My objections to an objective morality

[zorathruster]

Okay. The idea that we "know" concretely and that we only know because some divine creator let us cheat off of his test. If that is true surely we wouldn't have the moral dilemmas in front of us. Everyday people are challenged with true moral problems. How can that happen if a God exists and is giving out the answers?

As I said it seems logical to assume that there is an objective standard but I don't think we know it yet. Most likely many of the things we take for granted now will be disproven later on. Will there be a time when the truth is known through trial and error and evolution? I think so.

I believe the theist in this case would say they have exclusive access to information that is metered out by a god who has two objectives, one that the "chosen" continue in the desired vein and two that those individuals mature philosophically. This explaination allows that a god never gives out the wrong answer, he just gives no answer and the falable human should "figger out" the answer when the god fails to provide the answer. Thus the standard theistic position: if success, it was a result of input from god, if a failure, the falable human made the wrong choice.

As far as eventual truths, I am not sure with the changing nature of life that there will ever be an ultimate standard. Things are too prone to change. Even those things we might assume ultimate truths from our current perspective.

[Griggsy]

Zorathruster, we have an objective-subjective morality as I show on page nine of natural morality, which I call covenant morallity for humanity. Thanks.

[M.Talkingsworth]

There exists behaviors which are necessarily either moral or immoral. Moral behavior is a special category of behavior that is such based on some criteria. Immoral behavior likewise is categorized based on some criteria. ...

Once something which someone conceives of is transferred to a communicable medium, does that thing become objective? For example is the statement, "I have three cats" objective as a statement?

Taking this into the realm of a moral code could a simple code such as the one below be objective?

Do not kill people

Clearly this would be a grossly insufficient code and highly impractical, but could it be objective as a code?

Clearly when another person reads it, they will naturally have to understand the meaning, but if they are capable of grasping the meaning of the author, could that statement not be objective.

Thoughts?

Matt

[Griggsy]

Again see my post on our objective-subjective morality at the natural morality thread. The paradox is that subjectivism makes for our objective morality as I see matters!
As I in my first post there note, we see the effects of actions on people which is objective.

[zorathruster]

1. Once something which someone conceives of is transferred to a communicable medium, does that thing become objective? For example is the statement, "I have three cats" objective as a statement?


2. Do not kill people

Clearly this would be a grossly insufficient code and highly impractical, but could it be objective as a code?

Clearly when another person reads it, they will naturally have to understand the meaning, but if they are capable of grasping the meaning of the author, could that statement not be objective.

Thoughts?

Matt

1. Exactly the opposite, once it is articulated via a human mind it necessarily becomes subjective. Your subjective filter takes the central idea and re-articulates it into a new and filtered explanation. Thus it would be impossible to hear an objective truth from anyone other than a mystical direct communication directly into the brain of the pure meaning. Words distort meanings, like when my wife puffs into my ear and says "blow job", it just doesn't correlate to the same meaning! An objective truth is consistent in a way that no language can do it justice because language is a distorting mechanism.

2. correct - as soon as the "rule" enters the realm of debate ie (killing people in some cases is bad and in other cases is ok) it necessarily becomes subjective. You can't express the rule without it being "filtered". Statements of fact, such as "This is a dog" can arrive at a consensus opinion. However, in other languages, "Esta un perro" it now is totally different but essentially the same. The fact they are different means there is some form of subjective nature to the communication of the same idea in different languages. Thus objective truths should be language independent and cannot be adequately or exactly expressed in any language.

3. The meaning is all relative to the observer. For the same reason killing is judged from the one doing the observing, meanings also are judged from the perspective of each person differently and therefore cannot be "objective". Objective meaning a single consistent truth that is universally common.