Atheism/materialism doesn't justify morality

Glorfindel

SkepticalOne said:

Glorfindel said:

@SkepticalOne

I'll give examples. In general, torture is harmful and providing sustenance is beneficial. Crucifixion - harmful; feeding 5000 - beneficial. Slavery - harmful; Liberty- beneficial. Rape - harmful; companionship - beneficial.

Three questions:
1. Who gets to decide what's harmful and what's beneficial?
2. How do we know these things to be right and wrong? (How do we know torture is bad and liberty is good)?
3. What if someone disagrees? (And states that torture is right (for whatever reason). Why is he wrong?)

1. Humanity
2. Much like Christian morality, it requires a buy-in. Unlike Christian morality, this buy-in comes much more naturally (that's not a dig - empathy/self preservation come quite naturally to most people).
3. If morality = helping the human race to thrive, then there are actions which clearly run counter to that. I hope you understand I'm not suggesting any of the examples are absolute. We live in a world of nuance and ...context is important.

1. If humanity decides eating babies is permissible would that make it right?
2. If someone doesn't buy into it, why should the rules apply to him?
3. I agree that, if morality = helping the human race to thrive, there are actions that would help that goal or hinder that goal. The question is why ought someone to help the human race thrive?

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

Morality isn't never objective. Christianity can provide the necessary preconditions for morality to be objective. But that's not what this debate is about, as I've said multiple times.

If you'd like to debate Christianity+Morality, my double standards, or any other topic that doesn't relate to this debate please do it somewhere else.

Glorfindel

Plaffelvohfen said:

@Glorfindel

I'm glad we were able to reach the point where we can both agree that moral relativism necessarily flows from materialism.

Sadly we don't... Read my previous comment again to understand why your conclusion cannot follow from your premise.

I could provide further explanation if you'd like...

Please do.

Dee

@Glorfindel

Morality isn't never objective. 

That’s simply incorrect , if that were correct a statement like “ that man deserves to be punished “ would be correct even if the whole of humanity disagreed and thought the mans actions noble

That’s a dictatorship

***Christianity can provide the necessary preconditions for morality to be objective

Apparently so can Islam , Hinduism , Buddhism etc , etc all the subjective preferences of that particular religions god or belief system 

If any of the various gods people worship deem murder as morally good does it become so?

GnosticChristian

Please listen to a member of the atheist intelligentsia.



Recognize that all people are tribal and that if atheists do not give their children a place to appease their tribal instincts, many atheist children will gravitate to less moral theistic churches.


Atheist morality is superior to theists and should be promoted by atheist churches. It is your social duty to promote better moral thinking and that is best done through mystery schools and atheist churches.

Regards
DL 

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel ;

Glorfindel said:

@Happy_Killbot

Morality isn't never objective. Christianity can provide the necessary preconditions for morality to be objective. But that's not what this debate is about, as I've said multiple times.

If you'd like to debate Christianity+Morality, my double standards, or any other topic that doesn't relate to this debate please do it somewhere else.

You made it part of this debate, because in the description you start out by saying:

Hi. 

I'm a Christian. One of the biggest problems I see with materialism is the inability to justify objective moral values and duties if you have a materialistic worldview. 

This implies that you believe that Christianity can provide an objective example of morality. However, if we assume that Christian morality is objective, then so is materialism for exactly the same reason. I have demonstrated that either objective morality and subjective morality are not mutually exclusive, or Christian morality is not objective.

Suppose the one true objective morality makes certain moral provisions for Christians, certain moral provisions for Muslims, certain moral provisions for Ted Bundy, and certain moral provisions for Materialists. That would be by definition subjective morality and is equivalent to saying that morality is objectively subjective regardless of if you are a Christian or an atheist.

You have not excluded this as a possibility, thus you have not demonstrated that materialism can not justify objective morality.

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

Just so you know, I'm not responding to your response because it doesn't pertain to this debate.

SkepticalOne

Glorfindel said:

SkepticalOne said:

Glorfindel said:

@SkepticalOne

I'll give examples. In general, torture is harmful and providing sustenance is beneficial. Crucifixion - harmful; feeding 5000 - beneficial. Slavery - harmful; Liberty- beneficial. Rape - harmful; companionship - beneficial.

Three questions:
1. Who gets to decide what's harmful and what's beneficial?
2. How do we know these things to be right and wrong? (How do we know torture is bad and liberty is good)?
3. What if someone disagrees? (And states that torture is right (for whatever reason). Why is he wrong?)

1. Humanity
2. Much like Christian morality, it requires a buy-in. Unlike Christian morality, this buy-in comes much more naturally (that's not a dig - empathy/self preservation come quite naturally to most people).
3. If morality = helping the human race to thrive, then there are actions which clearly run counter to that. I hope you understand I'm not suggesting any of the examples are absolute. We live in a world of nuance and ...context is important.

1. If humanity decides eating babies is permissible would that make it right?
2. If someone doesn't buy into it, why should the rules apply to him?
3. I agree that, if morality = helping the human race to thrive, there are actions that would help that goal or hinder that goal. The question is why ought someone to help the human race thrive?

1. No. If your notion of morality means harming humanity, then you're not talking about morality.
2. If someone doesn't buy in and harms others without justification, then they lose the benefits of living in society. Society has the authority (and the power) to protect itself.
3. I'm not sure about "ought", but people help themselves by ensuring the groups they live in thrive. 

Glorfindel

SkepticalOne said:

Glorfindel said:

SkepticalOne said:

Glorfindel said:

@SkepticalOne

I'll give examples. In general, torture is harmful and providing sustenance is beneficial. Crucifixion - harmful; feeding 5000 - beneficial. Slavery - harmful; Liberty- beneficial. Rape - harmful; companionship - beneficial.

Three questions:
1. Who gets to decide what's harmful and what's beneficial?
2. How do we know these things to be right and wrong? (How do we know torture is bad and liberty is good)?
3. What if someone disagrees? (And states that torture is right (for whatever reason). Why is he wrong?)

1. Humanity
2. Much like Christian morality, it requires a buy-in. Unlike Christian morality, this buy-in comes much more naturally (that's not a dig - empathy/self preservation come quite naturally to most people).
3. If morality = helping the human race to thrive, then there are actions which clearly run counter to that. I hope you understand I'm not suggesting any of the examples are absolute. We live in a world of nuance and ...context is important.

1. If humanity decides eating babies is permissible would that make it right?
2. If someone doesn't buy into it, why should the rules apply to him?
3. I agree that, if morality = helping the human race to thrive, there are actions that would help that goal or hinder that goal. The question is why ought someone to help the human race thrive?

1. No. If your notion of morality means harming humanity, then you're not talking about morality.
2. If someone doesn't buy in and harms others without justification, then they lose the benefits of living in society. Society has the authority (and the power) to protect itself.
3. I'm not sure about "ought", but people help themselves by ensuring the groups they live in thrive. 

1. So, humanity doesn't ultimately decide morality? You're contradicting yourself...
2. Where does society get this authority? Who decided society has the authority and power to protect itself?
3. Ought someone to help himself by ensuring the well being of the group he lives in?

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel ;

No, you aren't taking it seriously, because if you did it would invalidate your position.

Can you prove that morality isn't objectively subjective, or at the very least that it is impossible for morality to be both subjective and objective at the same time?

Dee

@Glorfindel

The guys are very patient with you yet it’s obvious you’re trolling 

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

Assuming subjective and objective are contraries, I'd say it's impossible for something to be subjectively objective because of the law of non-contradiction.

If you mean, however, that morality can be objective within a subjective framework, that's possible, of course. But that wouldn't make morality objective and subjective at the same time on the same level. Ultimately morality would be subjective.

GnosticChristian

Glorfindel said:

@Happy_Killbot

Assuming subjective and objective are contraries, I'd say it's impossible for something to be subjectively objective because of the law of non-contradiction.

If you mean, however, that morality can be objective within a subjective framework, that's possible, of course. But that wouldn't make morality objective and subjective at the same time on the same level. Ultimately morality would be subjective.

"Assuming subjective and objective are contraries".

They are not contrary. Objective and subjective are just labels we give and subjective judgements can decide or not if a tenet is objective or not. A subjective judgement can point to an objective tenet or not and I do not see that as opposite.

Every objective moral tenet has to be named so by subjective judgement. No?

If I give you what I think is an objective moral tenet, you will judge if it applies in all circumstances or not and thus it is you not being able to refute it's objectivity via your subjective judgement that makes it become an objective moral tenet to you. Right?

If not, you would have to accept it as an objective moral tenet just on my say so.

This is all tough to understand unless we have an actual tenet to look at.

Do you have anything that you think is an objective moral tenet that applies to all subjective judgements?

I have a couple that I cannot subjectively refute as objective, but I am more interested in knowing if you have any.

Regards
DL

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel

Glorfindel said:

@Happy_Killbot

Assuming subjective and objective are contraries, I'd say it's impossible for something to be subjectively objective because of the law of non-contradiction.

If you mean, however, that morality can be objective within a subjective framework, that's possible, of course. But that wouldn't make morality objective and subjective at the same time on the same level. Ultimately morality would be subjective.

No, I'm saying the opposite of that, I'm saying it is objectively subjective not subjectively objective. It isn't possible for something subjective, meaning unique to each, is unchanging and not controlled by humanity. It is however possible for something unchanging and not controlled by humanity to contain morality unique to each.

If this is the case, then there can't really be any objective morality unless that morality was subjective.

SkepticalOne

@Glorfindel

1. So, humanity doesn't ultimately decide morality? You're contradicting yourself...
2. Where does society get this authority? Who decided society has the authority and power to protect itself?
3. Ought someone to help himself by ensuring the well being of the group he lives in?

1. I think your question asks about something other than morality - unless you have a definition of human morality which does not take into account human well-being?

2. The people of course. This is the same source the US government get its authority and power. It seems to work well enough.

3. You're making this much more complicated than it actually is. Let me ask you a question - ought someone swim if they are in deep water? My answer is no - but it would be in their best interest! I feel if it weren't for doctors, scientists, teachers, and all others which have made life quantitatively and qualitatively better, the 'deep water' would be much more apparent. -ie. Our 'swim' is easy because society holds us up. Most of us could not survive without it.

Glorfindel

Happy_Killbot said:

@Glorfindel

Glorfindel said:

@Happy_Killbot

Assuming subjective and objective are contraries, I'd say it's impossible for something to be subjectively objective because of the law of non-contradiction.

If you mean, however, that morality can be objective within a subjective framework, that's possible, of course. But that wouldn't make morality objective and subjective at the same time on the same level. Ultimately morality would be subjective.

No, I'm saying the opposite of that, I'm saying it is objectively subjective not subjectively objective. It isn't possible for something subjective, meaning unique to each, is unchanging and not controlled by humanity. It is however possible for something unchanging and not controlled by humanity to contain morality unique to each.

If this is the case, then there can't really be any objective morality unless that morality was subjective.

"It isn't possible for something subjective, meaning unique to each, is unchanging and not controlled by humanity."

Agreed.

"It is, however, possible for something unchanging and not controlled by humanity to contain morality unique to each."

It depends on what you mean by 'morality unique to each'. If there is an objective moral standard, though absolutes wouldn't necessarily exist (like killing being wrong, always), there would at least be norms (killing being wrong almost always). But I wouldn't call that subjective, because the varying factor would be circumstances (murder vs. self-defense), and not personal preference.

Glorfindel

@GnosticChristian

Are you a relativist?

Also, do you have a point related to this debate?

Glorfindel

SkepticalOne said:

@Glorfindel

1. So, humanity doesn't ultimately decide morality? You're contradicting yourself...
2. Where does society get this authority? Who decided society has the authority and power to protect itself?
3. Ought someone to help himself by ensuring the well being of the group he lives in?

1. I think your question asks about something other than morality - unless you have a definition of human morality which does not take into account human well-being?

2. The people of course. This is the same source the US government get its authority and power. It seems to work well enough.

3. You're making this much more complicated than it actually is. Let me ask you a question - ought someone swim if they are in deep water? My answer is no - but it would be in their best interest! I feel if it weren't for doctors, scientists, teachers, and all others which have made life quantitatively and qualitatively better, the 'deep water' would be much more apparent. -ie. Our 'swim' is easy because society holds us up. Most of us could not survive without it.

1. Previously you said humanity decides morality. Then, when I asked whether, if humanity decided something immoral (like eating your babies) is right, that would be right, you said no. That would mean humanity can get morality wrong. That would mean humanity isn't the ultimate decider of morality - thus, contradicting your previous statement.
2. So this power is self-referencing?
3. If someone oughtn't to obey these moral laws this self-referencing, contradicting society imposes on him, what's wrong with Ted Bundy raping and killing women and girls?

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel

It depends on what you mean by 'morality unique to each'. If there is an objective moral standard, though absolutes wouldn't necessarily exist (like killing being wrong, always), there would at least be norms (killing being wrong almost always). But I wouldn't call that subjective, because the varying factor would be circumstances (murder vs. self-defense), and not personal preference.

So if there can be norms depending on circumstance, then why can't where you live and who you are be considered a circumstance that must be considered?

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

So if there can be norms depending on circumstance, then why can't where you live and who you are be considered a circumstance that must be considered?

It can go both ways, but whether culture can impact the small nuances of morality or not doesn't decide whether it's objective or subjective.

SkepticalOne

Glorfindel said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Glorfindel

1. So, humanity doesn't ultimately decide morality? You're contradicting yourself...
2. Where does society get this authority? Who decided society has the authority and power to protect itself?
3. Ought someone to help himself by ensuring the well being of the group he lives in?

1. I think your question asks about something other than morality - unless you have a definition of human morality which does not take into account human well-being?

2. The people of course. This is the same source the US government get its authority and power. It seems to work well enough.

3. You're making this much more complicated than it actually is. Let me ask you a question - ought someone swim if they are in deep water? My answer is no - but it would be in their best interest! I feel if it weren't for doctors, scientists, teachers, and all others which have made life quantitatively and qualitatively better, the 'deep water' would be much more apparent. -ie. Our 'swim' is easy because society holds us up. Most of us could not survive without it.

1. Previously you said humanity decides morality. Then, when I asked whether, if humanity decided something immoral (like eating your babies) is right, that would be right, you said no. That would mean humanity can get morality wrong. That would mean humanity isn't the ultimate decider of morality - thus, contradicting your previous statement.
2. So this power is self-referencing?
3. If someone oughtn't to obey these moral laws this self-referencing, contradicting society imposes on him, what's wrong with Ted Bundy raping and killing women and girls?

1. What is morality about? Human well-being. What happens if it's not about that? Then it's not morality. You're asking a about definitions.

2. What's the point?

3. Youre round bout asking about the basis of morality. That has already been answered. 

Listen, I see the sneer in your question. This 'self-referencing, contradictory' humanity has done horrible things, no doubt, but it...we learn from our mistakes, grow beyond our ignorances, and become quicker to notices our failings and call them out. We may be self-referencing and, at times, contradictory, but we are also self-correcting. Subjective =/= arbitrary

Glorfindel

SkepticalOne said:

Glorfindel said:

SkepticalOne said:

@Glorfindel

1. So, humanity doesn't ultimately decide morality? You're contradicting yourself...
2. Where does society get this authority? Who decided society has the authority and power to protect itself?
3. Ought someone to help himself by ensuring the well being of the group he lives in?

1. I think your question asks about something other than morality - unless you have a definition of human morality which does not take into account human well-being?

2. The people of course. This is the same source the US government get its authority and power. It seems to work well enough.

3. You're making this much more complicated than it actually is. Let me ask you a question - ought someone swim if they are in deep water? My answer is no - but it would be in their best interest! I feel if it weren't for doctors, scientists, teachers, and all others which have made life quantitatively and qualitatively better, the 'deep water' would be much more apparent. -ie. Our 'swim' is easy because society holds us up. Most of us could not survive without it.

1. Previously you said humanity decides morality. Then, when I asked whether, if humanity decided something immoral (like eating your babies) is right, that would be right, you said no. That would mean humanity can get morality wrong. That would mean humanity isn't the ultimate decider of morality - thus, contradicting your previous statement.
2. So this power is self-referencing?
3. If someone oughtn't to obey these moral laws this self-referencing, contradicting society imposes on him, what's wrong with Ted Bundy raping and killing women and girls?

1. What is morality about? Human well-being. What happens if it's not about that? Then it's not morality. You're asking a about definitions.

2. What's the point?

3. If for no other reason, it is harmful to himself. What's the point of this line of questions? 

Listen, I see the sneer in your question. This 'self-referencing, contradictory' humanity has done horrible things, no doubt, but it...we learn from our mistakes, grow beyond our ignorances, and become quicker to notices our failings and call them out. We may be self-referencing and , at times, contradictory, but we are also self-correcting.

1. Cambridge Dictionary: "[Morality is] a set of personal or social standards for good or bad behaviour and character." I looked at a few other definitions and none specified that morality is about human well-being. Even if it was, who would decide what constitutes human well-being?
2. The reason I find it problematic that humanity's power is self-authorized is because humanity can do terrible things. And we don't always learn from our mistakes. In fact, our two biggest mistakes happened just a century ago in the form of two world wars. I guess there's no logical problem with humanity authorizing itself to decide moral decisions, but perhaps it's a bit arrogant, don't you think, for a species that can be so immoral at times.
3. But who are you to decide for Ted what would be harmful to him?

If my question sounded sneery, I apologize. English is my second language and sometimes I get it wrong. I was aiming to show what I considered absurd, with maybe a bit of satire. 

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel

It can go both ways, but whether culture can impact the small nuances of morality or not doesn't decide whether it's objective or subjective.

I don't think you are grasping what I am saying here, can you explain to me any reason why an objective morality can not make provisions for different cultures?

GnosticChristian

Glorfindel said:

@GnosticChristian

Are you a relativist?

Also, do you have a point related to this debate?

You would have to define that term as it is quite broad, and yeas I had a point which I put in my last post.

You seem to not have any notion of a objective moral tenet for us to look at as you did not offer one.

Are you sure you know what you are talking about?

I don't think so unless you can articulate what you see as an objective moral tenet.

Let me give you what might be one.

The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

Can you even judge that as subjective or objective?

Regards
DL

John_C_87

@Glorfindel

3. If someone oughtn't to obey these moral laws this self-referencing, contradicting society imposes on him, what's wrong with Ted Bundy raping and killing women and girls?

It is a religious act of human sacrifice, the woman to be sacrificed by him had not volunteered, having been chosen. Before an action like this can take place on the scales of morality in a united state Mr. Buddy would, in fact, be required to masturbate and end his own life before making any calculated selection of sacrifice, that sacrifice being a woman or man. Religions often do not really hold human sacrifice as immoral by the idea of self-preservation, yet regulate sacrifice of life in general as they are to be met, stopping the selection and performing the process of lethal force made on others. A religious permit becomes required to perform the type of actions a person like Mr. Bundy had undertaken. The price of self-sacrifice must be made clear before any other sacrifice is to begin on the liberties of other human life.

In other words under GOD as an axiom, I do not ask Mr. Bundy to stop killing, I am not defending the life and virtue of woman, the whole restriction is in the sacrificial process is challenged on the principles shaping the beginning and end. This is why a person would defend capital punishment over the idea of the death penalty.

GnosticChristian

Happy_Killbot said:

@Glorfindel

It can go both ways, but whether culture can impact the small nuances of morality or not doesn't decide whether it's objective or subjective.

I don't think you are grasping what I am saying here, can you explain to me any reason why an objective morality can not make provisions for different cultures?

H K

A true objective moral tenet would have to be true to all cultures. If not, then it is subjective to various cultures.

All cultures and situations would all need to reach the same subjective conclusion to say that a given tenet is objective. There could not be a persuasive argument against it.

At least, that is how I define the term, objective moral tenet.

I proposed on above. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.

Glorifidel did not opine on it for some reason but you might if you like.

Regards
DL

Happy_Killbot

@GnosticChristian ;

Do you see the logical problem here?

There is nothing that prevents an objective moral principal from having provisions for different cultures.

Let's say we wanted to wright down all the objective moral laws.

What prevents one of these laws, for example, to be: "If you are a Hebrew living in the Middle east between 600 BC and 0 AD you can not eat Shellfish"?

If we can not prove that this can not be an objective moral principal, then it is possible for objective morality to be subjective morality. What I am looking for is a proof that this is not possible.

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

I don't think you are grasping what I am saying here, can you explain to me any reason why an objective morality can not make provisions for different cultures?

Depends on your worldview. Materialism allows it (which is exactly what I'm trying to convey in this debate). But Christianity doesn't. Eating babies can be right under certain circumstances in certain cultures - if you're a materialist. Eating babies can never be right in Christianity.

So to be clear, I'm not exactly sure whether you're asking me to answer from my worldview or trying to get me to notice something in materialism.

John_C_87

What prevents one of these laws, for example, to be: "If you are a Hebrew living in the Middle east between 600 BC and 0 AD you can not eat Shellfish"?
The direct answer to the questions is shellfish are religiously held illegal for a reason outside safety and religion as a united state.

Glorfindel

@GnosticChristian

Sorry, I had to go look up the word tenet.

If I take the following definition, "A tenet is a principle or belief, especially one of the main principles of a religion or philosophy," I can give you one.

• You shall not murder.

Of course, murder doesn't pertain to self-defense (which is simply killing).

We can also add the other commandments, but for the sake of not going down a rabbit trail, let's stick with murder for now.

Glorfindel

@John_C_87

I can't tell if you're serious or not...

I really am sorry, but I can't quite make out your argument. If you'd be so kind as to set it out in a simpler fashion I'd be much obliged.

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel

Depends on your worldview. Materialism allows it (which is exactly what I'm trying to convey in this debate). But Christianity doesn't. Eating babies can be right under certain circumstances in certain cultures - if you're a materialist. Eating babies can never be right in Christianity.

So to be clear, I'm not exactly sure whether you're asking me to answer from my worldview or trying to get me to notice something in materialism.

Christianity is irrelevant to this debate, remember? 

This is not true anyways, because the bible contains levitical law which the Hebrews are expected to follow but Christians do not.

On top of this, eating babies is acceptable in Christianity as a punishment for not following Mosses/god.

Leviticus 26: 27-29: If … you still do not listen to me but continue to be hostile toward me, then in my anger I will be hostile toward you, and I myself will punish you for your sins seven times over.  You will eat the flesh of your sons and the flesh of your daughters.

We are talking in circles because you keep dodging the question. What prevents an objective morality from making provisions for different cultures?

Glorfindel

@GnosticChristian

All cultures and situations would all need to reach the same subjective conclusion to say that a given tenet is objective. There could not be a persuasive argument against it.

I'm afraid we have different definitions of the objective.

Somewhere earlier I defined objective as existing outside humanity. What I meant was that objective morality would be transcending humanity. It would be something with origin and existence independent of our existence or thought.

You seem to define the objective as something we all agree on without exception.

Forgive me if I'm wrong. If you had a completely different definition in mind please correct me. I'd just like us to get our definitions on the table because I feel like we're debating past one another because we're missing each other on the definitions.

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

We are talking in circles because you keep dodging the question. What prevents an objective morality from making provisions for different cultures?

I feel like we're talking in circles too. And, in all honesty, I'm not trying to dodge questions. This particular one I'd just not like to answer before we sort out precisely what sort of provisions you're talking about. 

For example:

If morality is objective,

• It can make provisions for cultures that pertain to how we apply the objective principles. Let's take self-defense. In certain cultures, it can be acceptable to kill someone if he's in your house uninvited. In other cultures (though none comes to mind), it could be possible that that wouldn't be reason enough to kill him out of self-defense.
• It can't make provisions for cultures that pertain to what these objective principles are. If the principle is, 'don't murder,' murder will be wrong in any and every culture. It would be immoral to murder someone. Of course, murder isn't specifically defined, because there are too many variables to consider (culture being among them, as well as circumstances, motive, and a whole lot of others).

I don't know if this answers your question. I guess all I did was differentiate between principles and the application of said principles. If I misunderstood you let me know, I'd really like for our discussion to be mutually respectful and beneficial. 

If I may ask, how would you answer your own question?

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

Also, in good spirits, I'd like to point out that the verse you're quoting mentions eating your children in the context of how terrible God's punishment is (so terrible you'd eat your own kids out of madness). It doesn't justify eating babies...

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel
This doesn't solve the underlying problem because it fails to demonstrate what prevents this from being the case.

Think about it this way. If there is an objective reality, that reality includes humans. Therefore, humans are not a subjective thing. However, humans can have subjective opinions, such as what food is good, or opinions, or political ideologies, etc. This means that an objective reality contains subjective components.

What I am asking is if we can prove that the same is not true for morality. That is to say, if we assume that morality can be objective, what prevents it from containing subjective components?

I would answer this question by simply stating that there is nothing that prevents this from being a possibility, therefore we can not conclude that any position, even one that is strictly moral relativist, is not objectively moral, because subjective morality could be an objective truth.

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel

Glorfindel said:

@Happy_Killbot

Also, in good spirits, I'd like to point out that the verse you're quoting mentions eating your children in the context of how terrible God's punishment is (so terrible you'd eat your own kids out of madness). It doesn't justify eating babies...

Okay, so all the other times god say to do something or does something isn't morally justified in the bible then?

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

Okay, so all the other times [G]od say to do something or does something isn't morally justified in the bible then?

I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. I'm saying that the natural reading of the verse in its context needs to be taken into consideration.

If we do that with Lev. 26:27-29 we see that it's speaking about God's judgement. It's not telling us to do anything but listen to Him. The part about eating children isn't a command, it's an example of what we'll do if He unleashes his wrath.

But don't believe me, get a scholarly opinion...

Happy_Killbot

@Glorfindel ;

Glorfindel said:

@Happy_Killbot

Okay, so all the other times [G]od say to do something or does something isn't morally justified in the bible then?

I'm not suggesting that in the slightest. I'm saying that the natural reading of the verse in its context needs to be taken into consideration.

If we do that with Lev. 26:27-29 we see that it's speaking about God's judgement. It's not telling us to do anything but listen to Him. The part about eating children isn't a command, it's an example of what we'll do if He unleashes his wrath.

But don't believe me, get a scholarly opinion...

Is gods wrath not justified morally then?

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

OK, I think I'm beginning to get your gist.

Are you saying that, as our existence, morality can be an objective thing with no objective content? For example, everyone has to agree that morals exist, but what these morals are is completely subjective. Id that what you're saying?

Glorfindel

@Happy_Killbot

Is gods wrath not justified morally then?

Yes. What did I say to make you think otherwise?

GnosticChristian

Happy_Killbot said:

@GnosticChristian ;

Do you see the logical problem here?

There is nothing that prevents an objective moral principal from having provisions for different cultures.

Let's say we wanted to wright down all the objective moral laws.

What prevents one of these laws, for example, to be: "If you are a Hebrew living in the Middle east between 600 BC and 0 AD you can not eat Shellfish"?

If we can not prove that this can not be an objective moral principal, then it is possible for objective morality to be subjective morality. What I am looking for is a proof that this is not possible.

As I said, all moral tenets have to be subjectively examined to show that they are universal and always applicable to be objective moral tenets.

I gave what I think is a universal moral tenet and you ignored it to come up with this foolishness.

Yours fails, because if a person is starving, to say that following that tenet, which is not a moral one at all, as is the thing to do, the fact that it causes death instead of life, shows that it is not an objective moral tenet.

Deal with mine as it may well be universal and objective by all subjective measure.

Regards
DL