Is morality objective or subjective?

Author: Fallaneze

Posts

Total: 753
#271
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
How does "love god and love others" inform copyright law and or property disputes?
Do not take property that does not belong to you. If a person wants to sell and you have the means, then buy. 
How does your old book inform something like, "patents shall grant the patent holder exclusive rights for no more than 20 years"?
#272
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Isreal was going into the Promised Land, before the exile, before the Romans. God had already brought judgment on Egypt for their harsh treatment of Israel.
Yeah, but the point here is that god didn't kill every single Roman and or Egyptian.  Why not?  If evil must be destroyed, like Sodom & Gomorrah, then why did your god allow any Romans and Egyptians to live?
Simple answer, I don't know, but possibly God still found righteous people among them or possibly because they had not reached the full measure of their sins or because He showed His mercy to them. After the Flood, God promised He would never destroy the world as He had done again. That did not stop Him, however, from telling Israel to clean the land of evil and evil influences before they made their home there.  

Why would it be "good" to slaughter Jericho, but not Rome?

I will speculate since I did not find the reason in Scripture although it could be there. I think that Jericho was punished for its hostility to Israel and not yielding to God's commands, even after they had heard what God did to Egypt, yet Rahab the harlot and her family were spared because she aided and hid the messengers of Israel. Jericho could have given the Israelites passage and been spared. Another possible reason for Jericho's punishment is that it was opposed to God and the inhabitants if spared, would have corrupted Israel and influenced her with their foreign gods and false practices and beliefs. 
#273
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,368
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Religion and Politics are both FUNDAMENTALLY PHILOSOPHICAL.
Agreed, until, religion or politics places avenues of rational, logical common sense aside and, cast observed truths and facts aside.

Religion also bases some of its belief system on what they call an historical accounting ex Jesus, yet there is no historical accountings of Jesus outside of the Bible.

I had an uncle that said the Bible says the pyramids were built by tornadoes/whirlwinds.  Huh? ! !

I dont know Bible well enough to say his recollection is correct or not.

#274
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I think that Jericho was punished for its hostility to Israel and not yielding to God's commands,
But, strangely, the Germans weren't "punished for their hostility to Israel and not yielding to god's commands".

I'm just sayin.

This god of yours seems pretty capricious and tyrannical.  I'm not sure we can rely on it to epitomize perfectly objective morality.
#275
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
OT Israel was dispersed during the victory and destruction of Jerusalem and Israel in AD 70. After that Israel could no longer live up to the covenant in the prescribed way they had agreed to. The curses of Deuteronomy 28 was poured out on them for their disobedience. 
And everything was just peachy for them before AD 70??
Not at all. They had continually disobeyed God throughout their history since they agreed to the covenant. God sent prophets and teachers to warn them against their idolatry and godless ways. They ignored all those God sent to them and continued to disrespect God despite the warning of Deuteronomy 28. 
#276
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ebuc
Religion also bases some of its belief system on what they call an historical accounting ex Jesus, yet there is no historical accountings of Jesus outside of the Bible.
There are people who follow the rules in their old book.  These people are called ORTHODOX JEWS.

These people who call themselves "Christians" seem to cherry-pick their own custom casserole of ideas (Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, Seventh Day Adventists, Jehovah's Witnesses...) , choosing to focus on stuff that supports their (modern) personal opinions and then either ignore or rationalize away the stuff that contradicts their (modern) opinions.

They like to say that morality is never-changing, and yet, they used to use their old book to block divorced people from serving in the church, but now they don't really seem to care either way.

They love to point out how much they care for the needy, but then cheer when immigrants are deported into deadly areas.
#277
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 5,368
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@3RU7AL
Agreed on all counts, as I cant speak to much of what you state, i not being much of Bible type scholar. I can only repeat that I agree all stems from philosophy and we currently or did have, politics, religon catagories.  I'm find with that because of my following repeat below.

Until, religion or politics can follow avenues of rational, logical common sense aside and, observed truths and facts first, then they can be included in philosophy, that I believe at its best is a search for and finding truth and the best pathways forward for humanity
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Religion also bases some of its belief system on what they call an historical accounting ex Jesus, yet there is no historical accountings of Jesus outside of the Bible.

I had an uncle that said the Bible says the pyramids were built by tornadoes/whirlwinds.  Huh? ! !

I dont know Bible well enough to say his recollection is correct or not.

#278
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
No, I don't always take the moral high ground. Why not? I am flawed, just like you. 
If you don’t take the moral high ground for *certain moral issues, then what else is guiding your decisions?

#279
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Not to go searching for crimes but to investigate them.
Do you even know how criminal investigations work?
Yes, corruption is found, investigated, and documented. There is evidence for the crime, not just searching for a crime. The charged is then allowed to defend themselves in court and is presumed innocent until proven guilty. With Trump, they make up the crimes and then go searching for the evidence while barring him from legal representation or even calling witnesses in his defence. They made up a fictitious 2-year investigation into Trump's "collusion" with Russia only to find there was no such thing. What they claimed he did they were guilty of doing, just as is the case with Ukraine. This is corruption its utmost. Shiff is as dishonest as they come. He is one sick individual that is motivated by his hatred, not wanting to do the right thing.

This is a partisan and one-sided kangaroo court. Anyone who is a Democrat supporter should think twice about what is happening here if they are capable of thinking fairly. For some, I doubt that is now possible.    


If you are accused of a serious crime - you are dragged off to jail - before you are convicted.
You are allowed a legal defence to prove your innocence. Not so with Trump. This dishonest Shiff is manipulating the process and setting a whole new precedent that is dishonest and undesirable for America in the future. It side-steps your Constitution by ignoring its procedures.  


Then a judge tells you if they will allow you to post bail, so you can await trial in relative freedom.

Then there is a trial.

You are presumed guilty when you are accused.  Otherwise, why would you be thrown in jail and forced to post bail?
Presumed by whom? By those collecting the evidence or witnessing the event or crime. Presumed guilty? or presumed innocent? until proven guilty under the law? I think you have it backwards. How well do you know the law?



Investigating crimes = searching for crimes.
Charges come once the crime has been investigated or witnessed, not before. Then the guilty person is allowed to present his/her side of the case. 

Democrats are accusing Trump of a crime before they have presented evidence. They are still fishing for evidence in search of a crime. 


Even then shifty Shiff is not allowing a due process or any fairness.
The US Constitution grants the House of Representatives BROAD DISCRETION ON IMPEACHMENT.

But impeachment is a serious process that is to be used only in dire circumstances. Right now the discretion is solely one-sided and at the command of one, Adam Shiff, who has been proven over and over to be a dishonest person. He said he had all kinds of evidence on Russian collusion yet never, never offered one bit, just idle speculation and innuendo as he is also doing here. 




Comparing this to a standard criminal investigation is ridiculous.
Yes, it is a mock trial by the Democrats. 

The law states innocent until proven guilty.
What law is that?  And why are people forced to spend time in jail BEFORE they are convicted?
The US law as well as international law. Putting the charged in jail is a precaution so that the person will not run and escape justice and a fair trial if they are found guilty. Because the evidence is compelling to law enforcement the person is charged and put in jail. (see my Wikipedia link above on the presumption of innocence)


The Dems have already convicted Him of guilt without showing any crimes but they continue to look. 
Trump has already ADMITTED to soliciting foreign interference in an American Election.  THIS IS AN ACTUAL CRIME.
No, he has not. He has asked for an investigation into the 2016 election because he does not want what happened then to ever happen again. Joe Biden, Hilary Clinton, and the Democrats were digging up dirt on him during that election. Hilary obtained, with the help of the DNC, a now-debunked dossier (Steel Dossier) by a witness that will not vest for what he wrote. Trump has also questioned whether Ukraine will use the aid without corruption taking place. 



AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU CAN'T INVESTIGATE A CRIME WITHOUT PROOF, WHAT CRIME IS HUNTER BIDEN ACCUSED OF??


You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime. There has to be evidence that a crime has been committed. I'm convinced the only ones that are criminals here are the Democrats, leading all the way back to the Obama Whitehouse and a big coverup. What crime have the Democrats charged Trump with? They have changed him with pay to play (Quid pro quo), trying to affect an upcoming election, then bribery, then obstruction of justice. The goal posts keep shifting by shifty Shiff. He is searching for a crime. 


What is this impeachment trial/inquiry all about? It is about smearing the President and influencing the thought process of Americans so they will be inclined to vote for a party that has not done one single thing for the people since they gained the majority in the Congress except try and topple a duly elected president because they don't think they can win an election. It is about regaining power at any cost by one party - the Democrats, regardless of whether that means breaking the law or manipulating it to their gain.  
#280
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Trump has already ADMITTED to soliciting foreign interference in an American Election.  THIS IS AN ACTUAL CRIME.
No, he has not.
Oh, yes, he actually has. [LINK]
#281
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU CAN'T INVESTIGATE A CRIME WITHOUT PROOF, WHAT CRIME IS HUNTER BIDEN ACCUSED OF??
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime. There has to be evidence that a crime has been committed.
I agree.  So, with that in mind, what crime is Hunter Biden accused of??
#282
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Putting the charged in jail is a precaution so that the person will not run and escape justice and a fair trial if they are found guilty.
That's called, "presumed guilty".

Which is the opposite of, "presumed innocent".
#283
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
We have a standard to measure injustice against. 
What is the standard?
The goodness of God. 

"Love god and love others" is a purely subjective standard that doesn't appear to inform your view of policy.
Loving your neighbour as yourself is not wanting anything bad for your neighbour, and who is your neighbour? Jesus gave the example of the Samaritan. It is treating your neighbour or others in line with those Ten Commandments that deal with people rather than God.  

Now, if that standard has been revealed by an all-knowing God then how can you say it is just my subjective standard? 

If God has not revealed then everything moral is relative to subjective TASTE or preference. That is your opinion and choice, either a fixed objective, absolute, unchanging reference point or an ever-shifting, subjective, relative standard. With a relative standard, the question then shifts to how do you arrive at 'good'? How is one opinion and preference any better than another? 
#284
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
All human beings.....equal worth.
But can you put your hand on your heart and swear that you stick rigidly to that moral principle at all times?
I see you no different than anyone else. I realize all human beings are given life by God and made in His image and likeness (although marred by the Fall), and deserve dignity and respect. Does that mean I do that at all times, or not get angry with myself/others, or am not selfish at times, or treat others always as I would like to be treated? No. I'm flawed, just like you.  
Does this mean you believe immigrants
By all means, they should be protected from injustice and violence when in our countries. It is ILLEGAL immigrants I object to having the same rights as citizens or being allowed to do something illegal (enter a country unlawfully) but they should not be treated with violence unless they threaten the citizens. Nevertheless, they should be arrested for illegal entry and if they are criminals (i.e., smuggling drugs of trafficking people) they should be prosecuted.  

and asylum seekers
Depending on the circumstances they should be allowed entry and always protected from violence while in our countries unless they are themselves perpetrating violence. 


should be protected from injustice and or violence in the same way that you (and or your close friends and family members) would want to be protected injustice and or violence?

I am not against protecting anyone from violence unless they themselves are threatening or violent themselves. But it is not lawful to allow illegal immigrants to enter our countries unlawfully. They should be prosecuted for doing this. If they want to enter our countries they should apply for entry and be willing to subjective themselves to the laws of our lands. 

#285
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
No, not in self-defence, or law enforcement trying to stop a killer, or defend another innocent person against someone about to kill them, or in times of just war. 
What about the death-penalty?
What is more just than a convicted criminal, guilty of murder, proven beyond doubt, answering with his/her life? A life for a life if an innocent life was maliciously taken?


I'm just asking because it doesn't seem to qualify for any of your currently listed exceptions.


#286
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@PressF4Respect
No, I don't always take the moral high ground. Why not? I am flawed, just like you. 
If you don’t take the moral high ground for moral issues, then what else is guiding your decisions?

God's word, a necessary objective and ultimate reference point. Although I know what is right I may not always live up to the measure and concerning God, I never could live up to Him since He is perfect and I am not. Thus, I need what only God can give, grace and mercy from Another [Jesus] who has done what I could not do on my behalf. 

#287
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
How does "love god and love others" inform copyright law and or property disputes?
Do not take property that does not belong to you. If a person wants to sell and you have the means, then buy. 
How does your old book inform something like, "patents shall grant the patent holder exclusive rights for no more than 20 years"?

It would be based on the laws of the land we live in or even international law. We are told to obey the laws of the land unless they go against God's righteous standard, then we are to speak up about the injustice. 
#288
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
It would be based on the laws of the land we live in or even international law.
Wait, what?

I thought all laws were supposed to be based on god's laws?
#289
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
God's word, a necessary objective and ultimate reference point.
That can be distilled to, "love god and love others"?

It seems a bit imprecise.
#290
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
What is more just than a convicted criminal, guilty of murder, proven beyond doubt, answering with his/her life? A life for a life if an innocent life was maliciously taken?
It just doesn't sound very "pro-life".

AND, a lot of death-row inmates are being exonerated by DNA evidence, so, "proven beyond doubt" seems a little subjective.
#291
PressF4Respect
PressF4Respect's avatar
Debates: 10
Posts: 3,159
3
8
11
PressF4Respect's avatar
PressF4Respect
3
8
11
-->
@PGA2.0
My question was:
Would you say that you would always take the moral high ground on every other moral issue?
Your answer was no. This means that there is something compelling you to go against what you believe to be the moral high ground (your moral compass) more strongly than the moral aspect of the issue itself, in certain cases. I'm asking about what is the thing that makes you go against your moral compass in those cases.

In other words, if you know that one choice is more moral than another (we are dealing with moral issues here), and yet you choose the more immoral choice in certain cases, what is that thing that compels you to do so?


#292
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
I am not against protecting anyone from violence unless they themselves are threatening or violent themselves. 
So, you're against incarcerating young children and deporting them into dangerous areas?
#293
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
I think that Jericho was punished for its hostility to Israel and not yielding to God's commands,
But, strangely, the Germans weren't "punished for their hostility to Israel and not yielding to god's commands".

I'm just sayin.

This god of yours seems pretty capricious and tyrannical.  I'm not sure we can rely on it to epitomize perfectly objective morality.

God is concerned with sin, which hampers our relationship with Him.

To understand this relationship God showcases it through a people - Israel. The Bible is primarily concerned with God's revelation of Himself through these specific people (Israel). He makes Himself known to them that through their example and witness they will make Him known to the rest of the world. So, the biblical teaching is also primarily concerned about the covenant or relationship they agreed to with Him. He is interested in them staying obedient to that covenant because He wants to demonstrate that they (nor we) are capable of meeting those standards in maintaining that relationship. Thus, this failure is demonstrated throughout the history of Israel but even through this relationship, God is promising a better covenant that He will make with humanity through Another. Israel's works, their merit, are not sufficient. It is a lesson for all of us. That is why the New Covenant is said to be a covenant of grace, God's grace and mercy to us who fall short once again (like Adam did). Jesus, in obeying Him and having a relationship with Him who is pure and holy, without sin also accomplishes this for those who put their trust in Jesus because Jesus meets all our needs before God. He pays the penalty we deserve by suffering the wrath of God. By living a completely righteous life before God Jesus opens the way for us that was lost by Adam. That is a restored relationship in His presence, not merely like Israel who were prevented from that intimate presence except by representative (the high priest) and that only once a year to make provision for their sins until the next year. Jesus met that requirement of with His spotless sacrifice of Himself, living fully as the law required and meeting its every demand.     
#294
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
But it is not lawful to allow illegal immigrants to enter our countries unlawfully. They should be prosecuted for doing this.
Historically this has been a civil violation, punishable with a reasonable fine, not a criminal charge.

Also, these people are not assigned an attorney and even small children are expected to represent themselves in immigration court (which rubber stamp denies 90% of cases).
#295
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
But, strangely, the Germans weren't "punished for their hostility to Israel and not yielding to god's commands".

I'm just sayin.

This god of yours seems pretty capricious and tyrannical.  I'm not sure we can rely on it to epitomize perfectly objective morality.

You failed to address the hypocrisy of saying, "the inhabitants of Jericho were evils and god destroyed them" with "but god didn't seem to care about destroying any evil people in recent history".

Wholesale slaughter of children seems to be ok in some situations but not in others. 

What objective standard does your god use to decide when child slaughter is appropriate and when it isn't?
#296
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Trump has already ADMITTED to soliciting foreign interference in an American Election.  THIS IS AN ACTUAL CRIME.
No, he has not.
Oh, yes, he actually has. [LINK]
Okay. He asked that they investigate corruption in their country that lead to their country interfering in US politics. That involves any corruption by US involvement also. That would involve Biden, Clinton, and Obama. This was going on during their watch. They were dead bent on framing Trump. Trump asked his AG to investigate. On Saturday the AG hinted to the progressive Democrat bias and manipulation. We await the IG report, the FISA report, the Duran report to get to the bottom of this deception and hoax. 

I think you need to wait until you hear both sides of this instead of jumping to the conclusions of Adam Shiff and angry Democrats hungry on power at any cost. 
#297
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
AND FURTHERMORE, IF YOU CAN'T INVESTIGATE A CRIME WITHOUT PROOF, WHAT CRIME IS HUNTER BIDEN ACCUSED OF??
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime. There has to be evidence that a crime has been committed.
I agree.  So, with that in mind, what crime is Hunter Biden accused of??

Ukraine used him to gain influence with his father, just like China did. When the company Hunter Biden worked for (with little experience or know-how), was being investigated for its corruption his father said on tape that if they did not end the investigation they would get no aid. Quid pro quo (this for that). 

That means that Biden broke US law as a high ranking government employee.
#298
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime. There has to be evidence that a crime has been committed.
I agree.  So, with that in mind, what crime is Hunter Biden accused of??

You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.

You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.

You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.

You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.

You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.

You can't make up the crime and then search for evidence for that crime.
#299
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@PGA2.0
Ukraine used him to gain influence with his father, just like China did. When the company Hunter Biden worked for (with little experience or know-how), was being investigated for its corruption his father said on tape that if they did not end the investigation they would get no aid. Quid pro quo (this for that). 
The prosecutor in question was NOT investigating or prosecuting corruption.  THAT'S WHY HE WAS FIRED.

You're jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

You're doing EXACTLY what you are accusing "the evil democrats" of.

You still haven't identified a CRIME.
#300
PGA2.0
PGA2.0's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,179
3
5
8
PGA2.0's avatar
PGA2.0
3
5
8
-->
@3RU7AL
Putting the charged in jail is a precaution so that the person will not run and escape justice and a fair trial if they are found guilty.
That's called, "presumed guilty".

Which is the opposite of, "presumed innocent".

It is a precaution until the trial to keep the person in jail because of the risk of flight. BUT, in the court of law, the person is considered innocent until proven guilty.