Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#451
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
Very true. You bring up some good points. We have to eat. We should treat animals in a humane way, not a cruel way, yet we as humans have dominion over animals. Not only this but do you think we could feed the whole of humanity solely on vegetation? My justification for eating meat is that God has given us permission to eat animals instead of just vegetation? This gets into a wholly different topic, God's existence. So I have reasons for why I believe it is okay to eat meat. 
My point isn’t to debate the merits and flaws of a vegetarian/vegan diet vs. an omnivorous one. It’s to highlight the fact that people have different stances on moral issues, such as whether or not we should be killing animals for meat.

As for immoral, do you think animals think in terms of morality or is that completely a human function?
According to those arguing for vegetarianism/veganism, animals certainly deserve to be considered with morals in mind. Why? Because they can feel pain and suffering, and causing unnecessary suffering to beings that can feel pain is inherently immoral.

PS. Are you a vegetarian?
I’ve been on and off of vegetarianism for the past few months, but I’ll admit that I’m not planning to be a vegetarian/vegan, at least not yet.

#452
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Forgot to tag you. See above.

#453
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
There are zero implications either way.
There are all kinds of consequences if our universe is created and God is its Maker. 
Like what exactly?  And let's stick strictly to the "intentional" versus "unintentional" comparisons please.
The implications/consequences are being separated from God for eternity. 


Skipping directly to your personal favorite hypothetical god is out-of-scope.

There is only one true God. 
#454
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.
Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance. 
Like what exactly? 

Principles that we express in mathematical formulas such as e = mc2 or laws of gravity, motion, inertia, friction, etc. That we can express so many things in precise mathematical formulas is an indication there is a mind behind the universe rather than chaotic chance happenstance since our minds did not create but discovered such principles. Gravity does not depend on us believing it is a sustaining force in our universe we can express in a mathematical formula.

#455
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Who made the humans change their minds?
They do, we do. They/we have volition. They/we are not robots. 
How can your god be considered all-powerful if humans can violate god's will?
Because His will permits it for a time and for a purpose. 

How can your god be considered all-knowing if humans can force them to change their plans?
For them? Who is them? Do you mean Father, Son and Holy Spirit? Humans do not force God to change His mind. Being omniscient would mean you could not thwart God's plans. Being omnipotent means that nothing that is logical is difficult for Him.

Is your god incapable of perfectly predicting human behavior? 
Prophecy proves otherwise.

#456
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I see.  So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...
The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage.
Great.  Are you suggesting that because Moses violated god's law by allowing divorce that makes it ok for EVERYONE to violate god's law both now and forever?
No. 


Did god ever make an official retraction of that "kill adulterers" law?
Stoning was part of the Old Covenant or Law of Moses. My understanding of it is that adultery is the principle that is absolutely unacceptable in both covenants yet the Mosaic covenant dealt with it or was meant to deal with it by stoning as the punishment. Adultery is a very intimate form of sexual immorality. Jesus likened it to looking after a woman lustfully. The principle of adultery is in the cheating on God by Israel in the OT as well as by a man or woman cheating on their spouse. For Christians, it separates us from our union with God also in that we also put an idol before Him.  
#457
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I see.  So when god said "adulterers will be executed" they meant, you know, not "immediately"...
The people did not follow the law. Moses permitted a certificate of divorce even though they knew that in the beginning, God created them to be united until death in marriage.
Great.  Are you suggesting that because Moses violated god's law by allowing divorce that makes it ok for EVERYONE to violate god's law both now and forever?
No, I am suggesting that God warned the people by sending prophets and teachers of the consequences and they ignored Him until He reached the point where they had heaped their sins to the maximum. 

Matthew 23:32 (NASB)
32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.

1 Thessalonians 2:15-16
15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always fill up the measure of their sins. But wrath has come upon them to the utmost.



Did god ever make an official retraction of that "kill adulterers" law?

#458
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
***
General reminder, you may critique someone, without jumping immediately into personal attacks.
-Ragnar, deputy moderator
***
#459
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@golfer
Being omniscient would mean you could not thwart God's plans.
There are myriad stories of your god's plans being thwarted by man in the book in which he is invented.
Start with Adam and Eve
#460
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@golfer

There is only one true God. 
Invented after thousands of gods before him were invented. Oh well
#461
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@disgusted
I think that the preceding nineteen pages of waffle, suggest that morality is probably subjective.
#462
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Yes. Sad isn't it, they will never allow knowledge to inform them.
#463
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney
***
General reminder, you may critique someone, without jumping immediately into personal attacks.
-Ragnar, deputy moderator
***

I'm not following whether this is directed to someone on this particular thread or whether you are posting this on every thread as a reminder.
#464
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
I think Ragnar meant it as a preemptive reminder to everyone, considering that this type of discussion, by nature, has a greater possibility of resulting in personal attacks.

#465
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
I think Ragnar meant it as a preemptive reminder to everyone, considering that this type of discussion, by nature, has a greater possibility of resulting in personal attacks.

Ah! I looked on a couple of other threads and could not find the warning. Thus, I was wondering if someone on this thread said something inappropriate? 
I was wondering if it was in regard to Post #389? If so, thanks!
#466
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
@PressF4Respect
My attention was called specifically to this thread, but please don't make a big thing about that.

You can expect to see that reminder or another like it more often. I assume people want to see that moderators take their reports seriously, and without deleting or otherwise censoring posts, it's a gentle way to encourage course correction for increased civility.

And yes, users are still talked to privately.
#467
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@Barney
My attention was called specifically to this thread, but please don't make a big thing about that.

You can expect to see that reminder or another like it more often. I assume people want to see that moderators take their reports seriously, and without deleting or otherwise censoring posts, it's a gentle way to encourage course correction for increased civility.

And yes, users are still talked to privately.

Okay, thanks! I was wondering whether it was something specific I had done since it came after my post. I was searching to think about what that was. I decided to check other threads and could not find other general warnings. I went back into this thread before I realized what was possibly the answer. 
#468
Barney
Barney's avatar
Debates: 53
Posts: 3,463
5
9
10
Barney's avatar
Barney
5
9
10
-->
@PGA2.0
The timing was coincidental.
#469
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Morality is whatever anyone chooses it to be. There is no way to objectively get to a moral good. Please see the is and ought distinction if you are not sure on this. 


Then it is all relative. It is all based on feelings. Hitler liked to kill Jews. It is not really a moral good but he thought so. So, you as a moral relativist may not like it but who are you to criticize others? If you as a moral relativist can't justify good as having a fixed identity then each to his own.

Such a position as this can be thought of but it can't be lived practically especially if it was you in a line to the showers in a Nazi death camp. Then you would know some things are definitely evil. 


 
#470
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
An "intentional" cosmos is indistinguishable from an "unintentional" cosmos.
Outwardly, perhaps? Yet, we keep discovering law or principles that explain things about our existence yet are mind-dependent of just us. We find meaning out there which is inconsistent with chance happenstance. 
Like what exactly? 
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:


#471
TheRealNihilist
TheRealNihilist's avatar
Debates: 44
Posts: 4,920
4
9
11
TheRealNihilist's avatar
TheRealNihilist
4
9
11
-->
@PGA2.0
Please stop appealing to emotion and give me an argument.

My way of viewing morality is correct. Me not being able to criticize others isn't required for what is true. 

Make it short like before without using your feelings as in Hitler bad but you can't say he is bad if I act on moral nihilism. 
#472
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@TheRealNihilist
Please stop appealing to emotion and give me an argument.
The argument is that if all morality is subjective it would be relative. It would not have a fixed, universal measure. Simple as that.


My way of viewing morality is correct. Me not being able to criticize others isn't required for what is true. 
How can two opposing and contrary views on the same moral position both logically be true? 


Make it short like before without using your feelings as in Hitler bad but you can't say he is bad if I act on moral nihilism. 

What Hitler did was well documented and the methods and steps he used to achieve his aims were also well documented. 

#473
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
@golfer

How can two opposing and contrary views on the same moral position both logically be true? 
So obviously the view that you subjectively choose is the correct view.
#474
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The implications/consequences are being separated from God for eternity. 
It is logically impossible to be separated from a DEISTIC god.
#475
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The argument is that if all morality is subjective it would be relative. It would not have a fixed, universal measure. Simple as that.
Please demonstrate this fixed, universal measure of morality.

And if you're going to insist on "love" as your primary moral AXIOM, there are an awful lot of rules you're going to have to change.

Not to mention that every single element of your definition of "love" is pure Qualia.
#476
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:
In other words, DEISM.

The only morality we can derive from DEISM is "whatever is possible is permitted".

A truly intelligent designer would make "sin" impossible.
#477
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How can your god be considered all-powerful if humans can violate god's will?
Because His will permits it for a time and for a purpose. 
Then those actions must be part of god's plan and therefore NOT in violation of god's will.
#478
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:

Necessity:  The argument against necessity is an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is necessary or not (missing variables).

Chance:  The argument against chance is also an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is likely or not (sample of one).

Design:  The argument for design is also an appeal to ignorance, because we cannot know if our universe is "designed" or not (missing variables).

The only rational approach is to acknowledge our epistemological limits.

BUT MY POINT IS THAT EVEN IFF IT IS DESIGNED, THAT CHANGES NOTHING AND INFORMS NO ASPECT OF HUMAN ETHICS.
#479
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
The argument is that if all morality is subjective it would be relative. It would not have a fixed, universal measure. Simple as that.
Please demonstrate this fixed, universal measure of morality.
How could I ever do that to your satisfaction? I learned a long time ago that you can't convince someone against their will. 

I can and have given you reasonable and logical arguments. 

I have explained the idea of a Necessary Being. I have explained that the biblical God is revealed as omniscient, unchanging, omnipresent, omnibenevolent, and eternal. Those qualities or attributes are what are necessary for a fixed universal measure.  


And if you're going to insist on "love" as your primary moral AXIOM, there are an awful lot of rules you're going to have to change.
Such as?


Not to mention that every single element of your definition of "love" is pure Qualia.

The biblical God as a necessary being would be the standard. Only if/because He has revealed Himself and given us an example could/do we have a reference point. His nature reveals the extent of His love and justice. 

Love is patient - God is patient with us. We are given many chances.

Love is kind - it keeps no record of wrongs for those in Christ Jesus for He has met the standard God requires. 

Love is not arrogant or boastful.

Love does not take into account a wrong suffered - God forgive in Christ Jesus but since He is just (a just judge cannot overlook a wrong. He would not be a good judge to wink at evil) wrongful actions are also addressed, either in our own merit or in the merit of Another. 

Love does not rejoice in unrighteousness - hence, we all come before the judgment of God for our actions and life choices. Our wrongful actions are either paid for by us or by Another. Thus, justice is met.

Love rejoices with the truth - Jesus Christ is the truth. Finding truth sets you free from error. Error cloaks you in falsity. Jesus said that a human being builds their life on one of two foundations. Your starting presuppositions of either God or chance happenstance are important to how you build your worldview in how it makes sense of existence or is unable to do so. 

Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things - with God's love I can endure life's hardships. I know they are only temporary.

Love protects, and it seeks the best - Jesus protects me from my own self. He guides me in times of trouble. 

Love is just - How will God not do good? He allows us for a time to do our own thing but eventually, we are accountable. Hitler does not get a free licence in which all the injustice he is responsible for is not punished and answered.










#480
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Perhaps the following video example explains it even better than my last two links that gave examples:
In other words, DEISM.
The Christian God is knowable, although not comprehensibly so but in so much as He has revealed Himself to our limited minds. 


The only morality we can derive from DEISM is "whatever is possible is permitted".
That is a description of atheism where the standard is relativism and subjectivism. It is what a subjective individual or collect makes it.

Atheism lacks the means to distinguish better because there is no best to compare better to, just subjective likes and dislikes that do not qualify qualitatively. Logically, the "good" has no permanent identity, no fixed reference point.  


A truly intelligent designer would make "sin" impossible.

Then there would be no freedom of will but we would all be robots programmed and determined by our designer. Yet God lovingly gave us a will so that we could choose knowing full well that it would create evil and do wrong, yet also knowing that when we cry out against the injustice we have created and committed, when we come to the end of ourselves as the answer and our 'autonomous self' in control of our own destinies, arrogant, proud, full of ourselves, there is a better way to those who reach out for and seek out God and look for what is truly better.