what is the underlying problem here?

[Peter Kropotkin]

So, do we have public accountability AND private accountability?
and should we?

one of the viewpoints that can be offered up is that we
should engage in our own private accountability.... we
should hold ourselves accountable in a way that public
accountability doesn't.. and why Kropotkin? why would/should
we hold ourselves accountable?

The answer is because in the end, that is all who we really are
accountable to.. ourselves...
my actions should be under scrutiny to myself.. with standards
that are tougher than public accountability will have us believe...

we are adults somewhere along the road of becoming...
we are becoming human, and part of becoming fully human
is to hold ourselves accountable... animals, they don't hold themselves
accountable for their actions... the thought never even crosses their mind...
and some human who have advance beyond just being animal, into
being animal/human have thought about it, but quite often fail
to put it into practice...

the road to becoming human is taking accountability/responsibility
for ourselves.. but why Kropotkin? that is a step too far for me to
go....I am happy avoid accountability and responsibility for myself
and my actions.. to be human requires us to take that next step
of personal responsibility/accountability...

something the MAGA/GOP crowd claims for but studiously avoid...
look at IQ45... has he taken accountability/responsibility for
any of his actions? nah.... not once.. he is always blaming
someone or something else for his failures.... is that
really the role model we want for ourselves and the next
generation? Is that how we become human? by denying
responsibility/accountability for our own words, actions?

that is what children do.. my childhood was full of denials like
"NOT ME" I didn't break that vase or knock down that chair.....
what will it take for us to take responsibility/accountability for our
words, our actions?

this too is part of ethics/morals.... taking responsibility/accountability
for who we are and what moral choices we have made...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

I had sentence in bold in mind: Christians "think their personal ethics is the real ethics and the only ethics that matters".

While many Christians seem to like to believe that their ethics are objective, they are in reality subjective. This is rooted in the fact that their interpretation of the Bible is subjective. As evidenced by the fact that there have been and continue to be Christians on opposite sides of so many issues. In short, the ethics that they believe is "of God" is in reality a "personal ethics".

The Bible is considered to be objective by Christians.

A Christian could be misunderstanding what it says. But that's not subjectivity. That's error.

[ThinkOfOne]

I had sentence in bold in mind: Christians "think their personal ethics is the real ethics and the only ethics that matters".

While many Christians seem to like to believe that their ethics are objective, they are in reality subjective. This is rooted in the fact that their interpretation of the Bible is subjective. As evidenced by the fact that there have been and continue to be Christians on opposite sides of so many issues. In short, the ethics that they believe is "of God" is in reality a "personal ethics".

The Bible is considered to be objective by Christians.

A Christian could be misunderstanding what it says. But that's not subjectivity. That's error.

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is steeped in metaphor and other figurative language, contains inconsistencies and discrepancies, if not outright contradictions, and therefore is widely open to interpretation.

Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides on topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own subjective standard.

If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard.

[phyllo]

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is steeped in metaphor and other figurative language, contains inconsistencies and discrepancies, if not outright contradictions, and therefore is widely open to interpretation.

Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides on topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own subjective standard.

If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard.

The objective standard is God. He can potentially reveal the correct interpretation.

Or if the Christian God is proven to not to exist then the Bible is busted.

The objective truth of the Bible is accessible in principle.

[ThinkOfOne]

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is steeped in metaphor and other figurative language, contains inconsistencies and discrepancies, if not outright contradictions, and therefore is widely open to interpretation.

Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides on topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own subjective standard.

If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard.

The objective standard is God. He can potentially reveal the correct interpretation.

Or if the Christian God is proven to not to exist then the Bible is busted.

The objective truth of the Bible is accessible in principle.

Those are your SUBJECTIVE beliefs.

Perhaps the following will help you to understand the difference between subjective and objective:

Subjective and objective are two forms of perception, and the main difference between them is that a subjective point of view focuses on a personal interpretation of the subject, while an objective viewpoint is based on factual data.

From <https://www.masterclass.com/articles/su ... BY5K9solEA>

Your beliefs are SUBJECTIVE. Your interpretation of the Bible is subjective.

Like I said, "If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard."

FWIW, I believe that an absolute and objective morality exists. But the Bible, taken as a whole, does not provide an objective moral standard in and of itself. There's no reasonable way around this fact.

[phyllo]

The Bible is what it is. The Bible is steeped in metaphor and other figurative language, contains inconsistencies and discrepancies, if not outright contradictions, and therefore is widely open to interpretation.

Over the centuries Christians have been on completely opposite sides on topics such as slavery, capital punishment, race, women, LGBT, etc. The list goes on and on. People interpret the Bible based on their own subjective standard.

If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard.

The objective standard is God. He can potentially reveal the correct interpretation.

Or if the Christian God is proven to not to exist then the Bible is busted.

The objective truth of the Bible is accessible in principle.

Those are your SUBJECTIVE beliefs.

Perhaps the following will help you to understand the difference between subjective and objective:

Subjective and objective are two forms of perception, and the main difference between them is that a subjective point of view focuses on a personal interpretation of the subject, while an objective viewpoint is based on factual data.

From <https://www.masterclass.com/articles/su ... BY5K9solEA>

Your beliefs are SUBJECTIVE. Your interpretation of the Bible is subjective.

Like I said, "If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard."

FWIW, I believe that an absolute and objective morality exists. But the Bible, taken as a whole, does not provide an objective moral standard in and of itself. There's no reasonable way around this fact.

Nothing in that link contradicts my statements.

If you want it phrased in terms of facts:

God revealed himself to certain people. They witnessed and participated in the events. A record of the events was written in the Bible.

God reveals himself at the present time and confirms the veracity of the written record.

[ThinkOfOne]

The objective standard is God. He can potentially reveal the correct interpretation.

Or if the Christian God is proven to not to exist then the Bible is busted.

The objective truth of the Bible is accessible in principle.

Those are your SUBJECTIVE beliefs.

Perhaps the following will help you to understand the difference between subjective and objective:

Subjective and objective are two forms of perception, and the main difference between them is that a subjective point of view focuses on a personal interpretation of the subject, while an objective viewpoint is based on factual data.

From <https://www.masterclass.com/articles/su ... BY5K9solEA>

Your beliefs are SUBJECTIVE. Your interpretation of the Bible is subjective.

Like I said, "If you don't have an objective standard for interpretation of the Bible, then the Bible does not provide you an objective moral standard."

FWIW, I believe that an absolute and objective morality exists. But the Bible, taken as a whole, does not provide an objective moral standard in and of itself. There's no reasonable way around this fact.

Nothing in that link contradicts my statements.

If you want it phrased in terms of facts:

God revealed himself to certain people. They witnessed and participated in the events. A record of the events was written in the Bible.

God reveals himself at the present time and confirms the veracity of the written record.

Didn't say that the link "contradicts [your] statements". However your responses lead me to think that you don't understand the difference.

Even what you call "facts" in your latest post, are in fact your SUBJECTIVE beliefs. Those beliefs are not based on facts - they are based on your "personal interpretation" which makes them SUBJECTIVE.

[phyllo]

Even what you call "facts" in your latest post, are in fact your SUBJECTIVE beliefs. Those beliefs are not based on facts - they are based on your "personal interpretation" which makes them SUBJECTIVE.

So if I read an account of some events, then that account is not factual?

All of it is subjective? It's my subjective interpretation?

Pick any book or article where the author claims to be recounting something that happened.

[ThinkOfOne]

Even what you call "facts" in your latest post, are in fact your SUBJECTIVE beliefs. Those beliefs are not based on facts - they are based on your "personal interpretation" which makes them SUBJECTIVE.

So if I read an account of some events, then that account is not factual?

All of it is subjective? It's my subjective interpretation?

Pick any book or article where the author claims to be recounting something that happened.

You know, I could pick "Zeno's Conscience", but c'mon it's a silly exercise.

Let's look at your "facts":

God revealed himself to certain people. They witnessed and participated in the events. A record of the events was written in the Bible.

God reveals himself at the present time and confirms the veracity of the written record.

How is each statement above NOT your subjective belief?

[phyllo]

You know, I could pick "Zeno's Conscience", but c'mon it's a silly exercise.

You pick a book of fiction. That's interesting.

Do you see a difference between fiction and non-fiction? Or are both read subjectively?

How is each statement above NOT your subjective belief?

Because they are not merely my thoughts and opinions, dependent entirely on me. They are not statements like "I like vanilla ice cream" which nobody can challenge.

For example, most historians have concluded that Jesus did exist. That's outside of my opinion.

You can question the accuracy of the record. You can question if Jesus said this or did that. Any written non-fiction work can contain lies and mistakes.

But that's not subjectivity. That's uncertainty.