A note on materialism and objective morality

Silver Asiatic, thanks again for a great response. Your probing analysis consistently provides a good number of thought stimulators: You write,

Now here’s the problem … as we both know, the objective moral code, or natural moral law, in its primative form is “true”, in the sense that it points to universal norms recognized by the conscience. But is it really true? The reason we wonder is because it is incomplete. Can a moral code that omits essential aspects of moral life really be said to be a “true code of morality”? It’s a primitive guide – a foundation or basis for moral living, but it can’t be considered “the true moral code” because it omits important aspects of moral living.

I suspect it is less about the moral code not including essential aspects and more about our inability to draw them out, especially since some may exist as a seed waiting to germinate—a potential yet to be realized. In my judgment, we can grasp the essence of a truth dimly and then grow progressively in our understanding of that same moral truth. To make it more concrete, let’s examine the Fifth Commandment, which is also a part of the natural moral law. I can, at a basic and primitive level, understand the meaning of “Thou Shalt Not Kill.” When you think about it, though, the command, as expressed, is solely about behavior; there is nothing explicitly stated about intentions or motives. Applied reason (and more profoundly, revelation) can elevate our understanding and fine-tune our conscience to a new standard: “thou shalt not hate enough to want to kill,” Indeed, that is precisely the difference between e Old Testament and New Testament standards. Is that the end of the journey? By no means. More fine tuning is required. What about the anger that prompted the bad motive, and is that anger restricted to life and death issues? Should we not continue to master that vice until a new and improved level of moral responsibility becomes evident: “thou shalt not kill they neighbor’s spirit with cruel speech,” or even, “thou shalt not want to” and on to, thou Shalt control thy pugnacious nature and turn the other cheek (except for self defense);, and the on to thou Shalt pray for your enemies; and on to, “thou shalt practice self sacrificial love to the point where you will bless your enemies even as they crucify you. “Be ye perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect.” I would argue that it’s the same code—a moral truth that can, in concert with our applied reason and revelation, be developed and understood without changing its essence or the fact of its objective nature. Do we, in fact, need religion and revealed truths to help us along this journey? Yes, of course. Except for Jesus Christ, it would never have occurred to anyone that we must acquire humility and die in our old nature in order to achieve maximum moral growth. Even the great Aristotle didn’t get it. On the other hand, the journey can begin with an attentive conscience and openness to the light we are given. (Of course, it would be far better to build and grow with Christianity in the first place, so that we can supernaturalize the natural virtues, but we are discussing the natural moral law and its role in helping us to find out where we go to make that leap).

If I’m right, then we’d have a problem measuring the objective moral code (of nature) with moral codes given by false prophets. Those codes also are not true, but can contain important moral truths. For myself, I feel that variants of the Christian religion, for example, contain moral truths but are incomplete (omitting necessary moral actions) or incorrect (permitting immoral acts). How do we deal with that? Are those moral codes “objective”? I don’t really have an answer here, but this just expresses my concern about the natural moral law taken by itself.

I think you used just the right words, “incomplete moral truths.” I think we can understand a moral truth without understanding everything about that moral truth. I will appeal to a metaphor: Sometimes, the only natural guidance we will get is, “Go north. Do not go south.” To be sure, that standard is not sufficient to guide us on a journey from Louisville to Chicago, but it will, at least, save us from ending up in New Orleans. As we travel north, we will receive more light (with the aid of revelation).. If we persist, we will arrive at our destination in due time. Staying away from vice is the logical complement to pursuing virtue. As we know, a revealed truth can surpass a natural truth, but will never contradict it. (Thou Shalt not lust is a superior standard to Thou Shalt Not commit Adultery, but it does not contradict it.). Still, both are objective truths. It is not the same with pseudo-objective truths, which militate against common sense. Of course, it would be even better if we can use revealed objective truths to contradict pseudo objective truths—assuming that we have applied our reason to the task of finding the legitimate revealed truth, which will illuminate our reason and take our discernment to a new level.

Excellent clarification and if you’re correct, I’d have to change my view again. For point a, if an objective code must come from God, then that really settles it. There couldn’t be an objective code coming from nature, or matter, or some sort of spirit-world. I’ve been accustomed to saying that a non-theist philosophical school like Stoicism or Epicureanism, could offer “objective moral codes”. But that would be incorrect if they don’t reference God as the source.

I would say this. I believe that a non-theist philosopher can offer an objectively true (though undeveloped) moral principle that comes from God (perhaps through nature or perhaps a heavenly illumination), even though he doesn’t recognize God as its author. It is objective because of its source, not because the source is recognized--nor does the philosopher’s failure to recognize its Divine origin make the principle any less objective. Aristotle, for example, recognized that in order to correct a vice at the natural level, which is an extreme of some kind, one must begin to act in the direction of the other extreme (practice extreme brashness to reach the ideal midpoint (courage) and overcome cowardice). If the twig is bent too far to the left, bend it back toward the right until it becomes straight. God created nature that way and Aristotle picked up on it. If it wasn’t truly objective, Aristotle could not have made that calculation. A subjectivist would certainly never talk that way. On the other hand, Aristotle, unlike Christ, seemed to discount the virtue of humility. Thus, I think we can say that he provided a good, though not perfect, account of the moral life at the primitive level. (We don’t get to Chicago, but we avoid New Orleans) And again, Aristotle had no way of knowing that prayer, grace, (and sacrifice) are necessary to reach moral perfection. None of this changes the fact that Aristotle apprehended the Natural Moral Law, but it does indicate that reason at its best cannot apprehend it perfectly without heavenly help. We need the supernatural virtues of knowledge, understanding, and wisdom to avoid error and complete journey to our designed destiny (heaven).

Regarding your categories (which were an improvement over mine), we might develop them, or question at least. The one, true, accessible, moral system. (Generated from the outside and including both Divine and Natural revelation. Because this moral system is ‘complete’, then this is the only true moral code (if a code that omits necessary moral requirements is ‘not true’). Why wouldn’t we call this one “the objective moral code”? Not sure and just wondering.

I don’t think an objective code will leave out any moral seeds, but those seeds may not germinate if applied reason doesn’t enter the picture. If the natural moral law provides a standard consistent with the principles made explicit in the Ten Commandments, I have to ask myself a question: Is it a true code if it leaves out the first three ((relationship with God) and includes only the last seven (relationship with people). In a way, I am also asking myself if the natural moral law, unaided by Revealed truth, bids us to worship the same God whose existence we can detect. If the NML expresses, implicitly or explicitly, my duty toward man, should it not also include my duty toward God (worship). Or, again, can I, by intuiting the NML and applying my reason, know that I not only ought to treat my neighbor fairly, but that I should also worship the Creator. I think the answer is yes, but I think it requires a sustained reasoning and living to arrive at that conviction. In addition to the problem of width, we also must confront the challenge of depth. Yes, the NML bids us to remain faithful to our spouse, but does it place an equal emphasis on chastity? Again, I think it turns on the quality of reason that is applied to the question. It’s the same with the question of abortion and artificial birth control. In this case, the second point is harder to understand, but no less important to consider. If man has the right to tell God which human beings are allowed to enter the world (artificial birth control), why does he not also have the right to decide who will leave and when (murder). I am not saying that the two acts are morally equivalent, but I would insist they are on the same moral track. All the seeds are there, I think, but I think we need reason and, most emphatically, revealed truth to grasp all the implications.

Again, ‘part of’ the one true system means that it’s not a ‘true code’ (if code means system). It would just be “norms”. Additionally, these norms are not published or codified by any authority. They can be found in various false religions or philosophical schools, but they’re mixed with false moral norms.

Yes.

It’s interesting – I’m just wondering if we can call “objective morality” which is merely a ‘part of the true moral code’ (an important part) a real moral code in itself. Thoughts? I think its important value is that as “objective norms” they’re different than (and superior to) subjectivism.

Because I hold that all objective principles are true, given my definition of objective, it follows that they are binding. It would be ridiculous to be bound to a false doctrine, or, for that matter, a changing doctrine. (*I don’t mean an unchanging doctrine that develops through the use of applied reason and experience, which is legitimate).

Perhaps it’s something like mathematics. God revealed in ‘observable nature’ the basics of mathematics. We can count, divide, multiply, subtract, etc. This would be like “the objective mathematical code”. But we wouldn’t call this “the true system of mathematics” since it omits so many non-observable aspects that we can only reach through reasoning (the square root of 391, etc). Because of the Fall, we have to work to build mathematics from what is observed to what is reasoned. God gave the basics but we have to collaborate to get the fullness. I guess in just terminology, I would still hesitate to call primative mathematics an “objective code” versus “objective norms” since the term “code” seems a lot like “system”. But we know it’s not a full system. The same with objective moral code. That term makes it sound more complete than it it. But that’s just my own personal quibble. The concept is very solid as you presented it and again, many thanks for your time and all of these clarifications.

I think that in both cases the quality of applied reason will influence the level of understanding. Perhaps there are also truths in mathematics that could be “revealed,” but they would not be nearly as important as those that guide our behavior. StephenB

StephenB Thank you for an excellent response. This is the best discussion I have ever had on this topic and I really appreciate your detailed considerations. You've obviously put a lot of thought into this, and I've also adjusted my views as a result. Here's one example, where you said:

It is not enough to say that objective means outside the subject, because a false prophet can characterize a subjective idea as objective and place it on the outside of other subjects. In other words, just being on the outside of the subject’s mind is not enough; to be truly objective, it must come from God or nature. If it comes from a false prophet, then I would characterize it as pseudo-objective, a subjective code posing as an objective code By definition, then, an objective code, properly defined, must be true.

Calling it pseudo-objective is an excellent distinction to make. Before this, I would have called it 'objective' simply because it was publicly accessible, had a following, generated some analysis, had a purpose or intention and built some kind of 'school' around it. So, in that case, I would have called Hitler's Nazism "an objective moral code". It meets those marks of objectivity. But as you point out, Nazism doesn't reference universal norms, in fact, it violates them. So, pseudo-objective would be the more correct term for it. Thank you for that.

In truth, though, I don’t think the West has retained much of that tradition. If one is over 50 years old, maybe. Beyond that, there is little evidence of socially-generated, objectively defined morals that could leak into human consciousness.

Interesting point. I'm in that age category so I'm probably over-estimating how much of the tradition is actually retained. With that, discussion on objective morals would seem more important.

The broader point is that this road, once taken, always leads to the Bible and then the Church. There is no other place for reason to go. First cause arguments, for example, lead us to a transcendent God, which rules out the Eastern religions and atheism; and relational arguments favor a God who is also immanent, which rules out Islam and Deism, and perhaps even Judaism. What religion survives this elimination process? I submit that it is Christianity.

That's really the argumentation path - it's only a few steps. And I know you share my view on some specifics regarding Christianity beyond that. I guess one of my concerns is that objective moral discussions often get bogged down in the specifics about objective morality when the argument is meant to lead to the broader point you illustrated.

It seems that we can cover all the combinations and permutations, except for the one problem I expressed earlier, namely the false prophet who makes up his own code and projects it outward as if it was a revealed truth. I am still not comfortable with the idea of calling a code generated by a human being an objective code, even if it understood to be objective by the worshippers of that false religion, and even though it make be mixed in with other truths in that same system that really are objective (perhaps copied from another religion)

This is an important point and I follow what you're getting at. Here's my concern. First of all, we often hear our opponents thinking that "objective moral code" means "true, complete moral code". If that was the case, then it would be easier to see how there could only be "one objective moral code". There couldn't be several true, conflicting codes. Now here's the problem ... as we both know, the objective moral code, or natural moral law, in its primative form is "true", in the sense that it points to universal norms recognized by the conscience. But is it really true? The reason we wonder is because it is incomplete. Can a moral code that omits essential aspects of moral life really be said to be a "true code of morality"? Personally, I don't think so. It's a primitive guide - a foundation or basis for moral living, but it can't be considered "the true moral code" because it omits important aspects of moral living. If I'm right, then we'd have a problem measuring the objective moral code (of nature) with moral codes given by false prophets. Those codes also are not true, but can contain important moral truths. For myself, I feel that variants of the Christian religion, for example, contain moral truths but are incomplete (omitting necessary moral actions) or incorrect (permitting immoral acts). How do we deal with that? Are those moral codes "objective"? I don't really have an answer here, but this just expresses my concern about the natural moral law taken by itself.

Let me stretch out on this just a bit. In order for a moral truth to be objective, it seems to me that it must [a] come from an outside source (God), it must [b] precede the subject both logically and chronologically, it must [c] reflect the truth about human nature and, having those three qualities, it must [d] be unqualifiedly true. In other words, if it really objective, it must be true, If it only seems to be objective (a false prophet who characterizes his subjective truth as a revealed truth) then it may not be true/.

Excellent clarification and if you're correct, I'd have to change my view again. For point a, if an objective code must come from God, then that really settles it. There couldn't be an objective code coming from nature, or matter, or some sort of spirit-world. I've been accustomed to saying that a non-theist philosophical school like Stoicism or Epicureanism, could offer "objective moral codes". But that would be incorrect if they don't reference God as the source. They would either be pseudo-objective or merely "reasoned moral codes" that are not objective. Interesting point. Again, if objective moral code means "sourced from God" then the existence of that code, or acceptance of it, is linked to the existence of God. From there, the topic moves directly to religion - as you've discussed. Regarding your categories (which were an improvement over mine), we might develop them, or question at least.

The one, true, accessible, moral system. (Generated from the outside and including both Divine and Natural revelation.

Because this moral system is 'complete', then this is the only true moral code (if a code that omits necessary moral requirements is 'not true'). Why wouldn't we call this one "the objective moral code"? Not sure and just wondering.

Objective code (generated from the outside and part of the one, true, accessible, moral system)

Again, 'part of' the one true system means that it's not a 'true code' (if code means system). It would just be "norms". Additionally, these norms are not published or codified by any authority. They can be found in various false religions or philosophical schools, but they're mixed with false moral norms. It's interesting - I'm just wondering if we can call "objective morality" which is merely a 'part of the true moral code' (an important part) a real moral code in itself. Thoughts? I think its important value is that as "objective norms" they're different than (and superior to) subjectivism.

Whatever morality is found in a reasoned analysis of human nature is incomplete insofar as it fails to provide all the moral information necessary to be saved or even life a suitably moral life, but it is complete insofar as it represents everything that God revealed in nature. Still, we may not fully grasp it unless our reason is sufficiently developed and our will is duly trained. Some of this seems related to the Fall and Original Sin.

Perhaps it's something like mathematics. God revealed in 'observable nature' the basics of mathematics. We can count, divide, multiply, subtract, etc. This would be like "the objective mathematical code". But we wouldn't call this "the true system of mathematics" since it omits so many non-observable aspects that we can only reach through reasoning (the square root of 391, etc). Because of the Fall, we have to work to build mathematics from what is observed to what is reasoned. God gave the basics but we have to collaborate to get the fullness. I guess in just terminology, I would still hesitate to call primative mathematics an "objective code" versus "objective norms" since the term "code" seems a lot like "system". But we know it's not a full system. The same with objective moral code. That term makes it sound more complete than it it. But that's just my own personal quibble. The concept is very solid as you presented it and again, many thanks for your time and all of these clarifications.

Natural moral law (subset of natural laws and, perhaps synonymous with objective code) Pseudo objective code, (A subjective moral posing as an objective code [false prophet] Subjective code (anything humans make up)

Yes, agreed.

Thus, I think we must start from reason. Step one: Reason tells us that God exists. Step two: Reason informs us that several prophets claim moral authority. Step thee: Reason tells us that we must test their credibility: Step four: Reason establishes the test (I alluded to one such test earlier)

Right, that is the correct path. I was thinking of moral systems that do not include God. However, if we move from objective morals to the necessity of God, then we can test the credibility of revelations and prophets and arrive at the truth. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic, Excellent comments. You have provided a good number of well-thought-out thought stimulators. SA

So, it would be something like “subjectively developed morality” versus “a moral order that transcends the person”.

That is a clear way of putting it, I think. I would add that my definition of objective includes the idea of coming from an outside source (God or nature), it’s existence must precede not just the subject in question, but all subjects. It is not enough to say that objective means outside the subject, because a false prophet can characterize a subjective idea as objective and place it on the outside of other subjects. In other words, just being on the outside of the subject’s mind is not enough; to be truly objective, it must come from God or nature. If it comes from a false prophet, then I would characterize it as pseudo-objective, a subjective code posing as an objective code By definition, then, an objective code, properly defined, must be true.

True. At the same time, it [NML] is limited and generalized. It can only sketch out some of the basic moral standards. It’s also very much subject to misinterpretation – but it’s a necessary guideline.

Yes, all these vulnerabilities are there. Beyond a certain point, I think, the NML is only as reliable and comprehensible as the quality of reason that is applied to it.

True, and here’s where we start to wonder. How is it possible for a person, let’s say in Western culture, to have an “absence of the revealed truths”? We could understand Aristotle, 350 BC, having limited access to revelation. But the modern, educated American or European? Could the same person be oblivious to revealed truth and yet be subtle and aware enough to recognize the natural law?

Good point. How much of our knowledge of the NML was gained by apprehending natural truths and how much was absorbed from the vestiges of a formerly Judeo-Christian subculture? Perhaps the proportion is more skewed toward that latter than I realize. I do believe that each represents a different way of knowing. In truth, though, I don’t think the West has retained much of that tradition. If one is over 50 years old, maybe. Beyond that, there is little evidence of socially-generated, objectively defined morals that could leak into human consciousness. Of course, one can always consult history.

This answers my questions above. We’re talking about something very primative. It’s something Cain knew. But since then, as you said, we have the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, Tao, etc. These are “objective moral codes” – and they point to a common, “natural moral lawBut beyond this, the Ten Commandments, for example, references first – the command to worship God. The ten commandments are revealed moral truths. To me, it seems almost impossible to live as if the only source of moral truth we have is the natural moral law. That’s why for me, when there is talk of “objective morals”, I can only think of revealed texts.

Yes, I agree. I don’t really think that the NML will suffice as the ultimate guide. However, those who are open minded enough to accept it when they have no other moral and spiritual resource may acquire the disposition to accept higher truths when the opportunity arrives. Such openness prompts one to adopt the age old principle: follow the light you are given and you will be given more; keep following the light until you die. Even those of us who have been blessed with faith and a good moral education must follow that rule. The broader point is that this road, once taken, always leads to the Bible and then the Church. There is no other place for reason to go. First cause arguments, for example, lead us to a transcendent God, which rules out the Eastern religions and atheism; and relational arguments favor a God who is also immanent, which rules out Islam and Deism, and perhaps even Judaism. What religion survives this elimination process? I submit that it is Christianity.

But even if a person was totally ignorant of religion, I still think we have philosophical schools that base “object moral codes” on reason (to greater and lesser extent). I think even that is much better than simply a reference to one’s own conscience. We can assess the moral law in conscience, but it seems to me to be perilously close to subjectivism. It’s very common to confuse, exaggerate, minimize, deaden conscience. That’s why we have written revealed or published philosophical “objective moral codes” – to have texts we can reference external to the person.

Absolutely right. Excellent comment! Yes, reason can and should put religion to the test, but religion, once verified, can and should put reason to the test; Among other things, Revealed truths can cure one of the delusion that reason is sufficient or infallible or that it cannot be corrupted by a perverted will. As Pascal said, one of the most important functions of reason is to know when it ought to submit. If reason never submits, then it will eventually become rationalism, which is just as deadly as any other intellectual fault.

Here’s where I’ll take the discussion one step further. We’re looking at these various things: 1. The Objective Moral Code 2. The Natural Moral Law 3. Objective Moral Codes or Systems 4. Objective Moral Norms (not fitting a moral system) 5. Subjective Morals (by the individual, for the individual) 6. The Fullest, Complete, True Moral System/Code Now – is there is difference between all of these things? For many, #1 and #2 are the same. For me, I don’t like the terminology in #1 for reasons given. I don’t think there is One Objective Moral Code. I think #3 is more correct. There are several objective codes, with more or less truth or correctness. Regarding #2, there is a Natural Moral Law, but it’s impossible to fully explain it. With #4, there are clear Norms – Cain knew killing his brother was wrong. But that’s different than a full “code” of morals. #5 – we know the problems with that That brings us to #6. In my view, and I’m pretty sure you share it, I believe there is one, true, objectively-accessible, moral code.

Now that you have made these distinctions, I can better understand your concerns. I find myself agreeing with you about the importance of giving them a name. .Inasmuch as most of the world’s religions contain some measure of truth, we can use your formula to set them apart from errors contained in the same code, or perhaps from elements in a code. It seems that we can cover all the combinations and permutations, except for the one problem I expressed earlier, namely the false prophet who makes up his own code and projects it outward as if it was a revealed truth. I am still not comfortable with the idea of calling a code generated by a human being an objective code, even if it understood to be objective by the worshippers of that false religion, and even though it make be mixed in with other truths in that same system that really are objective (perhaps copied from another religion) Let me stretch out on this just a bit. In order for a moral truth to be objective, it seems to me that it must [a] come from an outside source (God), it must [b] precede the subject both logically and chronologically, it must [c] reflect the truth about human nature and, having those three qualities, it must [d] be unqualifiedly true. In other words, if it really objective, it must be true, If it only seems to be objective (a false prophet who characterizes his subjective truth as a revealed truth) then it may not be true/. So, following your wise lead to make distinct categories, I am inclined to set it up this way: The one, true, accessible, moral system. (Generated from the outside and including both Divine and Natural revelation. Objective code (generated from the outside and part of the one, true, accessible, moral system) Natural moral law (subset of natural laws and, perhaps synonymous with objective code) Pseudo objective code, (A subjective moral posing as an objective code [false prophet] Subjective code (anything humans make up) Whatever morality is found in a reasoned analysis of human nature is incomplete insofar as it fails to provide all the moral information necessary to be saved or even life a suitably moral life, but it is complete insofar as it represents everything that God revealed in nature. Still, we may not fully grasp it unless our reason is sufficiently developed and our will is duly trained. Some of this seems related to the Fall and Original Sin.

------it’s all about Aurhority. Every moral code is interpreted and promulgated by a Moral Authority – as the Lawmaker and Judge. Nature itself has some authority, even without religion. The “law of karma” for example, would teach that “nature will have it’s revenge”. It’s not subjective – it’s an authority outside the person. But having God declare the moral order takes things to an entirely new level.

Yes, I agree. I would also suggest that to find the correct religion is to find the true authority and vice versa.

That’s how we would judge the difference between Islam and other moral codes. It’s by the nature of Muhammad’s revelation, who he was as a prophet, what the nature of Allah is — and as you said, how all of this conforms to reason To me, this is a much better way to discern moral truths. They point to a lawgiver, and therefore God. To what extent does that moral authority speak for God? How can we tell that? Through reason and an analysis of the moral authority, we arrive at a greater certainty of the moral law.

Yes, I think so. We simply take all the prophets, religious and philosophical, and ask them the relevant questions: (Were you foretold? Did you prove your claims about being from God by performing miracles? Is your system infallible? Does it hang together? How reasonable are your doctrines? How do I know that I may safely allow them to illuminate my reason? Did you make provisions for us to find these teachings by leaving a Church?)

When we use “objective”, it really does mean “an object, external to the person”. Now, what if we judge the quality of codes on a scale of “goodness” or “rightness”. 1. Subjective 2. Conflicting ideas on Natural Moral Law 3. Conflicting philosophical schools 4. Conflicting ideas on religous/revealed morals 5. The True, Correct, Moral Code Obviously, #5 ranks the highest in goodness and rightness. Now, what ranks the lowest? Why? Normally, we would say Subjective morals, made by the person for the person has the lowest value.

Agreed

How did we judge the value? Mainly by the quality, power, goodness and rightness of the Lawmaker and the Purpose of the Law.

Yes, and in order to really comprehend the law, we must understand not only the Creator's intent, but also learn about the local “why.” Sew a thought, reap an action; sew an action, reap a habit; sew a habit, reap a character; sew a character, reap a destiny. In the final analysis, it’s all about this: Why are we here, where are we going?

That’s why this is so interesting: “What if I subjectively created my own moral code that was exactly the same as the “One Correct True Code Revealed by God”? It would still have the lowest value – even though it was exactly the same! The reason is, the code was created and judged by an individual, for an individual. So, it’s the reason why we follow morals that judges the goodness of the code. It’s the motive that counts.

Interesting point, indeed. I do think there is a complementarity in this respect: We follow the moral law because the lawgiver is perfectly good and because, being perfectly good, he made it good for us, and because He made us to want what is good.

If we follow Islam because “we want to kill all our enemies”, that’s a lot different than following Islam “because Allah is the true God and I want to worship purely”. Both moral codes are the same, but one has greater goodness for the believer than another.

Yes.

The same with subjectivism: “I want to do good for my neighbor because I decided that’s what I’m all about”, is different than “I do good for others because I love God, who is all goodness and I want to serve Him”. Same code – different motive.

Right. What we do is important, but why we do it is much more important.

That’s it – exactly [Which authority is legitimate]. And that’s why I get troubled about discussions on “objective moral code” without a discussion on authority. I think it’s virtually impossible to find anyone who can live a moral life by following “the objective moral code” itself. To do that, you’d have to be totally ignorant of all religion.

If my earlier assumption is correct (all objective morality is true (as opposed to pseudo- objective morality) then there must be some kind of an overlap between revealed truths and natural truths. Thus, by virtue of possessing a natural truth, you already have some religion and some of the attendant authority that goes with it. Under those circumstances, it doesn’t seem that it could ever be a liability to have such a natural truth even in the absence of a revealed truth since the former hints at and bids us to seek the latter. (i.e. If God reveals his existence in nature, we naturally want to know which expression of God’s revelation is correct among all those who make such claims) Of course, as you say, history provides many examples of revealed truths in action, so it is virtually impossible for an educated person not to have absorbed many of those principle through osmosis. So, my strategy at this point, informed by your concerns about the potential for confusion and misunderstanding, has changed. In discussing objective morality, I am inclined to define the term when I used it and differentiate objective morality from pseudo objective morality. On the other hand, if I abandon the word “objective” altogether, I don’t know how I could convey the idea of truth coming from the outside as opposed to truth being made up from the inside.

Now, how about this: Is it better to follow a moral code, for purposes of serving God, in a false religion? Or to reject all religion and just follow the “objective moral law” known by conscience? Tough question. I would say, however, that it’s better to submit oneself to God – even in a false religion, than to try to live a moral life as if there is no God and no revelation at all. There are lots of reasons for that — we could get into it later.

That is a tough question all right. I think it is probably a tie for this reason: In the first case, the believer is submitting to Allah, and in the second case, the thinker is submitting himself to the light, which is really God by another name. In both cases, God is not understood and appreciated in a theologically orthodox way. For me, the central question would be this: Which one is more likely to be disposed to find his way to the person of truth, Himself, given the starting point? Which one is more likely to say, “Give me more light?” It’s an open question.

Yes, absolutely and great point. But let’s keep in mind, that with “the objective moral code”, in the absence of religion – each individual has the responsibility to be “the authority” in all moral matters. Conscience, yes, points to values external to the person — but the conscience is within the person. As you said, it can be weakened and mistaken.

To me, if one has the disposition to follow the light, or to accept the natural moral law as it reveals itself, that would be an act of submission to an outside authority, ie, to the testimony of nature. I am not sure that this would lead to an attitude of arrogating to one’s self the right to make subjective moral judgments. If that was his attitude, he would likely not be open to submitting to the NML or to objective moral truth in the fist place.

So, it’s the same with religious revelations. Prophets come along and have more or less correctness in what they say about God. If we really were do approach the topic of morals in the most complete sense – we would start with the moral authorities and view them. To me, that’s better than the bottom-up view of starting with natural law and working up to authority.

I think your goal is exactly right, but I am not sure about the methodology. I don’t think it is possible to start at the top. The whole point is to discern, at least at first, who really is at the top and who merely claims to be. Thus, I think we must start from reason. Step one: Reason tells us that God exists. Step two: Reason informs us that several prophets claim moral authority. Step thee: Reason tells us that we must test their credibility: Step four: Reason establishes the test (I alluded to one such test earlier) **Thanks again for all you profound ideas and worthwhile objections. I have already made some adjustments based on your thoughtful and disciplined analysis. StephenB

veilikovskys I wouldn't put it that way. Both soul and body are intrinsic - the soul as the substantial determining form of the body, which as matter is in potential (hylomorphism). But you disagree. You don't like a "meat puppet". How do you view the union of immaterial soul and body? Or are you saying (in your own terms), "the body is just matter" and there is no soul. So, just "meat"? Silver Asiatic

SA: So, water puddles care if they starve and they don’t want to do that because they will die. Sorry, you are saying that an immaterial soul makes us care if we are hungry and that we will die. That seems to me to be saying that the body is just matter which the soul manipulates, a meat puppet. velikovskys

velikovskys Answering Z's question: Why should people care if they starve or not?

Without additional food ( water ) puddles will starve to death( evaporate)

So, water puddles care if they starve and they don't want to do that because they will die. Ok. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic: There’s no evidence that chemicals starve at all. Organisms do starve, and more particularly, exhibit behaviors associated with hunger. William J Murray: So, essentially, you feel like it. "Feel like it" is an idiom that suggests a trivial and transient desire. Moral sensibilities often are contrary to trivial and transient desires. William J Murray: Because starving can cause serious harm to one’s body, even causing death. So? William J Murray: Is there a subjectivist equivalent if I choose not to do what i feel is moral? Sure. Humans have many competing desires, and the balance between them varies by individual and circumstance. William J Murray: They are just sensations that one can either act in accordance with or not, like hunger, depending on if one thinks such actions are in their best interest or not. People generally eat because they are hungry, not because of some abstract calculation of best interest. Zachriel

SA: There’s no evidence that chemicals starve at all. Cutting off oxygen will starve a fire Clouds don’t starve, puddles don’t starve Without additional food ( water ) puddles will starve to death( evaporate) , sand dunes don’t starve. They blow away unless new sand is provided evolution supposedly created “starving” for some reason – To make the invention of nachos possible? even though the earth exists quite nicely without it. Subduction of the tectonic plates feeds volcanoes. velikovskys

Zachriel said:

A feeling of moral imperative.

So, essentially, you feel like it. Noted.

Why should people care if they starve or not?

Because starving can cause serious harm to one's body, even causing death. Is there a subjectivist equivalent if I choose not to do what i feel is moral?

It’s not a matter of should but the fact of having the sensation of hunger — or moral sensibilities.

So there is no reason I should obey any moral sensation. They are just sensations that one can either act in accordance with or not, like hunger, depending on if one thinks such actions are in their best interest or not. Noted. William J Murray

Zachriel

Why should people care if they starve or not?

There's no evidence that chemicals starve at all. So, yes - why should anything care that it starves? What good does it do? Clouds don't starve, puddles don't starve, sand dunes don't starve. Do trees care if they starve? They don't seem to do much about it. So, evolution supposedly created "starving" for some reason - even though the earth exists quite nicely without it. Silver Asiatic

StephenB Thanks again for a insightful response. I'm learning a lot from this and I appreciate the chance to ask some open-ended questions. I'm just trying to explore what we're really saying and wondering if there are different ways to say the same thing.

I think that objectivity can certainly include observable things, but it also pertains to things that cannot be observed. The concept of justice, for example cannot be observed. It can only be known.

Interesting and true. Justice is an objective moral 'thing'. In the classical sense, it's a virtue. I think that's an excellent example of an "objective moral norm". The means of recognizing justice is through conscience. I wonder if we could say that "conscience is the instrument by which we recognize objective norms"? 'Objective' here means "the object" that is recognized or assessed by conscience. We know what justice and injustice is. Our conscience directs us to act with justice, and it bothers us if we are unjust. We say this is part of human nature - so it's a natural law.

I would say that, in this context, subjective refers to “who knows it” and objective refers to “what is known.”

Excellent distinction. I think what happens is we look at "subjetive versus objective" as if the two are directly opposite. But subjective is talking about "who knows it" (or 'who creates/determines/authorizes/judges it') and "objective" is talking about something different. There is still a 'subject' with an objective code. But the subject is looking at "an object" which was not created by the subject. Ok, this is where I still think the term "objective morals" is confusing and easily misunderstood by people. Subjective morals have "an object" also. But it's the source of the object that is the difference. So, it would be something like "subjectively developed morality" versus "a moral order that transcends the person".

I believe that we can. Our conscience can fail through misuse or abuse, but the truth about human nature remains.

Once again that is very good. Difference between conscience and nature. Our conscience is the instrument by which we perceive objective/inherent/transcendent morality. Nature is "the medium" by which those morals are transmitted or understood.

I think that the natural moral law, which cannot be observed, is accessible as a self-evident truth, albeit a truth that is progressively understood only insofar as reason is applied.

True. At the same time, it is limited and generalized. It can only sketch out some of the basic moral standards. It's also very much subject to misinterpretation - but it's a necessary guideline.

Also, the natural moral law doesn’t tell us all we need to know about right and wrong. It is consistent with, but cannot be substituted for, Divinely revealed truths. However, it can be understood in the absence of those revealed truths.

True, and here's where we start to wonder. How is it possible for a person, let's say in Western culture, to have an "absence of the revealed truths"? We could understand Aristotle, 350 BC, having limited access to revelation. But the modern, educated American or European? Could the same person be oblivious to revealed truth and yet be subtle and aware enough to recognize the natural law?

Well, of course, we can find many texts (Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, Tao, etc) which supplement and illuminate, in greater detail and depth, those same truths we can already apprehend. However, at the most primitive level, we find the NML in our reasoned analysis of human nature. Cain knew that he should not murder Abel long before Moses is said to have expounded on the Ten Commandments.

This answers my questions above. We're talking about something very primative. It's something Cain knew. But since then, as you said, we have the Ten Commandments, the Beatitudes, Tao, etc. These are "objective moral codes" - and they point to a common, "natural moral law". But beyond this, the Ten Commandments, for example, references first - the command to worship God. The ten commandments are revealed moral truths. To me, it seems almost impossible to live as if the only source of moral truth we have is the natural moral law. That's why for me, when there is talk of "objective morals", I can only think of revealed texts. But even if a person was totally ignorant of religion, I still think we have philosophical schools that base "object moral codes" on reason (to greater and lesser extent). I think even that is much better than simply a reference to one's own conscience. We can assess the moral law in conscience, but it seems to me to be perilously close to subjectivism. It's very common to confuse, exaggerate, minimize, deaden conscience. That's why we have written revealed or published philosophical "objective moral codes" - to have texts we can reference external to the person.

We can, therefore, at least in that context, judge the reasonableness of Islam’s objective morality, in which case we find that it does not always reflect the truth about human nature, or, for that matter, God.

Here's where I'll take the discussion one step further. We're looking at these various things: 1. The Objective Moral Code 2. The Natural Moral Law 3. Objective Moral Codes or Systems 4. Objective Moral Norms (not fitting a moral system) 5. Subjective Morals (by the individual, for the individual) 6. The Fullest, Complete, True Moral System/Code Now - is there is difference between all of these things? For many, #1 and #2 are the same. For me, I don't like the terminology in #1 for reasons given. I don't think there is One Objective Moral Code. I think #3 is more correct. There are several objective codes, with more or less truth or correctness. Regarding #2, there is a Natural Moral Law, but it's impossible to fully explain it. With #4, there are clear Norms - Cain knew killing his brother was wrong. But that's different than a full "code" of morals. #5 - we know the problems with that. That brings us to #6. In my view, and I'm pretty sure you share it, I believe there is one, true, objectively-accessible, moral code. But the only way we can even discuss this, is if we enter the world of religion - since a divinely revealed morality is far superior to what we know by nature. The fact that we have divine revelation means that nature alone was not sufficience. The reason for that -- it's all about Aurhority. Every moral code is interpreted and promulgated by a Moral Authority - as the Lawmaker and Judge. Nature itself has some authority, even without religion. The "law of karma" for example, would teach that "nature will have it's revenge". It's not subjective - it's an authority outside the person. But having God declare the moral order takes things to an entirely new level. That's how we would judge the difference between Islam and other moral codes. It's by the nature of Muhammad's revelation, who he was as a prophet, what the nature of Allah is -- and as you said, how all of this conforms to reason. To me, this is a much better way to discern moral truths. They point to a lawgiver, and therefore God. To what extent does that moral authority speak for God? How can we tell that? Through reason and an analysis of the moral authority, we arrive at a greater certainty of the moral law.

Is it really true, for example, that God could change his mind about what is right and wrong, as Islam’s doctrine of “abrogation” claims. No, it isn’t true because it doesn’t pass the test of reason. Once a religious code passes the test of reason, we can, at that point, allow it to illuminate or reason—but not before. It is a dreadful mistake to trust an untested prophet or submit our intellect and will to a false religion.

I've never really engaged in much of a discussion defending and promoting my own religious views here in UD, but I think you're right to point down that path. ID brings us to a designer. Studying the possibilities of a designer brings us to comparative religion. Then we have revelations and prophets. But if we cut the conversation short before going down that path - we have 'objective morals' given in Islam, Judaism, various forms of Christianity, Mormonism, Hinduism, Buddhism ... and even philosophical or political schools. Communism has an objective moral code that can be analyzed by reason. It's pretty easy to see where it falls short of being true or consistent with human nature. But once we get past that, we have to talk about religion.

How objective can a code be if it is false?–or if it comes from a man?–or a community of men? Wouldn’t it be a subjective code posing as an objective truth? If the Koran is Muhammed’s personal morality posing as God’s objective truth, it really objective after all?

Difficult and complex questions here - but very worthwhile to think about. Once again, it's the term "objective" that is the problem. Could an "objective moral code be false"? If Not - then the term "objective" is redundant, unnecessary and confusing. Much clearer - substitute "True" for "Objective". There is a True Moral Code. When we use "objective", it really does mean "an object, external to the person". Now, what if we judge the quality of codes on a scale of "goodness" or "rightness". 1. Subjective 2. Conflicting ideas on Natural Moral Law 3. Conflicting philosophical schools 4. Conflicting ideas on religous/revealed morals 5. The True, Correct, Moral Code Obviously, #5 ranks the highest in goodness and rightness. Now, what ranks the lowest? Why? Normally, we would say Subjective morals, made by the person for the person has the lowest value. How did we judge the value? Mainly by the quality, power, goodness and rightness of the Lawmaker and the Purpose of the Law. That's why this is so interesting: "What if I subjectively created my own moral code that was exactly the same as the "One Correct True Code Revealed by God"? It would still have the lowest value - even though it was exactly the same! The reason is, the code was created and judged by an individual, for an individual. So, it's the reason why we follow morals that judges the goodness of the code. It's the motive that counts. If we follow Islam because "we want to kill all our enemies", that's a lot different than following Islam "because Allah is the true God and I want to worship purely". Both moral codes are the same, but one has greater goodness for the believer than another. The same with subjectivism: "I want to do good for my neighbor because I decided that's what I'm all about", is different than "I do good for others because I love God, who is all goodness and I want to serve Him". Same code - different motive.

Yes, indeed. That raises the question of which authority is legitimate and which one is not.

That's it - exactly. And that's why I get troubled about discussions on "objective moral code" without a discussion on authority. I think it's virtually impossible to find anyone who can live a moral life by following "the objective moral code" itself. To do that, you'd have to be totally ignorant of all religion. Now, how about this: Is it better to follow a moral code, for purposes of serving God, in a false religion? Or to reject all religion and just follow the "objective moral law" known by conscience? Tough question. I would say, however, that it's better to submit oneself to God - even in a false religion, than to try to live a moral life as if there is no God and no revelation at all. There are lots of reasons for that -- we could get into it later.

If an authority is found not to be legitimate, based on reasoned analysis and an informed conscience, then it should no longer be considered to be an authority. That is how we should evaluate all truth claims coming from the wide variety of world views and world religions–and even the sectarian claims made within a religion.

Yes, absolutely and great point. But let's keep in mind, that with "the objective moral code", in the absence of religion - each individual has the responsibility to be "the authority" in all moral matters. Conscience, yes, points to values external to the person -- but the conscience is within the person. As you said, it can be weakened and mistaken. So, it's the same with religious revelations. Prophets come along and have more or less correctness in what they say about God. If we really were do approach the topic of morals in the most complete sense - we would start with the moral authorities and view them. To me, that's better than the bottom-up view of starting with natural law and working up to authority. Start with the authorities: 1. Subjective. Myself as the ultimate Law Giver, Judge, Prosecutor, Rewarder, Forgiver, Loophole Finder, Creator of Meaning and Purpose of Life, Interpreter of Moral events. 2. Non-religious Philosophical/Political school: What does Aristotle point to? (God). So Aristotle cannot be the ultimate law giver and judge. 3. Religious/revelation. God speaks to prophets. What is the quality of the prophet? Was David Koresh the true prophet of God, with the true understanding of the moral code? It gets a lot more difficult with other religious prophet teachers ... was John Calvin the true interpreter of the One Moral Code? Obviously, it gets controversial. But in my view, that's a valuable starting point. ID only gets us to the very first step. I don't even know if we can get to "The Objectve Moral Law" through ID alone. In theory, yes, but in real life - religion is imposssible to be ignorant of. Thanks for a great discussion and sorry for a long, discursive reply. ***This is one of the most edifying discussions I have ever had on this site. I wrote too hurriedly, but the subject matter is of vital importance. Silver Asiatic

StephenB: Objective morality doesn’t assume that what happens to humans matter, it concludes it on the basis of what humans are and what is good for them. What is "good for them" can be considered objective, but it doesn't mean we should care about what is "good for them". Without that, it doesn't prescribe or proscribe action. Unless you're human, of course, then you probably do care. William J Murray: (1) What commodity or principle under moral subjectivism gives me the right to unilaterally intervene in the affairs of others on moral grounds A feeling of moral imperative. William J Murray: (2) Without begging the question, why should I care about what is moral in the first place? IOW, if I can get away with doing immoral things that I believe would benefit me, why shouldn’t I do such things? Why should people care if they starve or not? It's not a matter of should but the fact of having the sensation of hunger — or moral sensibilities. Zachriel

IMO, if a subjectivist really wishes to examine the nature of subjective morality, they should ask themselves two questions and then honestly examine their answers and what they mean: (1) What commodity or principle under moral subjectivism gives me the right to unilaterally intervene in the affairs of others on moral grounds - such as, immediately and personally stepping in to stop the torture of a child, regardless of whether or not society condones it or the law allows it? (2) Without begging the question, why should I care about what is moral in the first place? IOW, if I can get away with doing immoral things that I believe would benefit me, why shouldn't I do such things? William J Murray

stenosemella

You are partially correct. Their behaviour is based on their religious belief. My behaviour is based on treating people with equal respect regardless of my religious beliefs.

Do you afford that same respect to unborn children? Do you protest against abortion with the same zeal that you protest against those who challenge gay marriage? Does your application of the golden rule extend to the most helpless of human beings? Or, do you appeal to it on a selective basis based on your feelings and preferences?

With respect, I think that you are mistaken on this. Back in the 17th century people of European descent honestly felt that Africans were better off as Christian slaves than as “savages”. The literature and historical records are full of this (mis)perception. There is no evidence that slave owners in earlier times felt any different.

That subject is far too complicated to discuss in a few paragraphs. Among the many things that must be taken into account are the multiple kinds of slavery that existed, the economic circumstances, the other options that are available or not available to the slave, the way the slaves are treated, and a number of other variables. If someone must choose between a mild form of slavery or death, that is a far cry from forcing someone into the worst kind of slavery. What we can say is that when civilized people began thinking seriously about the morality of slavery, especially in the United States, the practice was ended when advocates for the Natural Moral Law insisted that slavery violated human dignity. Indeed, it was also on the strength of the natural moral law, that discrimination against blacks was ended. In fact, the anti-discrimination proponents were in the minority, but they won the day by saying, in effect, "it doesn't matter what you prefer, what you feel, or how many you are, you are wrong because you are militating against the objective moral law." It was on the strength of that argument that they ended institutional racism. The man who made that argument was Martin Luther King. If he had used your argument (I find discrimination abhorent), all would have been lost. That approach had already been tried--for decades.

I am afraid that I will have to declare that you are using one of Barry’s materialist dodges and I am therefore well within my rights to dismiss this argument. But that would be extremely childish.

I am responding to your claim that you can find no evidence for the objective natural moral law. You have acknowledged that you have never heard of the most knowledgeable writer today on that subject (J. Budziszewski), and you display no intellectual curiosity along those lines. I am suggesting that you could not find the evidence because you didn't search for it.

There are a significant percentage of the population in the US and other countries who believe that capital punishment is OK. Is this not killing. What about war? What about lying to protect the safety of someone?

The natural moral law has a lot to say about these problems. Are you aware of "Just War Theory?" Are you aware of the natural law approach to capital punishment? Do you know what it has to say about lying under life and death circumstsances? If not, then your knowledge base is incomplete. One thing is for sure, subjectivism can offer no solution for these problems, just as it can offer no solution to any moral problem? StephenB

StephenB: "The point is not that you agree with their morality but that you are bound to agree that their morality is legitimate since their method of arriving at it is the same as yours—personal preference." No, I accept that their morality is legitimate for them. And you use the word "preference" as if we were chosing between flavours of ice cream. We both know that this is not what we are talking about. Our feelings about the morality of slavery (or killing, or stealing) are not on the same level as a "preference". I have tried to be respectful and honest with you. Please afford me the same courtesy. "Well, I think the difference is that their behavior is usually based on their belief whereas your belief is likely based on your behavior. That is the way of subjectivism." You are partially correct. Their behaviour is based on their religious belief. My behaviour is based on treating people with equal respect regardless of my religious beliefs. "Moral Truth is easy to know, but it is hard to face, and harder yet to follow. The ruling class knows objective right from wrong as well as anyone, but they would prefer not to follow it. They care mostly about what pleases them." With respect, I think that you are mistaken on this. Back in the 17th century people of European descent honestly felt that Africans were better off as Christian slaves than as "savages". The literature and historical records are full of this (mis)perception. There is no evidence that slave owners in earlier times felt any different. "I am not persuaded that you are open to the evidence. Where have you looked? Are you familiar with such names as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas etc. What are your arguments against these greatest of all thinkers. What contemporary authors have you read on the subject and what is your response to them? How about starting with J. Budziszewski, who wrote," I am afraid that I will have to declare that you are using one of Barry's materialist dodges and I am therefore well within my rights to dismiss this argument. But that would be extremely childish. I am familiar with Plato, Augustine, Aristotle and Aquinas. All philosophers who lived during periods when slavery was generally accepted. I will admit that I am not familiar with Budziszewski. "I don’t agree. Everyone knows that murder, torture, theft, dishonesty, slander, adultery, molestation, etc. are objectively wrong." In this I have to disagree. I agree that we would probably both agree that all of these are wrong (leaving aside whether they are objectively or subjectively wrong for the moment). Where we would disagree is whether everyone knows this. There are a significant percentage of the population in the US and other countries who believe that capital punishment is OK. Is this not killing. What about war? What about lying to protect the safety of someone?. I appreciate that you are willing to have a fair and open discussion on this. Others, who will remain nameless, prefer to dismiss any disagreement by calling such people asshats. It is nice to see that not everyone at UD is like that. stenosemella

stenosemella

For them, yes (Proponents of slavery). But that doesn’t mean that I have to agree with them.

The point is not that you agree with their morality but that you are bound to agree that their morality is legitimate since their method of arriving at it is the same as yours—personal preference.

For example, there are many people who, for reasons that are valid according to their own morality, believe that same sex marriage is wrong and fight to deny it to those who desire it. I think that they are wrong, for reasons that are valid according to my morality, and I oppose their fight to have it banned.

Well, I think the difference is that their behavior is usually based on their belief whereas your belief is likely based on your behavior. That is the way of subjectivism.

You mention that chattel slavery is objectively wrong based on the inherent dignity and uniqueness of humans. If this is such an objective “truth” why have we only made serious attempts to live according to this objective truth in the most recent tiny fraction of our existence.

Moral Truth is easy to know, but it is hard to face, and harder yet to follow. The ruling class knows objective right from wrong as well as anyone, but they would prefer not to follow it. They care mostly about what pleases them.

Surely an objective truth would be as true 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 years ago as it is today.

That is correct. Error changes; truth doesn’t.

As uncomfortable as it may be to some, I don’t see any evidence that there are objective truths in morality.

I am not persuaded that you are open to the evidence. Where have you looked? Are you familiar with such names as Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas etc. What are your arguments against these greatest of all thinkers. What contemporary authors have you read on the subject and what is your response to them? How about starting with J. Budziszewski, who wrote, Written on the Heart: The Case for Natural Law (InterVarsity, 1997) What We Can't Not Know: A Guide (Spence, 2003; second edition by Ignatius Press, 2010). An honest search would begin with those last two books.

If there were, why does human history demonstrate a pattern that moral norms change so dramatically over time, from society to society, and even within a single generation? How do you ground your morality in an objective norm for which there is no agreement on?

I don’t agree. Everyone knows that murder, torture, theft, dishonesty, slander, adultery, molestation, etc. are objectively wrong. Unfortunately, not everyone is willing to act on what they know. You also know that these things are objectively wrong, but you think it is cool and hip to argue against it. When you have done the requisite amount of serious reading, I will be more believing of your claims. StephenB

StephenB: If rights are based on the objective fact of human nature and what is proper to human nature, then they are not based on subjective preferences. Z:

It assumes it matters what happens to humans, which is something humans care about.

Incorrect. Objective morality doesn't assume that what happens to humans matter, it concludes it on the basis of what humans are and what is good for them. The logic is as follows: There is such a thing as human nature>> There is a specific morality proper to human nature>> That specific morality declares that humans deserve to be free and that it is wrong to enslave them. StephenB

StephenB: If rights are based on the objective fact of human nature and what is proper to human nature, then they are not based on subjective preferences. It assumes it matters what happens to humans, which is something humans care about. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk01eeKMD_I Zachriel

SB: Nature is not subjective, Zachriel: There is objectively a natural world. SB: nor is human nature, Zachriel: There is objectively a human nature. SB: nor are natural rights based on human nature Zachriel: On what basis do you make this claim? If rights are based on the objective fact of human nature and what is proper to human nature, then they are not based on subjective preferences. StephenB

SB: You said, Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration. (**--a statement about objective morality that transcends personal opinion) Alicia Renard

I did, indeed. My, your perception is searing. Let me get my sunglasses.

SB: My perception was that you woke up to the truth of objective morality.

Don’t think so, sweetheart.

Oh dear, you just went back to sleep.

I’d rather say that slavery is abominable and I will support all efforts to eliminate it wherever it still exists.

Do you agree? (There’s a question for you!)

You bet. I agree wholeheartedly. However, I am sorry that you do not comprehend the difference between objective morality (Slavery is evil because humans have inherent dignity and deserve respect) and subjective feelings and opinions (I find slavery abominable). There was a moment when I thought you had escaped the vagaries of irrational subjectivism and found rationality. Alas, it was not to be so. Your ideology smothered the inner sage that was crying to get out. StephenB

StephenB tries again (bless):

Forget about everything else you have said.

Don't worry, sweetheart. I forgot what I had for breakfast.

This statement is absolutely correct.

M'kay!

I congratulate you.

M'kay!

You have just discovered the truth of objective morality.

Don't think so, sweetheart.

Notice that you didn’t say, “To me, slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.”

That's true.

You said, Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.

I did, indeed. My, your perception is searing. Let me get my sunglasses.

Let’s finish the thought: All people deserve equal rights and consideration because they have inherent human dignity, therefore, we should not make slaves of any: it is wrong–period.

Where do I sign up?

It is wrong for me, for you, for the slave owner–for everyone.

In colloquial language, the addenda are often left understood. When we say something, we don't usually add the preamble, "this is what I think; make of it what you will" or as you might say "this is the absolute God-given truth".

Any opinion or feeling to the contrary is irrelevant.

Well, I think being enslaved would be very bad for my health and I wouldn't wish it on anyone else. At different times and different places, others have felt empowered (and still do) to enslave others.

We are all bound by that objective moral truth.

I'd rather say that slavery is abominable and I will support all efforts to eliminate it wherever it still exists. Do you agree? (There's a question for you!) Alicia Renard

StephenB: What you perceive or imagine is irrelevant to the facts. Definitions matter when you say something is true "by definition". StephenB: Nature is not subjective, There is objectively a natural world. StephenB: nor is human nature, There is objectively a human nature. StephenB: nor are natural rights based on human nature On what basis do you make this claim? Zachriel

Innate rights are objective by definition. Zacriel

Don’t see that in the definition of rights or objective.

What you perceive or imagine is irrelevant to the facts. Nature is not subjective, nor is human nature, nor are natural rights based on human nature: they are all understood to be objective. If you disagree, consult atheist Ayn Rand or Theist Thomas Aquinas. For that matter, consult anyone who is familiar with the subject matter. There is no such thing as a subjective natural right. StephenB

Silver Asiatic, You have introduced several valuable and relevant ideas. Thank you.

In this case, ‘objective morals’ means that there is a thing known which is not from (generated, created by) the knower. Unfortunately, in my view, ‘objective’ also refers to something like ‘that which is observable’, or ‘that which is accessible, outside the person’.

I think that objectivity can certainly include observable things, but it also pertains to things that cannot be observed. The concept of justice, for example cannot be observed. It can only be known.

The reason this is a problem is that a subjective belief is also a ‘thing known’. It is an objective thing.

Good comment. I would say that, in this context, subjective refers to "who knows it" and objective refers to "what is known." If what is perceived is not true, then it is not known and not, therefore, apprehended: it is simply believed and is subjective because it applies solely to the believing subject and not to any objective truth about nature.

First, can we distinguish between ‘conscience’ and ‘nature’?

I believe that we can. Our conscience can fail through misuse or abuse, but the truth about human nature remains. Indeed, our knowledge of the natural moral law is, to a large extent, primitive until we develop it and fine tune our understanding of right and wrong.

In this case, ‘objective morals’ means that there is a thing known which is not from (generated, created by) the knower. Unfortunately, in my view, ‘objective’ also refers to something like ‘that which is observable’, or ‘that which is accessible, outside the person’.

I think that the natural moral law, which cannot be observed, is accessible as a self-evident truth, albeit a truth that is progressively understood only insofar as reason is applied.

….there doesn’t seem to be any way to ‘objectively’ access the code in nature. For example, where does one find it?

I think we find it by applying reason to the facts about human nature. Abstract truths cannot be found as empirically observable entities. Also, the natural moral law doesn’t tell us all we need to know about right and wrong. It is consistent with, but cannot be substituted for, Divinely revealed truths. However, it can be understood in the absence of those revealed truths. .

In conscience, we can access the code ‘objectively’ by recognizing a univeral, binding norm which doesn’t originate with the self (subjectively). So, it’s ‘objective’ in that it is “external to the person”. Even though it is ‘internal’ in conscience, it is osmething the self can observe. It “calls” a person to justice, correction, observance, reconciliation.

That sounds good to me.

The question we often get is around “how do we know what The Objective Moral Code is”? This is where I’d prefer terms like natural law morality — something that can be found in human nature. “Objective” makes it sound like we would find a text somewhere that we can all review.

Well, of course, we can find many texts (Ten Commandments, Sermon on the Mount, Tao, etc) which supplement and illuminate, in greater detail and depth, those same truths we can already apprehend. However, at the most primitive level, we find the NML in our reasoned analysis of human nature. Cain knew that he should not murder Abel long before Moses is said to have expounded on the Ten Commandments.

There is no single “objective moral code” — there are “objective moral systems” which are different than subjective ones. These are moral codes published, observable and promulgated by recognized authorities – either philosophical schools or religious revelations. These moral systems are objective and refer not only to authority but to a consistent “ethic” or purpose.

In the final analysis, any claim to an objective moral system must pass the test of reason in order to be considered legitimate. In other words, we can evaluate those systems by a reasoned analysis informed by the Natural Moral Law. Does Islam, for example, recognize the inherent dignity of the human person? No, it does not. Is the inherent dignity of the human person a truth that can be apprehended independent of religion? Yes. We can, therefore, at least in that context, judge the reasonableness of Islam’s objective morality, in which case we find that it does not always reflect the truth about human nature, or, for that matter, God. This is how we can approach differing moral codes coming from those who claim to speak for God. Is it really true, for example, that God could change his mind about what is right and wrong, as Islam’s doctrine of “abrogation” claims. No, it isn’t true because it doesn’t pass the test of reason. Once a religious code passes the test of reason, we can, at that point, allow it to illuminate or reason—but not before. It is a dreadful mistake to trust an untested prophet or submit our intellect and will to a false religion.

So, Islam offers an objective moral code. So does Buddhism or Shintoism or Protestant Christianity. Aristotelianism, Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism … offer objective moral codes.

How objective can a code be if it is false?--or if it comes from a man?--or a community of men? Wouldn't it be a subjective code posing as an objective truth? If the Koran is Muhammed's personal morality posing as God's objective truth, it really objective after all?

We discern the quality and rightness of these codes through reason and the power of their authorities.

Yes, indeed. That raises the question of which authority is legitimate and which one is not. If an authority is found not to be legitimate, based on reasoned analysis and an informed conscience, then it should no longer be considered to be an authority. That is how we should evaluate all truth claims coming from the wide variety of world views and world religions--and even the sectarian claims made within a religion. ***This is one of the most edifying discussions I have ever had on this site. I wrote too hurriedly, but the subject matter is of vital importance. StephenB

niwrad: No. Are you responding to Zachriel? Because you didn't address the point raised. The term top-down controller was in reference to Box's comment. There is nothing in Box's claim which qualifies the PRNL based on its origin, and would actually be contrary to the argument, which depends on the relationship of the parts to the whole. It's hard to understand why you would reject an obvious case of a computer being used as a top-down controller in this sense. That's exactly how they work, by "looking" at the global situation, and making decisions. As for your argument, you could say the same about created humans. You then might invoke woo, but that could just represent a limitation of human understanding. StephenB: I know that you don’t believe in the existence of innate rights or inherent dignity Indeed we do! StephenB: Innate rights are objective by definition. Don't see that in the definition of rights or objective. The definition of rights concerns justice, which is just another term fraught with human moral presumptions. StephenB: Objective truths apply to all subjects. An innate right is one that is possessed by all subjects. That doesn't change our statement significantly. If *all* humans think that they have innate rights, it doesn't mean there is an objective moral universe outside of human experience. Zachriel thinking all humans have innate rights, doesn't mean there is an objective moral universe outside of Zachriel's experience. Of note, human morality changes across cultures and across history. Zachriel

Who said they did? It's true they would have been fed up with their ever more tyrannical task-masters, but it was God who wanted to take them out of Egypt, for his own purposes. And aren't we lucky he had that plan? Can you imagine how long our politicians would have lasted following Moses? They'd probably have been struck dead by Yahweh within a week at most; though probably not before killing Moses. Axel

Andre@64

There is one majestically big difference between Slavery in the Bible and slavery in the 18th – 19th century….. Slaves in the Bible owned land, property and their own possessions…..

Then why ever did the Jews want to leave Egypt if they were being treated so well? I am all ears??? stenosemella

Maybe, one might say that the meaning one assigns to words; which might range from its objective i.e. conventional, current, formal or colloquial or archaic meanings, to a totally idiosyncratic and effectively senseless imputed meaning to anyone but the person concerned; if a person chose to call a chair, a table, for example. In fact this last, seems to me to be precisely the subjective nature of the materialist's morality. The fact that there exists a relatively minuscule coterie of human beings on the planet who also call a chair, a table could hardly be held to countervail against the conventional meanings of the words; and in any event they would surely ecounter the same problem with each other's lexicons in relation to other words. Another way of looking at it might be to thnk of someone putting a hub-cap on their head as a hat, to protect his head from the rain. It's still a hub-cap. He may say, 'I choose to define it in terms of the use I put it to.' Well again that renders the meaning of the word, 'hat', totally idiosyncratic - and nihilistic as regards the purpose and consequently nature of language. This is the problem we have with our materialist interlocutors on this forum: It is as if we visit the Tower of Babel. Their languages of the written word, and indeed the language and syntax of their logic, is utterly mysterious and alien to our foreign ears. Luckily for them, they know what they are talking about. On occasions, they might even understand each other. Axel

SB Thanks for some excellent clarifications and additions.

I agree, though I would put it in a slightly different way: Subjective refers to the subject (the knower) and objective refers to the object (the thing known).

In this case, 'objective morals' means that there is a thing known which is not from (generated, created by) the knower. Unfortunately, in my view, 'objective' also refers to something like 'that which is observable', or 'that which is accessible, outside the person'. The reason this is a problem is that a subjective belief is also a 'thing known'. It is an objective thing.

It seems to me that the natural moral law has a subjective component (written in the human conscience) and an objective component (written in nature).

I had never heard that distinction before (due to my own inexperience) and it sounds good. At the same time, I'd question the terminology, at least for the sake of people who will encounter these terms for the first time. First, can we distinguish between 'conscience' and 'nature'? Second, I understand the term 'written in' but it could cause problems because there doesn't seem to be any way to 'objectively' access the code in nature. For example, where does one find it? In conscience, we can access the code 'objectively' by recognizing a univeral, binding norm which doesn't originate with the self (subjectively). So, it's 'objective' in that it is "external to the person". Even though it is 'internal' in conscience, it is osmething the self can observe. It "calls" a person to justice, correction, observance, reconciliation. The question we often get is around "how do we know what The Objective Moral Code is"? This is where I'd prefer terms like natural law morality -- something that can be found in human nature. "Objective" makes it sound like we would find a text somewhere that we can all review. I've used an alternative version of "objective morality" because it makes more sense to me (I've seen it elsewhere). There is no single "objective moral code" -- there are "objective moral systems" which are different than subjective ones. These are moral codes published, observable and promulgated by recognized authorities - either philosophical schools or religious revelations. These moral systems are objective and refer not only to authority but to a consistent "ethic" or purpose. So, Islam offers an objective moral code. So does Buddhism or Shintoism or Protestant Christianity. Aristotelianism, Platonism, Stoicism, Epicureanism ... offer objective moral codes. We discern the quality and rightness of these codes through reason and the power of their authorities. Silver Asiatic

Silver Asiatic

In my view, the best (and maybe only) way to use the term ‘objective’ with morality as in contrast to subjective.

I agree, though I would put it in a slightly different way: Subjective refers to the subject (the knower) and objective refers to the object (the thing known). In that context, the objective principle is always the same, but the subjective application of that unchanging principle will vary depending on the many possible variables that always arise in any particular situation.

The natural moral law is universal, but it is accessed ‘internally’, in the conscience of each person.

It seems to me that the natural moral law has a subjective component (written in the human conscience) and an objective component (written in nature [though not in "words" or "stone"]). If I am correct in my analysis, the subject (the knower) apprehends the object (the law written in nature). The conscience, which is subjective, is aware of the morality proper to human nature, which is objective. The natural moral law is natural because it is known by reason and is about human nature. StephenB

Zachriel

All you’ve done is substituted another term for the one at issue. What is ‘just’ can still coherently be considered subjective. For instance, someone may consider duty more important than liberty.

No. You don't understand the difference between subjective and objective. I know that you don't believe in the existence of innate rights or inherent dignity, but you don't get to change the definitions of words. Innate rights are objective by definition. They are understood to be natural rights. Nature is objective, not subjective. Objective rights can vary in importance, so your second comment is irrelevant.

If you mean humans have certain propensities, that they prefer tea to torture, then sure, that can be considered objective.

No, what humans prefer is subjective. A preference relates to the subject and doesn't necessarily apply to all other subjects. Objective truths apply to all subjects. An innate right is one that is possessed by all subjects. Inherent dignity is something that applies to all subjects. Subjective opinions are irrelevant to concept of objectivity. StephenB

Zachriel No. To be independent in space-time doesn't mean to be causally independent. Computers can run after their programmer has gone home, they can be "independent in space-time". But they are not causally independent, because their working do depend on their programmer, also when he has gone home. Computers are not ontological controllers, because to be such one has to be independent in causation, i.e. one has to be a free being/agent/knower, and a computer is neither free, nor being, nor agent, nor knower. niwrad

GCS

The word objective vs subjective seems to have lost meaning.

I find the term 'objective', in this case, to be difficult to understand and explain. I know many promoters of "objective morality" offer conflicting ideas on what the term means. In my view, the best (and maybe only) way to use the term 'objective' with morality as in contrast to subjective. So possibly, "non-subjective" would be a clearer term for it. "I love the IBM Corporation. But 'objectively speaking' how is the stock performance?" So, subjectively, we could say "the company is doing great". But objectively, the stock is either up or down. We can reference the stock performance. We cannot reference the subjective idea that "the company is doing great" because that's a subjective interpretation of the data. It's an opinion that could be contradicted. With objective morals, where can you reference "the stock prices" as in the example I gave? The only way to do it is have some external, accessible, code of morals, promulgated by a recognized authority, that can be publicly assessed. To me, that's the only difference. You can't assess a subjective moral code since it is entirely interpreted by the individual and it applies only to that individual. You can review various norms that someone expresses "I believe that eating meat is immoral". But you can't assess the entire code since it makse sense only to the individual and for the individual. Some speak of "the objective moral code" and that tends to refer to natural law morality. But in this case, I think the term "objective", while correct, is confusing. The natural moral law is universal, but it is accessed 'internally', in the conscience of each person. It is expressed objectively in norms like the Golden Rule or the Silver Rule. But it's difficult to find an official, final, publicly expressed, objective-thing called "the natural moral law". In that case, I think terms like "binding, universsal, natural, law of conscience" is better than "objective" as descriptors. Silver Asiatic

niwrad: Here “on their own” can only mean “they can run independently after having been programmed and scheduled to do so”. Sure. And that means they can act as top-down controllers per the original contention.

Box: neither a conglomerate of PRNL (nor its emergent properties) can have top-down power—cannot act on the parts which constitute it—, there cannot be any independence of the parts, there can only be the illusion of top-down power.

There is nothing in the claim which qualifies the PRNL based on its origin, and would actually be contrary to the argument, which depends on the relationship of the parts to the whole. Zachriel

Good Afternoon. Maybe a new perspective, a new question is necessary. The word objective vs subjective seems to have lost meaning. I propose the question: By what authority do you make the decision. You may have to redo the question for multiple levels, but eventually you have to reach a final authority. Then you can say I believe something specifically on this authority. Example: In an earlier post it was admitted that the person learned it on the authority of his parents. If that is the final authority than every parent has that same level of authority and conflicting opinions are just that, conflicting opinions. If you don't want to accept that conclusion then you need to go to the next level of authority, where did his parents get their authority. Continue till you find the authority you are willing to finally base it on. Try it out. It may help us in these dilemmas. GCS

Zachriel: "Computers can act on their own." Here "on their own" can only mean "they can run independently after having been programmed and scheduled to do so". But Box and I mean "on their own" in the ontological sense. You equivocate the two meanings to deny ontology. Zachriel: "By that reasoning, given that humans are designed, they aren’t True Controllers either." No. The situations are different. Computers are artificial machines, external to their designer. Humans are intelligent beings, direct forms of the Being itself. So, while computers cannot be true controllers, humans can be, insofar they are manifested forms of the Ultimate Controller. But of course if one denies ontology all that is dead letter. niwrad

Zachriel:

Computers can act on their own.

No, computers can act only as they are programmed. Joe

StephenB: An innate right is an objective right. right [noun], something to which one has a just claim All you've done is substituted another term for the one at issue. What is 'just' can still coherently be considered subjective. For instance, someone may consider duty more important than liberty. If you mean humans have certain propensities, that they prefer tea to torture, then sure, that can be considered objective. If you mean they empathize with others, then sure, that can be considered objective. But that is not the same as saying there is something independent of humans that represents a moral universe. Zachriel

SB: An innate right to respect and ethical treatment is, by definition, objective. By definition?! Yes, by definition. An innate right is an objective right.

An innate sense of beauty is not, by definition, objective.

Irrelevant. An innate "sense," which is subjective, has nothing to do with an "innate" right, which is objective, just as it has nothing to do with "inherent dignity," which is also objective. StephenB

StephenB: An innate right to respect and ethical treatment is, by definition, objective. By definition?! An innate sense of beauty is not, by definition, objective. Zachriel

Zachriel

“This painting is beautiful” does not imply that beauty is objective.

Irrelevant. An innate right to respect and ethical treatment is, by definition, objective. StephenB

niwrad: Box is right that “a computer is not a causal agent who on its own can exert top-down control on matter.” Computers can act on their own. That's rather the point of using a computer as a control device. niwrad: true controller Ah yes, but not a True Controller™.

Manager: Can you make me a device that acts as a controller for the manufacturing process? Computer geek: Sure can. The computer will collect data, form generalizations, and make decisions. It will control the entire process. You can spend the rest of your day playing Angry Birds working on your next project. UD Engineer: Ah yes, but it's not a True Controller™. Computer geek {rolls eyes}

By that reasoning, given that humans are designed, they aren't True Controllers™ either. Zachriel

F/U #76, Top-down causation can lead to the same effect as bottom-up causation. Translation: intentional and unintentional acts can result in the same outcome. We can even organize bottom-up causes in a way that they can be in sync with (more accurately: replace/automate parts of) top-down causation — a computer, a doorbell. However that does not mean that intentional and unintentional can ever be conflated. Box

Zachriel Box is right that "a computer is not a causal agent who on its own can exert top-down control on matter." In fact, when a computer "controls" processes it does NOT it on its own, rather only as tool of the true controller, the causal agent, the person, the programmer. If you strip out the string on-its-own you reject the essential thing in the issue. At this point, done this error, all tools could become causal agents on matter, when they are only simple tools. Do you see the absurdity? In short, as "good" materialist, you deny ontology, again and again. niwrad

Box: a computer doesn’t “collect data”

Manager: I want a machine that collects all the data crossing our servers.

Box: doesn’t “form generalizations”

Manager: I want it to sort through the data looking for trends and other generalizations about users who visit our website.

Box: and doesn’t “make decisions”

Manager: Then I want it to decide on an ad that might interest the user based on those generalizations.

UD Engineer: Can't be done. Only humans can collect data, form generalizations, and make decisions. Manager: How about you? Computer geek: It's already in the software package. You just have to enable it by beating Angry Birds at level ten. Manager {scowls} Computer geek: Just kidding. Heh. Just press the activate button.

Zachriel

Zach, a computer doesn't "collect data", doesn't "form generalizations" and doesn't "make decisions"; and neither does a doorbell. There is no person, no interest in data, no understanding of whatever and no overview that can be a basis for decisions. Those are all inaccurate descriptions of what's going on. What's going on are bottom-up processes that are meticulously organized by intelligent designers to be in sync with top-down instructions. Again, there is no person with a plan, there is nothing in the computer that does anything intentional/top-down. We are used to talk about computers as if they are persons, but obviously that's not about reality. Box

Manager: I want a machine that can exert top-down control of the manufacturing process. UD Engineer: Can't be done. Only humans can have top-down control. Manager: How about you? Computer geek: Sure. I've already been working on the software. It's a simple matter to interface with the manufacturing process. It'll also handle inventory, requisitions, and you can play Angry Birds.

Zachriel

Box: So no, a computer is not a causal agent who on its own can exert top-down control on matter. Of course a computer can act as a top-down controller. That's one of their most common functions. They can "collect data, form generalizations, then make a decision that effects a global action." A quill pen is not a controller. It doesn't "collect data, form generalizations, then make a decision that effects a global action". Zachriel

Zchriel, a computer is instrumental to an agent to exert top-down control, however so is a quill pen or a doorbell. Neither a computer, nor a quill pen, nor a doorbell is a person. So no, a computer is not a causal agent who on its own can exert top-down control on matter. Like a quill pen all a pc can do is execute top-down instructions by true causal agents. Box

StephenB: You have just discovered the truth of objective morality. Notice that you didn’t say, “To me, slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.” You said, Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration. "This painting is beautiful" does not imply that beauty is objective. Box: (5.) neither a conglomerate of PRNL (nor its emergent properties) can have top-down power—cannot act on the parts which constitute it—, there cannot be any independence of the parts, there can only be the illusion of top-down power. A computer can exhibit top-down control. Top-down, in this case, might mean collecting data, forming generalizations, then making a decision that effects a global action. This top-down control is not an illusion, even though it is a result of PRNL. Zachriel

(1.) non-reductive materialism states that *PRNL and conglomerates of PRNL are all that exist. (2.) PRNL doesn’t concern itself with morality. (3.) morality—if it exists—stems from a top-down prescriptive power that acts on PRNL, uncaused by PRNL. (4.) a conglomerate of PRNL and its emergent properties is a mere expression of PRNL, is fully explained bottom-up by PRNL and depends fully on PRNL. (5.) neither a conglomerate of PRNL (nor its emergent properties) can have top-down power—cannot act on the parts which constitute it—, there cannot be any independence of the parts, there can only be the illusion of top-down power. (6.) non-reductive materialism does not accommodate morality. - - - - *PRNL: ‘Particles in motion and their reactions governed by natural law’ * - - - - See this OP by W.J.Murray. Box

Alicia Renard

Did I mention slavery is bad for slaves. Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.

Forget about everything else you have said. This statement is absolutely correct. I congratulate you. You have just discovered the truth of objective morality. Notice that you didn't say, "To me, slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration." You said, Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration. Let's finish the thought: All people deserve equal rights and consideration because they have inherent human dignity, therefore, we should not make slaves of any: it is wrong--period. It is wrong for me, for you, for the slave owner--for everyone. Any opinion or feeling to the contrary is irrelevant. We are all bound by that objective moral truth. StephenB

H: On the contrary, any bacterium can "tell" you that feeding is not always an act reflective of agent-choice and intentional action. Morality by contrast, is. There is thus a category confusion involved in your attempted comparison. Evolutionary Materialism, more specifically, seeks to ground reality in matter, energy, space time and a blind chance and mechanical necessity purposeless change across time from hydrogen to humans. That is in mindless cosmological, chemical, biological and socio-cultural evolutions; emphasis on mindless. It therefore has in it no world-foundational IS capable of grounding OUGHT. Where, ought-ness is the core manifestation of our being under moral government and the attempt to deny the objectivity of such by asserting or implying this patently obvious sense [often, reflected in conscience] is delusional, injects general delusion into our mental life, ending in self-referential incoherence and absurdity. There is no such import for feeding, as our friendly little bacterium can readily demonstrate as it engulfs some thing as food. The root point, is that if we are under moral government (on pain of absurdity on attempted denial), then there must be a world-foundational IS that grounds ought. There is just one serious candidate after centuries of discussion: the inherently good creator-God, a necessary and maximally great being worthy of service by doing the good. Where also, any serious candidate necessary being will be either impossible as a square circle is impossible, or else will be actual. As an analysis of possible vs impossible being, non-being, contingency, sufficiency of reason for being and necessity of being will readily show. (And, BTW, that is a key part of the problem, we don't tend to be familiar with such issues nowadays, making such a discussion seem strange indeed.) Ontological and moral, foundational level worldview reasoning, in short, poses the challenge that not only is ethical theism a serious worldview option, but that those who would dismiss the reality of God have taken up the -- unmet! -- burden of warrant to show that such a Supreme Being is impossible. So, much food for thought lurks beneath the surface of these current exchanges at UD. KF kairosfocus

Box @52: I'd go for 'pointlessly simplistic' rather than 'simple'.

Let’s keep things simple: (1.) materialism states that there is nothing above and beyond particles in motion. (2.) particles in motion don’t concern themselves with morality. (3.) materialism does not accommodate morality.

Let’s see how this works for something else. (1.) materialism states that there is nothing above and beyond particles in motion. (2.) particles in motion don’t concern themselves with feeding. (3.) materialism does not accommodate feeding. Good grief! Materialism doesn't accommodate anything! Hangonasec

The Reality of the Moral Law by C.S. Lewis Doodle (BBC Talk 2 / Mere Christianity Chapter 3) - doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A What Lies Behind the Moral Law by C.S. Lewis Doodle (BBC Talk 3, Chapter 4) - doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg bornagain77

And if any human here think they are materially free they are deluded, you are a slave as we speak, sure you don't get flogged anymore but do something wrong and you get that nice white letter warning you..... You get up everyday at 06:00 you go to bed everyday and slave till 22:00 to make ends meet..... Slavery is alive and well, the slave masters have just become smarter. Andre

stenosesmella.... And in the 21st century there is no slavery? No human trafficking? This is an abomination has always been and will always be...... What is the Bible's stance on this? "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." (Exodus 21:16) So there you go...... Don't confuse Biblical slavery with modern day slavery they are not the same thing no matter how much you want them to be..... Andre

There is one majestically big difference between Slavery in the Bible and slavery in the 18th - 19th century..... Slaves in the Bible owned land, property and their own possessions..... Then of course you forgot obviously, selectively that tribal chiefs sold their people willingly in Africa for goods.... You know the old willing buyer and willing seller principle? It cuts both ways..... Andre

StephenB: "According to you, the morality by which every person decides right and wrong for himself is a reasonable standard." For them, yes. But that doesn't mean that I have to agree with them. For example, there are many people who, for reasons that are valid according to their own morality, believe that same sex marriage is wrong and fight to deny it to those who desire it. I think that they are wrong, for reasons that are valid according to my morality, and I oppose their fight to have it banned. We are talking about two opposite views that are honestly held. Is one side objectively right and the other objectively wrong? Or are they both based on subjectively derived morals? You mention that chattel slavery is objectively wrong based on the inherent dignity and uniqueness of humans. If this is such an objective "truth" why have we only made serious attempts to live according to this objective truth in the most recent tiny fraction of our existence. Surely an objective truth would be as true 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 years ago as it is today. As uncomfortable as it may be to some, I don't see any evidence that there are objective truths in morality. If there were, why does human history demonstrate a pattern that moral norms change so dramatically over time, from society to society, and even within a single generation? How do you ground your morality in an objective norm for which there is no agreement on? stenosemella

I’d ask StephenB a question now, considering I’ve earne the right to a reciprocal response. Somehow, i suspect StephenB doesn’t consider people who disagree with him as worthy of reciprocal consideration.

See StephenB, you ought do this and you ought not do that. Posts by professed materialists simply ooze with moral judgments. Odd that. Mung

stenosemella:

I have never met anyone who doesn’t have their own ideas about right and wrong.

So? That's not what you were talking about. You weren't talking about beliefs about right and wrong. A belief that there is no right or wrong would constitute a belief about right and wrong. You claimed that everyone believes in right and wrong. Sociopaths. Psychopaths. Newborn babies. Everyone.

Do you honestly believe that this is something that theists have a monopoly on?

I have no idea now what you're talking about. stenosemella:

All we are debating is where this source of right and wrong comes from. Not whether or not it is restricted to people of one philosophy or another.

I don't believe we're debating. What [it] are you talking about? Mung

stenosemella

I find it unacceptable to impose on others that which I would not find acceptable to be imposed on me. That rationale is good enough for me.

That is, indeed, praiseworthy. What about those who find it acceptable to impose slavery on others? According to you, the morality by which every person decides right and wrong for himself is a reasonable standard. Accordingly, The slave owners are following their personal preferences and you are following your personal preferences. Are their personal preferences to be respected as well as yours? If not, why not? If so, how should the issue be settled? (Assume that their position is as uncompromising as yours)

Maybe I would have a better understanding of your question if would tell me why you think slavery is wrong (assuming that you do).

I am surprised that you don't remember that you asked me this same question @15 and received a full answer: "If, by slavery, you mean chattel slavery, then yes, slavery is objectively wrong. The objective truth comes from the fact that human beings have inherent dignity owing to their human nature, which is distinct from the nature of animals. It isn’t just theists who accept the objectivity of this moral truth. Even secularists have made the same point in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is free of all theological language." StephenB

SB: I am not asking where your (stenosemella( belief came from. Alicia Renard

Why not? Aren’t you curious?

Because he already told me? It came from his parents? If you are going to inject yourself into a discussion, at least have the courtesy to follow it.

Slavery is bad for slaves. It’s not complicated.

I agree. The question is, why is it bad for them.

The floggings.

Your answer is irrational. First, you say there is no such thing as objective bad. Then you say the floggings are bad.

No! Slavery is bad because slaves say it is bad for slaves.

Slavery might be bad for the slaves, but it is good for their masters. Why should it matter if it is bad for slaves if it is good for the slave master? What is your answer?

I’ll accept the slaves own assessment about their conditions under slavery as being bad.

So, if anyone says something is bad for them, that means it is bad? Is that your logic? If you say that vegetables are bad for you, does that mean that they are bad for you?

Did I mention slavery is bad for slaves. Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.

That is the closest thing you have had to a thought all day. Why do they deserver equal rights and consideration?

I’d ask StephenB a question now, considering I’ve earne the right to a reciprocal response.

You have been answering questions that I asked of someone else, which was designed to stimulate his thinking, not yours. You can begin by answering my question above.

Somehow, i suspect StephenB doesn’t consider people who disagree with him as worthy of reciprocal consideration.

Does that mean that you are going to ask me an intelligent question or does it mean that you are going to fuss all day about the right to ask me an intelligent question? Also, I’m not much interested in stephenB’s personal philosophy though I defend to the death his right to hold it. Are you for real. First, you carry on about your right to ask me a question; then you fail to ask a question; then you claim that you are not interested in the answer. Ask anything that you like. StephenB

StephenB: "I realize that you are trying hard to answer honestly, and I appreciate it. But you are still begging the question: Why do you find it unacceptable?" I thought I had explained this. I find it unacceptable to impose on others that which I would not find acceptable to be imposed on me. That rationale is good enough for me. Obviously, the extent to which I would find something unacceptable would depend on the severity of the imposition. Killing is severe, slavery less so, stealing less so, and so on. Maybe I would have a better understanding of your question if would tell me why you think slavery is wrong (assuming that you do). stenosemella

Mung: So you’re telling me materialists believe in right and wrong? stenosemella: Yes. Everybody does. Do you find that strange? Mung: Yes, I do find that strange. Or remarkable. Don’t you? Why should I? I have never met anyone who doesn't have their own ideas about right and wrong. Do you honestly believe that this is something that theists have a monopoly on? All we are debating is where this source of right and wrong comes from. Not whether or not it is restricted to people of one philosophy or another. stenosemella

Mung: And these behavioral patterns are what you call morality? Morality generally refers to principles of behavior. Mung: Isn’t that a bit circular? No. It's an observation that people have moral sensibilities. Mung: How is shame not bound up in notions of ought and ought not? Shame is bound in notions of ought and ought not. Box: (1.) materialism states that there is nothing above and beyond particles in motion. False. Box: (2.) particles in motion don’t concern themselves with morality. Depends on how the particles are arranged. Box: (3.) materialism does not accommodate morality. False. Zachriel

stenosemella

But with regard to “why” slavery is wrong, not how I came to believe that it was, slavery is wrong because I can’t envision a situation where slavery would be an acceptable condition for me. If you think that is selfish, so be it.

I realize that you are trying hard to answer honestly, and I appreciate it. But you are still begging the question: Why do you find it unacceptable? StephenB

Mung: So you’re telling me materialists believe in right and wrong? stenosemella: Yes. Everybody does. Do you find that strange? Yes, I do find that strange. Or remarkable. Don't you? Box: (3.) materialism does not accommodate morality. Unless it's subjective morality. They are all for that. Mung

There is a difference between calling yourself a materialist and being a logically-consistent materialist. Also, even if you are a logically-consistent materialist, that doesn't mean you actually live in a materialist reality. So, saying that you are a materialist and you feel that some things are right, and other wrong, makes no headway in any argument attempting to logically justify the behavior of a logically-consistent subjectivist that supposedly lives in a materialist world. One would expect materialists to sense moral oughts anyway if the lived in a world where morality refers to an objective commodity and their beliefs are wrong. Also, those materialists may or may not be logically-consisetent subjectivists. So, saying that materialists feel moral responsibilities and obligations adds nothing to the case. What the moral subjectivist must do is logically justify, under moral subjectivism, (1) why anyone should care about morality in the first place, and (2) what principle or commodity justifies unilateral moral interventions. William J Murray

Let's keep things simple: (1.) materialism states that there is nothing above and beyond particles in motion. (2.) particles in motion don't concern themselves with morality. (3.) materialism does not accommodate morality. Box

"So you’re telling me materialists believe in right and wrong? " Yes. Everybody does. Do you find that strange? "Is there a reason anyone ought to believe in right and wrong, and what is that reason?" No reason at all other than the fact that everyone does. Again, do you find this strange? "If not, why should I care about your analysis of anything I or anyone else writes here at UD?" Whether or not you ignore (avoid) my analysis is completely up to you. stenosemella

Zachriel:

Most humans have a strong moral sensibilities. Just as they feel pain when they stub their toe, humans empathize with others, and can feel shame and pride. This results in certain behavioral patterns.

And these behavioral patterns are what you call morality? Isn't that a bit circular? : shame : a feeling of guilt, regret, or sadness that you have because you know you have done something wrong 1 a : a painful emotion caused by consciousness of guilt, shortcoming, or impropriety How is shame not bound up in notions of ought and ought not? How do you cross the is/ought gap. or do you deny one exists? https://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/2011/07/19/the-isought-gap-how-do-we-get-ought-from-is/ Mung

Good grief. I add to my comments that you don't understand dichotomy either. Upright BiPed

Your link doesn’t work.

Sorry about that. UP wrote:

By extension, it must be good for the slave owners.

Some reading for you

No matter.

Yes, that's probably true. It's not as if slavery exists today.

It’s clear to me that you just don’t get it.

You are rather a victim of your own certainty.

Slavery is bad bad for everyone.

Mostly for the slaves.

cheers

Igualmente Alicia Renard

stenosemella, do you have some reason why I ought not be wrong? One that you can ground in materialism? Just read your posts to Barry. Chock full of implied ought and ought not. Based on what? So you're telling me materialists believe in right and wrong? Do they have an objective basis for their belief in right and wrong? Is there a reason anyone ought to believe in right and wrong, and what is that reason? If not, why should I care about your analysis of anything I or anyone else writes here at UD? Mung

#34 Your link doesn't work. No matter. It's clear to me that you just don't get it. Slavery is bad bad for everyone. cheers Upright BiPed

Barry, the ball is in your court. You really ought to hit it back, else you're not playing the game, and that's just not sporting of you. /sarcasm Mung

Mung: "Materialists say morality is subjective. But there is no grounds in materialism for morality, period. Materialists ignore that little problem. Not that they ought not ignore it, oh no. There’s no room for ought in materialism either. Which is why every materialist I’ve ever encountered is a hypocrite." Or you are simply wrong that morality cannot exist in materialists. Which is the most likely conclusion. stenosemella

Mung: But there is no grounds in materialism for morality, period. Most humans have a strong moral sensibilities. Just as they feel pain when they stub their toe, humans empathize with others, and can feel shame and pride. This results in certain behavioral patterns. Zachriel

Seriously. Reading the posts of the materialists here is like reading the novel Gadsby. Mung

Theists claim that there is a subset of objective morality. Materialists say that there isn’t.

Materialists say morality is subjective. But there is no grounds in materialism for morality, period. Materialists ignore that little problem. Not that they ought not ignore it, oh no. There's no room for ought in materialism either. Which is why every materialist I've ever encountered is a hypocrite. Mung

Is slavery objectively wrong (1) and if so, where does this objective “truth” come from (2). 1. Yes. 2. The Declaration of Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal

The quotation "All men are created equal" has been called an "immortal declaration", and "perhaps [the] single phrase" of the American Revolutionary period with the greatest "continuing importance". Thomas Jefferson first used the phrase in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.

Mung

Alicia Renard: Slavery is bad because slaves say it is bad for slaves.

So baby slaying is good, simply because baby slayers say it's good for them?

Alicia Renard: Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration.

Why? Because they say so? Box

"Slavery in biblical times was mostly good for slaves." The same argument that was used well into the mid 1800s. StephenB, fair enough question. As with all of us, our initial beliefs about right and wrong came from our parents and our early teachings. Some of these stick with us simply because our experiences don't contradict them. And sometimes they change because our experiences contradict our teachings. For example, I think it is fair to say that all of our parents taught us that lying is always bad. But as we get older we realize that it isn't always as black and white as that. We often tell "white" lies to avoid unnecessarily hurting someone. For slavery, my beliefs started from parental teachings, probably centred around the idea of racism. My subsequent examination of history and the impact it has had on those involved in slavery simply confirmed my parents' teachings. The fact that it is considered by most other people on earth to be wrong simply reinforces my subjectively derived belief. I would like to think that I would ultimately come to the same moral conclusions if I were raised by racist parents and sent to the Westboro Baptist church, but the evidence suggests that the probability would be low. But with regard to "why" slavery is wrong, not how I came to believe that it was, slavery is wrong because I can't envision a situation where slavery would be an acceptable condition for me. If you think that is selfish, so be it. stenosemella

StephenB asks [stenosemella]

I am not asking where your belief came from.

Why not? Aren't you curious? I mean I thought the whole shtick here is to ask gotcha questions you know the objective answers to 'cos you got your holy book.

I am asking why you think slavery is bad.

There is no objective bad. "Bad" only makes sense in the context of "Bad for someone or something. Slavery is bad for slaves. It's not complicated.

Or, if you like, why did your parents think it was bad? What is it about slavery that you (and they) think is bad?

The floggings.

Or, are you saying that it is bad simply because your parents thought it was bad?

No! Slavery is bad because slaves say it is bad for slaves.

If so, then whose opinion would be correct if your subjective morality became different from your parent’s subjective morality?

I'll accept the slaves own assessment about their conditions under slavery as being bad.

Or, are you saying that you believed slavery is bad because of what the larger society believed? In that case, what makes it bad, society’s view or your parent’s view?

No. Did I mention slavery is bad for slaves. Slaves are people who deserve equal rights and consideration. I'd ask StephenB a question now, considering I've earne the right to a reciprocal response. Somehow, i suspect StephenB doesn't consider people who disagree with him as worthy of reciprocal consideration. Also, I'm not much interested in stephenB's personal philosophy though I defend to the death his right to hold it. Alicia Renard

Also, Stenosemella, in fact, God did forbid the Jews from making slaves of their own people, stating that it was an abomination in his eyes. The reason why God countenanced it with regard to foreigners would have been a factor in the rationale for Paul's evident condoning of it in the New Testament, namely, the axiom defined by Augustine that Grace builds upon Nature. The other factor, linked to it, is that the Faith, the theology of it, was intended to evolve at fallen man's pace. Not all of it, of course, but parts, such as this issue of slavery. In a similar way, Christians were commanded to honour the emperor. Imagine honourng Nero ! It meant putting Nero's character issues to one side, and accepting the status quo, because revolution was not the Christian way, nor at all a practicable proposition by a long chalk, at that stage . I think it is well arguable, however, that there was no excuse for JPII remaining silent, 2000 years later, during Pinochet's US-backed coup, since though Communist, it had been democratically elected. The left in the UK and Scandinavia proved that a more equitable society was possible without the rich even feeling the pinch. Alas, because it was not accompanied by a comparable spiritual growth, but rather the reverse, it's all now gone 'the way of the pear'. Old Labour stole its concern that almost everyone should be fed, clothed and housed, from Judaeo-Christianity - without, of course, acknowledging it. Interesting how satanically Christendom, despite the Churches' condemnation eventually imposed a slavery on Africans that was so satanic, compared to that of the Old World. Maybe to that of the Corsairs. More is given, more is expected, and failure will see the individual worse than the ordinary run of evil people. We are either higher than animals or lower. There is no middle ground. Not that virtue necessarily implies formal religious belief. The deepest pits of hell are likely to be populated by high churchmen, theologians, etc. Axel

stenosemellaA

StephenB, my conclusion that slavery is bad (subjectively so, in my case) is the result of my upbringing, including religious teachings and other experiences.

I am not asking where your belief came from. I am asking why you think slavery is bad. Or, if you like, why did your parents think it was bad? What is it about slavery that you (and they) think is bad? Or, are you saying that it is bad simply because your parents thought it was bad? If so, then whose opinion would be correct if your subjective morality became different from your parent's subjective morality? Or, are you saying that you believed slavery is bad because of what the larger society believed? In that case, what makes it bad, society's view or your parent's view? StephenB

By extension, it must be good for the slave owners.

Some reading for you. Alicia Renard

Seversky: A volcano, a Boeing 747 and the Mona Lisa are all just particles in motion. That doesn’t mean they are all the same thing or we have no way to distinguish between them.

So what? "We" are also particles in motion. "Particles in motion that have a way to distinguish between various groups of particles in motion", doesn't seem to be of any importance. Box

JDH, 'It is easy to come up with a hypothetical where it would be correct to practice slavery – suppose that you live in a country where any adult not attached to a household as either a family member or household slave is automatically conscripted into the king’s army to go fight ridiculous battles and to die a painful useless death. Well in this case keeping as many slaves as you could afford would be the correct thing to do. Slavery would not be wrong here.' No. Absolutely not. It would depend entirely on the choice of the person whether he chose to be enslaved, i.e. be stripped of all human dignity and even subject to physical maiming and murder. I should imagine most men - indeed most women, would choose to die on a battle-field than be permanently cowed and tyrannized as a slave. Nor would there ever be any need for the slave-owner to enslave a man wishing to avoid fighting in battle at all costs; to tyrannize him, depriving him of all dignity, maybe splitting his family and selling members to different people. Even if he paid him nothing, but provided just board and a primitive lodging. And finally depriving him of the opportunity to change his mind and leave. This is not about context at all. Slavery is always a formal evil and an actual one, because of our inherent human dignity as human beings made in the age of God. Sometimes we are faced with dilemmas in which we have choose the lesser of two evils. We still sin formally by doing so, but actually it was a good action, nevertheless, the best in the circumstances. Axel

And here is another person that don't understand slavery in the Biblical context. Right Stenosesmella a few questions. ... In 1500 BC was there such a thing as a democratic government? Careers? Pension? Medical Aid? Also was there such a thing as welfare? social workers? Police? Judicial system? Prisons? Hospitals? Slavery in biblical times was mostly good for slaves. If a rich person did not take you in you'd be dead. Slavery in biblical times was almost always voluntary with clear rules and a handsome pay out when it was time to be freed. The ignorance of the feeble minded saddens me. Andre

As for slavery, if you want to know what is wrong with it, ask the slaves. Seversky

A volcano, a Boeing 747 and the Mona Lisa are all just particles in motion. That doesn't mean they are all the same thing or we have no way to distinguish between them. Seversky

It is nice to see that there are some people who are willing to discuss honestly and fairly and not simply dismiss questions from people and call them assaults from asshats. StephenB, my conclusion that slavery is bad (subjectively so, in my case) is the result of my upbringing, including religious teachings and other experiences. The fact that the majority of the population in the world, and the majority of governments, including the UN oppose slavery, simply enforces my belief that it is wrong to enslave people. It is this same upbringing that leads me to believe that killing is wrong (even execution and war), that jailing homosexuals is wrong, and that bearing false witness against someone is wrong. Again, these are moral beliefs that are held by many, if not most, people. None of these are based on any objective morals. But it does not mean that objectivity does not come into play when we establish our own ideas of right and wrong. My subjective morals are based on what I believe to be an objective examination and interpretation of my experiences and teachings. Whether or not they are truly objective is a moot point, as it is with those who believe that their morals are objectively derived. The reason I used slavery as an example is because it is very difficult for a theist (specifically Christianity) to argue that it is an objective "truth" that slavery is wrong because the bible does not state this. The fact that it does say that mistreating your slaves is wrong implies that the God of the bible does not think that owning people as chattel is wrong. stenosemella

Alicia Renard: Slavery is bad for slaves. Slaves are people. They are entitled to the same rights as anyone else.

People are nothing above and beyond particles in motion. Entitled by what? Evolution? Gravity? Box

In this context, i would suggest, bad for the slaves.

By extension, it must be good for the slave owners. From one position, the slaves are entitled. From another position, they are not. Nice standard. Upright BiPed

StephenB asks:

Why is it bad?

It is bad to be a slave (for example in pre-Civil War Mississippi or Alabama) because you have to work without choice for no pay, you are restricted in choice of partner, where to live, subject to arbitrary discipline such as flogging. sounds bad to me.

What makes it bad?

The floggings mainly. Also the lack of personal choice and freedom.

Is there something inherently wrong about enslaving someone?

There's something practically wrong about slavery. Treat your slaves badly enough and they rebel and murder you in your bed. No slave states prospered long-term historically.

If not, then why do you say it is “bad” for them

Slavery is bad for slaves. Slaves are people. They are entitled to the same rights as anyone else. Alicia Renard

Bob O'H:

Breaking laws of nature is impossible, so how do we know there are consequences?

Wow, dude. This is not even wrong. Nothing can happen in the universe unless laws are broken. In fact, change/motion is nature's way of correcting one or more violations to one or more laws/conservation principles. Mapou

Alicia Renard

In this context, i would suggest, bad for the slaves.

Why is it bad for the slaves? What makes it bad? Is there something inherently wrong about enslaving someone? If not, then why do you say it is "bad" for them? What standard are you using? StephenB

Barry, as you indicate, each crop of materialists raise the same uninformed objections--as if they had presented some new and daunting challenge. Yet they cannot even explain the distinction between the subject (knower) and the object (the thing known). Indeed, they don't even recognize the difference--except in their everyday lives. As you and WJM keep pointing out, no one really lives that way. StephenB

StephenB

[quotes stensomella]I don’t believe that slavery is objectively good or bad, although it is bad according to my subjective morality.

Why is it bad according to your subjective morality? What, in your judgment, does “bad” mean?

In this context, i would suggest, bad for the slaves. Alicia Renard

Barry, stenosemella at #13... you have to laugh at his audacity. Actually getting stroppy and going on the attack; slashing at you with a blade of grass. Truculence incarnate. Axel

ktcat, I believe that, in order to summon to their aid 'those sparkly unicorns that give them consciousness and free will', they simply use that very ancient, now quite hackneyed, pantomime incantation: 'abracadabra'. That's all. It evidently has incredible power, when uttered by an adept. I suspect the wizards and enchanters in Pharaoh's court might well have resorted to its fluence, when they turned their thinggies into snakes (Pardon me if my turn of phrase conjures up some nasty images). It sounds too simple, really, but, then, life's funny like that. I remember Naaman, the Syrian general scoffed rather angrily at the thought of simply immersing himself in the Jordan seven times, as counseled by Elisha, in order to be rid of his leprosy. Food for thought, I'll wager. Axel

Stephen has much more patience with asshats than I do. It is one of him many virtues. Barry Arrington

stensomella -

I don’t believe that slavery is objectively good or bad, although it is bad according to my subjective morality.

Why is it bad according to your subjective morality? What, in your judgment, does "bad" mean? StephenB

JDH

It is easy to come up with a hypothetical where it would be correct to practice slavery – suppose that you live in a country where any adult not attached to a household as either a family member or household slave is automatically conscripted into the king’s army to go fight ridiculous battles and to die a painful useless death. Well in this case keeping as many slaves as you could afford would be the correct thing to do. Slavery would not be wrong here.

As you suggest, not all forms of slavery are necessarily wrong, such as indentured servitude and other such formulations. However, chattel slavery (and human trafficking) is always wrong. I think you would agree. StephenB

stenosemella, I will play if you will also answer my questions as we go along.

If there is objective morality, why have these moral “truths” changed over time, and between societies. And, given this fact, how does anyone know that their moral “truths” are the right ones?

Moral truths do not change. If they could change, they wouldn't be true. Error changes, truth doesn't. Accordingly, no moral truth has ever changed over time or between societies. What is your definition of a "moral truth?"

Is slavery objectively wrong and if so, where does this objective “truth” come from.

If, by slavery, you mean chattel slavery, then yes, slavery is objectively wrong. The objective truth comes from the fact that human beings have inherent dignity owing to their human nature, which is distinct from the nature of animals. It isn't just theists who accept the objectivity of this moral truth. Even secularists have made the same point in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which is free of all theological language. Do you think chattel slavery is objectively wrong? If not, in what way is it wrong? Or, do you think it is not wrong? StephenB

stensomella - I don't get the point of you question. Of course "slavery" is not objectively wrong. There is no virtue or vice where you could not come up with an extreme context where it is the best that you can do. It is easy to come up with a hypothetical where it would be correct to practice slavery - suppose that you live in a country where any adult not attached to a household as either a family member or household slave is automatically conscripted into the king's army to go fight ridiculous battles and to die a painful useless death. Well in this case keeping as many slaves as you could afford would be the correct thing to do. Slavery would not be wrong here. However, in most cases the opportunities for a free adult are not restricted to either slavery or conscription. So slavery is almost always wrong. But to claim that slavery is objectively wrong is to misunderstand the complexity of how moral laws interact with each other. It is impossible to localize one moral law. This does not mean that morality is relative or subjective in the sense that there is not an objective answer for every situation. It does however mean that no one moral precept is objectively correct to be always ascendant over every other precept. I hope this was clear. JDH

Theist dodge #1 "As I said, when you demonstrate your good faith by quoting from one of the literally hundreds of responses to that very question on UD and tell me why you think it is wrong, I will respond." Refuse to answer a question until the materialist agrees to answer another one. Barry, are you so afraid of answering this question? I'm sure that KF or WJM would not hesitate. If it makes it easier I will provide you with my opinion on the subject. I don't believe that slavery is objectively good or bad, although it is bad according to my subjective morality. However, if I were raised in a different time, or in a different time, I may believe that slavery is morally good. So again, Is slavery objectively wrong? stenosemella

S @ 11: As I said, when you demonstrate your good faith by quoting from one of the literally hundreds of responses to that very question on UD and tell me why you think it is wrong, I will respond. Barry Arrington

"No, I am not avoiding the question. " Yes you are. It is here for everybody to see. I have asked a very simple question: Is slavery objectively wrong and if so, where does this objective “truth” come from?" It is a very simple question. If you are uncomfortable about the second part of the question, you can simply start by answering the first part. Is slavery objectively wrong? You keep claiming that you are open to fair and honest disagreement with your views. Now is your chance to demonstrate this. I promise to engage honestly and with respect. The ball is in your court. stenosemella

S @ 9 No, I am not avoiding the question. I am demonstrating that I do feel compelled to jump though every hoop some asshat holds in front of me because he has not been paying attention for the last 10 years. Barry Arrington

Barry, you are avoiding the question. I will repeat it again: Is slavery objectively wrong and if so, where does this objective “truth” come from. stenosemella

S @ 7

I dare say that I have read numerous attempts to answer this question

If that is true, then you should have no problem quoting one of those attempts and telling me why you think it is wrong. We can start the discussion that way. I do get so weary of starting from scratch with you people every time. Barry Arrington

Barry, I dare say that I have read numerous attempts to answer this question but I have yet to see one that is logically sound. But rather than have you try to equivocate on every inconsistency with objective morality, I would simply like to hear your opinion on whether or not slavery is objectively wrong and where this objective "truth" comes from. Maybe if we start small we can actually make some progress. stenosemella

I can understand that. On my own blog, I realized that in cases like this, my writing was more there to teach myself than to instruct people who see themselves as nothing more than bags of molecules obeying the laws of chemistry, but somehow possessing sparkly, magical unicorns which give them consciousness and free will. ktcat

stenosemella @ 2

This entire materialism vs objective morality is getting rather tiresome.

After saying this you raise an objection that has been answered hundreds of times on these pages. If you've followed the debate long enough that it has become tiresome to you, then doubtless you have seen the answer to your question many times. So why should I answer your question (and there is an answer) when you refused to consider all of those prior answers? Barry Arrington

ktcat, I understand what you are saying, and after reading the latest materialist mulishly refusing correction to glaring errors, I am often tempted to do just as you say. But I am not really arguing with the expectation that I am going to change their mind. By the time they come to the point of arguing for it on the internet, their conscience has usually been so thoroughly seared that they are beyond correction. I have to keep reminding myself, however, that we get over 50,000 unique visitors to this site every month. 99% of them are lurkers who never comment. Those people are the ones to whom my arguments are addressed. Barry Arrington

Barry, give it up. Materialism, as you pointed out elsewhere, is not rational nor is it coherent. It's simply a platform for the person to feel superior to others and excuse any and all behaviors. It's nothing more than that. You are arguing with people who aren't arguing with you. They don't care if it's incoherent as long as they are not held to any objective moral code and they can sneer at people who have one. ktcat

This entire materialism vs objective morality is getting rather tiresome. Theists claim that there is a subset of objective morality. Materialists say that there isn't. If there is objective morality, why have these moral "truths" changed over time, and between societies. And, given this fact, how does anyone know that their moral "truths" are the right ones? stenosemella

Breaking that law is as likely as breaking the laws of nature, perhaps less so, and there are consequences.

Breaking laws of nature is impossible, so how do we know there are consequences?

With materialism and physicalism, there is no such morality and no consequences by definition,.

So if I murder someone, I won't be thrown in prison? If I'm mean and nasty, people won't make disapproving comments, and stop talking to me? Bob O'H