Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#181
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Wylted
It is obviously objective and any moral principle can be boiled down to it's essence to show every single culture to ever exist shared that same principle
Which principle is that?

What is the "essence" of that principle?

What are your specific moral AXIOMS?
#182
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
But killing an innocent human being...
According to Christian doctrine, there is no such thing.

There are always those who have not committed a particular sin such as killing an innocent person so they cannot be charged with it; they are innocent of it.


Remember "original sin"?
The sin of Adam is imputed to us because he was our federal head and represented us. His act of disobedience has affected all of us. We inherit that sinful nature. It rubs off on all of us. Through Adam's act of disobedience, sin entered into the world.

I believe there is an age of accountability when we become answerable for our actions because we are able to reason about right and wrong. But as for a little child or the unborn who have as yet done no wrong they are considered innocent in the eyes of God. Jesus died on the cross to save them, hence, He could say that the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these. Thus, I believe they have been covered by His righteousness if they die before the age of accountability where they understand their actions as right or wrong. Jesus, the Second Adam, is the federal head (represents) of all those who believe and for all those that He died for. Thus sin is imputed to Him instead of the believer and His innocence is transferred to the believer. 

Now, if we kill one of those little children or harm them we are accountable to God. 



Doesn't god kill innocent teeny-tiny-babies every-single-day through miscarriage?
Yes, He takes their life or allows it to be taken by those who know better but ignore His decrees. He has the ability to restore them to life and in a better place. You or I do not. Since we are created in the image and likeness of God, per the biblical teaching, that life is sacred and should be treated with dignity and respect. 


Why does god do that?
Sometimes, and to a large extent, it is we who do it but God allows it or else He does it for His purposes. 


Doesn't the good-ol U.S.A. incarcerate innocent children?
Quite probably. So what is your point?


Are homeless people "innocent" if the crime they are charged with is vagrancy?
It depends on the law to its vagueness, the person, and where they reside among other things.  

At Common Law the term vagrant referred to a person who was idle, refused to work although capable of doing so, and lived on the charity of others...
In addition, the term vagrant has been replaced by Homeless Person as a way of describing a person who is without means or a permanent home.

Where there are places set up for homeless people and many refuse to live there but encroach on public areas or private residential areas where they become a nuisance as well as a danger to the health of the general public. San Francisco is a case in point. Needles, fecal matter, rats, disease, uncleanness, mental health problems, etc. 

 Homeless Person
An individual who lacks housing, including one whose primary residence during the night is a supervised public or private facility that provides temporary living accommodations; an individual who is a resident in transitional housing; or an individual who has as a primary residence a public or private place not designed for, or ordinarily used as, a regular sleeping accommodation for human beings.


Innocence seems to be rather subjective.
Innocent is being not guilty of sin or wrongful action. It can include a particular sin or wrongful action too. 

#183
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
We inherit that sinful nature.
Ok, so nobody is innocent.
#184
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If you are not sure then your statement itself fails to meet an objective standard in its own right. Why should I believe your opinion?
It depends on your Standards-of-Evidence and your understanding of Efficacy and Logic.

My standard for evidence is what is true, reasonable, and logical to believe and know. If your standard is subjective and has no objective reference point I question it for its validity. I believe the biblical God is the necessary ultimate standard for objectivity in origins and morality since He meets the fixed and unchanging final reference point plus the universe is His creation, per the Bible. There are various reasons for believing that of which ultimately making sense of anything is a huge factor. 
#185
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Then, "goodness" has no identity. It can mean whatever you (or the social group) want it to mean.
Welcome to planet Earth.
So how can you call it good if good lacks an identity? As I said, why would or should I believe you? You are the blind leading the blind. You lack what is necessary to make sense of morality. Your views are not logical and you are welcome to them. Finally, I do not believe you live experiential (in practice) with what you state publically. I think you KNOW some things are definitely wrong and others are definitely good. I hope you do. Thus, inconsistency is evident and I do not trust or believe inconsistent thinking.  
#186
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I believe the NOUMENON is the necessary ultimate standard for objectivity in origins and morality since IT meets the fixed and unchanging final reference point plus the universe is ITS creation, per LOGICAL NECESSITY.
#187
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
We inherit that sinful nature.
Ok, so nobody is innocent.
Only those who put their trust in the work of another, Jesus Christ, and what He did on their behalf and those He died for. I believe Scripture teaches Jesus died for the "little children." He likened His kingdom to belonging to such as these little children. He warned of hurting the least of these little children. 

The elect or those saved by His grace are innocent. They were secured in Jesus Christ before the foundation of the world. He knows those who are His. As for the believer, He is our federal head. He represents us. 

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love

Hebrews 4:2-4 (NASB)
2 For indeed we have had good news preached to us, just as they also; but the word they heard did not profit them, because it was not united by faith in those who heard. 3 For we who have believed enter that rest, just as He has said,
“As I swore in My wrath,
They shall not enter My rest,”
although His works were finished from the foundation of the world. 4 For He has said somewhere concerning the seventh day: “And God rested on the seventh day from all His works”;

#188
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
My standard for evidence is what is true, reasonable, and logical to believe and know.
Based on what exactly?

For example, how do you know if some particular statement in an old book is "true" or not?
#189
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 believe the NOUMENON is the necessary ultimate standard for objectivity in origins and morality since IT meets the fixed and unchanging final reference point plus the universe is ITS creation, per LOGICAL NECESSITY.
And the only One who would know the thing in itself is God. Thus, He would be the necessary objective standard. He meets the fixed, unchanging final reference point. And once God revealed we would have an unbiased (because He knows all things), true, reference point, thus objective.

The universe is its creation? Does 'it' refer to the noumenon or does 'it' refer to the universe? If it refers to the latter, how can something create itself? If it refers to the former, how can something without intent or purpose do anything? Both would be a massive unsubstantiated assumption and illogical and inconsistent.

 
#190
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
If it refers to the latter, how can something create itself?
The same way your hypothetical god can create itself.
#191
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
...how can something without intent or purpose do anything?
The same way a hurricane can destroy a house.
#192
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
If it refers to the latter, how can something create itself?
The same way your hypothetical god can create itself.
God never began to exist. He always is. Thus, He is not created. Self-creation is a self-refuting concept. To create, something first has to exist. 
#193
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
...how can something without intent or purpose do anything?
The same way a hurricane can destroy a house.

You assume there is no intent behind it or intent to put it into place or create the process of storms. 
#194
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@3RU7AL
Murder for fun is like a core value all cultures share for example. If murder does not serve a good purpose than cultures are typically against it.
#195
MisterChris
MisterChris's avatar
Debates: 45
Posts: 2,897
5
10
11
MisterChris's avatar
MisterChris
5
10
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I have not explicitly taken a position, but I think you have some confusion over what objectivity truly means. 
#196
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MisterChris
I have not explicitly taken a position, but I think you have some confusion over what objectivity truly means. 
Please present your preferred definition of "objectivity".
#197
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Wylted
Murder for fun is like a core value all cultures share for example. If murder does not serve a good purpose than cultures are typically against it.
Murder = an unjustified, intentional killing of another human being.

So it would be tautological that murder, by its very definition, "does not serve a good purpose" regardless of motive (fun or not fun).

In other words, simply by calling it "murder" you've already established it is an unjustified, intentional killing of another human being.

It is the standard by which a society determines whether or not a killing is "unjustified" that is SUBJECTIVE.

If you personally prefer an alternative definition of "murder" please make that definition explicit.
#198
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
The same way a hurricane can destroy a house.
You assume there is no intent behind it or intent to put it into place or create the process of storms. 
Are you suggesting that gods specifically intend storms to kill specific people and destroy specific property?

I'm certainly willing to entertain this "intentional storm" hypothesis, but I have to ask, what evidence do you have to support it?
#199
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
NOUMENON never began to exist. NOUMENON always is. Thus, NOUMENON is not created. Self-creation is a self-refuting concept. To create, something first has to exist. 
#200
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
So how can you call it good if good lacks an identity?
In the same way I can determine what is delicious.  What I find delicious may or may not be what you find delicious.  What I find delicious may or may not be what a fly, or a muskrat finds delicious.

It's AXIOLOGY.

As I said, why would or should I believe you?
You should only believe what you can verify empirically and or logically.

You are the blind leading the blind.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.

You lack what is necessary to make sense of morality.
Morality = personal preference + inculcation

Your views are not logical and you are welcome to them.
Please be slightly more specific.  Please present an example of a statement I've made that contains an identifiable logical error.

Finally, I do not believe you live experiential (in practice) with what you state publically. 
This statement would appear to be beyond your epistemological limits.  It also happens to be an ad hominem attack (the mind-reader fallacy).

I think you KNOW some things are definitely wrong and others are definitely good.
Certain actions seem "good" and or "wrong' based on the specifics of any particular scenario under scrutiny.  For example, [LINK]

I hope you do. Thus, inconsistency is evident and I do not trust or believe inconsistent thinking.  
(IFF) inconsistency is "evident" (THEN) please highlight the specific inconsistency you've identified and the evidence you've obtained in support of your claim.
#201
Wylted
Wylted's avatar
Debates: 34
Posts: 5,754
3
4
11
Wylted's avatar
Wylted
3
4
11
-->
@3RU7AL
I think you just restated the exact same thing I said, so I agree with you
#202
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Wylted
I think you just restated the exact same thing I said, so I agree with you
You seem to have glossed over the key point,

More specifically, It is the standard by which a society determines whether or not a killing is "unjustified" that is SUBJECTIVE.

This is a counter-factual in reference to your claim that "Murder for fun is like a core value all cultures share for example."

Since all cultures do not share the same definition of murder, for example, dueling to the death was considered justified (not murder) until relatively recent history, then it is not a "core value all cultures share".
#203
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 same way a hurricane can destroy a house.
You assume there is no intent behind it or intent to put it into place or create the process of storms. 
Are you suggesting that gods specifically intend storms to kill specific people and destroy specific property?
I am saying that nothing happens without God's permissive or discretive will. I am also saying that God is sovereign and in control of all things, thus He would either set the sequence into place at some point in time or decree it happen right then. Not only this, but human life is a gift of God. He has the right to take it. He also will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, His presence. 

The hurricane may have taken place for many reasons. God may be judging evil. God may purpose it so that good may come of it. God may be using it as a reminder of how fragile and fleeting human life is and cause others to think about life. There may be a myriad of reasons that you or I do not know about.



I'm certainly willing to entertain this "intentional storm" hypothesis, but I have to ask, what evidence do you have to support it?

The biblical revelation that God does bring calamity on people, that things happen for a reason decreed by God, and thus, He does judge evil. We all die physically, some earlier than others that can be attributed to the Fall. 

Now, if you want reasonable evidence that the biblical revelation is true and logical to believe I can make that argument too. I usually start with prophecy but the moral argument I find awfully compelling too. If those are not enough there are also many philosophical arguments and the Bible itself, which would include its historical and archeological information and verification. The level of detail in the OT as pointing to the Son, Jesus Christ, and He as God (as well as the Son becoming Man per the NT revelation) is something that would take a long time to document. 
#204
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 believe the NOUMENON is the necessary ultimate standard for objectivity in origins and morality since IT meets the fixed and unchanging final reference point plus the universe is ITS creation, per LOGICAL NECESSITY.


The universe is its creation? Does 'it' refer to the noumenon or does 'it' refer to the universe? If it refers to the latter, how can something create itself? If it refers to the former, how can something without intent or purpose do anything? Both would be a massive unsubstantiated assumption and illogical and inconsistent.


NOUMENON never began to exist. NOUMENON always is. Thus, NOUMENON is not created. Self-creation is a self-refuting concept. To create, something first has to exist. 
Granted, per the underlined.

So the "it" refers to the noumenon, which comes under the former in the question raised above by me. 

Here it is again, "If 'it' refers to the former, how can something without intent or purpose do anything?"

The point, it is an assumption on your part, based on your worldview, that "it" can do anything. 

#205
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I am saying that nothing happens without God's permissive or discretive will.
How is this compatible with the human-freewill-hypothesis?

Or are you perhaps a Calvinist?
#206
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
He also will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, His presence. 
So if all aborted and or miscarried blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus goes to "a better place", where's the injustice?

Working under the heaven-hypothesis, isn't murdering a devout person the equivalent of handing them a free ticket to Eternal-Hawaii?
#207
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Now, if you want reasonable evidence that the biblical revelation is true and logical to believe I can make that argument too.
Pretty please?

The historical accuracy of an old book does not support any supernatural claims within that same book.

For example, The Amazing Spider-man comics describe some historically accurate places, like NYC and some historically accurate events, but that historical accuracy does not grant the stories blanket credibility.
#208
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 am saying that nothing happens without God's permissive or discretive will.
How is this compatible with the human-freewill-hypothesis?
Although you (we) have a will, a volition, I believe it is only free in that you (we) exercise it, you (we) choose. I believe that all kinds of things influence our will and cause us to think or act in a particular way. We act in accordance with what we want and desire to a large extent. Since the Fall humanity all have a natural inclination and nature that in many ways is in rebellion to God. Thus we have not met His righteous standards (nor could we and the witness of OT Israel demonstrate this also) and God is just in judging us and on the flip-side merciful in allowing us to continue to do what is wrong and what we sometimes know is wrong or denying ignore Him (for a time but we all are eventually accountable to God either in our own acts or based on the merit and work of Another).

Now since we are rebellious to God it takes His grace and mercy to open our mind and heart to His Word and free us. That is why a Christian can speak with an atheist for years and all the time the atheist will just dig in his/her heals all the more. Two people can read His words and one can hear and believe the message yet another cannot. The atheist will become more and more belligerent towards His will and ways yet to the humble God will speak.

Now to the rest of your question in conjunction with hurricanes and "Acts of God." 

There is or are purposes in Acts of God, as I stated before, most of which we do not know or understand. They bring judgment in one way or another in that they unite the dead with God or separate them from His presence. Not only this, such acts remind us of our frailty and lack of control in what happens to us. Even so, God does not force human beings to do evil, nor does He tempt them to do evil. 

I think the Westminister Confession of Faith sums up our will in a number of points of which I leave you with. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 9: Of Free Will
Sec. 1. God hath endued the will of man with that natural liberty, that it is neither forced, nor, by any absolute necessity of nature, determined to good, or evil.
Sec. 2. Man, in his state of innocency, had freedom, and power to will and to do that which was good and well pleasing to God; but yet, mutably, so that he might fall from it.
Sec. 3. Man, by his fall into a state of sin, hath wholly lost all ability of will to any spiritual good accompanying salvation: so as, a natural man, being altogether averse from that good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereunto.
Sec. 4. When God converts a sinner, and translates him into the state of grace, He freeth him from his natural bondage under sin; and, by His grace alone, enables him freely to will and to do that which is spiritually good; yet so, as that by reason of his remaining corruption, he doth not perfectly, nor only, will that which is good, but doth also will that which is evil.
Sec. 5. The will of man is made perfectly and immutably free to do good alone in the state of glory only.




Or are you perhaps a Calvinist?


More to the question is whether or not the five points are biblical teaching.
#209
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
He also will not take an innocent life without restoring it to a better place, His presence. 
So if all aborted and or miscarried blastocyst/zygote/embryo/fetus goes to "a better place", where's the injustice?
With abortion, the injustice is in the human who takes life. God has said, You shall not kill/murder. Intentionally taking the life of an innocent human being is against God's will. It is He who has the right to do that because as I just said above, He can restore it to a better place, His presence. We cannot. What we do is take the life of one unrighteously who is made in the image and likeness of God. We take what is sacred (human life) and defame it. 


Working under the heaven-hypothesis, isn't murdering a devout person the equivalent of handing them a free ticket to Eternal-Hawaii?


Yes, even if they may not be ready to leave. (^8

But God has our time (v. 26) in His hands. 

Paul posed that we had nothing to fear. To die is to be with God. 
#210
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Now, if you want reasonable evidence that the biblical revelation is true and logical to believe I can make that argument too.
Pretty please?

The historical accuracy of an old book does not support any supernatural claims within that same book.
History is a confirmation of what was spoken before the event happened. Is that a reasonable statement? 

Most OT writings that we recognize as canonized were uncovered to some extent at Qumran in copies of these writings. Thus, we have an early date of writing before Jerusalem fell to the Romans. The prophecies in many of these writings speak of judgment on Israel and some go into extensive descriptions of the time of the judgment of Israel and the end of the Old Covenant. Daniel 9:24-27 is one such example. So is Daniel 2 and 12. Many of these writings also speak of the time of the Messiah and God's promises for Him to come to an OT people. That is what we witness in Jesus. Not only this, there is no other Messiah who can fit the bill after AD 70 because the OT laws and decrees that these OT people agreed to can no longer be practiced after this time as prescribed by law (i.e., the Law of Moses).  The judgments or curses of Deuteronomy 28:15 and onward are applied at this time. Not only this, not only Jesus but John the Baptist come warning OT Israel that judgment is coming and in His [Jesus'] generation. No NT writing gives even one sign that the temple has already been destroyed. This may be insignificant to you but to the Jews, their whole worship system revolved around the temple and OT economy. Nowhere in the NT do we see the end of the laws of worship, the sacrifices, the priesthood, the ceremonial feasts, etc. This is good evidence that no NT epistle or gospel was written after AD 70 because of the importance of these two things is mentioned, just warned of,  plus the Messiah coming to an OT people can't logically take place after AD 70 because Israel is no longer in covenant relationship with God after AD 70. They can no longer do all they agreed to do.  

Since the Bible is its own interpreter (God gives evidence of what He means) I can give you an exhaustive list of how things connect and also to some extent how history confirms the connection.

Then, if that is not enough, I can give you a picture or typology of Jesus in the OT and also how so many things/events in the OT that apply to God in the NT point to Him. Things exclusively said about God are now said of Jesus.


For example, The Amazing Spider-man comics describe some historically accurate places, like NYC and some historically accurate events, but that historical accuracy does not grant the stories blanket credibility.
What kind of prophecies about real events were predicted beforehand and came about as said?