaethics and /or philosophy in general objective and subjective are characterized in terms of mind independence and mind dependence, respectively. But your definitions work as well.

What many people do not understand is that there is no objective/ relative dichotomy. Subjective is the opposite of objective, relative is the opposite of universal.
Subjective/ objective are about in virtue of what moral claims are true, relative/ universal are about whom these claims apply to.
In case of relativism, it's single agents or groups of agents. In case of universalism, it's all moral agents.

You can combine these however you like, e.g.

objective universalism, aka moral realism (mind independent facts, applies to everyone)
subjective relativism, includes what is usually understood as subjectivism and cultural relativism (mind dependent facts, applies to an agent/ a group of agents)
subjective universalism, ideal observer theory, we should do what an ideal observer would judge to be right (mind dependent facts, applies to everyone)

Divine command theory is a subcategory of ideal observer theories. It is a form of subjectivism.
Morality is up to God's whims.
DCT does not ground the objectivity of ethics, it undermines it.

Not really. Maybe if you're a DCTist like Pascal or something, but historically most DCTists haven't been like that. (See: RM Adams, etc)

Adams is a rather extreme example that comming to my mind, yes. Which does not mean others fare much better.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 1:54:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/26/2015 8:17:11 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.

I consider morality to be a very simple concept, very much objective at it's core (although, I came to this conclusion after a lot of over thinking on it.), so perhaps I can help you to understand. To be clear, by Fkkize's explanation, I would be an objective relativist.

When I say the core of morality, I mean the consequences of any given action. God has absolutely no relevance to whether that action would be labeled moral, immoral, both moral and immoral, or amoral. We can get into moral obligation and moral integrity if you'd like (God would have heaps of relevance in both) but that should probably be done in separate threads, or pm's.

Morality is a concept meant to label the effects ones' actions have upon others. Obviously, moral is for positive effects (beneficial), and immoral is for negative effects (detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has had an effect on someone else was, in fact, either moral or immoral (I.e., the effect it had upon them was either beneficial or detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has affected multiple people was, in fact, either moral or immoral, or both (I.e., beneficial to one person, but detrimental to another).

Any action you've ever taken that had no effects on anyone else was, in fact, amoral. If it has nothing to do with others, then it has nothing to do with the concept of morality.

That is the core of morality as far as I can tell. From here, we can get into moral determination (which label of morality does action X fall under). This would be the relative part. However, I don't want to throw a massive post at you, so I'll wait for you to respond to the above first.

But what determines whether an effect is positive or negative, if not the observer? We [typically] value life (often beyond our own species) because of our evolutionary development as social creatures. Our judgments are formed based upon our personal values and perspective, so it meets the criteria of being subjective (influenced by opinion emotion).

If "moral" just a term to refer to the benefit or detriment effects on others through one's actions, then what exactly does "others" mean? For instance, if a wolf's severe injuries are treated and the wolf heals and is returned to the wild, is that moral? If so, what about the resulting negative effects of the multitude prey animals that will certainly be killed by that same wolf?
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 7:18:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

/Look at one, just one of Will Craig's debates, he uses that argument in every one.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 8:17:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 7:18:52 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

/Look at one, just one of Will Craig's debates, he uses that argument in every one.

Thank you. I found a couple of short clips that referred to this issue.

He talks about a moral law giver and argues against any "deeper" meaning of our evolutionary traits by saying that the sole reason for them is personal survival.

In either case, I don't see how these meet the definition of objective. They are dependent on the mind of the individual, and on observations which are influence by the individual's basic values, emotions, and opinions. How can the Holocaust be objectively wrong if this is the case?
mrsatan
Posts: 417
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 8:38:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 1:54:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/26/2015 8:17:11 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/24/2015 5:01:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:47:49 PM, Fkkize wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:

Thank you for your explanation, here. However, I still do not see how it is possible for morality to be an objective thing. But, perhaps I didn't understand your explanation as well as I should have.

I consider morality to be a very simple concept, very much objective at it's core (although, I came to this conclusion after a lot of over thinking on it.), so perhaps I can help you to understand. To be clear, by Fkkize's explanation, I would be an objective relativist.

When I say the core of morality, I mean the consequences of any given action. God has absolutely no relevance to whether that action would be labeled moral, immoral, both moral and immoral, or amoral. We can get into moral obligation and moral integrity if you'd like (God would have heaps of relevance in both) but that should probably be done in separate threads, or pm's.

Morality is a concept meant to label the effects ones' actions have upon others. Obviously, moral is for positive effects (beneficial), and immoral is for negative effects (detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has had an effect on someone else was, in fact, either moral or immoral (I.e., the effect it had upon them was either beneficial or detrimental).

Any action you've ever taken that has affected multiple people was, in fact, either moral or immoral, or both (I.e., beneficial to one person, but detrimental to another).

Any action you've ever taken that had no effects on anyone else was, in fact, amoral. If it has nothing to do with others, then it has nothing to do with the concept of morality.

That is the core of morality as far as I can tell. From here, we can get into moral determination (which label of morality does action X fall under). This would be the relative part. However, I don't want to throw a massive post at you, so I'll wait for you to respond to the above first.

But what determines whether an effect is positive or negative, if not the observer? We [typically] value life (often beyond our own species) because of our evolutionary development as social creatures. Our judgments are formed based upon our personal values and perspective, so it meets the criteria of being subjective (influenced by opinion emotion).

My answer depends on what, exactly, you mean by "determines", as there are a couple of applicable definitions within this topic. As such, I'll give two responses to this.

If you mean determines as in, "to ascertain or conclude", then I would say that anyone's conclusion of the effects being positive or negative has no bearing on if the effects are actually positive or negative. I would also say that the one best equipped to come to either conclusions would be the one being affected. Of course, best equipped doesn't necessarily mean fully equipped.

On the other hand, if determine is taken to mean the deciding factors for positive or negative, then there is no concrete answer to be given. It would be relative to whomever is being affected, as that which is beneficial for one, may be detrimental for another, and vise versa. The effects could even be beneficial in some ways and detrimental in others to one single being. This is what I meant earlier by "moral determination".

Of course, if you meant something else by determines, then please clarify and I will answer in that respect.


If "moral" just a term to refer to the benefit or detriment effects on others through one's actions, then what exactly does "others" mean? For instance, if a wolf's severe injuries are treated and the wolf heals and is returned to the wild, is that moral? If so, what about the resulting negative effects of the multitude prey animals that will certainly be killed by that same wolf?

It seems to me that "others" would be anything that is sentient, or perhaps anything that any living organism. Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers, so I can't say for certain. Hence, the vagueness was intentional. The best I can say is take "other" (or "being") to mean anything to which morality applies.

Moving on to the wolf, concluding the morality of an action is quite complex. A new line of thought is added for every being that is affected, in respect to that being. Meaning, each line of thought, while applied to the same action, is separate from the other lines of thought.

So, in the wolf scenario, we have two lines of thought. The effects upon the wolf, and the effects upon the other beings that wolf then kills (to keep things a little simpler, let's say that's only on other being for now, and that the healer has full knowledge of that kill). In this scenario, the action is moral in at least one respect (it benefits the wolf), and immoral in another respect (it's detrimental to the killed being).

People often assume actions have a definitive value of moral or immoral, but they don't. They can have definitive value in ones subjective opinion, by weighing the moral impacts over the immoral impacts (or vise versa), but from an objective standpoint, they are rarely so black and white.
To say one has free will, to have chosen other than they did, is to say they have will over their will... Will over the will they have over their will... Will over the will they have over the will they have over their will, etc... It's utter nonsense.
Hayd
Posts: 4,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/29/2015 9:57:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 8:17:53 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 9/29/2015 7:18:52 PM, Hayd wrote:
At 9/24/2015 3:15:36 PM, Chaosism wrote:
My apologies if I'm just being daft, but I fail to see how the existence of God (omniscient/omnipotent) could imply that morality is objective. I just can't wrap my head around how objective morality is even possible, as commonly argued for as it is.

Objective : Not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. [Oxford]
Subjective : Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. [Oxford]

How is it that an act, such as stealing, is considered immoral because of God, other than because it is God's feelings and opinions that it's wrong? That would defy the definition of the word, "objective", in this case. Supreme authority does not make the morality of an act intrinsically objective any more than a strict father can make something objectively wrong to his kids. What is considered "wrong" by the authority boils down to opinion based on one's personal values. Any way I have considered it, morality is subjective to God and I don't see how it could be shown to be otherwise without morality being completely separate from God.

Further, how can an act, such as stealing, that is based upon a subjective concept (ownership/property), possibly have objective value? If ownership can be argued to be objective, that might change the story on this point.

This is not an argument as to whether objective morality is actually true or false, but rather how it is even plausible in any case.

/Look at one, just one of Will Craig's debates, he uses that argument in every one.

Thank you. I found a couple of short clips that referred to this issue.

He talks about a moral law giver and argues against any "deeper" meaning of our evolutionary traits by saying that the sole reason for them is personal survival.

In either case, I don't see how these meet the definition of objective. They are dependent on the mind of the individual, and on observations which are influence by the individual's basic values, emotions, and opinions. How can the Holocaust be objectively wrong if this is the case?

That is subjective morality, if objective morals exist, they could only be upheld by that who set the standard.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,649
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/30/2015 2:41:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 9/29/2015 8:38:56 PM, mrsatan wrote:
At 9/29/2015 1:54:13 PM, Chaosism wrote:

But what determines whether an effect is positive or negative, if not the observer? We [typically] value life (often beyond our own species) because of our evolutionary development as social creatures. Our judgments are formed based upon our personal values and perspective, so it meets the criteria of being subjective (influenced by opinion emotion).

My answer depends on what, exactly, you mean by "determines", as there are a couple of applicable definitions within this topic. As such, I'll give two responses to this.

If you mean determines as in, "to ascertain or conclude", then I would say that anyone's conclusion of the effects being positive or negative has no bearing on if the effects are actually positive or negative. I would also say that the one best equipped to come to either conclusions would be the one being affected. Of course, best equipped doesn't necessarily mean fully equipped.

On the other hand, if determine is taken to mean the deciding factors for positive or negative, then there is no concrete answer to be given. It would be relative to whomever is being affected, as that which is beneficial for one, may be detrimental for another, and vise versa. The effects could even be beneficial in some ways and detrimental in others to one single being. This is what I meant earlier by "moral determination".

I think that in either case, the valuation of the benefit and detriment of an action is based upon the judgment of an observer, through comparison with the observer's personal values. Since everyone can value every single possible effect differently, how can any objective designation be established? How can an act be objectively immoral without values to compare it with? For instance, how is killing immoral without our personal value for life?

Of course, if you meant something else by determines, then please clarify and I will answer in that respect.


If "moral" just a term to refer to the benefit or detriment effects on others through one's actions, then what exactly does "others" mean? For instance, if a wolf's severe injuries are treated and the wolf heals and is returned to the wild, is that moral? If so, what about the resulting negative effects of the multitude prey animals that will certainly be killed by that same wolf?

It seems to me that "others" would be anything that is sentient, or perhaps anything that any living organism. Unfortunately, I don't have all the answers, so I can't say for certain. Hence, the vagueness was intentional. The best I can say is take "other" (or "being") to mean anything to which morality applies.

In any case, I don't see how this could be the case without the opinion of an observer. Each creature has different values, and most of us would value sentient life more, but that is opinionative. I know - I don't expect anyone to have all the answers; I'm just struggling to understand how morality can conceivably exist without the judgment of an observer.

Moving on to the wolf, concluding the morality of an action is quite complex. A new line of thought is added for every being that is affected, in respect to that being. Meaning, each line of thought, while applied to the same action, is separate from the other lines of thought.

So, in the wolf scenario, we have two lines of thought. The effects upon the wolf, and the effects upon the other beings that wolf then kills (to keep things a little simpler, let's say that's only on other being for now, and that the healer has full knowledge of that kill). In this scenario, the action is moral in at least one respect (it benefits the wolf), and immoral in another respect (it's detrimental to the killed being).

This would be literally impossible to determine, because every action could potentially affect huge amounts of beings over a very long time. Wouldn't this render our sense of morality quite useless? I mean, I certainly don't want to save the spider that will kill the mosquito that will bite a sniper and cause him to miss Kirk Cameron! ;P

People often assume actions have a definitive value of moral or immoral, but they don't. They can have definitive value in ones subjective opinion, by weighing the moral impacts over the immoral impacts (or vise versa), but from an objective standpoint, they are rarely so black and white.

Wouldn't an objectively moral/immoral action have to have some definitive value that makes them such? Even if it's not discernible to an observer, the morality of an action must be true regardless of the observer, right?

Thank you for taking the time to answer me!