Could a god grant moral objectivity?

Author: Theweakeredge ,

Topic's posts

Posts in total: 29
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    I won't even try to stay out of the discourse this time, this is a question that I am very interested to see the different answers to. For me, something which is objective is true independent of any minds, therefore, if there was an objective morality we should be able to reach it WITHOUT god, so the lack of any objective standards seem to point out that IF a god existed what that god would be telling us wouldn't be objective.

    Mind you, this is just a quick thought and not my entire argument, but its the basis of my reasoning. 
  • Sum1hugme
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Debates: 17
    Forum posts: 586
    3
    3
    9
    Sum1hugme avatar
    Sum1hugme
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Divine Command Theory necessarily predicates its morals on the dictates of men claiming to speak for God. So while you can interpret the law in an objective way, "God" is not giving those laws.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Sum1hugme
    Well, that's the thing, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to the theists here, even though there there hasn't been evidence they can even relate these laws, my question isn't really Divine theory, or at least not in that way, just: you had a group of rules, all of these rules were given by god, and you know that for a fact. Would those rules be objective necessarily? 

    I'm aware that's assuming a couple things, but its just for the sake of the question.

    (Also do note theists that you have to assume these things (a gods existence, that you are accurately receiving their instructions, and that you taking the correct interpretation of those rules, before you can even get to whether its objective or subjective.)
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @ethang5 @EtrnlVw @Tradesecret
    BUMP
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Objective morality for humans and the rest of the universe is based on the subjective morality of God. 

    This is because God is the creator of life and has that divine prerogative. 

    For objective morality to exist apart from God is a Greek philosophical understanding of the world. This is in stark contrast to the Hebrew and Christian understanding. 

    In the Greek method, god is subject to morality himself because morality objectively exists. This is sometimes called - natural law. 

    In our modern times, utilitarianism is considered an objective standard of determining right and wrong.   The ends justifies the means. 

    I reject that standard - because not only is not objective, how can anyone determine the greatest good for the greatest number? That is nonsensical - because individual preferences are not static - but fluid. Today I prefer Coke - tomorrow I prefer water. 

    Yet the subjective morality of a God who never changes, who know all things, and is all wise - is a logical basis for objective  morality.  



  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Tradesecret
    No... because it doesn't fit the definition, that's still subjective.
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Theweakeredge
    Sorry - but I disagree.  

    You are trying to tie objective morality to a non-person.   I think that is a nonsense.  

    To make it exclusive to a mind - why?  Explain why this is the only way to make something truly objective?


  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Theweakeredge
    You are not addressing the difference between the greek methodology and the Hebrew methodology. 

    The first says - even God is subject to objective morality. 

    The latter says that objective morality is subject to God. 
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    I'm going off of the dictionary definition of objective, what are you going off? Opinion?

    Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual."



  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    --> @Theweakeredge
    For me, something which is objective is true independent of any minds, therefore, if there was an objective morality we should be able to reach it WITHOUT god

    My only contention with this, is that nothing exists outside of God. Rather everything exists within God. So whatever exists, is not independent of that Reality. 
    Now let me say this, I don't believe people NEED God (or have to accept God) to lead moral lives, or know how to make moral decisions. Like as to assume say..an atheist is an immoral person, or is incapable of being a good person, that is bull. 
    I think I believe that compassion and the soul co-exist, I believe it's part of our conscious experience so being a theist or an atheist is neither here nor there, most souls will strive to work within a positive framework. The soul comes out of God, is created by God and with that there will always be the basic standard of the conscience. Now I'm not saying people won't choose to do bad things, but I think doing bad things is an aberration, from conditioned perceptions based on experiences. 

    If this were true, then you would see that people who have no affiliation with God leading pretty moral lives, being pretty good people. And of course we see that, and as a matter of fact many times it's a person who believes in God being the one who is acting immoral. So in this sense, beliefs play no major role in morality, or leading a moral life. 

    Then we get to more grey areas, like what some people think is right or wrong, and what kind of lifestyles are right and wrong ect ect. This is where man as well as religion begins to put their noses where it doesn't really belong, many times. 
    This is why I like to categorize morality as positive and negative (and neutral) rather than right or wrong. Because when we categorize it as right or wrong then it becomes much more subjective. It's not a sure fix of course but it does a decent job of making the subject more clear cut. 
    This shifts the moral argument more towards what we do and how we act to others and nature rather than what we personally choose to like or dislike. It also helps to clarify any harm we could be doing to ourselves as well in an objective way. Like if I do this or that, am I causing a negative effect on myself or others, or is this a positive thing for myself or others or is this just a neutral thing ect ect. 

    I'd rather not get into specific arguments of what certain religious sources claim is right or wrong, or what is sin blah blah blah. For this conversation I want to keep it more cut and dry. 
    So lets say if we use the positive and negative standard we can decide if anything we choose to do fits into one of those categories, or does it fall into a neutral category. 

     so the lack of any objective standards seem to point out that IF a god existed what that god would be telling us wouldn't be objective.

    I would tend to say that is true, coming from religious sources. Since that's who seems to be "telling" us what these standards are. I would say, if you're interested in God...just begin to be open-minded and willing to listen to the inner conscience. Turn within and begin to attempt a communication with God and just be willing to let anything go whatever it may be. Often times religion just gets in the way because really you don't need anything between you and God. If God wants you to know something you can receive that information yourself. 
    As I said above, compassion already co-exists within your soul. It will always follow you around so the notion to do good things and positive things should always haunt you. That you already have, but with the finer details it's always a good practice to just get quiet and listen, stop thinking and allow yourself the opportunity to connect with God on much deeper levels. 
    If you do that you won't have to worry about what anyone thinks or says, you have a specific journey with God that is specific to you and no one can take that from you. 

    To answer your initial inquiry I think you're right. You can reach a moral standard without God, but that's not really the point behind spirituality or being a Theist per say. Spirituality can certainly stretch and challenge your resolve and carry you to your greatest potential but again morality is not the key issue with God. It's your pliability and willingness that spirituality wants, because there are things that you are not aware of in any given moment. There are things you have yet to learn, and without your participation you may never learn them here. 
  • Tradesecret
    Tradesecret avatar
    Debates: 2
    Forum posts: 1,488
    3
    2
    6
    Tradesecret avatar
    Tradesecret
    --> @Theweakeredge
    COUNTABLE NOUN [usually with poss]
    Your objective is what you are trying to achieve.
    Our main objective was the recovery of the child safe and well. 
    His objective was to play golf and win. 
    2. ADJECTIVE [ADJECTIVE noun]
    Objective information is based on facts.
    He had no objective evidence that anything extraordinary was happening. 
    objectively  ADVERB [usually ADVERB with verb]
    We simply want to inform people objectively about events. 
    objectivity (ɒbdʒektɪvɪti  ) UNCOUNTABLE NOUN
    The poll, whose objectivity is open to question, gave the party a 39% share of the vote. 
    3. ADJECTIVE
    If someone is objective, they base their opinions on facts rather than on their personal feelings.
    I believe that a journalist should be completely objective. 
    I would really like to have your objective opinion on this. 


    None of these definitions suggest that it needs to be impersonal or not attached to the mind. 

    Typically objective is about being neutral. Non-biased.  

    There is no reason at all why God cannot be subjective - in an unchanging manner - and yet our objective morality not be based in him.  

    Our objective morality is therefore unchanging - immutable. Consistent and eternal. 


  • EtrnlVw
    EtrnlVw avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 2,569
    3
    3
    4
    EtrnlVw avatar
    EtrnlVw
    Could a god grant moral objectivity?

    As we discussed before, creation is driven by laws.... under natural laws as well as moral laws and principles. But these laws are cause and effect, they are objective not subjective. That's why I put actions and choices within the categories of positive and negative, what effect will they have on you or others. If we take religion out of the picture for a moment it should become very clear for you how to determine what is positive and what is negative. 

    I'd hate to use the term Karma here but it's the best means of describing such moral laws as cause and effect and what that entails. You could also say sowing and reaping, it just means that for every action there is a reaction, for every effect there was a cause. Creation exists within God, so such a system is not independent of God. On the other hand, it's not personally controlled by God, they are fixed laws.
    Whatever negative actions you do dictates what eventually comes back to you, whatever positive things you do also dictates your future experiences. Natural law says if I throw a rock at your head, you will suffer the consequences, but moral law says that eventually I will suffer the consequences. If that makes any sense. This is objective not subjective, keeping in mind I'm not arguing for certain religious ideas and claims. These laws are black and white, and they effect you one way or the other. 
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @Tradesecret
    And why is Collin's more credible than Oxford? No that's not much at all, the only distinction is the source, and mine is oxford yours is collins, so no, I don't find your case compelling. In order to find something objective in morality, you must connect a fact to a moral, why is this fact moral or immoral, and your definitions just don't work in that context, which is the one we are talking of.
  • Deb-8-a-bull
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 1,107
    3
    2
    3
    Deb-8-a-bull avatar
    Deb-8-a-bull
    Imagine denouncing your religion then waking up the next day with different morals. 
    What a trip.


  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Theweakeredge
    For me, something which is objective is true independent of any minds,...
    Look at the dictionary definition again. The word "mind" there refers to man's mind. God is not a man. Morality from God's mind is objective of man's mind, and morality can only come from a mind. It does not simply pop into existence.

    A truly objective morality will have three qualities...
    1. It will not have come from the mind of men - Be objective
    2. It will be immutable - Be unchanging
    3. It will be authoritative - Be legitimate

    Only one moral system satisfies these necessities. There are other moral systems, but they will lack one or more of these necessary components.

    Before getting into the debate, I must say something about theoretical arguments. Logic can be used to validate the soundness of an argument without having to present physical proof. In an argument, for example, on whether or not men can live on Venus, we need not prove that men can go there first, the logic that Venus is too hot for human life holds even if we cannot get there.

    Likewise, the logic of God's qualities holds even if we cannot prove God exists. (I did NOT say we could not) This is a theoretical argument. Logic holds. Could I defeat Godzilla with a BB gun? No one needs to prove Godzilla exists for the logic to hold that given the qualities of Godzilla, I could not defeat him with a BB gun.

    This is done all the time in science. Einstein found out that time slows down the closer one approaches the speed of light without any physical proof. A logical argument remains logical even if it's premises don't exist but the conclusion follows. So the argument, 

    "If Maria is in the house, and the house is in Germany, then Maria is in Germany"

    Is logically sound even if no house or girl named maria exists. The argument is not about Maria or the house, it is about the logic.

    Now, if God existed with the qualities the bible says He has, would it be logically sound to conclude that his moral laws would be objective TO MEN? Yes, for they would satisfy the 3 necessities given above.

    So for right now, whether men are correctly transmitting the laws of God, or whether there actually is a God, the logic holds. The logic that if there was a God with these qualities, those laws would be objective and authoritative holds. That argument is sound.

    NOTE: Saying there is no God is not an attack on the soundness of the argument! Saying that even if God existed, His laws would not be authoritative and objective TO MEN would be an attack in the argument. The Christian is not trying to convince you right now that God exists, but that the logical soundness of his argument does not need God to exist. 
  • Reece101
    Reece101 avatar
    Debates: 0
    Forum posts: 563
    3
    2
    2
    Reece101 avatar
    Reece101
    Objective morality is an oxymoron. It’s a self-defeating statement. 
  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @ethang5
    I would suggest.

    That  function and process, dictates that objectivity is a consequence of subjectivity and therefore the two are actually one and the same.

    I would therefore further suggest, that subjectively creating abstract principles, is only ever what it is. 


    in addition... I would therefore also suggest, that repeating fact verbatim, is an altogether separate data processing exercise.


    To conclude...I would suggest, that "objective" and "subjective" are a misleading dichotomy, and therefore unnecessary concerns....And that,  the production of all thoughts and consequent output is a wholly internal data processing function, irrespective of the quality of both the internal data base and any eventual data output.


    Your subjective thoughts would be appreciated.
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @zedvictor4
    To conclude...I would suggest, that "objective" and "subjective" are a misleading dichotomy, and therefore unnecessary concerns....
    Yet you don't want to live under someone else's moral code. You would resist if someone tried to force you to obey their personal morality.

    What you say here is hogwash. You say, "that  function and process, dictates that objectivity is a consequence of subjectivity and therefore the two are actually one and the same", but why should we consider this true? Why do men balk at being placed under subjective moral rules not their own?

    Don't only tell us what you think, tell us why you think it. Show us the logic that made you formulate your opinions. For example, HOW are objective" and "subjective" a misleading dichotomy?
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @zedvictor4
    I would suggest.

    That  function and process, dictates that objectivity is a consequence of subjectivity and therefore the two are actually one and the same.
    Let's grant that you're right that objectivity is a consequence of subjectivity (which it isn't, just to be clear), I can punch the shit out of someone and harm them, am I then harm? Let's say you have a mathematical formula and discover the x-intercept, is the x-intercept and the formula the same? The answer seems to be no. That would then lead you to logically conclude that just because something is a consequence of something else that does not logically compute that they are the same. 

    Take this syllogism:
    P1: X is a consequence of Y
    P2: When something is a consequent they are equivalent. 
    Con: Therefore X = Y

    Premise 2 is flawed, in this case, it's your underlying assumption. 


    I would therefore further suggest, that subjectively creating abstract principles, is only ever what it is. 
    Precisely why I posit morality is subjective. 


    in addition... I would therefore also suggest, that repeating fact verbatim, is an altogether separate data processing exercise.
    The problem of trying to use fact as morality is that you have no frame of reference, is humanity immoral because they harm the earth? Is the universe immoral because it harms humans? 


    To conclude...I would suggest, that "objective" and "subjective" are a misleading dichotomy, and therefore unnecessary concerns....And that,  the production of all thoughts and consequent output is a wholly internal data processing function, irrespective of the quality of both the internal data base and any eventual data output.
    No, they are a proper dichotomy, they are clearly separate things. That second sentence is irrelevant, I suppose you could say that an opinion could be true from a mind, and that could be a proper objective thought, but the definition's purpose it to evaluate whether something would exist if x mind did not the ultimate tester of construct versus nature. 

  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @ethang5
    Look at the dictionary definition again. The word "mind" there refers to man's mind. God is not a man. Morality from God's mind is objective of man's mind, and morality can only come from a mind. It does not simply pop into existence.
    Will do,

    Mind - "A person's mental processes contrasted with physical action."

    Person - "Each of the three modes of being of God, namely the Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost, who together constitute the Trinity."

    All that definition does is give you food for thought, clearly, the word "person" is a broad stroke for an individual or agent. I, at least, feel justified in using them as synonyms. This shows that limiting what a mind is to mortal agents is arbitrary, why, does the mind just not refer to god in this case? A mind in philosophy is more often thought of as an agent and that was the perspective I posited this. 


    A truly objective morality will have three qualities...
    1. It will not have come from the mind of men - Be objective
    2. It will be immutable - Be unchanging
    3. It will be authoritative - Be legitimate
    Why does it stop at man? Again this seems arbitrary, the mind applies to god as well, and there are multiple ways to prove that. The second premise is especially fun, considering the bible, not presuming you're using the bible however, I would typically agree. But I don't think any sort of morality can be objective, so... Authoritative isn't required, just that the law be true morally as well as factually. If you were to confine what is moral to only what a god demands, then I would not be interested in morality. 


    Before getting into the debate, I must say something about theoretical arguments. Logic can be used to validate the soundness of an argument without having to present physical proof. In an argument, for example, on whether or not men can live on Venus, we need not prove that men can go there first, the logic that Venus is too hot for human life holds even if we cannot get there.
    Ignoring that other sentence, because it's kind of a transition, I'm presuming you were talking about god's but ya know, anywho. I disagree, logic can be used to measure arguments validness whether that argument is sound or not depends on both the logical necessity of the argument and the truth of each premise. In other words, you cannot get to a sound argument without each premise being true. 

    That is logical 101, but I do suppose it would only be a proper attack if your opponent claimed their argument to be sound, if they said it was valid then you would be correct, as that is only attesting to the fact that these premises logically lead to one another, or, as the IEP says, "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false"

    I will treat your argument as a valid one, until the soundness has been demonstrated.



    Likewise, the logic of God's qualities holds even if we cannot prove God exists. (I did NOT say we could not) This is a theoretical argument. Logic holds. Could I defeat Godzilla with a BB gun? No one needs to prove Godzilla exists for the logic to hold that given the qualities of Godzilla, I could not defeat him with a BB gun.
    The obviousness of this statement is obvious. Hence my response to Sum1huge's post, that I was assuming that a god existed and that we knew that god had given us x rule or such. That way this conversation could happen. I admire your want for a logical conversation (as much as I also come to metaphorical blows with you.)



    This is done all the time in science. Einstein found out that time slows down the closer one approaches the speed of light without any physical proof. A logical argument remains logical even if it's premises don't exist but the conclusion follows. So the argument, 

    "If Maria is in the house, and the house is in Germany, then Maria is in Germany"

    Is logically sound even if no house or girl named maria exists. The argument is not about Maria or the house, it is about the logic.
    Again, I agree, and have known this. However, if we were say, arguing about the ramifications of following god's supposed moral code, or if someone were trying to argue that it is the best to follow or something along the lines, the basis for it would have to be questioned. So no, simply stating, "god doesn't exist" or "objective moral values don't exist" isn't a proper rebuttal. Now mentioned either to show that this line of reasoning takes some assumptions to get to? Fair play, as long as your arguments are not based on these statements. 



    Now, if God existed with the qualities the bible says He has, would it be logically sound to conclude that his moral laws would be objective TO MEN? Yes, for they would satisfy the 3 necessities given above.
    No, you haven't proven why: A) These rules should be applied to objective morality (Now I kinda agree with your threesome up there, but there is one I disagree with), B) That these are the specific rules applied (hence you shoving man into there for some reason.) Third, the bible claim that god is all-good, so everything they do is good, which would be subjective as it literally, "Everything I have ever done is good,"

    Now, people argue over if this means at a surface level or if that means that this is moral in the long run? I'd say take it as it says, "Everything." Well in that case then, it would be contradictory. As he murders his own son, that son was perfect, no? Then that son had literally no guilt for what the definition would need for it to be killing justly. One could argue that god logically needed to use the loophole of his son in order to demand his own thirst for justice, isn't god also "merciful" which is literally the pausing of justice?

    There's also the fact that they are supposedly omnipotent and can do anything. Oh... well then... that god should be able to satisfy their justice without demanding life no? One could argue that jesus and god are the same entitiy and therefore that wasn't really killing someone else, is suicide not also condemned in the bible? My point  is god clearly has a bias towards themselves in that book, which I suppose is fair if you're the creator of the universe, however it would also mean that moral system wildly contradictory. 



    So for right now, whether men are correctly transmitting the laws of God, or whether there actually is a God, the logic holds. The logic that if there was a God with these qualities, those laws would be objective and authoritative holds. That argument is sound.
    I'm legitimately confused, what argument? Have i missed it? So far you have said that we cannot use x or y factor to evaluate this argument, and on the face I agree, however, I must have missed the actual argument. What qualities specifically? Why are they attributable to god? Why is the bible the word of a god? (I can presume that one just for the sake of having any grounding), how does these qualities lead to an objective god? 



    NOTE: Saying there is no God is not an attack on the soundness of the argument! Saying that even if God existed, His laws would not be authoritative and objective TO MEN would be an attack in the argument. The Christian is not trying to convince you right now that God exists, but that the logical soundness of his argument does not need God to exist. 
    Again, I know, however, if that christian is trying to posit that this moral system is superior to another, then the actual basis comes into question. See if we were to use that argument than a christian shouldn't care whether I'm assuming a single principle for my moral system, as them assuming a god would be equivalent (not quite as assuming a god is good deal bigger but whatevers), but if the christian is saying that other people should prefer it, or use it, then yes, you should absolutely question whether that god exists. Now, again again, should your entire argument or even your main argument be based on that? No, clearly not.

    My point here is that yes I agree you shouldn't just say, "God doesn't exist your argument go brrr" And I haven't done that here, now, might I have done that in P... I can seriously not remember his name, the topic where it was atheist morals vs theistic ones, yes I have, has it been my only argument? No.


  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @EtrnlVw
    If god is everything, literally eveything, (I am within god for example) then that means literally everything is god's play, and objective morality would have to be neccesary, I don't think god is everything if one were real, I don't really see that as a quality of a god, more of a universe. Now, could you ascribe that quality to a god? Yes, yes you absolutely could, but why? Whats your reasoning there? Why is god everything? Now, I would agree that god would usually be depicted outside of the universe, but not actually be in that universe. I suppose I could be misinterpreting what you're saying and you could simply say everything is contained within a literal "extra" universe of god? But if that uog had a mind, the objective thing would still apply
  • ethang5
    ethang5 avatar
    Debates: 1
    Forum posts: 5,474
    3
    3
    6
    ethang5 avatar
    ethang5
    --> @Theweakeredge
    This shows that limiting what a mind is to mortal agents is arbitrary, why, does the mind just not refer to god in this case?
    Because the dictionary is not written by evangelists. You may personally take "mind" in the dictionary to include God's mind, but then you give the word meaning its authors did not intend. Worse, you are then claiming that morality does not stem from ANY mind! That is irrational on its face.

    A mind in philosophy is more often thought of as an agent and that was the perspective I posited this. 
    OK, but still, since God is not a man, His rules would be objective to men in that those rules would not have been from any man or be able to be influenced by any man. This is a similar theory to outside investigators or independent councils.

    Why does it stop at man? Again this seems arbitrary, the mind applies to god as well, and there are multiple ways to prove that.
    You are misunderstanding. I did not say God is not a mind, I said the dictionary definition of "objective" does not include God when it says "mind". So though God may also be a mind, it isn't a MAN's mind, and this qualifies as objective TO men.

    But I don't think any sort of morality can be objective, so...
    Then you must tell us what you think "objective" means.

    Authoritative isn't required, just that the law be true morally as well as factually.
    You talk of philosophy and you don't know what "authority" means in moral philosophy? Law must have moral legitimacy. This is why you aren't obligated to obey some bloke who thinks you should. Or why a police officer can shoot a criminal when you legally cannot. Authority is what lends the law legitimacy.

    If you were to confine what is moral to only what a god demands, then I would not be interested in morality. 
    I can't help what you're interested in. But I do not confine what is moral to what God demands. I say two things, first, that morality is nonsense without an objective, immutable, authoritative standard by which to measure morality by, and second, the only morality that is objective is that sourced in God, all others are subjective and therefore not morally binding on anyone but that person himself.

    In other words, you cannot get to a sound argument without each premise being true.
    Theoretical arguments are helpful when we don't know whether the premises are true or not true. So we focus on the logical process, for example, Premise 1. "there is other intelligent life in the universe". Premise 2. "That life may not operate under the known laws of physics." Conclusion: "We may not  be able to perceive it as life." This argument is sound.

    Also, the soundness of an argument is not based on the truth of its premises, but on whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Sound arguments are not necessarily true arguments, though true arguments must necessarily be sound. We are trying to test the soundness of a theoretical argument because right now, we cannot determine its truthfulness. The logical process is important right now because unless we can get a sound argument, we will never arrive at a true argument.

    A theoretical argument can be used just like a number equation where we put in x's and y's instead of numbers to test the soundness of the equation. Number equations are pure logical operations. So in a theoretical word argument, we insert premise concepts to test the soundness of the logic though we don't yet know if those premises are true. Theoretical scientists do this all the time. It is a valid logical exercise.

    Again, I agree, and have known this. However, if we were say, arguing about the ramifications of following god's supposed moral code, or if someone were trying to argue that it is the best to follow or something along the lines, the basis for it would have to be questioned. So no, simply stating, "god doesn't exist" or "objective moral values don't exist" isn't a proper rebuttal. Now mentioned either to show that this line of reasoning takes some assumptions to get to? Fair play, as long as your arguments are not based on these statements. 
    We agree.

    No, you haven't proven why: A) These rules should be applied to objective morality
    These rules are objective TO MAN in that they are not sourced in man and cannot be affected by man. That is the definition of "objective" when used in morality.

    Third, the bible claim that god is all-good, so everything they do is good, which would be subjective as it literally, "Everything I have ever done is good,"
    Not so. People tend to think that when the bible says God is all good, it means they themselves will think all God's actions are all good for them. Not so. When God allows a storm of disciplines a community, we may see it as "not good", but the goodness of God's behavior is not determined by how much man likes or profits from, that behavior.

    God is not following goodness, His is the standard by which goodness is measured! A loose analogy is that of a ruler measuring stick. The ruler is not determined by the distance, it is the distance that is determined by the ruler. God is the measuring stick that we use to determine/measure goodness.

    As he murders his own son, that son was perfect, no? Then that son had literally no guilt for what the definition would need for it to be killing justly. One could argue that god logically needed to use the loophole of his son in order to demand his own thirst for justice, isn't god also "merciful" which is literally the pausing of justice?
    All correct except that God didn't murder His own Son. Read John 10:18

    There's also the fact that they are supposedly omnipotent and can do anything.
    That is not what omnipotence means. Not in the bible anyway. Omnipotence does not allow God to be illogical.

    Oh... well then... that god should be able to satisfy their justice without demanding life no?
    There are so many things logically wrong with this, I don't know where to start! "...without demanding life..." Is your just subjective idea of what is better. Of what you think God should have done. God did not need to do what you consider good/better in order for Him to be moral. And what if Justice itself requires a life for a life? What if that IS what Justice is? What if anything else is NOT justice? God cannot be illogical.

    One could argue that jesus and god are the same entitiy and therefore that wasn't really killing someone else...
    Jesus and "God" (by which I assume you mean God the Father) are not the same entity. The bible agrees.

    ...is suicide not also condemned in the bible?
    Not explicitly. But Jesus did not kill Himself. Your understanding of the Christian story and doctrine is a little lacking.

    My point  is god clearly has a bias towards themselves in that book, which I suppose is fair if you're the creator of the universe, however it would also mean that moral system wildly contradictory. 
    Only if your understanding was correct. It isn't.

    I'm legitimately confused, what argument?
    The logical argument that if there was a God with these qualities, that those laws would be objective and authoritative. That argument is sound.

    What qualities specifically?
    1. It will not have come from the mind of men - Be objective
    2. It will be immutable - Be unchanging
    3. It will be authoritative - Be legitimate

    Why are they attributable to god?
    The argument is a theoretical argument. That is why we said, IF. Right now, we are checking the only the soundness of the argument remember, not its truth.

    ...how does these qualities lead to an objective god?
    The definition of an objective standard. (Moral standard in this case)
    A moral standard (moral measuring stick) must be...
    1. Objective - It will not have come from the mind of men
    2. Unchanging - It will be immutable
    3.  Legitimate - It will be authoritative

    Taking an analogy of a measuring tool again, we could analogize an atomic clock. It is objective in that no man dreamed it up. It is not from the mind of men. It is unchanging, and as a natural law, it is authoritative.

    Can you imagine a measuring tool that was decided by each man himself? Or could be changed by man on a whim?
    Or a measuring tool that changed on its own? Giving you different and unpredictable readings as it changed?
    Or a measuring tool that had no legitimacy as a measuring tool? Say someone's foot as a ruler?

    Only God has these 3 qualities of a proper moral standard. Only God is objective TO MEN. Only God is immutable. Only God is authoritative. Though we don't yet know if these premises are true, our conclusion logically follows. The argument is sound.

    ...if that christian is trying to posit that this moral system is superior to another, then the actual basis comes into question.
    Well, what is meant by "superior"? I would rather use the word "legitimate". Because legitimacy is not subjective. Legitimacy is not based on how someone feels. Superiority can be. A moral system/standard must be judged on the 3 qualities that define a proper moral measuring system. And only one moral system satisfies all 3.

    See if we were to use that argument than a christian shouldn't care whether I'm assuming a single principle for my moral system, as them assuming a god would be equivalent (not quite as assuming a god is good deal bigger but whatevers),
    Ok

    ...but if the christian is saying that other people should prefer it, or use it,
    The Christian is not so much saying that others should prefer or use it, but that it is legitimate, whether one prefers it, or uses it, or not.

    ...then yes, you should absolutely question whether that god exists.
    I agree. But only AFTER we have determined the logical soundness of the argument.

    Now, again again, should your entire argument or even your main argument be based on that? No, clearly not.
    My argument is sound. And I can show that it is also true. I want my argument to be based on truth.

    My point here is that yes I agree you shouldn't just say, "God doesn't exist your argument go brrr" And I haven't done that here, now, might I have done that in P... I can seriously not remember his name, the topic where it was atheist morals vs theistic ones, yes I have, has it been my only argument? No.
    I have no issues with that. Each argument should be different depending on the topic and the claims.
  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    Because the dictionary is not written by evangelists. You may personally take "mind" in the dictionary to include God's mind, but then you give the word meaning its authors did not intend.
    I genuinely don't care what they think objective means, I go off of what the dictionary says objective means. Some words have multiple meanings in regards to a single philosophical topic, but in this reference I have already given the dictionary definition. 

    Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual."


    Worse, you are then claiming that morality does not stem from ANY mind! That is irrational on its face.
    That's exactly why morality isn't objective, because it does stem from minds.... therefore it isn't objective.


    OK, but still, since God is not a man, His rules would be objective to men in that those rules would not have been from any man or be able to be influenced by any man. This is a similar theory to outside investigators or independent councils.
    You have repeated your point, and not addressed mine, yes, cool, the definition of mind does not exclude god, the definition of objective does not exclude god, you are excluding god on your own accord, not some logical necessity. That's cool, and only one definition of mind, where they include the word person, but the word person does not exclude god. You have no point here. 


    You are misunderstanding. I did not say God is not a mind, I said the dictionary definition of "objective" does not include God when it says "mind". So though God may also be a mind, it isn't a MAN's mind, and this qualifies as objective TO men.
    What? No, I'm speaking what is objective in general, if you exclude god from the equation that is literally special pleading, a logical fallacy, you are the one who enjoys ascribing to logical thought, the word objective does not exclude god, it does not have to include god, the inclusivity is the literal definition which includes anything that has mental processes, god has these, therefore, they have a mind. 


    Then you must tell us what you think "objective" means.
    I did... in my very first post.... and I also reput it here, but I'll put here here too.
    Objective - "Not dependent on the mind for existence; actual."


    You talk of philosophy and you don't know what "authority" means in moral philosophy? Law must have moral legitimacy. This is why you aren't obligated to obey some bloke who thinks you should. Or why a police officer can shoot a criminal when you legally cannot. Authority is what lends the law legitimacy.
    Ehh no that is also not true, moral authority and moral legitimacy are not the same. Cops can be unjustified, and why is god the authority here? Because they claim to be one? Even if you were to posit that they could do give objective morality, there is literally nothing to stop god from lying to achieve their own benefit, and as they literally wrote the book, they did exactly that. What lends a morality legitimacy is a rationale, sound arguments, etcetera, not arbitrary authority. 


    I can't help what you're interested in. But I do not confine what is moral to what God demands. I say two things, first, that morality is nonsense without an objective, immutable, authoritative standard by which to measure morality by, and second, the only morality that is objective is that sourced in God, all others are subjective and therefore not morally binding on anyone but that person himself.
    Then if you didn't believe in god you would go around murdering people? Or better yet, raping people? Would you start another holocaust? Steal and pillage? Or am I being, "to literal, we live in a society, of course, I wouldn't I just wouldn't see a problem with bad things!" Let's do something real quick, if you think x  is only true is y is true, and y turns out to not be true, then x is also not true, you can't just say, "I want y to be true, therefore x is true." That's not how logic works. Also nope to your literal entire point, laws are often made like that, and they seem (generally we don't live in a purge) effective. As long as people agree on a standard, then we can go all day with subjective morality, maybe it'd make people more comfortable with morality that's objective, but claiming that its useless without some objective figure is just wrong, as humans we do share common goals. Such as living and attaining pleasure. 

    Interception: Depressed people are literally the exception if they have a condition, and depression isn't considered the norm human condition, clearly that isn't a sharing human goal, not to mention most depressed people still value these things, just an interception in case.


    Theoretical arguments are helpful when we don't know whether the premises are true or not true. So we focus on the logical process, for example, Premise 1. "there is other intelligent life in the universe". Premise 2. "That life may not operate under the known laws of physics." Conclusion: "We may not  be able to perceive it as life." This argument is sound.
    No.. that argument is valid, you literally don't know what you're talking about. I will source my facts, do you need more? You are illogically placing a verb that has a clearly different meaning from what you're using it for in order to bring more legitimacy to your claims, which isn't logical, it's dishonest. They can be useful, but all theoretical arguments are useful for further comprehension of facts, or exploration of things not to be presented as truth, in order for the analogy to actually be effective it must have an actual sound basis. 

    "A deductive argument is said to be valid if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false. Otherwise, a deductive argument is said to be invalid.

    A deductive argument is sound if and only if it is both valid, and all of its premises are actually true. Otherwise, a deductive argument is unsound."
    "Sound: an argument is sound if and only if it is valid and contains only true premises.
    Unsound: an argument that is not sound."


    Also, the soundness of an argument is not based on the truth of its premises, but on whether the conclusion logically follows from the premises. Sound arguments are not necessarily true arguments, though true arguments must necessarily be sound. We are trying to test the soundness of a theoretical argument because right now, we cannot determine its truthfulness. The logical process is important right now because unless we can get a sound argument, we will never arrive at a true argument.
    NOOO, that is not what soundness means, that is what validity means, soundness is where the argument is both valid and true, all arguments that are sound are true, an argument is sound if and only if the argument is valid and true, otherwise its unsound.... does that sound familiar? Oh yeah, it's actual philosophic sources. You are speaking of a valid argument, and it is not useful if the impacts of that argument are necessitated on the truth of it, which it is. 


    A theoretical argument can be used just like a number equation where we put in x's and y's instead of numbers to test the soundness of the equation. Number equations are pure logical operations. So in a theoretical word argument, we insert premise concepts to test the soundness of the logic though we don't yet know if those premises are true. Theoretical scientists do this all the time. It is a valid logical exercise.
    No, we use it to test the validity, except, and here's a big one here, we can't come to a useful conclusion without input for a variable, we use the numbers to solve the variables of an equation, so no, this doesn't work either. If you were to randomly insert variables into an equation you would get nowhere at all, you need enough information to actually solve for the variables. Yes, you can get use out of a purely hypothetical argument, however, it is not as useful nor necessary as a sound one, a proper sound one, which is one that is true.


    We agree
    Mmhm 


    These rules are objective TO MAN in that they are not sourced in man and cannot be affected by man. That is the definition of "objective" when used in morality.
    From what? You? No, no it's not, you are positing that it should be limited that way, with no justification on your part. I have already given you my definition though you evidently missed it. Also, this really just seems like a fun little trick to remove all moral accountability on any god that may or may not exist, does that sound dishonest to you at all? 


    Not so. People tend to think that when the bible says God is all good, it means they themselves will think all God's actions are all good for them. Not so. When God allows a storm of disciplines a community, we may see it as "not good", but the goodness of God's behavior is not determined by how much man likes or profits from, that behavior.
    god created that storm no? Or at least they put it into further action down the line? I don't care what the actual quality of the behavior right now, I am talking of the type of behavior being shown, objective or subjective, I don't know if you're responding to something else, but I can't be sure as you haven't quoted what you're talking about. Anywho, no, not according to god's subjective morality they don't judge themselves that way.


    PART ! END




  • Theweakeredge
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Debates: 24
    Forum posts: 2,764
    4
    6
    10
    Theweakeredge avatar
    Theweakeredge
    --> @ethang5
    PART 2


    God is not following goodness, His is the standard by which goodness is measured! A loose analogy is that of a ruler measuring stick. The ruler is not determined by the distance, it is the distance that is determined by the ruler. God is the measuring stick that we use to determine/measure goodness.
    So a specific god claims, all I've done is assumed god exists for the sake of conversation, not any of their qualities, the god of the bible claims to be the measuring stick, wh? You can be like, all just or all-merciful, as it's just stating qualities that you are when you make decisions, but this is you literally claiming an agent to be the measuring stick for objectivity, ad hoc asserting that isn't rationale, its presumptuous. 


    All correct except that God didn't murder His own Son. Read John 10:18
    Yes, technically the Romans murdered him, cool, Jesus asks to be saved before that or at least asking that he not have to do it, also... god could clearly stop it, god says over and over again, "I sacrificed my only son".... oh... what's that.... intent for his son to die on unjustified causes? ~Murder~


    That is not what omnipotence means. Not in the bible anyway. Omnipotence does not allow God to be illogical.
    Then god isn't omnipotent..... also.... doesn't stop that god from doing other illogical things, why should we accept the bible's ad hoc definition of omnipotence? I never accepted the bible as true, just that a god exists, it's pretty arrogant to assume I was talking about the Christian one. I started talking about the Christian one because that's clearly the one you are talking about, but my limit for presumptions go to god, and that we know god gave the order, that's it.


    There are so many things logically wrong with this, I don't know where to start! "...without demanding life..." Is your just subjective idea of what is better. Of what you think God should have done. God did not need to do what you consider good/better in order for Him to be moral. And what if Justice itself requires a life for a life? What if that IS what Justice is? What if anything else is NOT justice? God cannot be illogical.
    Ah ah ah, god has made it clear in the bible that his goal is for humans to love him, or at least accept him and go to heaven, therefore him needing life to do something shows an imperfection, if we weren't talking about the literally supposed perfect being, maybe you would be correct, but we are and you are incorrect. You are just assuming god can't be illogical, from what? Your own self-defining, begging the question, the definition of god. 

    Justice - "The quality of being fair and reasonable."
    So no, that isn't what justice is. So sad too bad. 


    Jesus and "God" (by which I assume you mean God the Father) are not the same entity. The bible agrees
    Cool beans, then what I said applies entirely, it was just for people who don't interpret your book, that's highly open to interpretation, differently than you do.



    Not explicitly. But Jesus did not kill Himself. Your understanding of the Christian story and doctrine is a little lacking.
    Well no, that was me giving a condition of if god and Jesus are one entity, hence my earlier phrasing, you picking and choosing quotes it getting bothersome. "Cherry-picking, cherry-picking, cherry-picking!" If god sacrificed his one and only son, and god and jesus are the same, the god sacrificed themself, which is the same as letting yourself die, and not technically killing yourself, but taken at an unsemantic approach, basically is.  (Also, "not explicitly" implies that it did still say it, so....)


    Only if your understanding was correct. It isn't.
    Why? Prove that please.


    I'm legitimately confused, what argument?
    The logical argument that if there was a God with these qualities, that those laws would be objective and authoritative. That argument is sound.

    What qualities specifically?
    1. It will not have come from the mind of men - Be objective
    2. It will be immutable - Be unchanging
    3. It will be authoritative - Be legitimate
    I've already pointed out that the first and third conditions are arbitrary, and the second is meh, you literally just added, "and authoritative" to the end, as long as you have a warrant to your moral system, you don't necessarily need an authority, but I still fail to see this god actually even have the authority to be objectively a measuring stick, in fact, I don't think that's possible, as for something to be objective it has to be not of the mind. But, if, we presume a god to have those qualities? No, because what stops that god from lying? You would have to add that as another condition, also that these rules would even apply to people, let's just be frank, you just said, "if god is objective and legitimate (by which you mean authoritative) than god's morality is objective and authoritative. No, because then you would have to prove that that god is ALL objective and authoritative in ALL means, otherwise you would have to either assume that god is in that regard as well, or that its possible and likely for that god to not be all of these.

    My point? You may ask, that this argument is saying, "If x, then x" practically... obviously, in that case, we should be interested in the warrants, the truth of the claims. Is x? in other words. 


    The argument is a theoretical argument. That is why we said, IF. Right now, we are checking the only the soundness of the argument remember, not its truth.
    Nope, the validity, not the soundness. The argument is so lacks luster, we're already done, sure if you assume a lot of things, yes, the argument is valid, cool. 


    The definition of an objective standard. (Moral standard in this case)
    A moral standard (moral measuring stick) must be...
    1. Objective - It will not have come from the mind of men
    2. Unchanging - It will be immutable
    3.  Legitimate - It will be authoritative
    You've said that a lot, where do you get this from? Just curious. I've already stated my concerns with it above.


    making an analogy of a measuring tool again, we could analogize an atomic clock. It is objective in that no man dreamed it up. It is not from the mind of men. It is unchanging, and as a natural law, it is authoritative.

    Can you imagine a measuring tool that was decided by each man himself? Or could be changed by man on a whim?
    Or a measuring tool that changed on its own? Giving you different and unpredictable readings as it changed?
    Or a measuring tool that had no legitimacy as a measuring tool? Say someone's foot as a ruler?
    Actually.... a foot, as a rule, is used all the time, in fact, that's how rulers actually came to be... That's literally how we got foot.. It was changed on a whim (hello metric system my old friend) Your analogy is unfortunate.... Also, I can imagine a measuring tool that a consensus of people agreed on (hey, thats what our rulers are!), second what are you even talking about, "Changing on its own" what are you referencing here, finally, again... unfortunate. 


    Only God has these 3 qualities of a proper moral standard. Only God is objective TO MEN. Only God is immutable. Only God is authoritative. Though we don't yet know if these premises are true, our conclusion logically follows. The argument is sound.
    I hate to be that guy, but, vaaalid not sound. Also god... does change.... their mind...... if god didn't change their mind, then Jesus wouldn't be a thing. If god were all of these things, there is a conclusion that isn't that, that can also follow. They lie and the law isn't objective.... then it isn't valid either. 


    Well, what is meant by "superior"? I would rather use the word "legitimate". Because legitimacy is not subjective. Legitimacy is not based on how someone feels. Superiority can be. A moral system/standard must be judged on the 3 qualities that define a proper moral measuring system. And only one moral system satisfies all 3.

    Okay, obviously out of context, logically superior, legitimacy can indeed be based on subjectivity (btw, subjectivity can be based on feelings, but it doesn't necessarily have to be). You are being pretty arbitrary with all of your definitions the number of qualities, etcetera, etcetera. 


    Ok
    Mmhm.


    The Christian is not so much saying that others should prefer or use it, but that it is legitimate, whether one prefers it, or uses it, or not.
    If something is legitimate, it should also be true, so this doesn't apply to you I assume?


    I agree. But only AFTER we have determined the logical soundness of the argument.
    No... if your premises aren't even true, then we don't even need to evaluate the validity of the argument, that's not necessary, because the premises aren't true. 


    My argument is sound. And I can show that it is also true. I want my argument to be based on truth.
    Noooooo it's not, it's valid. Show it's true then. That's what I'm interested in. And I'm glad you do, doesn't necessarily mean that they are. 


    I have no issues with that. Each argument should be different depending on the topic and the claims.
    Very good, we agree on that point then.

  • zedvictor4
    zedvictor4 avatar
    Debates: 15
    Forum posts: 4,163
    3
    3
    3
    zedvictor4 avatar
    zedvictor4
    --> @ethang5
    I would suggest that living under a moral code is what we do.....But this manifests as a day to day performance, relative to how our society and ourselves are conditioned.

    For sure, any divergence from the norm will effect a response ,which may or may not compel us to diverge from our moral norms.....But this is how things will play out in the  physical world, and not the same as philosophically analysing and discussing the internal manipulation of data.

    My suggestion was simply, that the production of thought is the same process irrespective of how we label it.

    This thought is subjective, this next thought will be objective.....I would suggest that all thoughts are personal, and therefore by the very nature of the independent process,  all thoughts are subjective irrespective of content.