Is morality objective or subjective?

[Atla]

Even if there was an omnipotent God who does get to write objective moral rules, many people still wouldn't care about them if Heaven and Hell didn't also exist.

[iambiguous]

Okay, let's think this through...

Alice has an abortion.

Is that moral or immoral?

Well, in regard to some, those who are naturally good and those who are of good character will never choose abortion. Whereas in regard to others, those who naturally good and who embody good character may choose an abortion because abortion is not inherently immoral.

Those, say, who embrace one of the many, many conflicting moral narratives and political agerndas here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies

So, which point of view is the correct one?

You can't just assume the conclusion you want...especially when it's the opposite of objectively right.

Again, that is precisely what many of these folks...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... 20distinct

...will be telling you regarding your own arrogant assumption that only how you yourself construe Christianity is the One True Path to immortality and salvation. And not just for Alice.

Well, according to IC, if you are someone who thinks exactly as he does about abortion, that means that you are by nature good and necessarily embody good character.

But not just any Christian. After all, there are many different interpretations of Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_C ... 20distinct

And of the 2.6 billion total Christians around the globe, 1.345 billion of them are Catholics.

And then to complicate things further, Christians are not the only ones who worship and adore the God of Abraham. There are also 1.6 billion Muslims and 14 million Jews.

No, Immanuel Can will assure you, true Christians are only those who think about the Christian God precisely as he does.

Go ahead, ask him how he can prove this definitively beyond a mere "leap of faith" or that truly pathetic "wager".

False step.

I never said and never even implied that HUMAN character has any value in indicating what morality is. You should go back and read again: it's God's nature and character.

Okay, then we can agree to disagree regarding what you meant by this:

"...what I said was that morality is grounded in the nature, character AND expressed wishes of God. And they are in descending order of importance, I might add..."

Sure sounds to me like you are saying that if someone is by nature good and embodies good character, they will choose your own rendition of true Christianity and thus confirm their virtue.

But if it does start with the wishes of God, why yours and not one of these:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

After all, won't they be noting the same thing about your own false path? Only, unlike most of them, you claim to have actual proof that the Christian God does in fact exist.

How about this: which video should we watch [and then discuss] that comes closest to encompassing your point here:

"...what I said was that morality is grounded in the nature, character AND expressed wishes of God. And they are in descending order of importance, I might add: the first two are determinative of the third, since God never expresses a wish that is not in accord with His own nature and character."

Mankind is fallen.

Right. Because of something that Adam and Eve did we still suffer the consequences today.

How loving, just and merciful that is!!!

He is not a reliable source of information about morality. He's a flawed source, at best. So he has many different opinions about all kinds of things; but the rightness or wrongness of his moral opinions is entirely dependent on their correspondence to the objective values, which are grounded solely in God.

I hope that clears up the mistake.

I'll tell you what would clear it up...

You and me viewing and discussing those videos one by one so that there's at least a chance that my own soul might be saved. Not to mention henry's and all the others here who do not accept Jesus Christ as their own personal servant.







now that's entertainment!

[Iwannaplato]

Even if there was an omnipotent God who does get to write objective moral rules, many people still wouldn't care about them if Heaven and Hell didn't also exist.

And even then.

[Immanuel Can]

I do not disapprove of homosexuality, for example, how can that be something that is truth apt?

Two ways: first, it is true that you disapprove of homosexuality if, and only if, you disapprove of homosexuality. But that's trivial, because no person's approval or disapproval matters to the moral equation. So we come to the second way: your antipathy to homosexuality is "true" in the sense of "truly moral" if it corresponds to God's nature, character and expressed wishes.

I don't have any antipathy towards homosexuals, and I don't believe in God.

That may be. But "antipathy" is different from saying that you have a "disagreement" about the morality of what they're doing. However, perhaps you have neither. And I have no reason to doubt you disbelieve in God.

Neither will make a difference to the truth, at the end of the day.

You say that God is the absolute and final judge of moral right and wrong,

He says He is. I believe Him.

... and you unquestioningly accept that.

No, I have questioned it and consider it reasonable.

One never has to suppress questions or doubts when it comes to God. He's very capable of handling them.

So, as far as morality is concerned, you are always going to abide by whatever God has laid down.

I would wish that to be true. One can only try. That's why there's also the need for forgiveness. We're all going to fall short, even of our best intentions.

So then when it comes to a particular moral issue, let's say rape, do you not have any personal moral opinion about it, that is your own, and not derived from God.

Non-sequitur. I have all kinds of opinions.

But opinions are only worth having if they are reasonable, fair, just, premised on good information, and reflect accurate moral judgments. In the matter of morality, you'll understand, of course that IF there is a Supreme Being, it would be quite absurd for me to pretend to be smarter or more moral than He is.

So I leave that to the Atheists.

[Immanuel Can]

...will be telling you regarding your own arrogant assumption that only how you yourself construe Christianity is the One True Path to immortality and salvation.

I will rather be pointing you to what Jesus Christ says. What I say is of no consequence, apart from that.

Well, according to IC,...

You're very odd.

When you write something silly or obviously false, like misrepresenting my view by way of your own incorrect paraphrase, and I simply pass it over, you repost it. It's as if you believe that it's actually very sage, and that by reposting it, you'll somehow make it important.

I can't follow the strategy there. It makes no impression on me. It just gives you another opportunity to showcase your mistake. I don't know why you'd want to do that.

Sure sounds to me like you are saying that if someone is by nature good and embodies good character, they will choose your own rendition of true Christianity and thus confirm their virtue.

Then, again, you're having trouble reading. I did not say that any of those things follow...and they do not.

[Immanuel Can]

Even if there was an omnipotent God who does get to write objective moral rules, many people still wouldn't care about them if Heaven and Hell didn't also exist.

Perhaps there are people who are simply motivated by heaven and hell. I don't meet many, but I hold it possible they exist. But to suppose that's the central motive for doing good would be specious, since the Bible makes it very clear that following moral rules, even the objectively right ones, is not a ticket to heaven or a pass out of hell. (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, for examples)

So I can't quite catch the point there.

[Harbal]

Two ways: first, it is true that you disapprove of homosexuality if, and only if, you disapprove of homosexuality. But that's trivial, because no person's approval or disapproval matters to the moral equation. So we come to the second way: your antipathy to homosexuality is "true" in the sense of "truly moral" if it corresponds to God's nature, character and expressed wishes.

I don't have any antipathy towards homosexuals, and I don't believe in God.

That may be. But "antipathy" is different from saying that you have a "disagreement" about the morality of what they're doing. However, perhaps you have neither. And I have no reason to doubt you disbelieve in God.

Neither will make a difference to the truth, at the end of the day.

I wouldn't even see homosexuality as a moral issue if some people didn't insist on making it one.

So then when it comes to a particular moral issue, let's say rape, do you not have any personal moral opinion about it, that is your own, and not derived from God.

Non-sequitur. I have all kinds of opinions.

But opinions are only worth having if they are reasonable, fair, just, premised on good information, and reflect accurate moral judgments. In the matter of morality, you'll understand, of course that IF there is a Supreme Being, it would be quite absurd for me to pretend to be smarter or more moral than He is.

So I leave that to the Atheists.

That was a straight forward question, and giving a straightforward answer would have been easy, yet you just couldn't do it. Your guarded and evasive response probably reveals far more about what makes you tick than an honest, open answer would have, actually.

[Atla]

Even if there was an omnipotent God who does get to write objective moral rules, many people still wouldn't care about them if Heaven and Hell didn't also exist.

Perhaps there are people who are simply motivated by heaven and hell. I don't meet many, but I hold it possible they exist. But to suppose that's the central motive for doing good would be specious, since the Bible makes it very clear that following moral rules, even the objectively right ones, is not a ticket to heaven or a pass out of hell. (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, for examples)

So I can't quite catch the point there.

Following moral rules has nothing to do with ending up in Heaven or Hell? Do people know this you'd say?

[Immanuel Can]

I wouldn't even see homosexuality as a moral issue if some people didn't insist on making it one.

Did I not say our conscience, our "radar" is flawed? I'm pretty sure I did.

So then when it comes to a particular moral issue, let's say rape, do you not have any personal moral opinion about it, that is your own, and not derived from God.

Non-sequitur. I have all kinds of opinions.

But opinions are only worth having if they are reasonable, fair, just, premised on good information, and reflect accurate moral judgments. In the matter of morality, you'll understand, of course that IF there is a Supreme Being, it would be quite absurd for me to pretend to be smarter or more moral than He is.

So I leave that to the Atheists.

That was a straight forward question, and giving a straightforward answer would have been easy, yet you just couldn't do it.

I don't see it that way. You asked a question, and I answered it very bluntly, I would say. I fail to see any point on which it's unclear.

That you didn't like my answer...well, I don't know if that's to the point.

[Immanuel Can]

Even if there was an omnipotent God who does get to write objective moral rules, many people still wouldn't care about them if Heaven and Hell didn't also exist.

Perhaps there are people who are simply motivated by heaven and hell. I don't meet many, but I hold it possible they exist. But to suppose that's the central motive for doing good would be specious, since the Bible makes it very clear that following moral rules, even the objectively right ones, is not a ticket to heaven or a pass out of hell. (Eph. 2:8-9, Titus 3:5, for examples)

So I can't quite catch the point there.

Following moral rules has nothing to do with ending up in Heaven or Hell? Do people know this you'd say?

I'd say they should maybe read their Bibles. That would be a good idea, if they want to call themselves "Christian," wouldn't it?

[Iwannaplato]

I wouldn't even see homosexuality as a moral issue if some people didn't insist on making it one.

Did I not say our conscience, our "radar" is flawed? I'm pretty sure I did.

Non-sequitur. I have all kinds of opinions.

But opinions are only worth having if they are reasonable, fair, just, premised on good information, and reflect accurate moral judgments. In the matter of morality, you'll understand, of course that IF there is a Supreme Being, it would be quite absurd for me to pretend to be smarter or more moral than He is.

So I leave that to the Atheists.

That was a straight forward question, and giving a straightforward answer would have been easy, yet you just couldn't do it.

I don't see it that way. You asked a question, and I answered it very bluntly, I would say. I fail to see any point on which it's unclear.

That you didn't like my answer...well, I don't know if that's to the point.

No, it comes off as evasive or confused. You can have your own personal moral or even merely emotional reaction to rape AND not decide that you consider yourself smarter than God. I mean, there must be Christians who, for example, always hated rape, even before they became Christians. They may notice that on some issues, say coveting their neighbor's wives, they feel torn, but they try to live up to Jesus' injunction despite their own tendencies because they assume God is smarter etc. And then on other issues they need no external authority to teach them on a specific issue. 'But it feels so good to covet...but I'm trying to live up to what Jesus said. On the rape issue, though, man, that always struck me as a horrific thing to do.'

And atheists are not assuming they are smarter than God. That's like saying people who don't believe in ghosts think they can walk through walls. (not a direct parallel, but the same sort of silliness)

And I am not sure what thinking rape is immoral has to be based on estimations of fairness, justice adn the rest of the criteria. Can't simple empathy be enough. Must everyone be a rabbi like Jesus, analyzing our way to every moral position? Can't people just follow the 10 commandments on those issues? It seems to me people with low IQs can be perfectly good Christians. Is there no room for the simple heart in Christianty?

And let's remember how smart any Christian is claiming to be: they know the Bible is the word of God. Generally they know that there are no significant errors in the Bible. They can recognize that this came from God. They can recognize that their interpretations of who Jesus was or what he was and what he meant are correct. They can rule out that, for example, God has tried to reach humans, but humans have distorted the messages God sent due to culture, individual psychology, etc. No, Christians know that this is not the case. One can completely or in the main trust scripture. It has no significant distortions, let alone cannot be wrong in the main.

These are levels of self-trust around intuition and intellect of an extraordinary nature. You know there is no demiurge.

[Immanuel Can]

I wouldn't even see homosexuality as a moral issue if some people didn't insist on making it one.

Did I not say our conscience, our "radar" is flawed? I'm pretty sure I did.

That was a straight forward question, and giving a straightforward answer would have been easy, yet you just couldn't do it.

I don't see it that way. You asked a question, and I answered it very bluntly, I would say. I fail to see any point on which it's unclear.

That you didn't like my answer...well, I don't know if that's to the point.

No, it comes off as evasive or confused. You can have your own personal moral or even merely emotional reaction to rape AND not decide that you consider yourself smarter than God.

Are you thinking my position on that is not clear?

What don't you understand? I'll clear it up.

And atheists are not assuming they are smarter than God.

They are. They don't listen to Him. But they do know He exists. (Romans 1). That's why they expend so much energy on the issue of His existence, too: they know that question is basic to everything. What else can one make of that but that they think they know better that anything He says?

But don't worry: we'll find out if I'm right or not.

Can't simple empathy be enough.

Then why do we have wars, rapes, slavery, cannibalism, torture, gulags, genocides, racism, theft, lies, cruelty pedophilia...if man is driven by "empathy," how do we explain their existence at all?

Apparently, the fount of human "empathy" doesn't stop much evil from happening; nor does it create much good, for that matter.

Is there no room for the simple heart in Christianty?

There's room for the simple heart, and for the complicated head. But there's no room for the hard heart and the empty head.

[Harbal]

I wouldn't even see homosexuality as a moral issue if some people didn't insist on making it one.

Did I not say our conscience, our "radar" is flawed? I'm pretty sure I did.

Does that mean that, because I don't have any ill feelings towards a group of people who are not doing me or anyone else any harm, I have a flawed conscience? Or am I misinterpreting you?

That was a straight forward question, and giving a straightforward answer would have been easy, yet you just couldn't do it.

I don't see it that way. You asked a question, and I answered it very bluntly, I would say. I fail to see any point on which it's unclear.

I asked, "So then when it comes to a particular moral issue, let's say rape, do you not have any personal moral opinion about it, that is your own, and not derived from God."

Your response was, "Non-sequitur. I have all kinds of opinions."

In what way is that a straight forward answer? What it actually is is a straight forward avoidance of answering my question. All I asked was if you ever have moral opinions that come from your personal sense of right and wrong. You could have said yes you do, you could have said you don't have your own sense of right and wrong, or you could have said any number of other things that would have amounted to a meaningful answer, but you didn't; rather you just implied there was something wrong with the question.

"But opinions are only worth having if they are reasonable, fair, just, premised on good information, and reflect accurate moral judgments. ,"

So does that mean you don't have your own moral opinions, or does it mean you don't have any reasonable or fair ones?

"In the matter of morality, you'll understand, of course that IF there is a Supreme Being, it would be quite absurd for me to pretend to be smarter or more moral than He is."

Yes, and I went out of my way to acknowledge that I realised you regard God as the only source of moral authority, but that would not prevent you from having an opinion of your own, even if you considered it to have no relevance, would it?

I don't want to be unfair, so I invite anyone else who reads this to please tell me if I am doing you an injustice when I say you have simply avoided answering my question.

That you didn't like my answer...well, I don't know if that's to the point.

I got a response, not an answer; it told me nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

I wouldn't even see homosexuality as a moral issue if some people didn't insist on making it one.

Did I not say our conscience, our "radar" is flawed? I'm pretty sure I did.

Does that mean that, because I don't have any ill feelings towards a group of people who are not doing me or anyone else any harm, I have a flawed conscience? Or am I misinterpreting you?

Well, let's make the point clear: God says one thing, you say another. Somebody's right. I don't think it's you.

That was a straight forward question, and giving a straightforward answer would have been easy, yet you just couldn't do it.

I don't see it that way. You asked a question, and I answered it very bluntly, I would say. I fail to see any point on which it's unclear.

I asked, "So then when it comes to a particular moral issue, let's say rape, do you not have any personal moral opinion about it, that is your own, and not derived from God."

Your response was, "Non-sequitur. I have all kinds of opinions." You left off the rest of my answer. You do have to read it all, you know.

I said very clearly that "having an opinion" is nothing. If I "have an opinion" that the world is flat, and the world's not flat, then my "opinion" is worth nothing. So what's the question, here? Do I have an opinion about a moral issue? Sure. Lots. But is that opinion right or wrong? That depends on whether or not it agrees with what God says is true. He's always right. I can be wrong.

What's unclear?

...you just implied there was something wrong with the question.

I didn't "imply" it. I said it. Let me be blunt: your question was absurd. It requires us to think there's some significance to somebody having an opinion, if that opinion is simply wrong. In such a case, that opinion is not an asset, not something to be proud of: it's a foolish or erroneous opinion, and you should lose it.

Can I be more clear? I can't see how.

[Veritas Aequitas]

'the oughtness to breathe'

You don't know what "oughtness" is, in the field of Ethics. I can see that, now. You think it can be physical.

Your thinking is so archival and dogmatic.
Are you aware I have raised near to 60 threads covering every angle [complete and exhausted] of the 'is-ought' issue related to the field of Ethics?


Hume condemnation of the 'is-ought' issue is focused mainly on religious 'ought' i.e. the ought from a God [illusory];

• In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked,
  that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning,
  and establishes the being of a God,
  or makes observations concerning human affairs;
  when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not.
  Book III, part I, section I of his book, A Treatise of Human Nature (1739)
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Hume claimed that morality is related to 'sympathy' [empathy] arising from inside the person itself. But he was ignorant of its source because there was no knowledge of advance biology and neuroscience then [1700s].

With our current knowledge of biology and neurosciences, we can trace morality and its elements to biology, physiology, psychology, which are physical elements, thus when these elements are dealt within the human based moral FSK, they are objective moral facts.