Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[carpedm9587]

Well it really is for us manly men...

So many possible responses... so little time...

[seer]

So many possible responses... so little time...

[mattbballman31]

You know this how?

Know what? That He's the "only" divine mind? That He's the only divine "mind"? That He's the only "divine" mind? That He's the only divine mind according to Christianity?

[JimL]

Know what? That He's the "only" divine mind? That He's the only divine "mind"? That He's the only "divine" mind? That He's the only divine mind according to Christianity?

Yes, I believe that is the question that Tass asked. You know that how?

[Charles]

Well no, when I say universal I mean universal - not relative to earthlings... ; )

What you seem to mean is some sort of other worldly dictator.

[carpedm9587]

Well no, when I say universal I mean universal - not relative to earthlings... ; )

As I said - I can only go with you so far. I know of no "universal" basis for moral norms (outside of the fundations outlined previously). As I noted, I recognize your worldview stipulates that the god of your belief system plays this role by virtue of its nature.

I have to admit, I cannot make that make sense even within the worldview. It is not clear to me how a creator god, who creates sentient beings, is then necessarily the basis for the moral framework of those beings. I keep coming back to what would happen if I created a sentient robot. I may have a moral framework I want it to have, but it is going to develop its own moral framework independent of me, despite my desires. The christian god certainly would have the might to enforce the moral code they stipulate, but I do not see how they could define mine without over-riding my moral free agency. It just seems to be the same problem on a bigger scale. As the biggest, badest, force in existence, such a god could still "throw me into hell" for not following the prescribed moral code, but that god could still not define what is right for me, or have any more (or less) claim to their code being more (or less) "universal" than mine, or more (or less) "absolute" than mine.

Your hesitance to use "objective" suggests you might actually agree with that POV.

[seer]

As I said - I can only go with you so far. I know of no "universal" basis for moral norms (outside of the fundations outlined previously). As I noted, I recognize your worldview stipulates that the god of your belief system plays this role by virtue of its nature.

I have to admit, I cannot make that make sense even within the worldview. It is not clear to me how a creator god, who creates sentient beings, is then necessarily the basis for the moral framework of those beings. I keep coming back to what would happen if I created a sentient robot. I may have a moral framework I want it to have, but it is going to develop its own moral framework independent of me, despite my desires. The christian god certainly would have the might to enforce the moral code they stipulate, but I do not see how they could define mine without over-riding my moral free agency. It just seems to be the same problem on a bigger scale. As the biggest, badest, force in existence, such a god could still "throw me into hell" for not following the prescribed moral code, but that god could still not define what is right for me, or have any more (or less) claim to their code being more (or less) "universal" than mine, or more (or less) "absolute" than mine.

Your hesitance to use "objective" suggests you might actually agree with that POV.

First of all such a God would have an immutable moral character, not shifting or changeable like ours. Second, since He is all knowing so He would know the consequences of all our acts - good and bad, where our moral choices are based in ignorance, and partial understanding. Third since He created us He designed us to live in a particular way, morally. The love of God, love for our fellow man, following the golden rule, etc... And when we don't live in that fashion we break down morally (as we see in the world today). And yes you are free to define your own ethics, God does not force men to love Him or their fellow man. But yes there will be consequences - you will one day be excluded from civil society.

[carpedm9587]

First of all such a God would have an immutable moral character, not shifting or changeable like ours.

Why does immutability make a difference to a moral code?

Second, since He is all knowing so He would know the consequences of all our acts - good and bad, where our moral choices are based in ignorance, and partial understanding.

Why do long-term consequences make a difference to a moral code?

Third since He created us He designed us to live in a particular way, morally. The love of God, love for our fellow man, following the golden rule, etc... And when we don't live in that fashion we break down morally (as we see in the world today).

Moral variation has always existed, Seer. I do nto see it as any worse today than it was at any other time in human recorded history. Why are we bound to do what the creator wants? If I created a robot and managed to give it sentience and autonomy, my "intent" for it would be all well and good, but it would have its own sentience and derive it's own purpose and intent. Why should the intent of the creator supersede the intent of the created if the created in independently sentient?

And yes you are free to define your own ethics, God does not force men to love Him or their fellow man. But yes there will be consequences - you will one day be excluded from civil society.

That is a matter of enforcement - not morality. Clearly, if there is a god and that god is all powerful, if I do not adhere to their moral code, they have the power to force a punishment on me. But if my conscience tells me that to deny equal treatment in law and practice to people who are gay or transgender, then I am faced with a conundrum: I either do what my moral code tells me is wrong because some being out there says "that's the way it is," in which case I am simply choosing out of fear of punishment or desire for reward (which seems childish), or I do what my conscience tells me is right, in defiance of this good, and accept whatever punishment follows - a kind of cosmic civil disobedience. When push comes to shove, I have to live with myself. If this god exists, and chooses to isolate me or punish me for following my conscience, then I have to say, "so be it." I cannot fathom an "all good" god that would punish someone for doing what they believed to be right.

Actually, I can't fathom a god at all - but that's a different discussion...

[seer]

Why does immutability make a difference to a moral code?

Why does a mutable changeable moral character make a difference to a moral code?

Why do long-term consequences make a difference to a moral code?

Why does ignorance of consequences make a difference to a moral code?

Moral variation has always existed, Seer. I do not see it as any worse today than it was at any other time in human recorded history. Why are we bound to do what the creator wants? If I created a robot and managed to give it sentience and autonomy, my "intent" for it would be all well and good, but it would have its own sentience and derive it's own purpose and intent. Why should the intent of the creator supersede the intent of the created if the created in independently sentient?

And what if your robot freely decided to murder people, that his propose and intent was to destroy men? Would you or us remove him from society? A culture can not exist if the majority doesn't see eye to eye on the larger ethical questions. It will be the same in the afterlife.

That is a matter of enforcement - not morality. Clearly, if there is a god and that god is all powerful, if I do not adhere to their moral code, they have the power to force a punishment on me. But if my conscience tells me that to deny equal treatment in law and practice to people who are gay or transgender, then I am faced with a conundrum: I either do what my moral code tells me is wrong because some being out there says "that's the way it is," in which case I am simply choosing out of fear of punishment or desire for reward (which seems childish), or I do what my conscience tells me is right, in defiance of this good, and accept whatever punishment follows - a kind of cosmic civil disobedience. When push comes to shove, I have to live with myself. If this god exists, and chooses to isolate me or punish me for following my conscience, then I have to say, "so be it." I cannot fathom an "all good" god that would punish someone for doing what they believed to be right.

Actually, I can't fathom a god at all - but that's a different discussion...

This is the bottom line, God is creating a new society - an everlasting peoples in a new heavens and earth. Though we will have distinct personalities, talents and even idiosyncrasies we will all be on the same page morally. There will be moral harmony, genuine brotherhood. Also at bottom most Christians do not obey God because of fear, but out of love for God and Christ, and yes out of a future reward - to spend eternity with the One we Love, and other loved ones. If that is mercenary, I plead guilty.

[carpedm9587]

Why does a mutable changeable moral character make a difference to a moral code?

You're answering a question with a question, Seer. That is a form of dodging. The question is, in your worldview, why is it necessary for a moral code to be immutable?

Why does ignorance of consequences make a difference to a moral code?

Come on, Seer - I answered your questions to the best of my ability. Are you really going to dodge all of my questions this way?

And what if your robot freely decided to murder people, that his propose and intent was to destroy men? Would you or us remove him from society?

In a subjective moral world, if that was it's moral framework, it would see that as "good." If it lived amongst other beings that held the same moral code, that would be the collective moral code of that society. If it lived in a society that did not hold that element in its collective framework, the robot would be incarcerated, exiled, or possibly destroyed. That woukd not change it's moral framework - it would simply be the society exercising its power to enforce its collective framework.

A culture can not exist if the majority doesn't see eye to eye on the larger ethical questions. It will be the same in the afterlife.

Actually, societies seem to function reasonably well with a wide variety of moral positions. We debate, discuss, and live our individual lives because it is fairly rare for a society to implement a law that forces people to comply with things they find immoral. It does happen, now and again, and then there is the avenue of civil disobedience, or working to alter the law.

This is the bottom line, God is creating a new society - an everlasting peoples in a new heavens and earth. Though we will have distinct personalities, talents and even idiosyncrasies we will all be on the same page morally. There will be moral harmony, genuine brotherhood. Also at bottom most Christians do not obey God because of fear, but out of love for God and Christ, and yes out of a future reward - to spend eternity with the One we Love, and other loved ones. If that is mercenary, I plead guilty.

We each have our own beliefs, Seer. If that is what you think is real, so be it. In the grand scheme of things, most religious people I have encountered (frankly, most people I have encountered, are good people. And if you are wrong about your beliefs, what is the loss? If there is no such being, your life will end and that will be that. If a god exists but it is the god of a different religion, one can only hope that this god can recognize good intent when it sees it. You hit the trifecta if your god actually exists as you imagine it.

[carpedm9587]

And what if your robot freely decided to murder people, that his propose and intent was to destroy men?

I was just reviewing my response, and realized that you didn't answer a question with a question twice - you did it three times. You never answered this question either:

Why are we bound to do what the creator wants?

Is there a response?

[seer]

I was just reviewing my response, and realized that you didn't answer a question with a question twice - you did it three times. You never answered this question either:

Why are we bound to do what the creator wants?

Is there a response?

Sheesh Carp, I thought I made that clear. It is your choice, you are not "bound" (whatever that means) to obey God, any more than you are bound to follow the laws of society, or bound to love your fellow man.

[seer]

You're answering a question with a question, Seer. That is a form of dodging. The question is, in your worldview, why is it necessary for a moral code to be immutable?

Come on, Seer - I answered your questions to the best of my ability. Are you really going to dodge all of my questions this way?

You missed my point, if an all knowing, morally immutable Being can not be a sufficient ground for ethics, what is? Ignorance and moral changeability?

In a subjective moral world, if that was it's moral framework, it would see that as "good." If it lived amongst other beings that held the same moral code, that would be the collective moral code of that society. If it lived in a society that did not hold that element in its collective framework, the robot would be incarcerated, exiled, or possibly destroyed. That woukd not change it's moral framework - it would simply be the society exercising its power to enforce its collective framework.

Right, we would either destroy it or separate it from society - its own private hell if you will, where it can exist with its moral framework.

Actually, societies seem to function reasonably well with a wide variety of moral positions. We debate, discuss, and live our individual lives because it is fairly rare for a society to implement a law that forces people to comply with things they find immoral. It does happen, now and again, and then there is the avenue of civil disobedience, or working to alter the law.

Reasonably well, is not God's goal. Perfection is.

We each have our own beliefs, Seer. If that is what you think is real, so be it. In the grand scheme of things, most religious people I have encountered (frankly, most people I have encountered, are good people. And if you are wrong about your beliefs, what is the loss? If there is no such being, your life will end and that will be that. If a god exists but it is the god of a different religion, one can only hope that this god can recognize good intent when it sees it. You hit the trifecta if your god actually exists as you imagine it.

OK...

[carpedm9587]

You missed my point, if an all knowing, morally immutable Being can not be a sufficient ground for ethics, what is? Ignorance and moral changeability?

I didn't miss the point - and you are still answering the question with a question. The question is, why is immutability required for a moral code?

Right, we would either destroy it or separate it from society - its own private hell if you will, where it can exist with its moral framework.

Yes...and...?

Reasonably well, is not God's goal. Perfection is.

So at least you have let go of "cannot function." That was a bit of a stretch. But that raises another question: why is "perfection" so important - and it is even attainable by a finite organism?

Look at the state of Christianity. You have Christian sects embracing same sex unions becauser they believe it is aligned with Jesus' call to love one another. You have Christian sects decrying same sex unions because it is not in line with god's will. Clearly, one of them has to be wrong (and we won't settle that here), but they both insist they are right and both claim to be following "god's will." So if both are comprised of people genuinely seeking to do what they believe to be what their god wills, are you telling me that one of these two groups of people will be denied entry into "perfection" for following their (apparently god-given) conscience and doing what they believed to be right?

[seer]

I didn't miss the point - and you are still answering the question with a question. The question is, why is immutability required for a moral code?

Where did I say that immutability or omniscience were required for a moral code?

Yes...and...?

The point is, you would segregate or destroy your wayward robot because he did something objectionable to your moral sense. As God will do to men that He finds morally objectionable.

So at least you have let go of "cannot function." That was a bit of a stretch. But that raises another question: why is "perfection" so important - and it is even attainable by a finite organism?

No I said that if we did not LARGELY agree on certain moral norms we could not function as a society, that is a fact. And perfection is important since any moral deviation could or does lead to upheaval.

Look at the state of Christianity. You have Christian sects embracing same sex unions becauser they believe it is aligned with Jesus' call to love one another. You have Christian sects decrying same sex unions because it is not in line with god's will. Clearly, one of them has to be wrong (and we won't settle that here), but they both insist they are right and both claim to be following "god's will." So if both are comprised of people genuinely seeking to do what they believe to be what their god wills, are you telling me that one of these two groups of people will be denied entry into "perfection" for following their (apparently god-given) conscience and doing what they believed to be right?

I will leave these final judgements in God's hands. Like I said in the past, there is one right answer to all these questions, even if as Paul says, for now we see through a glass, darkly. And in the final analysis God knows those who are His...