The Objective Morality Debate

[stevil]

Hello all, this is a well trodden path, probably many past threads on this site regarding this. But this seems to come up when I participate on threads on this forum so I thought, why not, lets explore what this is.

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307044656' post='2249274']
Can anyone define what objective morality is?

1. What is it?
2. Who is the authority?
3. How do people know what the objective morals are?

As an atheist I do not have a definition of this concept. If you want an open and honest debate about this, we need to be clear with regards to what it is that we are debating.
[/quote]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1307129559' post='2249560']
1. What is it?
[color="#595959"][font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"]that's easy, objective morality is where there is an absolute right and wrong. Here's wikipedia [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_morality"]http://en.wikipedia....solute_morality[/url]

[/size][/font][/color]2. Who is the authority?
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"]God[/color][/size][/font]
[font="arial, verdana, sans-serif"][size="2"][color="#595959"]
[/color][/size][/font]3. How do people know what the objective morals are?
Many feel that morality based on Natural Law ([url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_Law"]http://en.wikipedia....iki/Natural_Law[/url]) is the way to go
[/quote]

Do people generally agree with Amppax's answers?, if so then let's explore

Edited June 3, 2011 by stevil

[dairygirl4u2c]

on a side note but related note. i always like to distinguish relative v. arbitrary truth. relative connotes many things, and perhaps in some sense truth is then relative depending.
but truth is not arbitrary.
where all factors are the same except the person, there's a truth there that involves both, and it's absolute.... for many situations.

Edited June 3, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i remember reading a book by socretes where he described how man boy love was as normal as apple pie. (cept they probably didn't have that back then
what do we make of that? to me, we see things like 'love' is transcendent in these equations.
maybe socretes was wrong, i'd tend to strongly think so, maybe social values are simply definting these things, nothing absolute.
but, whatever is right or wrong, i think we can see there's probably trancendent absolute truths here, and we can see that truth probably exists.... even if we dont know what it is necessarily.

as i always answer when people ask if i think trut his relateive? relative, maybe, arbitrary, no... and maybe we dont know what the truth is, but we can know that truth exists.

(lest we get into pilate's problem.... 'what is truth?'

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1307141372' post='2249640']
(lest we get into pilate's problem.... 'what is truth?'
[/quote]

Good one. I think that's where the discussion will inevitabley go.

[stevil]

If we state that there are objective morals which are set by nature (or god, governing all of creation) then it would seem that all people would have a strong sence of what is wrong and right, and all people would agree with each other.

But as we know, people do not agree with each other. We have organisations such as Churches which teach morality to people. Why do people need to be taught if by nature morality is absolute

[havok579257]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307160276' post='2249780']
If we state that there are objective morals which are set by nature (or god, governing all of creation) then it would seem that all people would have a strong sence of what is wrong and right, and all people would agree with each other.

But as we know, people do not agree with each other. We have organisations such as Churches which teach morality to people. Why do people need to be taught if by nature morality is absolute
[/quote]


when your born you know how to eat but do not know how to feed yourself. you must learn to feed yourself, although you do not need to learn how to eat.

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307160276' post='2249780']
If we state that there are objective morals which are set by nature (or god, governing all of creation) then it would seem that all people would have a strong sence of what is wrong and right, and all people would agree with each other.

But as we know, people do not agree with each other. We have organisations such as Churches which teach morality to people. Why do people need to be taught if by nature morality is absolute
[/quote]

If you believe that murder is wrong (or "wrong", since to you it is all relative), then you clearly did not need the Church to teach it to you.

[stevil]

[quote name='HisChildForever' timestamp='1307206497' post='2249897']
If you believe that murder is wrong (or "wrong", since to you it is all relative), then you clearly did not need the Church to teach it to you.
[/quote]

Are you saying murder is an objective moral?
It would be interesting to define murder as I am pro Euthanasia, Abortion, Death Penalty

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307226832' post='2249996']
Are you saying murder is an objective moral?
It would be interesting to define murder as I am pro Euthanasia, Abortion, Death Penalty
[/quote]

Murder is the direct intention to kill an innocent person. Euthanasia and Abortion are murder. Murder is an act against objective morality. murder is an objective immoral.

[KnightofChrist]

[b][size="3"][url="http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/02_divine-truth.htm"]Divine Truth—The Heart's Deepest Longing[/url][/size][/b]
- Peter Kreeft

[stevil]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307227367' post='2250003']
Murder is the direct intention to kill an innocent person. Euthanasia and Abortion are murder. Murder is an act against objective morality. murder is an objective immoral.
[/quote]

When you say that murder is an objective immoral does this mean that some immorals are subjective?

I think Euthanasia is a good example for a little focus. Particularly because I am currently of the opinion that I am strongly for this one. Abortion isn't so clear cut.
By my thinking, if we have a terminally ill Atheist suffering a long and painful road to imminent death, then I am really struggling with the thought that this atheist can't choose a compassionate controlled and medically supervised termination of life. It seems that other peoples belief in gods and stance against Euthanasia is preventing this becoming legal.

How could an atheist understand the objective morality with regards to Euthanasia. If natural law comes into effect, then how does a person tap into that? You cannot simply ask mother nature and expect a succinct answer. My innerself, my reasoning and my compassion tells me that it is OK for the person to choose Euthanasia.

Please tell me how I would expect to know what the objective morality would be in this circumstance.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307267669' post='2250115']
How could an atheist understand the objective morality with regards to Euthanasia. If natural law comes into effect, then how does a person tap into that? You cannot simply ask mother nature and expect a succinct answer. My innerself, my reasoning and my compassion tells me that it is OK for the person to choose Euthanasia.[/quote]

I personally feel that it's even selfish to keep a person who is terminally ill and suffering from ending their lives.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that's been debated a lot here. but at the end of the day, i say it's similar to putting down tortured animals... we do it out of mercy.
inevitably, someone says 'we're not animals', but it's still the point that we put em down out of mercy, so that oesn't really say why it's not merciful for humans.
someone said once... so it would have been good if JPII wanted to kill himself? i can understand why it's sacred to kill someone, a person, so questionable, espeically with folks such as jpii. but it seems most merciful to at least let the person decide, given we do say it's merciful to kill.

but yeah it's not all clear, that's what i'd say. but somethings are trancedent... killing with malice first degree murder, random persons or etc, we know there's some truths here.

[Didacus]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307140785' post='2249634']
Hello all, this is a well trodden path, probably many past threads on this site regarding this. But this seems to come up when I participate on threads on this forum so I thought, why not, lets explore what this is.





Do people generally agree with Amppax's answers?, if so then let's explore
[/quote]
Amppax's replies are simple and can be elaborated a great deal, but in essence he (*or she) is correct.

The first, for instance, having an absolute, is akin to the basis of all logic from acient times;

[quote]It is impossible for something to be, and not to be, at the same time.[/quote]

Truth does not change pending the observer, it remains as truth and it is unmovable. So as two different observers of truth may differ in opinion (subjective), the object (truth) remains the same throughout the observations.

It is in this essence that objective morality is based; morality, right and wrong, remains so regardless of who interpretes or scrutinizes it. We may take different opinions with regards to what is right and what is wrong, but that which is Truth, right and wrong always remains the regardless of the opinions held upon observing them.

Per the axiom above, it is impossible that Truth changes per the observers for the reason that it is illogical that Truth be two different things at the same time.


Make sense?

[Didacus]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' timestamp='1307141372' post='2249640']
i remember reading a book by socretes where he described how man boy love was as normal as apple pie. (cept they probably didn't have that back then
what do we make of that? to me, we see things like 'love' is transcendent in these equations.
maybe socretes was wrong, i'd tend to strongly think so, maybe social values are simply definting these things, nothing absolute.
but, whatever is right or wrong, i think we can see there's probably trancendent absolute truths here, and we can see that truth probably exists.... even if we dont know what it is necessarily.

as i always answer when people ask if i think trut his relateive? relative, maybe, arbitrary, no... and maybe we dont know what the truth is, but we can know that truth exists.

(lest we get into pilate's problem.... 'what is truth?'
[/quote]

You are mixing the word 'love' with the word 'sex' for one thing. The fact are immediately muddled in your statements.

If you are talking about 'love' then yes, it is perfectly normal to love one another regardless of whom one is (man, girl, boy...). We are all called to love one another.

If you are referring to sexual intercourse; then we are stepping into the debate of homosexuality (and other similar acts and tendencies).
To my knowledge, Socrates opinion of homosexuality was firm that those who acted as such lacked an inherent good within themselves permitting them to act as men - properly defined as having as part of being a man the normal attraction to the opposite sex. I would first question your source to claim that Socrates was pro-pedophillia and then scrutinize the logic supporting it. Socrates, Plato & Co. we very firm in their beliefs towards logic and looked at nature in a very direct and simple fashion such that sexual relations could not be inherently as intended by nature unless a procreation factor was included within the act.