Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

Well, to pat themselves on the back and tell themselves they're a "good" person. Lots of people retain the concept of morality for no purpose more sophisticated than that: that it bolsters their self-image to have it.

I don't doubt that there are lots of people like that, but I don't think solipsism is the right word to describe their behaviour. And do you imagine there are no religious people like that, even among the ones who share your beliefs about God's moral authority?

Oh, sure...it's human nature. We're all liable to be egocentric and smug, especially if we're left to our own devices.

But there's an important difference: for while Theists can check themselves against something above themselves that authorizes morally what they may choose to do, and can bow to that authority and humble themselves to it, Atheists cannot.

You may think me strange, but I don't feel deprived for the lack of an authority to bow and humble myself to. I would consider applying for North Korean citizenship otherwise.

They deny that such a thing can even exist. So "I'm a good person," for the Atheist, cannot mean more than "I approve of myself." And since "myself" is a contingent, corruptible, temporary and flawed being, that's an awfully low moral bar.

But of course there is also nothing to prevent them from setting the bar as high as they like, and without some higher authority to inhibit them, the sky is their limit. While in no way trying to suggest I am some sort of moral paragon, I have to tell you that I, myself, have managed to revise one or two of God's moral imperatives for the better, and totally discard quite a few of his mistakes; I say mistakes not wishing to imply that he did it on purpose. Giving the benefit of the doubt is one of my moral positions.

But he might be able to explain it to himself.
Self-authorization is a very low bar...in fact, according to Atheism, there isn't even a bar. The standard can be as low as one will be satisfied with oneself.

Or as high, and with all these low bars that have suddenly appeared, it does make sense to get rid of as many of these tripping hazards as possible.

But of course, moral language is shared language. When we say to somebody, "I think I'm a good person," what we are trying to say is, "and I think you should think so, too."

That seems quite a modest claim next to, "I am the bearer of objective moral truth".

We're trying to say that a person who thought we were not good would be using a defective standard, or ignorant of the facts, or in some way objectively wrong about us. So it seems that need to be justified, not just in our own eyes, and not even in the eyes of a particular group of people, but objectively justified, is very strong in us. Interesting.

Well you can't deny it is very strong in you.

It would only be rational if it suited his purposes, otherwise it would be irrational to do as you suggest. Not only do you seem to think that anyone who does not occupy the same moral position as you is simply wrong, but also that everyone should adhere to your particular system of judging what is or isn't rational.

Rationality isn't actually a matter of opinion. One is rational when one's basic beliefs rationalize with each other...that is, they make sense with each other and do not introduce logical-absurdities and self-contradictions into the whole.

Well I think (but we can say "believe", if you like) that stealing from my neighbour is morally wrong, so what other belief of mine is that rationally at odds with?

]But if they actually do some good,...

You forget: there's no such thing as "good."

There's no such thing as objective good. When I said, "good", I meant something that both you and I would agree on as being good, even if, to you, objectively good, and to me, subjectively good.

The attraction of moral skepticism is that it makes moral condemnation impossible, or at least totally irrational and indefensible. The downside, though, is that it also makes moral approval just as absurd.

I'm not sceptical about morality, I firmly believe in it, just not objective morality. So I find moral condemnation perfectly possible, and totally rational when it corresponds to my own moral opinion.

Exactly; I would continue to deny the existence of objective right and wrong, and you would continue to insist otherwise.

I obviously don't mean it would change our own personal opinions: I mean it wouldn't change the truth.

No, of course it wouldn't, I would still be right, and you would still be mistaken.

Yes, it is the killing of a human being,

Wow. That's quite an admission. So you're fine with the killing of an innocent human being for the mere convenience of another?

Not fine, but I can accept it as the lesser of two evils in this instance.

Human beings are killed in various circumstances, and the circumstance determines the status of the act.

Indeed they are. But abortion is the deliberate creating and then murdering of one such human being.

Nobody deliberately gets pregnant unless they want a child, and abortion isn't murder unless it is an illegal abortion.

The act of abortion may well have a status, but then so does the act of prohibiting it.

Sure. It has status as saving a human being. You've just said so.

Yes, I have acknowledged that there are two sides to the issue, both with valid arguments.

You might well consider it morally okay to put me into slavery, although I doubt that my productivity would justify your going to the trouble. I would not think it was morally okay, of course, but my perspective would be totally different to yours, and this is the point; morality is a matter of perspective, not objective truth.

Then my enslaving of you is perfectly moral. If I feel it's just, then it's just.

Yes, but only from your point of view.

And we have absolutely no grounds for even lamenting, let alone resisting or banning slavery.

Well one of us hasn't.

[Immanuel Can]

I don't doubt that there are lots of people like that, but I don't think solipsism is the right word to describe their behaviour. And do you imagine there are no religious people like that, even among the ones who share your beliefs about God's moral authority?

Oh, sure...it's human nature. We're all liable to be egocentric and smug, especially if we're left to our own devices.

But there's an important difference: for while Theists can check themselves against something above themselves that authorizes morally what they may choose to do, and can bow to that authority and humble themselves to it, Atheists cannot.

You may think me strange, but I don't feel deprived for the lack of an authority to bow and humble myself to. I would consider applying for North Korean citizenship otherwise.

No, actually. I find it utterly unsurprising when a person refuses to bow to objective moral authority and seeks to make himself the measure of all things, so he can just do whatever he pleases. It's exactly what human beings so often do, and the incentives for being drawn to that view are totally obvious to me.

They deny that such a thing can even exist. So "I'm a good person," for the Atheist, cannot mean more than "I approve of myself." And since "myself" is a contingent, corruptible, temporary and flawed being, that's an awfully low moral bar.

But of course there is also nothing to prevent them from setting the bar as high as they like,

"High"? But there is no "low" and "high" in an Atheist world. So they can't set the bar anywhere, actually. They can just declare that wherever they've set it is "right for them." But they can't legitimately claim that makes them "good." It just makes them solipsists.

But of course, moral language is shared language. When we say to somebody, "I think I'm a good person," what we are trying to say is, "and I think you should think so, too."

That seems quite a modest claim next to, "I am the bearer of objective moral truth".

To say one is subject to objective truth is actually totally humble. It means, "I am not the center of the universe, and the measure of all things." And it's realistic: "I am a created, contingent being, with a duty to honour my Creator, rather than merely to induge my own whims." It's a recipe for unselfishness and service to others -- which is exactly what, historically, it has proved to be.

It would only be rational if it suited his purposes, otherwise it would be irrational to do as you suggest. Not only do you seem to think that anyone who does not occupy the same moral position as you is simply wrong, but also that everyone should adhere to your particular system of judging what is or isn't rational.

Rationality isn't actually a matter of opinion. One is rational when one's basic beliefs rationalize with each other...that is, they make sense with each other and do not introduce logical-absurdities and self-contradictions into the whole.

Well I think (but we can say "believe", if you like) that stealing from my neighbour is morally wrong, so what other belief of mine is that rationally at odds with?

It's at odds with your belief that you are a mere late-ape, crawling up from the primordial ooze. For then, you can have no such duty, and nothing is morally wrong at all.

The attraction of moral skepticism is that it makes moral condemnation impossible, or at least totally irrational and indefensible. The downside, though, is that it also makes moral approval just as absurd.

I'm not sceptical about morality, I firmly believe in it, just not objective morality.

That's like saying, "I believe in cancer, just not objective cancer."

Yes, it is the killing of a human being,

Wow. That's quite an admission. So you're fine with the killing of an innocent human being for the mere convenience of another?

Not fine, but I can accept it as the lesser of two evils in this instance.

Murder is less egregious than a little inconvenience?

Human beings are killed in various circumstances, and the circumstance determines the status of the act.

Indeed they are. But abortion is the deliberate creating and then murdering of one such human being.

Nobody deliberately gets pregnant unless they want a child, and abortion isn't murder unless it is an illegal abortion.

Actually, about 99% of abortions are convenience abortions. But if you'll stipulate that those are immoral, we could talk about the other 1%.

You might well consider it morally okay to put me into slavery, although I doubt that my productivity would justify your going to the trouble. I would not think it was morally okay, of course, but my perspective would be totally different to yours, and this is the point; morality is a matter of perspective, not objective truth.

Then my enslaving of you is perfectly moral. If I feel it's just, then it's just.

Yes, but only from your point of view.

That will make no difference to you. You'll still be in slavery, whether you like it or not. Or would I be abusing you, if I did that? What objective standard would give you that conclusion?

And we have absolutely no grounds for even lamenting, let alone resisting or banning slavery.

Well one of us hasn't.

Yes...and it's you. I'm certain you can't provide any such.

[Harbal]

Oh, sure...it's human nature. We're all liable to be egocentric and smug, especially if we're left to our own devices.

But there's an important difference: for while Theists can check themselves against something above themselves that authorizes morally what they may choose to do, and can bow to that authority and humble themselves to it, Atheists cannot.

You may think me strange, but I don't feel deprived for the lack of an authority to bow and humble myself to. I would consider applying for North Korean citizenship otherwise.

No, actually. I find it utterly unsurprising when a person refuses to bow to objective moral authority and seeks to make himself the measure of all things,

But only the measure of things for myself, whereas you seek to make yourself the measure of things for everybody. You will no doubt say it's God's measure, but I can only hear you speaking.

so he can just do whatever he pleases.

Not entirely, there are some external constraints on my behaviour.

It's exactly what human beings so often do, and the incentives for being drawn to that view are totally obvious to me.

Well I won't defend the nature of human beings. Beneath the thin veneer of civilisation that society forces upon them, most are abominable creatures. Believe me, if there were some objective form of morality that could be imposed on them, I would be the first to say bring it on.

Well I think (but we can say "believe", if you like) that stealing from my neighbour is morally wrong, so what other belief of mine is that rationally at odds with?

It's at odds with your belief that you are a mere late-ape, crawling up from the primordial ooze. For then, you can have no such duty, and nothing is morally wrong at all.

It's true I was brought up in a working class neighbourhood, but it wasn't quite as bad as that.

I'm not sceptical about morality, I firmly believe in it, just not objective morality.

That's like saying, "I believe in cancer, just not objective cancer."

Cancer is detectable, you can see the visible effects of it with your own eyes. Can you compare an objective moral value with a subjective one under a microscope and point out the difference?

Not fine, but I can accept it as the lesser of two evils in this instance.

Murder is less egregious than a little inconvenience?

Generally speaking, I would say murder is far more egregious than a little inconvenience.

Nobody deliberately gets pregnant unless they want a child, and abortion isn't murder unless it is an illegal abortion.

Actually, about 99% of abortions are convenience abortions. But if you'll stipulate that those are immoral, we could talk about the other 1%.

A person's reasons for having an abortion are none of my business, or yours. And I don't know what you think is morally good about bringing unwanted children into the world; from either the parents' point of view, or the child's.

Then my enslaving of you is perfectly moral. If I feel it's just, then it's just.

Yes, but only from your point of view.

That will make no difference to you. You'll still be in slavery, whether you like it or not.

Yes, that's true.

Or would I be abusing you, if I did that?

I would certainly think so.

What objective standard would give you that conclusion?

There is no objective standard; that's what I keep telling you.

And we have absolutely no grounds for even lamenting, let alone resisting or banning slavery.

Well one of us hasn't.

Yes...and it's you. I'm certain you can't provide any such.

My grounds would be that I found the situation thoroughly disagreeable. I would tell you as much, and you shouldn't be surprised to receive a very strongly worded letter from my solicitor.

[Immanuel Can]

You may think me strange, but I don't feel deprived for the lack of an authority to bow and humble myself to. I would consider applying for North Korean citizenship otherwise.

No, actually. I find it utterly unsurprising when a person refuses to bow to objective moral authority and seeks to make himself the measure of all things,

But only the measure of things for myself, whereas you seek to make yourself the measure of things for everybody.

Not a bit of it. I'm no more the "measure" of morality than I'm the "measure" of the ambient temperature or the "measure" of the height of the Eiffel Tower. All I do is point out the objective "measure" that is binding on all of us, namely God.

so he can just do whatever he pleases.

Not entirely, there are some external constraints on my behaviour.

But those are trivial, because of course we don't mean "do the impossible." What we mean is that when faced with the possibility of doing good or evil in some matter, one has no particular obligation to choose one or the other.

It's exactly what human beings so often do, and the incentives for being drawn to that view are totally obvious to me.

Well I won't defend the nature of human beings. Beneath the thin veneer of civilisation that society forces upon them, most are abominable creatures. Believe me, if there were some objective form of morality that could be imposed on them, I would be the first to say bring it on.

Well, if we say that human nature is "abominable," do you just mean "I don't like it," or "something's really wrong with it"? Because the second is objective, and if it's just the first, then my agreement with you on the point would be no more than accidental, and not the result of us being right about that.

Well I think (but we can say "believe", if you like) that stealing from my neighbour is morally wrong, so what other belief of mine is that rationally at odds with?

It's at odds with your belief that you are a mere late-ape, crawling up from the primordial ooze. For then, you can have no such duty, and nothing is morally wrong at all.

It's true I was brought up in a working class neighbourhood, but it wasn't quite as bad as that.

Well, not many neighbourhoods are composed of apes.

I'm not sceptical about morality, I firmly believe in it, just not objective morality.

That's like saying, "I believe in cancer, just not objective cancer."

Cancer is detectable, you can see the visible effects of it with your own eyes. Can you compare an objective moral value with a subjective one under a microscope and point out the difference?

If the microscope is "rationality," then you sure can. That's what I'm attempting to do, as a matter of fact.

Not fine, but I can accept it as the lesser of two evils in this instance.

Murder is less egregious than a little inconvenience?

Generally speaking, I would say murder is far more egregious than a little inconvenience.

Then you cannot be in favour of destroying a human life merely for convenience. And there's no other rationale for abortion.

A person's reasons for having an abortion are none of my business, or yours.

That's saying, "The reasons for somebody's murder are no business of anybody else." I beg to differ on that.

And I don't know what you think is morally good about bringing unwanted children into the world; from either the parents' point of view, or the child's.

Well, then, the real problem is with the women's decision to enter into a sexual encounter in the first place. That's where "choice" really occurs: but "choice" is not an adequate rationale for murder -- and all the less when you voluntarily created the life yourself.

Yes, but only from your point of view.

That will make no difference to you. You'll still be in slavery, whether you like it or not.

Yes, that's true.

Or would I be abusing you, if I did that?

I would certainly think so.

But would I objectively be abusing you? Or do you just mean you'd be sad.

[Harbal]

No, actually. I find it utterly unsurprising when a person refuses to bow to objective moral authority and seeks to make himself the measure of all things,

But only the measure of things for myself, whereas you seek to make yourself the measure of things for everybody.

Not a bit of it. I'm no more the "measure" of morality than I'm the "measure" of the ambient temperature or the "measure" of the height of the Eiffel Tower. All I do is point out the objective "measure" that is binding on all of us, namely God.

You have appointed yourself as the measure of what should be the measure for everyone else.

Not entirely, there are some external constraints on my behaviour.

But those are trivial, because of course we don't mean "do the impossible." What we mean is that when faced with the possibility of doing good or evil in some matter, one has no particular obligation to choose one or the other.

If faced with the possibility of doing good or not doing good, I may well not do good, but the possibility of doing "evil" is not something that usually occurs to me. How evil do you think you would be if it weren't for God?

Well I won't defend the nature of human beings. Beneath the thin veneer of civilisation that society forces upon them, most are abominable creatures. Believe me, if there were some objective form of morality that could be imposed on them, I would be the first to say bring it on.

Well, if we say that human nature is "abominable," do you just mean "I don't like it," or "something's really wrong with it"?

I mean I don't like it.

Cancer is detectable, you can see the visible effects of it with your own eyes. Can you compare an objective moral value with a subjective one under a microscope and point out the difference?

If the microscope is "rationality," then you sure can.

But your microscope is groundless belief; it only shows you what you want to see.

Generally speaking, I would say murder is far more egregious than a little inconvenience.

Then you cannot be in favour of destroying a human life merely for convenience. And there's no other rationale for abortion.

I have given you my reasons for being in favour of legal abortion, and they have nothing to do with sparing anyone a little inconvenience. Finding yourself with an unwanted child is a major life changing event, not a minor incident.

A person's reasons for having an abortion are none of my business, or yours.

That's saying, "The reasons for somebody's murder are no business of anybody else." I beg to differ on that.

Legal abortion isn't murder. The British NHS openly and routinely performs abortions, and they wouldn't be allowed to get away with it if it was murder.

And I don't know what you think is morally good about bringing unwanted children into the world; from either the parents' point of view, or the child's.

Well, then, the real problem is with the women's decision to enter into a sexual encounter in the first place.

Sex deprivation is unhealthy. I blame evolution for that, but I suppose you have to blame God.

That's where "choice" really occurs:

The choice between being a human being and a robot, you mean?

but "choice" is not an adequate rationale for murder -- and all the less when you voluntarily created the life yourself.

Framing it like that suggests your having to resort to emotional appeal for the lack of a proper argument. In fact, everything you have said about abortion suggests it.

I would certainly think so.

But would I objectively be abusing you? Or do you just mean you'd be sad.

You would be doing something I didn't want you to do, but I am not aware of any universal force, or law of nature, that prohibits it. And, of course, I would be very sad about it.

[bahman]

But only the measure of things for myself, whereas you seek to make yourself the measure of things for everybody.

Not a bit of it. I'm no more the "measure" of morality than I'm the "measure" of the ambient temperature or the "measure" of the height of the Eiffel Tower. All I do is point out the objective "measure" that is binding on all of us, namely God.

You have appointed yourself as the measure of what should be the measure for everyone else.

Not entirely, there are some external constraints on my behaviour.

But those are trivial, because of course we don't mean "do the impossible." What we mean is that when faced with the possibility of doing good or evil in some matter, one has no particular obligation to choose one or the other.

If faced with the possibility of doing good or not doing good, I may well not do good, but the possibility of doing "evil" is not something that usually occurs to me. How evil do you think you would be if it weren't for God?

Well I won't defend the nature of human beings. Beneath the thin veneer of civilisation that society forces upon them, most are abominable creatures. Believe me, if there were some objective form of morality that could be imposed on them, I would be the first to say bring it on.

Well, if we say that human nature is "abominable," do you just mean "I don't like it," or "something's really wrong with it"?

I mean I don't like it.

Cancer is detectable, you can see the visible effects of it with your own eyes. Can you compare an objective moral value with a subjective one under a microscope and point out the difference?

If the microscope is "rationality," then you sure can.

But your microscope is groundless belief; it only shows you what you want to see.

Generally speaking, I would say murder is far more egregious than a little inconvenience.

Then you cannot be in favour of destroying a human life merely for convenience. And there's no other rationale for abortion.

I have given you my reasons for being in favour of legal abortion, and they have nothing to do with sparing anyone a little inconvenience. Finding yourself with an unwanted child is a major life changing event, not a minor incident.

A person's reasons for having an abortion are none of my business, or yours.

That's saying, "The reasons for somebody's murder are no business of anybody else." I beg to differ on that.

Legal abortion isn't murder. The British NHS openly and routinely performs abortions, and they wouldn't be allowed to get away with it if it was murder.

And I don't know what you think is morally good about bringing unwanted children into the world; from either the parents' point of view, or the child's.

Well, then, the real problem is with the women's decision to enter into a sexual encounter in the first place.

Sex deprivation is unhealthy. I blame evolution for that, but I suppose you have to blame God.

That's where "choice" really occurs:

The choice between being a human being and a robot, you mean?

but "choice" is not an adequate rationale for murder -- and all the less when you voluntarily created the life yourself.

Framing it like that suggests your having to resort to emotional appeal for the lack of a proper argument. In fact, everything you have said about abortion suggests it.

I would certainly think so.

But would I objectively be abusing you? Or do you just mean you'd be sad.

You would be doing something I didn't want you to do, but I am not aware of any universal force, or law of nature, that prohibits it. And, of course, I would be very sad about it.

Don't waste your time in discussion with him when it comes to objective morality. He claims in another thread, USA and Israel, that there is no such thing as objective morality under Christianity. He is at best ignorant of what he saying and at worst is not an honest person with himself.

[Dontaskme]

That seems quite a modest claim next to, "I am the bearer of objective moral truth".

Good point Harbal.

The assumption that there exists out-there in outer-space ''[an objective moral truth or fact]'' that just happens to be floating around beyond that of the human mind, can only be a subjective opinion within the mind, and never outside of it. There is no evidence of any moral factual truth independently existing or belonging to some higher authoritarian entity called God, outside of someone's subjective mentally created opinion.

There is no right or wrong, or fact, or morality in reality. And yet in reality, there does apparently appear to be a subject who can know subjective opinions, consisting of something is right or something is wrong, or something is a fact, or something is moral.

There is no other source from where these concepts are known, or from where these opinions are formed, they have to come from within the subject that knows them, as and through the subjects own direct experience. And that is how opinions are formed, namely from thought, as and through the mental faculty of the human brain, the only knowing mechanism that 'matters'. In other words, concepts like, morality, right, wrong, or facts, cannot exist independently in a non-physical environment absent of a physical body, as these concepts known are contingent upon a knowing entity. That knowing entity is always here right now, it's only known source is the first person singular pronoun, the only knowing source available.

What IC does, is make the error of insisting the KNOWER is God, and not Human, without realising all known concepts are simply arising here right now already a given and already present, this immediate knowing, the only knowing there is.

.

[Harbal]

Not a bit of it. I'm no more the "measure" of morality than I'm the "measure" of the ambient temperature or the "measure" of the height of the Eiffel Tower. All I do is point out the objective "measure" that is binding on all of us, namely God.

You have appointed yourself as the measure of what should be the measure for everyone else.

But those are trivial, because of course we don't mean "do the impossible." What we mean is that when faced with the possibility of doing good or evil in some matter, one has no particular obligation to choose one or the other.

If faced with the possibility of doing good or not doing good, I may well not do good, but the possibility of doing "evil" is not something that usually occurs to me. How evil do you think you would be if it weren't for God?

Well, if we say that human nature is "abominable," do you just mean "I don't like it," or "something's really wrong with it"?

I mean I don't like it.

If the microscope is "rationality," then you sure can.

But your microscope is groundless belief; it only shows you what you want to see.

Then you cannot be in favour of destroying a human life merely for convenience. And there's no other rationale for abortion.

I have given you my reasons for being in favour of legal abortion, and they have nothing to do with sparing anyone a little inconvenience. Finding yourself with an unwanted child is a major life changing event, not a minor incident.

That's saying, "The reasons for somebody's murder are no business of anybody else." I beg to differ on that.

Legal abortion isn't murder. The British NHS openly and routinely performs abortions, and they wouldn't be allowed to get away with it if it was murder.

Well, then, the real problem is with the women's decision to enter into a sexual encounter in the first place.

Sex deprivation is unhealthy. I blame evolution for that, but I suppose you have to blame God.

That's where "choice" really occurs:

The choice between being a human being and a robot, you mean?

but "choice" is not an adequate rationale for murder -- and all the less when you voluntarily created the life yourself.

Framing it like that suggests your having to resort to emotional appeal for the lack of a proper argument. In fact, everything you have said about abortion suggests it.

But would I objectively be abusing you? Or do you just mean you'd be sad.

You would be doing something I didn't want you to do, but I am not aware of any universal force, or law of nature, that prohibits it. And, of course, I would be very sad about it.

Don't waste your time in discussion with him when it comes to objective morality. He claims in another thread, USA and Israel, that there is no such thing as objective morality under Christianity. He is at best ignorant of what he saying and at worst is not an honest person with himself.

I can see the wisdom in your advice, but when I try to look beyond his rigid, uncompromising stance, I see a man who needs saving from himself, and I find myself driven by some irrational urge to assist in his liberation, so my efforts are directed towards that goal. But more than that; the rest of us also need saving from him.

[bahman]

You have appointed yourself as the measure of what should be the measure for everyone else.

If faced with the possibility of doing good or not doing good, I may well not do good, but the possibility of doing "evil" is not something that usually occurs to me. How evil do you think you would be if it weren't for God?

I mean I don't like it.

But your microscope is groundless belief; it only shows you what you want to see.

I have given you my reasons for being in favour of legal abortion, and they have nothing to do with sparing anyone a little inconvenience. Finding yourself with an unwanted child is a major life changing event, not a minor incident.

Legal abortion isn't murder. The British NHS openly and routinely performs abortions, and they wouldn't be allowed to get away with it if it was murder.

Sex deprivation is unhealthy. I blame evolution for that, but I suppose you have to blame God.

The choice between being a human being and a robot, you mean?

Framing it like that suggests your having to resort to emotional appeal for the lack of a proper argument. In fact, everything you have said about abortion suggests it.


You would be doing something I didn't want you to do, but I am not aware of any universal force, or law of nature, that prohibits it. And, of course, I would be very sad about it.

Don't waste your time in discussion with him when it comes to objective morality. He claims in another thread, USA and Israel, that there is no such thing as objective morality under Christianity. He is at best ignorant of what he saying and at worst is not an honest person with himself.

I can see the wisdom in your advice, but when I try to look beyond his rigid, uncompromising stance, I see a man who needs saving from himself, and I find myself driven by some irrational urge to assist in his liberation, so my efforts are directed towards that goal. But more than that; the rest of us also need saving from him.

Good thoughts. Good luck.

[Dontaskme]

I can see the wisdom in your advice, but when I try to look beyond his rigid, uncompromising stance, I see a man who needs saving from himself, and I find myself driven by some irrational urge to assist in his liberation, so my efforts are directed towards that goal. But more than that; the rest of us also need saving from him.

[Harbal]

That seems quite a modest claim next to, "I am the bearer of objective moral truth".

Good point Harbal.

The assumption that there exists out-there in outer-space ''[an objective moral truth or fact]'' that just happens to be floating around beyond that of the human mind, can only be a subjective opinion within the mind, and never outside of it. There is no evidence of any moral factual truth independently existing or belonging to some higher authoritarian entity called God, outside of someone's subjective mentally created opinion.

Exactly so, but IC seems to think it would be better for us to believe otherwise. I think it would be a great kindness for as many of us as possible to gently persuade him of his folly, or at least try, as such an endeavour carries no prospect of success.

[Dontaskme]

He claims in another thread, USA and Israel, that there is no such thing as objective morality under Christianity.

He's simply confused because of his lack of nondual understanding.
I.C. is only right to say there is no such thing as objective morality under Christianity because Christianity requires a believer, and that believing entity would require another entity known as [I am a 'Christian'] which would then require another entity known as ['I am a Human, who is also a Christian'], because only a Human can be a Christian.

And yet according to IC..A Human is not the creator of truth and morals, only God is.

Meanwhile, God is only a concept known within the only knowing there is, that is right here and now in this immediate knowing, the only knowing available. Same goes for the concept of Christianity, and the concept of Human.

And so I doubt if God was the only real and true knowing entity existing at the centre of the universe expanding outwards infinitely for eternity, (absent of any circumference) He, God, would certainly not depend on any Human belief, or Christian belief, or any Believers belief for him to exist.

[Dontaskme]

Exactly so, but IC seems to think it would be better for us to believe otherwise. I think it would be a great kindness for as many of us as possible to gently persuade him of his folly, or at least try, as such an endeavour carries no prospect of success.

No success at all, you're right, it would be like trying to draw blood out of a stone, he simply refuses to be dissuaded. He's like the iron lady herself R.I.P .. ['The Lady is not for Turning'] I'm sure she is though, turning in her grave, unless of course she once played the role of the fictional character known as the Christian Believer.


("I lost my way, I forgot ...") from "Book of Mercy"
I lost my way, I forgot to call on your name. The raw heart beat against the world, and the tears were for my lost victory. But you are here. You have always been here. The world is all forgetting, and the heart is a rage of directions, but your name unifies the heart, and the world is lifted into its place. Blessed is the one who waits in the traveller's heart for his turning.

[Immanuel Can]

But only the measure of things for myself, whereas you seek to make yourself the measure of things for everybody.

Not a bit of it. I'm no more the "measure" of morality than I'm the "measure" of the ambient temperature or the "measure" of the height of the Eiffel Tower. All I do is point out the objective "measure" that is binding on all of us, namely God.

You have appointed yourself as the measure of what should be the measure for everyone else.

Not at all. God is that measure: I have not "appointed" Him. I have "pointed" Him out to you, though.

Not entirely, there are some external constraints on my behaviour.

But those are trivial, because of course we don't mean "do the impossible." What we mean is that when faced with the possibility of doing good or evil in some matter, one has no particular obligation to choose one or the other.

If faced with the possibility of doing good or not doing good, I may well not do good, but the possibility of doing "evil" is not something that usually occurs to me.

If you have any option, by definition, you have the option of doing something evil instead of doing the good. If you can do only the good, then what does it mean to have any "option"?

How evil do you think you would be if it weren't for God?

That's an interesting question. Of course, the answer's hypothetical. But as I know myself, I'd have to say I'd be a rather different person than I am. The reason that I say that is that I've always been inclined to think about the logical consequences of suppositions about the world; and the logical suppositions, were I to be an Atheist, would be more like Nietzsche's than they would be about the values I support now.

So would I act on them? Maybe not all the time. But I doubt I'd be squeamish about doing so, when it was to my advantage to do so. There wouldn't be good reasons for me not to, and I think the incentives to behave like that would probably be sufficient.

Well I won't defend the nature of human beings. Beneath the thin veneer of civilisation that society forces upon them, most are abominable creatures. Believe me, if there were some objective form of morality that could be imposed on them, I would be the first to say bring it on.

Well, if we say that human nature is "abominable," do you just mean "I don't like it," or "something's really wrong with it"?

I mean I don't like it.

A rather palid indictment, isn't it?

Cancer is detectable, you can see the visible effects of it with your own eyes. Can you compare an objective moral value with a subjective one under a microscope and point out the difference?

If the microscope is "rationality," then you sure can.

But your microscope is groundless belief; it only shows you what you want to see.

Rationality is not dependent on particular belief. It's procedural. And just as mathematics works exactly the same way for one purpose or another, rationality simply points to what it points to.

What changes is not the procedure known as rationality, but only the premises, the suppositions upon which that rationality is based.

Generally speaking, I would say murder is far more egregious than a little inconvenience.

Then you cannot be in favour of destroying a human life merely for convenience. And there's no other rationale for abortion.

I have given you my reasons for being in favour of legal abortion, and they have nothing to do with sparing anyone a little inconvenience. Finding yourself with an unwanted child is a major life changing event, not a minor incident.

"An unwanted child?" But you (speaking of the woman in question MADE that child, by your own deliberate choice. And having MADE her, you could carry her to term and let her be adopted; there's a horrendous shortage of adoptable babies, and she could have a happy home among doting parents and family. But you don't want that. You'd rather she were dead than not with you, but you don't care enought to raise her. How savage is that!

A person's reasons for having an abortion are none of my business, or yours.

That's saying, "The reasons for somebody's murder are no business of anybody else." I beg to differ on that.

Legal abortion isn't murder.

Killing Jews was legal in Germany. That didn't make it moral.

And I don't know what you think is morally good about bringing unwanted children into the world; from either the parents' point of view, or the child's.

Well, then, the real problem is with the women's decision to enter into a sexual encounter in the first place.

Sex deprivation is unhealthy.

You're being fooled by Freud. He came up with that "repression" nonsense. No such thing is true: continence is healthy for relationships, and particularly for women, who experience a disproportionate level of damage in uncommitted relationships.

That's where "choice" really occurs:

The choice between being a human being and a robot, you mean?

No: the choice to make a child just to murder her, or to be more responsible than that.

but "choice" is not an adequate rationale for murder -- and all the less when you voluntarily created the life yourself.

Framing it like that suggests your having to resort to emotional appeal for the lack of a proper argument. In fact, everything you have said about abortion suggests it.

Heh. I see your anxiety about that line of explanation.

It's never occurred to you before, has it? The real "choice" is to create or not create a life. It's whether or not to be promiscuous and to use contraception. To murder a human being is not a "choice." It's an atrocity.

I would certainly think so.

But would I objectively be abusing you? Or do you just mean you'd be sad.

You would be doing something I didn't want you to do, but I am not aware of any universal force, or law of nature, that prohibits it. And, of course, I would be very sad about it.

Then you have just opened the moral doorway to slavery. There isn't anything inherently or objectively wrong with it, you suppose; it's just maybe "bad manners" for those who wish to please you?

[Harbal]

[q

You have appointed yourself as the measure of what should be the measure for everyone else.

Not at all. God is that measure: I have not "appointed" Him. I have "pointed" Him out to you, though.

You believe in God, and keep telling me that I should also believe in him, but I don't believe in God, and I don't tell you that you shouldn't. You seem to think you are in a position to tell me what is best for me, whereas I think it appropriate to let you be the judge of what is best for you.

If faced with the possibility of doing good or not doing good, I may well not do good, but the possibility of doing "evil" is not something that usually occurs to me.

If you have any option, by definition, you have the option of doing something evil instead of doing the good. If you can do only the good, then what does it mean to have any "option"?

Yes, I am free to do good or bad, as measured against my subjective moral values, and you are free to do good or bad in relation to what you claim is objective moral truth. So what?

How evil do you think you would be if it weren't for God?

That's an interesting question. Of course, the answer's hypothetical. But as I know myself, I'd have to say I'd be a rather different person than I am. The reason that I say that is that I've always been inclined to think about the logical consequences of suppositions about the world; and the logical suppositions, were I to be an Atheist, would be more like Nietzsche's than they would be about the values I support now.

So would I act on them? Maybe not all the time. But I doubt I'd be squeamish about doing so, when it was to my advantage to do so. There wouldn't be good reasons for me not to, and I think the incentives to behave like that would probably be sufficient.

The more you say about Nietzsche, the more he comes across to me as something of a drama queen. For most of us, social pressure is enough to keep our behaviour within reasonable bounds, but for those who need something a bit stronger to keep their primitive urges under control, maybe the wrath of God is the only deterrent that works, I don't know.

Well, if we say that human nature is "abominable," do you just mean "I don't like it," or "something's really wrong with it"?

I mean I don't like it.

A rather palid indictment, isn't it?

It is just an opinion, and was only offered as such. I don't expect, or want, to influence anyone else's view.

I have given you my reasons for being in favour of legal abortion, and they have nothing to do with sparing anyone a little inconvenience. Finding yourself with an unwanted child is a major life changing event, not a minor incident.

"An unwanted child?" But you (speaking of the woman in question MADE that child, by your own deliberate choice.

The woman would have appeared to have made the deliberate choice of putting herself in the position of risking pregnancy, but that isn't the same as choosing pregnancy. But, if that is the unwanted consequence, her best course of action is to do something about it before there is a child.

you could carry her to term and let her be adopted; there's a horrendous shortage of adoptable babies

I could if I wanted to, but I probably would not want to, and I would consider it morally wrong to have that forced upon me. And even though I might be at fault for allowing the situation to happen in the first place, two wrongs don't make a right. As for the baby supply and demand situation; that's not my responsibility.

But you don't want that. You'd rather she were dead than not with you, but you don't care enought to raise her. How savage is that!

Can you ever forgive me?
.

Legal abortion isn't murder.

Killing Jews was legal in Germany. That didn't make it moral.

I didn't know that; I just assumed that Hitler was powerful enough to be able to ignore the law. It would be interesting to know how that particular piece of legislation was worded.

Sex deprivation is unhealthy.

You're being fooled by Freud. He came up with that "repression" nonsense. No such thing is true:

You seem to forget that I am a human being, and know what the experience of being one is like. First you tried to paint me as a disciple of Nietzsche, and now Freud; you seem to have a strange conception of what ordinary human beings are like.

continence is healthy for relationships

It certainly is, waking up drenched every morning is bound to put a strain on any marriage.

You would be doing something I didn't want you to do, but I am not aware of any universal force, or law of nature, that prohibits it. And, of course, I would be very sad about it.

Then you have just opened the moral doorway to slavery. There isn't anything inherently or objectively wrong with it, you suppose;

Well no normal human being wants to be put into slavery, so I suppose most of us do think there is something inherently wrong with it. Or at least I suppose that to be the commonly held modern view of slavery. But, as you know, it isn't that long, in historical terms, since many people thought slavery was morally acceptable, and the slave trade was run by people who would have professed to being Christian. But perhaps objective morality has been revised, and adjustments been made to "the truth", since then.

I don't know this at first hand, but according to various comments I have seen on this forum, the Bible doesn't describe God as condemning slavery.