Morality

[Kenny]

Ken, if you say that human law is objective1 I think you are wrong.

When you say human law is subjective, are you saying it’s enforcement is subjective?

If there is a law, normally it is an undisputed fact that it exist, it exists objectively (epistemological objectivity). It should be enforced objectively, but this is what Wikipedia (objectivity, philosophical) says is used synonymously with neutrality and I call objectivety2. The definition of objectivity the Christians here (and I) use in this tread is objectivity1, objectivity independent of human thinking.

What I try to say is that it is important with definitions.

Nils

Would you consider Math objective1 or objective2.

Ken

[Nils]

Ken, if you say that human law is objective1 I think you are wrong.

When you say human law is subjective, are you saying it’s enforcement is subjective?

If there is a law, normally it is an undisputed fact that it exist, it exists objectively (epistemological objectivity). It should be enforced objectively, but this is what Wikipedia (objectivity, philosophical) says is used synonymously with neutrality and I call objectivety2. The definition of objectivity the Christians here (and I) use in this tread is objectivity1, objectivity independent of human thinking.

What I try to say is that it is important with definitions.

Nils

Would you consider Math objective1 or objective2.

Ken

Objectiv2 I defined as neutrality between persons related to morality. It is obviously not applicable to questions of reality. The status of mathematics is interesting but I would prefer staying with the morality discussion in this thread.

You are asking a lot of questions. Do you agree with what I say about morality (primarily on definitions) or do you disagree and in that case, why?

Nils

[Kenny]

Ken, if you say that human law is objective1 I think you are wrong.

When you say human law is subjective, are you saying it’s enforcement is subjective?

If there is a law, normally it is an undisputed fact that it exist, it exists objectively (epistemological objectivity). It should be enforced objectively, but this is what Wikipedia (objectivity, philosophical) says is used synonymously with neutrality and I call objectivety2. The definition of objectivity the Christians here (and I) use in this tread is objectivity1, objectivity independent of human thinking.

What I try to say is that it is important with definitions.

Nils

Would you consider Math objective1 or objective2.

Ken

Objectiv2 I defined as neutrality between persons related to morality. It is obviously not applicable to questions of reality. The status of mathematics is interesting but I would prefer staying with the morality discussion in this thread.

You are asking a lot of questions. Do you agree with what I say about morality (primarily on definitions) or do you disagree and in that case, why?

Nils

Yes; I was asking a lot of questions; I was trying to understand where you are coming from in order to understand your position. Do I agree with you? You did say morality was subjective, so I do agree with that. As far as the law, you said it’s enforcement is objective2; which I agree with, the fact that it exists empirically on record is objective; I agree with that, but then you said the law itself is Subjective1! That part I don’t agree with. I don’t understand how you could conclude the existence and enforcement of the law is objective, but the law itself is subjective. But that is another discussion; I understand you not wanting to get off subject.

Getting back to morality, you said it is subjective, but considered the possibility that if God exists, it could be objective. I wouldn’t even consider the possibility of it being objective even if God existed. It seems to me, if God did exist, and morality were objective, it would not only be independent of human views, but would have to be independent of God’s views as well! Otherwise it would be subjective to whatever God proclaims as good/bad; and it isn’t defined that way.

Also, I can’t think of anything objective that could be dismissed free of consequence. Example; if I dismissed or was unaware of the existence of poison (subjective) I would still have to suffer the consequences of poison if I consumed it. If I understand the rules of Arithmetic, (objective) there is no way I could be convinced that 1+1=3; I would have to know it was 2 even if I pretended otherwise. In other words, If “X” is objectively wrong, in order for me to be convinced it was right, I would either have to be unaware of “X” or be unaware of the difference between right vs wrong. I don’t think I could honestly know objective “X”, know objective right vs wrong, and still be convinced “X” is objective right.

IOW other than considering the possibility of morality being objective if God exists, I agree with your position on this issue

Ken

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Getting back to morality, you said it is subjective, but considered the possibility that if God exists, it could be objective. I wouldn’t even consider the possibility of it being objective even if God existed. It seems to me, if God did exist, and morality were objective, it would not only be independent of human views, but would have to be independent of God’s views as well! Otherwise it would be subjective to whatever God proclaims as good/bad; and it isn’t defined that way.

And this sums up the frustration that people have when they try to have a conversation with you Kenny.

After hundreds of posts on this topic, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

This really makes it clear to everyone, just how obtuse you are.

Please don't take this personally Kenny. I really like you, and sincerely wish that you could understand what is being discussed.

[thatkidakayoungguy]

]
It may be obvious to you because you believe in a Christian God. To an atheist it's far from obvious that there is objective morality. My interest in this question depends on the statement from some Christians that the need of an objective moral is an argument for Gods existence. This I deny. I have argued for that, at length, earlier in this thread.

Nils

Sometimes when I entertain thought, I come across your problem. With that said, I wanna say no, in itself it doesn't prove the existence of God, then when I think about objective morality (like is it always wrong to lie, cuss, kill, etc) it becomes more so.
However since I think morality is or rather can be objective, then that points to a God who set those laws in motion or always held to those laws (esp. if we think God is ultimate good).

[Kenny]

]
It may be obvious to you because you believe in a Christian God. To an atheist it's far from obvious that there is objective morality. My interest in this question depends on the statement from some Christians that the need of an objective moral is an argument for Gods existence. This I deny. I have argued for that, at length, earlier in this thread.

Nils

Sometimes when I entertain thought, I come across your problem. With that said, I wanna say no, in itself it doesn't prove the existence of God, then when I think about objective morality (like is it always wrong to lie, cuss, kill, etc) it becomes more so.
However since I think morality is or rather can be objective, then that points to a God who set those laws in motion or always held to those laws (esp. if we think God is ultimate good).

Does it make sense to you that a person who does not believe in God, and who doesn’t see any being as ultimate good, would not believe morality is objective?

[thatkidakayoungguy]

]
It may be obvious to you because you believe in a Christian God. To an atheist it's far from obvious that there is objective morality. My interest in this question depends on the statement from some Christians that the need of an objective moral is an argument for Gods existence. This I deny. I have argued for that, at length, earlier in this thread.

Nils

Sometimes when I entertain thought, I come across your problem. With that said, I wanna say no, in itself it doesn't prove the existence of God, then when I think about objective morality (like is it always wrong to lie, cuss, kill, etc) it becomes more so.
However since I think morality is or rather can be objective, then that points to a God who set those laws in motion or always held to those laws (esp. if we think God is ultimate good).

Does it make sense to you that a person who does not believe in God, and who doesn’t see any being as ultimate good, would not believe morality is objective?

Yea, I can see why one would think that.

[Nils]

]
It may be obvious to you because you believe in a Christian God. To an atheist it's far from obvious that there is objective morality. My interest in this question depends on the statement from some Christians that the need of an objective moral is an argument for Gods existence. This I deny. I have argued for that, at length, earlier in this thread.

Nils

Sometimes when I entertain thought, I come across your problem. With that said, I wanna say no, in itself it doesn't prove the existence of God, then when I think about objective morality (like is it always wrong to lie, cuss, kill, etc) it becomes more so.
However since I think morality is or rather can be objective, then that points to a God who set those laws in motion or always held to those laws (esp. if we think God is ultimate good).

Does it make sense to you that a person who does not believe in God, and who doesn’t see any being as ultimate good, would not believe morality is objective?

Yea, I can see why one would think that.

Good question, Ken and

Good answer TKYG. It seems that I don't have any need to discuss this question with you any more. As I said earlier I only claim that it is a reasonably and coherent position to not believe in an absolute morality (as well as a reasonably position believe so if you believe in God).

I know that you Ken disagrees with the last statement. I'll come back to that later.

Nils