Morality

[Solitary]

I changed my wording so people could understand what I'm saying.

Oh believe me, we understand what you are saying.  Solitary

[GSOgymrat]

I was anticipating this form of reply. I changed my wording so people could understand what I'm saying. I will break down my wording so you could see precisely what I'm getting at.

1) I first mentioned how our morals are pretty much all the same. I then say that morals were equally similar in different time periods of civilization and gradually improved as time went on. Objective morality doesn't mean morality stays the same forever. You can't look at objective morality as being a static value that never changes. That isn't what objective morality is.

2) I then explained a single moral many of us all share to emphasize the point I'm making. I made a few contrasts to show that the moral doesn't make sense. I pointed out how killing was necessary for the survival of mankind over the ages. Even animals practiced killing so they could live.

3) I then asked where did that moral come from after knowing the necessity of killing.

Thanks. I now understand your reasoning.

[Solomon Zorn]

1) I first mentioned how our morals are pretty much all the same. I then say that morals were equally similar in different time periods of civilization and gradually improved as time went on. Objective morality doesn't mean morality stays the same forever. You can't look at objective morality as being a static value that never changes. That isn't what objective morality is.

I disagree. Consensus morality does not equal objective morality.

[Qchan]

I disagree. Consensus morality does not equal objective morality.

Solomon. Could you answer the question? What is the foundation of morality?

[Solomon Zorn]

Solomon. Could you answer the question? What is the foundation of morality?

Mine or yours?

[Qchan]

Mine or yours?

You can't speak for me, Solomon. So, please speak on your own behalf.

[Solomon Zorn]

I think you missed the point of my question. There is no "foundation of morality" in any universal sense. My own subjective morality, since you asked, is probably best described as enlightened self-interest. I try to live by the Golden Rule.

[JohnnyB1993]

Here's something else to think about, Johnny: You yourself have shown a propensity to pick and choose, at least a little, what commands of God apply to us from the Bible. So then what are your objective criteria for deciding what parts of the Bible to follow (love thy neighbor), and what parts you can violate (stoning)?

My objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.  My apparent 'picking and choosing' is simply not true.  I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.  I try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'. It is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.  At least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.  The atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

[Solomon Zorn]

My objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.  My apparent 'picking and choosing' is simply not true. I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.  I try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'. It is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.

Wow. You just made the most self-contradictory statement I've maybe ever seen. You just described subjective morality, and called it, "objective."

At least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.  The atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

My morals are based on the Golden Rule: do to others, as you would have them do to you. Does that sound "arbitrary?" While your at it, show how it's "self refuting."

[stromboli]

You pointed out in the beginning that we have debated morality on here a few times, which is true. And every one of those debates concluded that morality is subjective, but yet you state there is an objective morality. Morality is subjective because people's supposed world view is subjective. Look at a single topic, gay marriage. Among Christians, a vocal minority insist that it is evil and will end the world. A bigger percentage statistically adopt the same attitude as most of us do that it is a civil right. Yet by the claim of the loud fundamentalist conservatism it is evil and wrong, marriage is god given and so on.

I cannot think of a single moral topic that has one universal consensus. Death for people convicted of murder versus life imprisonment? I've asked that of six different pastors in a church and gotten exactly even responses-3 said it is wrong, 3 said it was justified. See? Universality implies consensus across the board, and that doesn't exist.

[Mike Cl]

You--My objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.
Me--What is the 'nature of God' and how do you know what it is? 

You-- My apparent 'picking and choosing' is simply not true.  I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.
Me--Then is the OT no longer to be followed? How do you know one way or the other??  For you, what is an 'objective law' and what is a subjective law?  How is that determined?

You-  I try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'. It is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.
Me--How does God reveal to you what is good or bad?  I still have no idea how you determine an objective law from any other type of God given law.  Why would God give different types of law?  And if God is 'all-good', how could he perform genocide?  How is that good?

  You--At least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.
Me--Really?  So far how you do that is a mystery to me.  Where does your 'worldview' come from?  Don't tell me 'God'--I realize that.  In what form do you get it--the Bible, your minister, praying, or was it revealed to you at birth???

You-- The atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.
Me--You make a common mistake of lumping all atheists under one umbrella.  We do not all think alike.  We, as a group simply do not believe in any god or gods.  Beyond that atheists believe whatever they want.  I can't speak for others, but my worldview is not arbitrary, in fact I see them as less arbitrary than yours.  I have no idea what 'self refuting' is referring to.  I see you entire line of argument as being quite arbitrary.  Apparently you cherry pick the Bible for laws you like and discard the laws you don't like; and then you treat the laws you don't like as though they did not exist.  That is the very definition of the word, arbitrary. 

  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

[Solomon Zorn]

JohnnyB, you should research, at least a little bit, the canonization of the various books of the Bible. If you do, you will soon find that the New Testament is a highly subjective collection of documents. There was no divine mandate about what should be included. Subjective men, with subjective minds and subjective criteria, selected from many different gospels, and epistles to come up with the Bible you are calling, “objective.” The Book of Revelation, for example, wasn't included until the fourth century, and was highly disputed at that time.

[stromboli]

Once again every Christian should see the PBS Nova series show, "Buried Secrets of the Bible" which is free on the internet. Explains the origins of the Bible, how and why the Old Testment was compiled and so on. The New Testament was not written by Jews for Jewish people but by Romans for Romans in the 2nd, 3rd and 4th centuries.  The garden of Eden is allegory borrowed from Babylonian myth as was Noah's flood, and there is no evidence that Exodus happened. The three main events of the Old Testament are demonstrably false, and the New Testament is demonstrably created from numerous manuscripts either accepted or rejected by a politically minded early clergy

The Christian book of the dead is bullshit. So much for your morality.

[Mike Cl]

JohnnyB, you should research, at least a little bit, the canonization of the various books of the Bible. If you do, you will soon find that the New Testament is a highly subjective collection of documents. There was no divine mandate about what should be included. Subjective men, with subjective minds and subjective criteria, selected from many different gospels, and epistles to come up with the Bible you are calling, “objective.” The Book of Revelation, for example, wasn't included until the fourth century, and was highly disputed at that time.

I did that awhile ago and found it to be hugely interesting!  For some reasons my Christian friends seemed to think that the Bible plopped to earth one day as a totally finished product.  Actually, it is a creation of some very deep and dirty politics.  What a surprise!  (Not!!)  We (humans) do not have an 'original' bible to work from.  We just have bits and pieces of recovered material.  None of which agrees with any other fragment.  I believe the oldest fragment dates from the 300's.  Not all bibles are equal in that not all agree with each other, either.  Go into any bible book store and you will find literally hundreds of different versions, all having different material.  And they all are The Word Of God?????  Those are the reasons the usual, typical zian has no interest in the history of either their bible or their religion.  They are and remain, willfully ignorant.  And they are praised for it by the hierarchy of whatever church they belong to.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

My objective criteria is abiding under the nature of God which I think is the paradigm of 'good'.  My apparent 'picking and choosing' is simply not true.  I do not consider the law of stoning someone in the OT to be one of God's true objective laws.  I try and follow as closely to what God has revealed to me as 'good'. It is not that I subjectively choose what to follow, I try and follow the objective laws from an objectively all-good God.  At least from my worldview I can account for objective morality, and have good reason to say that something is objectively right or wrong.  The atheist on the other hand cannot make such a claim, all morals in an atheistic worldview are arbitrary and thus self refuting.  (Its been a while since my last post, sorry.  If you have moved on and are bored of this topic, then I understand).

Your morality is basically the definition of subjective. It's full of "me me me me me." No point back-pedaling now, you've already admitted that nothing about your moral compass is objective. QED. Bye bye, see you later.