Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

[shunyadragon]

That is like saying it is an objective fact that bears poop in the woods.

Yes, and bears pooping in the woods can be objectively verified by the evidence, but it can be objectively found to be only partly true when they find bear poop in your front lawn.

[Tassman]

Tass, this thread is about the existence of mind independent moral truths. I'm glad you agree with me that they don't exist - so why are we arguing?

We are arguing because you claim, without substantiation, that objective morality is eternal and emanates from the "mind of God", whereas all indications are that it has evolved to enable the survival of life and species. This is what’s “good” for us as a species.

[JonathanL]

God does lie in the Bible, in a few different ways. This is understandable given that the bible was written by men and thus grounded in human values. E.g. God causes deception: In 1 Kings 22:23 God's "lying spirits" are put into people's mouths, causing them to lie. He also tests people by deception: In Deuteronomy 8:1-2 God reveals that the 40-years in the wilderness was a test done by God to find out what was in people's hearts - whether they would still obey orders. In Deuteronomy 13:1-5 God sends some false prophets and wonder-workers as tests to see if people will follow other gods.

The only one being deceptive here is you. In regards to 1 Kings 22:23 the only reason Ahab was deceived was because of his unwillingness to listen to a real prophet (Micaiah) who clearly told him that his group of false prophets were being influenced by a lying spirit from God. It's not like God made the King believe in the false prophets, instead he basically told him (through Micaiah): "I'm making your prophets lie to you, and because you're so wicked and unwilling to listen to the truth you'll fall for their lies."

Deut 8:1-2 doesn't even involve any deception in the first place even on a surface-level reading of the text, you probably just wanted to add another example to the list hoping no one would look it up.

Deut 13:1-5 Is God teaching His people how they should recognize and deal with false prophets. In other words, the very opposite of deception.

In other words, none of these are examples of God being deceptive. One (Deut 8:1-2) doesn't even have anything to do with deception in the first place, and the other two are examples of what happens when you stray from the path of the LORD (1 Kings 22:23) and start believing in false prophets, despite the fact that God clearly told you how to identify these prophets and what to do with them (Deut 13:1-5).

[mattbballman31]

I will contend here that no such thing as objective morality exists. Objective here is defined as something that exists independent of the mind or minds.

Objective means independent of non-divine minds.

[seer]

Objective means independent of non-divine minds.

I would say that God's law is objective to humankind, but subjective to Him (since he is the subject) - how could it not be?

[mattbballman31]

I would say that God's law is objective to humankind, but subjective to Him (since he is the subject) - how could it not be?

Yea, that's what I said. We're non-divine minds. He's the only divine mind.

[Tassman]

Yea, that's what I said. We're non-divine minds. He's the only divine mind.

You know this how?

[carpedm9587]

I will contend here that no such thing as objective morality exists. Objective here is defined as something that exists independent of the mind or minds. If something is objective it has being apart from any personal knowledge of it. The sun, the color blue, trees, mountains etc... would all still exist even if there were no minds to grasp their reality. They have an independent existence. Morality is not in their category. Morality is interpersonal, how rational beings order their interaction with other rational beings. No rational beings, no opportunity for interaction, hence no morality. There is no independent rule "thou shalt not kill", such an ideal (which is really an abstract) does not, and I maintain, can not, exist apart from a mind or minds.

The problem is once you bring minds into the picture you have subjectivity, that is inescapable. Some will suggest that moral ideals are akin to mathematical truths, just kind of out there for us to discover. But here again we find subjectivity. Yes there is an objective distance between the moon and the earth for instance. But what you call that distance, the tokens you use to measure it, are subjective. Is the moon 384,400 kilometers away? Or 238,900 miles? Yes distance is an objective fact, how we measure it is subjective. And when it comes to ethics there are no objective facts to link a morally subjective measurement or opinion to. They are obviously not the same.

I am clearly late to the game, but what the hey!

I was with you until your "distance to the moon" statement. That we have different ways of expressing measurements does not change the objective nature of the distance to the moon. The same is true of the other things you cite: color, topology, etc. Because all of reality is subjectively received (i.e., I probably do not see the blue of the sky exactly the same way you do, because our neural pathways are subtly different) does not mean reality does not have an objective truth to it.

But I am 100% with you on "objective" morality. Morality requires mind, and mind is subjectively related to the reality around it - so an "objective" morality (i.e., independent of any mind) makes no sense to me.

So I am forced to think our discussion in the other thread may have been awry partly because I was assuming you were using "objective," "universal," and "absolute" synonymously. It would be informative to learn how you see each of these terms, as related to morality. You clearly do not think morality can be objective, and you do think it can be universal. Absolute?

[seer]

But I am 100% with you on "objective" morality. Morality requires mind, and mind is subjectively related to the reality around it - so an "objective" morality (i.e., independent of any mind) makes no sense to me.

Well we pretty much agree here...

So I am forced to think our discussion in the other thread may have been awry partly because I was assuming you were using "objective," "universal," and "absolute" synonymously. It would be informative to learn how you see each of these terms, as related to morality. You clearly do not think morality can be objective, and you do think it can be universal. Absolute?

I think it is universal since God and His law are universal, hence if the aliens kill and eat us they are doing a moral wrong. And I don't think I used term objective. And I would say absolute in that God has absolute authority over His creation.

[carpedm9587]

Well we pretty much agree here...

I think it is universal since God and His law are universal, hence if the aliens kill and eat us they are doing a moral wrong. And I don't think I used term objective. And I would say absolute in that God has absolute authority over His creation.

Well - I am with you on objective. I can only go with you on "universal" in so far as there are some moral norms that are so widely held by individuals, they are as close to "universal" as we're likely to get. I obviously can not join you on absolute. Without a belief in a deity, that one is nonsensical to me. I do recognize, however, that with a belief in a deity, it makes perfect sense.

[seer]

Well - I am with you on objective. I can only go with you on "universal" in so far as there are some moral norms that are so widely held by individuals, they are as close to "universal" as we're likely to get. I obviously can not join you on absolute. Without a belief in a deity, that one is nonsensical to me. I do recognize, however, that with a belief in a deity, it makes perfect sense.

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

[carpedm9587]

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

Yeah, I know, Bwana. Just looking to find as much common ground as possible...

[seer]

Yeah, I know, Bwana. Just looking to find as much common ground as possible...

Well I'm fan of Jägermeister or Brandy - how about you?

[carpedm9587]

Well I'm fan of Jägermeister or Brandy - how about you?

Brandy, yes - especially a fine Courvoisier

Jager...not so much...

[seer]

Brandy, yes - especially a fine Courvoisier

Good choice!

Jager...not so much...

Well it really is for us manly men...