Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[seer]

Yes. This is what I think seer and other theists are doing.

Well of course, because what King believed and did was not good in and of itself, its goodness, or badness, depends on the social mores of the day. In one social context he was good, in another social context he was evil. If you are right...

[carpedm9587]

I may have a disagreement for any number of reasons, but not because I'm trying to be accommodating to the culture at large. Which was Tass' point.

So you were accomodating to...?

Right, so King and Gandhi were immoral or evil according to the mores of the day. And again, what is better for humankind, or whether that is even the goal, would be no less subjective than anything else.

Yes, according to the mores of that day, many saw them as exactly that: evil and harmful to society. I'm not sure what the second sentence means.

Well I still think of gay rights (certain aspects at least) as evil or morally wrong. In keeping with Scripture and Church tradition. But it could easily turn the other way, especially if Islam keeps spreading as it is.

I do not share your concerns about Islam. Although it is not happening in the Middle East, the transition concerning gay rights that is happening in the Christian world (more slowly than the secular world) is also beginning in the Islamic world, though definitely even more slowly. If history repeats itself, the coming generations will accelerate that process.

But that is merely your definition. What is harm? What is a benefit? Nevermind we could never really know the long term consequences of these things. For instance I see no good coming from the sexual revolution. More abortions, out of wedlock births, no fault divorce leading to more broken homes, more STDs etc...

It is essentially how we identify good vs. evil, and you are right that it is not an exact science. It is riddled with conflicts and confusion. Some things that are harmful in the short term are beneficial in the long term. Some things that are beneficial in the short term are harmful in the long term. What one person sees as "harmful" another may see as "beneficial." Each of us makes those decisions on the basis of our own perspective of the world, and shares our thoughts/reasons/ideas with others. Eventually, the idea either becomes widespread and incorporated into the social moral norm, or it doesn't and falls away.

All in all, it's not a neat and tidy process, which is (I believe) one of the reasons that absolutists/universalists find their approach so much more appealing: it seems simple and black/white, seemingly avoiding the need to do a lot of thinking or reflection. All that is really necessary is to think through how the moral norm applies in each case, rather than to question the moral norm itself. But that is largely an illusion. Even "absolute/universal" moral norms have shifted over time. I believe that is because they are not actually absolute OR universal - they are merely claimed to be and projected on a god to lend them authority. It is, essentially, a form of monarchical morality (i.e., the individual submits their moral code to that professed by the monarch).

[carpedm9587]

Yes. But they are not universal moral definitions, they evolve as societies evolve.

Yes. This is what I think seer and other theists are doing.

I agree with all of this, but I have the impression that you think you are arguing against me.

I wasn't disagreeing at all - except to note the way your argument was expressed in a circular fashion, and suggest a different way of expressing it.

[carpedm9587]

Well of course, because what King believed and did was not good in and of itself, its goodness, or badness, depends on the social mores of the day. In one social context he was good, in another social context he was evil. If you are right...

This is an inevitable result of a subjective moral framework. Something may be consider moral by one group in one time, and immoral by a different group in a different time, or even the same group in a different time. Is it possible that some future society will look back on Ghandi and MLK and again see them as "harmful" and "ungood?" There are people existing today who feel that way

[seer]

So you were accommodating to...?

I wasn't accommodating anyone, the point is that there can be disagreement about certain texts.

I do not share your concerns about Islam. Although it is not happening in the Middle East, the transition concerning gay rights that is happening in the Christian world (more slowly than the secular world) is also beginning in the Islamic world, though definitely even more slowly. If history repeats itself, the coming generations will accelerate that process.

We will see. I can't think of any Muslim country that supports gay rights - can you?

It is essentially how we identify good vs. evil, and you are right that it is not an exact science. It is riddled with conflicts and confusion. Some things that are harmful in the short term are beneficial in the long term. Some things that are beneficial in the short term are harmful in the long term. What one person sees as "harmful" another may see as "beneficial." Each of us makes those decisions on the basis of our own perspective of the world, and shares our thoughts/reasons/ideas with others. Eventually, the idea either becomes widespread and incorporated into the social moral norm, or it doesn't and falls away.

Right, the eternal moral mess...

All in all, it's not a neat and tidy process, which is (I believe) one of the reasons that absolutists/universalists find their approach so much more appealing: it seems simple and black/white, seemingly avoiding the need to do a lot of thinking or reflection. All that is really necessary is to think through how the moral norm applies in each case, rather than to question the moral norm itself. But that is largely an illusion. Even "absolute/universal" moral norms have shifted over time. I believe that is because they are not actually absolute OR universal - they are merely claimed to be and projected on a god to lend them authority. It is, essentially, a form of monarchical morality (i.e., the individual submits their moral code to that professed by the monarch).

Well that is your opinion. Mine is that we intuitively gravitate towards the idea of universal moral truths because they do in fact exist. Even if we don't fully understand them - "For now we see through a glass, darkly..."

[seer]

This is an inevitable result of a subjective moral framework. Something may be consider moral by one group in one time, and immoral by a different group in a different time, or even the same group in a different time. Is it possible that some future society will look back on Ghandi and MLK and again see them as "harmful" and "ungood?" There are people existing today who feel that way

So no behavior is actually good or bad, just good or bad relative to the situation. So in one context it is possible that child rape could be considered a moral good...

[carpedm9587]

I wasn't accommodating anyone, the point is that there can be disagreement about certain texts

There can indeed. Your level of disagreement is apparently 10% as compared to the early Christian community. I suspect the percentage is higher as compared to the 2500 current Christian sects. There are a core of moral values that I suspect are essentially universal (lying, rape, murder, etc.) which, interestingly enough, is pretty much the same for subjective social moral norms. Then the variation begins, which is pretty much the case for subjective social norms. I find that dynamic information.

We will see. I can't think of any Muslim country that supports gay rights - can you?

As I said, Seer, it has not gained any significant ground in the Middle East (and I intended, but didn't say, "predominantly Muslim countries."). It is initially taking root in western Muslim communities, but even there it is very slim. Mostly we are seeing individual Muslim voices beginning to speak out. Much the same was true for Christian communities only 3-4 decades ago.

Right, the eternal moral mess...

I have not found the absolute/universal moral framework to be any more or less messy, Seer. I think that would be tough to quantify. There is perhaps a bit less variation on what the moral framework is in the absolute/universal framework because of the written moral code - but then societies also have a body of written moral codes that they point to as "basic." Both groups then have to apply that moral code to the real world, and that process is always messy.

Well that is your opinion. Mine is that we intuitively gravitate towards the idea of universal moral truths because they do in fact exist. Even if we don't fully understand them - "For now we see through a glass, darkly..."

Or, alternatively, we intuitively gravitate towards common moral codes because we share a common humanity, live on a common planet, and ultimately some things are close to universally seen as "harmful" or "beneficial." Moral codes find their roots in reality, Seer, and we share many aspects of that reality in common. It is no surprise to me that we gravitate to similar moral precepts. I do not need an "absolute" or "universal" source to explain it.

But I think we've already been down this road...

[carpedm9587]

So no behavior is actually good or bad, just good or bad relative to the situation. So in one context it is possible that child rape could be considered a moral good...

The emphasized word has been substituted for "universal" or "absolute." So what you are asking is, "so no moral truth is absolutely or universally true?" That, in turn, basically assumes that a moral statement cannmot be "real" or "actual" unless it is "universal" or "absolute." You are assunming your conclusion.

My moral codes are real - they are actual. I simply cannot claim them to be universal or absolute.

As for your question, it has a number of problems. First, you appear to be confusing the definition of a moral norm with the application of a moral norm to a particular circumstance. Is it possible that "rape" might be defined as a "moral good?" I cannot deny that there is a possibility that some future society could adopt that view. It would require the majority of the members of that society to individually come to that conclusion. However, possibility is not plausibility. For that to happen, an individual would have to see the a forceful sexual act on their own person as "beneficial" or "desirable." I cannot even begin to imagine that ever happening, ergo I cannot imagine a society in which that happens. So theoretically: possible; practically: impossible. It's like asking if it's possible for a single person to guess a 400 digit base-ten number that someone else has written down on the first try. Theoretically, yes. Practically, no.

As for whether rape can ever be a "moral good" in any circumstance, it depends on how you evaluate moral codes comparatively. If someone could contrive a scenario (I cannot think of one) where raping a single child would save the lives of 3,000 innocent children, some people might evaluate it as a "moral" good on the basis of being the best of the available choices. I do not evaluate that way. When faced with two immoral choices, choosing the lesser of the two does not, IMO, make the act moral. It simply reflects a very nasty decision that needs to be made, and trying to minimize harm. The act remains immoral, IMO.

This is essentially what I was trying to say in another thread on abortion. Abortion pits the death of an innocent against the temporary enslavement (and I know that word is not accepted by folks here) of an independent woman. It is a "lesser of two evils" calculation that is amoral quandary, IMO. Because I do not see a significant moral distinction between death and enslavement, I cannot choose in either direction, which is why I advocate for pre-choice alternatives, so we reduce the number of times when that mora choice has to be made. But when it comes to legality, I HAVE to come down on the side of pro-choice. If the law permits a thing that has an immoral element to it, the morality of the choice falls on the shoulders of the person making the choice. If I proactively endorse laws that have an immoral component, I am complicit in those laws and that immoral choice.

[Tassman]

I'm not speaking of that, I'm speaking of Christians changing their beliefs to conform to the culture, as you suggested. I have not, and many bible believing Churches have not.

That’s exactly what Christians have done over the millennia, e.g. the largest Protestant denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention supported slavery until relatively recently based upon what it saw to be biblical precepts. Thus, bible believing Churches have changed their beliefs to conform to the culture.

No, you again are trying to have it both ways. King and Gandhi in their time would have to be considered evil since good, defined by you, was that which conformed to the social mores of the day. They may not be considered evil in our present moral climate, but that could change too...

“Good” as defined by me, is not absolute, this is the point. What is deemed “good” by society is not static it’s evolving. And moral giants such as Ghandi and MLK influence the process.

[seer]

That’s exactly what Christians have done over the millennia, e.g. the largest Protestant denomination in the US, the Southern Baptist Convention supported slavery until relatively recently based upon what it saw to be biblical precepts. Thus, bible believing Churches have changed their beliefs to conform to the culture.

Nonsense, there were just as many Christians who did not support slavery, here and in England. And owning slaves is not a Biblical moral command. It was allowed, but it was not required or commanded.

“Good” as defined by me, is not absolute, this is the point. What is deemed “good” by society is not static it’s evolving. And moral giants such as Ghandi and MLK influence the process.

That does not change my point, in their time, especially early on , they were bucking the culture and according to you that would have been evil since "good" is what conforms to the moral norms. And I'm not sure why you see them as moral giants - because they agree with you?

[seer]

But I think we've already been down this road...

Yes, yes we have...

[Tassman]

Nonsense, there were just as many Christians who did not support slavery, here and in England. And owning slaves is not a Biblical moral command. It was allowed, but it was not required or commanded.

That’s not the point. Christianity has a history of biblical interpretation that comports with the social mores of the day...as was the case during several centuries of slavery in the USA.

That does not change my point, in their time, especially early on , they were bucking the culture and according to you that would have been evil since "good" is what conforms to the moral norms.

You are erroneously viewing the culture at any one time as absolute and unchanging, whereas culture is always evolving...often influenced by notable reformers such as Ghandi and MLK.

And I'm not sure why you see them as moral giants - because they agree with you?

They are seen as “moral giants” because, although initially resisted, their views came to be accepted and implemented throughout much of the world.

[seer]

That’s not the point. Christianity has a history of biblical interpretation that comports with the social mores of the day...as was the case during several centuries of slavery in the USA.

You are missing my point Tass, there are things in Scripture that are not moral commands. Biblically it makes no difference if a culture accepts slavery or not. Now if a culture decided that adultery was a moral good, we as Christians should counter that.

You are erroneously viewing the culture at any one time as absolute and unchanging, whereas culture is always evolving...often influenced by notable reformers such as Ghandi and MLK.

See, you can not even agree with your own standard! If "good" is defined as that which conforms to social norms, as you said, then in their time King and Gandhi were evil. By your own definition. What came ten or twenty years later is not relevant.

They are seen as “moral giants” because, although initially resisted, their views came to be accepted and implemented throughout much of the world.

Sure, and one day we could see Ayatollah Khomeini as a moral giant. Meaningless...

[carpedm9587]

You are missing my point Tass, there are things in Scripture that are not moral commands. Biblically it makes no difference if a culture accepts slavery or not. Now if a culture decided that adultery was a moral good, we as Christians should counter that.

Emphasis mine. Are you saying, here, that the Christian worldview sees slavery as a morally neutral action?

See, you can not even agree with your own standard! If "good" is defined as that which conforms to social norms, as you said, then in their time King and Gandhi were evil. By your own definition. What came ten or twenty years later is not relevant.

The first senteince of your statement is true: in their time, initially, they would have been widely seen as rabble rousers and "evil" by most, and accepted as a new moral voice by some. YOur second sentence is not true. It is very relevant what unfolds. As their message spreads and penetrates, more people accept it and it becomes the new moral norm. So what happens later is very relevant.

Sure, and one day we could see Ayatollah Khomeini as a moral giant. Meaningless...

Again, theoretically possible, practically implausible. Within his own culture, AK IS viewed as a moral giant (AFAIK). Worldwide, he is not. Is it possible the entire world will convert to conservative Islamic beliefs? Of course it is possible - but it is highly improbable.

As for "meaningless," it is meaningless to you because it lacks a universal/absolute basis that you require. Moral positions, in your framework, are not "real" unless they are absolute/universal. You are, again, assuming your conclusion.

[Tassman]

You are missing my point Tass, there are things in Scripture that are not moral commands. Biblically it makes no difference if a culture accepts slavery or not.

Who decides what in scripture constitute moral commands? In actuality it is the culture of the day. The largest Protestant denomination in USA regarded slavery to be scripturally endorsed by God. This was the view of Christianity for centuries.

Now if a culture decided that adultery was a moral good, we as Christians should counter that.

And yet 80% of US Evangelicals voted for thrice married Donald Trump despite Jesus’ explicit strictures re divorce. Divorce is accepted as the social norm in the West, nowadays; 100 years ago it wasn't. .

See, you can not even agree with your own standard! If "good" is defined as that which conforms to social norms, as you said, then in their time King and Gandhi were evil. By your own definition. What came ten or twenty years later is not relevant.

NO, you are viewing the culture at any one time as absolute and unchanging, whereas it is not. It is continuously evolving.

Sure, and one day we could see Ayatollah Khomeini as a moral giant. Meaningless...

It’s possible but unlikely given his appeal is limited to a specific sect of a particular religion, wheres the ideas of Ghandi and MLK were universal.