Omniscience and free will

[Jac3510]

Didn't I say early in this conversation that everyone knows right from wrong--even atheists? How could I be saying that you have to have an advanced psych degree to know it? I don't have an advanced psych degree. I suspect that you don't either. That is OBVIOUSLY not what I am saying. Are you not even TRYING to see our point? Are you just trying to play games? I'm quickly coming to that conclusion, because I happen to believe that you are smart enough to see that has nothing to do with what me, Jay, or Byblos are saying to you. You know that.

Besides that, you seem to be ignoring what we are saying to you. My last post was expressly about why we CANNOT have the epistemological discussion--the discussion about how we know--until we have the ontological discussion--the discussion about what it is that we are claiming to know. It's not possible to coherently discuss how we know what morality is until we have decided what its nature is. And then you reply to THAT point with a question about how we know it? I don't even know what to make of that reply. Not only is it not related, it's the exact thing I am telling we cannot talk about, and then run right back to it again.

Wayne, you will never understand this until you understand the very basic philosophical principle--which is NOT a Christian principle, it is simply a logical principle--that you cannot discuss epistemology (how you know what a thing is) until you have hammered out your ontology (what a thing is). The only thing any of us have said epistemologically is that you CAN know right from wrong. So now your response to all of this is to ask if we can't know it?

You aren't listening. You aren't even trying. You aren't discussing. We aren't having a conversation, are we? Are you arguing just for the sake of arguing? Do you understand what we are trying to tell you? If yes, then why are you talking about things that you know we can't talk about yet. If not, what are you misunderstanding so that we can get somewhere, because if this is all we are going to be doing--us pointing out that we have to talk about ontology before epistemology and then you complaining about epistemology--then I don't see any need in continuing this further. If this is all just over your head, then fine. But there is no reason to continue if it is.

[waynepii]

OK Let's see where discussing ontology leads us. I had a fairly comprehensive set of philosophy courses in college, but that was a long time ago. More recently, I have worked in AI which uses the same terms and similar concepts.

BTW I am not being stubborn or argumentative, at least that was never my intent. An assertion was made by someone (I will attempt dredge up the post if you want) to the effect that it was fitting and proper for Christians to impose their belief system on others because "it was objective" (based on God). The obvious question was then "where does one go to 'read' this objective morality?". Stated another way, "how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?" That is the question I am still trying to get answered.

[B. W.]

…BTW I am not being stubborn or argumentative, at least that was never my intent. An assertion was made by someone (I will attempt dredge up the post if you want) to the effect that it was fitting and proper for Christians to impose their belief system on others because "it was objective" (based on God). The obvious question was then "where does one go to 'read' this objective morality?"...

Interesting....

Question: Is thievery, premeditated murder, perjury, adultery wrong?

So these value judgments that come from the bible and found in the Ten Commandments force an unjust mortality upon the noble human race against our will? Are theses imposing a Judaic/Christian belief system on others? If that is the case — then these principles are wrong and the opposite of these must be the true morality — Is that what you are saying?

….Stated another way, "how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?" That is the question I am still trying to get answered.

Coming to Christ is how one is assured one is behaving in accordance with God's wishes. Without this, the fact that we cannot keep any moral codes for very long without breaking them points to our human need for someone to save us from ourselves and for that being to work inside us in a morphological - progressive way so we can behave according to the Lord's wishes. There is no other way.

As it is written:

1 Timothy 2:3, 4, 5: “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” ESV

Again not all will come to Christ to be saved and come to the knowledge of this truth as it is written:

2 Th 2:10, “…and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved…” ESV

Here is the morality that God imposes upon humanity — a choice to either refuse Him from heaven sent to save us from ourselves or willingly accept the change He offers that changes a person.

How can God be without justice, unjust, for offering to do the work for you — in you — that first begins by granting you a choice to either accept or reject His offer?

In other words, how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?

Answer — God does communicate with you — as he is now, in various ways and means. You either need to accept or reject his offer. That is the first step of communication.

Accept and you'll discover an ongoing relationship with that Lord that transforms your life. Reject, you'll remain lost wondering if morality really exists in order to justify yourself in your own eyes.

When you enter eternity, how do you want to stand? Surrendered to the Lord or standing on the merits of your own morality? Who would the Lord want to share eternity with?

So if God cannot communicate to you — then you cannot behave according to his wishes because you rejected the Word of his communiqué (John 1:1, 14, John 3:36)… That simple…
-
-
-

[waynepii]

…BTW I am not being stubborn or argumentative, at least that was never my intent. An assertion was made by someone (I will attempt dredge up the post if you want) to the effect that it was fitting and proper for Christians to impose their belief system on others because "it was objective" (based on God). The obvious question was then "where does one go to 'read' this objective morality?"...

Interesting....

Question: Is thievery, premeditated murder, perjury, adultery wrong?

So these value judgments that come from the bible and found in the Ten Commandments force an unjust mortality upon the noble human race against our will? Are theses imposing a Judaic/Christian belief system on others? If that is the case — then these principles are wrong and the opposite of these must be the true morality — Is that what you are saying?

Don't be ridiculous, of course not. But what about killing abortion providers (to save the unborn), or withholding marital rights from same-sex couples (homosexuality is an abomination, so practitioners have no rights), or withholding rights from non-Christians, or ... , or ... ? Have you really never heard of things YOU consider patently "wrong" being espoused "in God's name"?

….Stated another way, "how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?" That is the question I am still trying to get answered.

Coming to Christ is how one is assured one is behaving in accordance with God's wishes. Without this, the fact that we cannot keep any moral codes for very long without breaking them points to our human need for someone to save us from ourselves and for that being to work inside us in a morphological - progressive way so we can behave according to the Lord's wishes. There is no other way.

Says you (as a Christian). Would not a Muslim say essentially the same thing wrt Islam? ... a Jew wrt Judaism? ... pretty much any believer wrt their religion?

As it is written:

1 Timothy 2:3, 4, 5: “This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus, who gave himself as a ransom for all, which is the testimony given at the proper time.” ESV

Again not all will come to Christ to be saved and come to the knowledge of this truth as it is written:

2 Th 2:10, “…and with all wicked deception for those who are perishing, because they refused to love the truth and so be saved…” ESV

Here is the morality that God imposes upon humanity — a choice to either refuse Him from heaven sent to save us from ourselves or willingly accept the change He offers that changes a person.

How can God be without justice, unjust, for offering to do the work for you — in you — that first begins by granting you a choice to either accept or reject His offer?

How just is it to equip us with intellect, fail to provide sufficient evidence of His existence (at least for some of us), and then expect us to disregard our intellect and the lack of evidence - and the penalty for cynicism is an eternity in hell?

In other words, how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?

Answer — God does communicate with you — as he is now, in various ways and means. You either need to accept or reject his offer. That is the first step of communication.

Accept and you'll discover an ongoing relationship with that Lord that transforms your life. Reject, you'll remain lost wondering if morality really exists in order to justify yourself in your own eyes.

When you enter eternity, how do you want to stand? Surrendered to the Lord or standing on the merits of your own morality? Who would the Lord want to share eternity with?

So if God cannot communicate to you — then you cannot behave according to his wishes because you rejected the Word of his communiqué (John 1:1, 14, John 3:36)… That simple…
-
-
-

When someone does something that aggravates me, my first impulse is to express my anger. Then I think about it, try to see thing from both sides, and react rationally. Which is God "speaking to me"? How do I know? The impulse is automatic and (to my mind) distinctly "unholy", the rational response is, well, the result of exerting intellect over the impulse. I don't see God behind either reaction, and can't for the life of me come up with a third, better, reaction.

I get a very strong feeling that you (both collectively and B. W. specifically) view me, and others who don't share your beliefs, as "evil". I assure you, most "atheists" (almost all are actually "agnostics" - non-believers because of lack of credible evidence) I know more concerned about others, more compassionate, more considerate, and IMO better human beings than most "overt" Christians I know. It's far more difficult to ask forgiveness from the person(s) you wronged than it is to ask it of God in the privacy of prayer or a confessional. I recognize that is very much a case of stereotyping, BUT so is the way some of you react to "an atheist".

AND citing Biblical tracts does not constitute logic (which is key to philosophy in general, and ontology in particular.

BTW ANOTHER non-answer to my question.

[jlay]

I get a very strong feeling that you (both collectively and B. W. specifically) view me, and others who don't share your beliefs, as "evil". I assure you, most "atheists" (almost all are actually "agnostics" - non-believers because of lack of credible evidence) I know more concerned about others, more compassionate, more considerate, and IMO better human beings than most "overt" Christians I know. It's far more difficult to ask forgiveness from the person(s) you wronged than it is to ask it of God in the privacy of prayer or a confessional. I recognize that is very much a case of stereotyping, BUT so is the way some of you react to "an atheist".

You exhibit some patently wrong thinking here. Where to start. I don't want to get into a contest to see who is the more compassionate, considerate, etc. I will only say this. I have worked in hands on minstry in the inner cities and in the worst areas of rural poverty in the USA. I have personal experience. I have never, not once come accross an atheist outreach. Not once. I am not saying atheists can't be compassionate or considerate. They most certainly can. I doubt you are very familiar with just how much is done through Christian charity across the globe.

2ndly, you do not understand the basic principlas of confession. I can defend this with a scritpure. "Therefore, if you are offering your gift at the altar and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there in front of the altar. First go and be reconciled to your brother; then come and offer your gift." Those are the words of Jesus in Matt. 5: 23-24

Have you really never heard of things YOU consider patently "wrong" being espoused "in God's name"?

Of course, and we always will. And just as you can use your God given conscience to discern the error of their ways, so can Christians. And they do. I bet you would hard pressed to think of five incidents of killing abortion providers. However, we know there are millions of murderous abortions performed just in this country. If you consider that the Christian considers this murder, then you would have to be amazed at the restraint that is displayed. In every case of abortion provider killing, you will never find this person coming out of any solid, foundational bible based faith. It is always from an isolated fringe group, or usually a person acting completely alone, without any direct connection to the church.

How just is it to equip us with intellect, fail to provide sufficient evidence of His existence (at least for some of us), and then expect us to disregard our intellect and the lack of evidence - and the penalty for cynicism is an eternity in hell?

Sufficient. You would be in the extreme, extreme minority. Probably less than 1/10 of one percent of people who have lived. Through the recorded history of man, one thing is certain. Man has recognized that there is a higher power.

Hell is not the penalty for cynicism. Hell is the penalty exacted upon YOUR personal transgressions. Your lies, your lust, your hate, your indifference, your coveting, your rejection of evidence, etc. I think one would have to disregard their intellect to arrive at the conclusion that there is no God. The bible agrees when it says, "Only a fool says there is no God."
I would contend that your obstruction for finding evidence is not the lack thereof, but a reality of what the evidence reveals about your eternal condition. Without realizing it, you subconsciously reveal your true objection. and that is, you don't like what the bible has to say about you. It is a wet blanket on how you want to live your life. This is evidenced by your own statements. We are trying to determine if objective morality exists. You express your problems with what the bible says, such as, "so God's going to send me to hell for being a cynic."

I have had enough converstations with former atheists to know this is likely. I really am surprised you are not seeing this. Jac, BW and myself are sitting around elbowing each other, saying, "did you hear what he is saying?" Yet you somehow seem to miss it. You hold up the GR as some sort of truth, yet you can't understand the implications of doing such. Yes, it is an expression of objective morality. Objective morality must have a source indepenent of the human mind. Otherwise it is subjective. If it is subjective then you can't say it is "right" or "wrong," anymore than You can say survival of the fittest is right or wrong. But yet you do. You say that you can't recogize objective morality, but claim you have in the form of the golden rule. And then you blame God for not making it obvious. Yet you even claimed it was obvious. Yet you deny the source. Why? Well I hate to tell you, but the bible explains this as well. The blinding power of sin.

A.W. Pink said,
What is sin? Sin is saying, I renounce the God who made me; I disallow His right to govern me. I care not what He says to me, what commandments He has given, nor how He expostulates: I prefer self-indulgence to His approval. I am indifferent unto all He has done to and for me; His blessings and gifts move me not: I am going to be lord of myself. Sin is rebellion against the majesty of heaven. It is to treat the Almighty with contempt. Oh, how vastly different a thing is sin from what the world supposes! How insensible are the unregenerate to the glory of God and that, which is due unto Him from us!

The natural man supposes that the great evil of sin consists in its being so injurious to us. For a creature, which is absolutely dependent, to assume an attitude of haughty independence is the sin of sins. To despise One, who is infinitely glorious and infinitely worthy of honor, love, and obedience, is an awful abomination. To be more concerned about pleasing fellow rebels than to seek the favor of God is turpitude of the blackest dye. O reader, if you have never seen the great evil of sin, then are you a stranger to God and blind to His surpassing loveliness; you are under the blinding power of sin.


Well I have certainly gone off topic. I apologize, but I do beleive that we had reached an empass.

[Byblos]

BTW ANOTHER non-answer to my question.

Wayne, we can't answer that question because we have not dealt with the ontological issue yet. It's like asking someone how to spell a word without using the alphabet. "Spell CAT." "OK . . . 'C'" " NO NO NO DON'T USE THE ALPHABET JUST ANSWER MY QUESTION HOW DO YOU SPELL IT?!?"

I'll just re-post earlier comments telling you why it can't be done (hope you don't mind Jac).

Wane, unless and until you are ready to talk about the subject in a coherent manner we really have nothing else to say.

[waynepii]

I agreed to discuss ontology.

[Jac3510]

Ok, Wayne. I want a genuine dialogue, as I think you do, too. We've just been ships passing in the night, so to speak. I want to point out three things to hopefully frame this in a productive way. First, You said something earlier that caught my eye:

Stated another way, "how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?" That is the question I am still trying to get answered.

I want to fully acknowledge this question. That is a very important question. It isn't the only question, but without that, ethics as we know it has no practical value. So, again, I DO want to answer this question, but before we do, we need to do what you've agreed to, which is deal with the ontology. So rather than look at the ontological discussion as a different question than the one you are wanting to have, can we look at it in terms of the first step we are taking to try to answer it?

Second, your question above is different from the original question that sparked the debate. Let me show you the context again:

In any case, you do realize that this whole conversation is self-defeating, right? The concept of evil only has any meaning if you presume God's existence. The problem of evil kills itself. Evil cannot exist if God does not, so to try to use evil to disprove God's existence only proves His existence.

Do you mean the term "evil" is based on God (I would dispute this)? In that cae, substitute "heinous" for "evil". Or are you claiming a given act can only be "evil" (or "heinous", or "wrong", or ... ) given the existence of God? THAT I strongly disagree with.

I mean it in the sense that you strongly disagree with.

My interest has been totally on the ontological question. You raised the epistemological question later, which AGAIN, I think is fair and we can and should answer. I only want to point out that the ontological question has significance now because it has implications for two areas:

1. God's existence (my question)
2. Moral epistemology (your question)

Either way, to answer BOTH of our questions, we need to deal with this issue first. This means that we have to properly define and agree on the nature of morality itself. Once we do that, we can decide how it is known, applied, etc.

Third, all this means we need to get a correct definition of the terms that we are using. Now, I don't want to presume anything anymore. I don't care what words we use. That's all semantics. But I need to be sure that we are using words in the same way. So can we set as a first goal our agreement on terminology and then, from there, a second goal being an agreement on the implications of the words we are using if they are applied in different ways?

Words that come to mind that need to be very clearly agreed on:

Morality
Right
Wrong
Good (esp. its relationship to 'right')
Evil (esp. its relationship to 'wrong')
objective
subjective
ontology
nature (in the sense of a thing's or action's 'nature')

Can you tell me how you understand these terms (not asking for formal definitions - just how you see them)? I'm not trying to test you. As far as I'm concerned, there is no right or wrong answer on any of these. I just need to be sure that we are using them in the same way. If not, we need to agree on words that can be used in the same way.

Thanks!

[B. W.]

Wayne,

So why do you hate Christianity so much? Isn't that a contradiction to your own morality? As for evil — no — we are not calling you evil. You want to know how God speaks directly to a person (Job 33:14)?

How God begins to speak is by the means of conviction. Conviction is not pleasant but it does expose the contradictions one has toward their own self and world views. It makes one feel uncomfortable and even angry as your own words suggest.

Next, For the Muslim and Jew, or Buddhist , New Ager, Hindu — these religious systems are based on performance to earn ones way to Heaven, and/or win approval and acceptance from a deity or force, enter an enlighten state, etc. Christianity is noted by its difference — surrender to God on His terms…and He works in you to transform your life.

You want proof of God's existence? He is convicting you as evidence by you anger against Christians and thinking we are calling you evil — no one here is calling you evil. Your hostilely toward Christians and demanding that they prove God exist does prove that you do not live according to your own standards of non-judgmentalism. Well, we are, on this Forum, proving God's existence.

God speaks through life and the things that happen to us; he speaks in dreams, and through other people, and many various diverse ways to gain our attention to let us know he is there. You want proof that God exist? You must become born again — there is no other way. You need to come and surrender to Christ. It is that simple.

Other world religions make it hard and difficult as you have to earn your place in the sun. Christianity exposes human hypocrisy. Christianity exposes hate, bias, how people self justify themselves, how people hate, exposes pride, malice, condescension, how they want God to bend to them and their deeds, ideas philosophies, etc and etc.

That is the work of conviction and evidence of how God speaks (John 16:8) so that one will either accept or reject his offer. That decision is in your hands; you cannot earn it, nor ignore it. As you are now — why would God want to live next door to you?

Lastly, You asked a question and it was answered:

….Stated another way, "how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?" That is the question I am still trying to get answered.

“…Coming to Christ is how one is assured one is behaving in accordance with God's wishes. Without this, the fact that we cannot keep any moral codes for very long without breaking them points to our human need for someone to save us from ourselves and for that being to work inside us in a morphological - progressive way so we can behave according to the Lord's wishes. There is no other way…

In other words, how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?

Answer — God does communicate with you — as he is now, in various ways and means. You either need to accept or reject his offer. That is the first step of communication.

Accept and you'll discover an ongoing relationship with that Lord that transforms your life. Reject, you'll remain lost wondering if morality really exists in order to justify yourself in your own eyes…”

As for anymore on this matter - I'll leave it in Jac's capable hands...
-
-
-

[jlay]

"how can those of us to whom God does not communicate directly be sure we are behaving in accordance with His wishes?" That is the question I am still trying to get answered.

This question is contradictory. If God is not communicating to you then why would you be concerned about His wishes?

I once was witnessing to a young man. I didn't know him, I just stopped to talk with him where there was a local event going on downtown. He became a little put off about matters of faith. He made it clear that he didn't believe in God. He said, "you are the second person to witness to me in this exact same spot in the last two weeks." This "spot" could have been anywhere. It wasn't me who witnessed to the guy before. I didn't know he'd be in that spot. I didn't know the guy at all. And somehow he saw two random people, who didn't know each other, witnessing to him about Jesus in the exact same spot, as a problem. I would say it was a loud knock on the door, but he didn't see this as God trying to communicate. Of course he didn't like it. Because it irritated his conscience. It is amazing how sin can blind the mind to such things. The problem with man finding God is not an evidence problem. it is a sin problem. Always has been. Always will.

There is this arrogance that somehow God should bow to the dictates of man. Mussolini said, "God if you are real, strike me dead now." God obliged him, in his own timing. I can't demand that President Obama appear in my living room. If I were to ever meet the President I would most certainly have to do it on his terms. A person would never question that kind of authority. "Can you believe that Obama. Who does he think he is, not bowing to my dictates." If we are going to find God, the Bible makes it clear that it will be on His terms. "God resist the proud, and gives grace to the humble."

[Gman]

I thought this article was particularly good on the subject..

All Religions Lead to God? Can One Discern the True Religion?

[ageofknowledge]

Mussolini said, "God if you are real, strike me dead now." God obliged him, in his own timing.

Before daring God to strike him dead photo:



After God struck him dead along with his fornicating partner photo:

[waynepii]

I'm back - finally!

Words that come to mind that need to be very clearly agreed on:

Morality
Right
Wrong
Good (esp. its relationship to 'right')
Evil (esp. its relationship to 'wrong')
objective
subjective
ontology
nature (in the sense of a thing's or action's 'nature')

Can you tell me how you understand these terms (not asking for formal definitions - just how you see them)? I'm not trying to test you. As far as I'm concerned, there is no right or wrong answer on any of these. I just need to be sure that we are using them in the same way. If not, we need to agree on words that can be used in the same way.

I'd like to add one more - "ethic" or "ethics" as "morality", "right", and "wrong" spring from a society's ethical standard.

Some of these definitions are "borrowed" from a dictionary (to refine the verbage), but all of them are consistent with my understanding of the meanings how I use the terms (except for "ontology", which is not a term I use regularly).

Ethic - A norm that a given society (individual, group, culture, religion, etc) has established as the "ideal" of behavior. For example "all [people] are created equal".

Morality - A code of conduct based on a society's established ethics.

Right - Behavior in accordance with society's morality.

Wrong - Behavior in violation of society's morality.

Good (esp. its relationship to 'right') - The same as "right", although usually used in a religious context.

Evil (esp. its relationship to 'wrong') - Pretty much the same as "wrong", although usually used in a religious context.

objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice - based on facts.

subjective - modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background.

ontology - a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being.

nature (in the sense of a thing's or action's 'nature') - the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.

I've kept the definitions fairly simple but can elaborate on them if needed.

IMO An individual, groups of individuals (eg a church or social organization), and cultures (eg a government or religion) each have a defined set of ethics. Ideally, the ethics of a given individual tracks those of any groups and cultures to which he/she belongs. Occasionally, some individual's ethics will differ from those of a group or the culture - such situations are the engines of social change. For example, the civil rights protests of the 60's and 70's.

[Jac3510]

OK, Wayne, thanks for the definition. This gives us a very good starting point. We are definitely using most of these words differently. I'm NOT saying the way you are using them is wrongly. I'm saying that they are different, that's all. We can use them the way you are to avoid confusion. With that said, I want to look at each definition--not to challenge it--but to express differences and label them so that these differences can be properly referred to in discussion.

• Ethic - A norm that a given society (individual, group, culture, religion, etc) has established as the "ideal" of behavior. For example "all [people] are created equal".

Are we differentiating here between values and ethics? The example "all [people] are created equal" isn't a behavior as per your definition. Do you actually mean here that an ethic is an established norm based on (that is, consistent with) any given value statement given by society? Or are you simply equating the value with the ethic, in which ethics is not about behavior but about the values that under-gird behavior?

• Morality - A code of conduct based on a society's established ethics.

This is fair. So would you define something as "immoral" if it goes against a given society's established ethics?

• Right - Behavior in accordance with society's morality.
  
  Wrong - Behavior in violation of society's morality.

So to behave "morally" is the same as doing something "right," and "immorally" (I presume?) is to do something "wrong"? Seems easy enough. I'll have a question about how that applies below.

• Good (esp. its relationship to 'right') - The same as "right", although usually used in a religious context.
  
  Evil (esp. its relationship to 'wrong') - Pretty much the same as "wrong", although usually used in a religious context.

Noted. Let's avoid these terms as I don't want to connote any religious undertones in our discussion of the nature of morality.

• objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice - based on facts.

Can we distinguish between epistemological and ontological objectivity and label this the former (or objective[a] and objective)? It seems that you are equating "objective" with ideas, that is, ideas are objective if those ideas are not influenced by our feelings, etc. Yet how would that definition apply to an "objective fact"? Facts themselves are not ideas, are they? Is this a fair distinction, or would you prefer to label it some other way?

• subjective - modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background.

Help me make a clarification here. Consider the two sentences and tell me how the word "subjective" is used in each based on your definition here:

"Isn't that's interpretation very subjective, sir?"
"Whether redheads are prettier than blonds is really just subjective, isn't it?"

Do you see a difference? I'm trying to draw a distinction--the first is influenced by personal views, whereas the latter is defined as a personal view (the first begs the question: what is being influenced?). If you see this, what would you call the first and second? Which gets the label "subjective" and in what sense, and what is the other?

• ontology - a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being.

That's a good textbook definition. So we agree that when we are making an ontological claim we are talking about what a thing is--we are talking about its nature--and not about how we know it, correct?

• nature (in the sense of a thing's or action's 'nature') - the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.

This is very good. I especially like the fact that it is inherent. So would you agree that when we are talking about a thing's nature we are asking an ontological question?

With all that said, I have one last question to clarify how you are using the words "right" and "wrong." In what sense can I say American slavery was "wrong"? Certainly, you and I both agree that it was, but that society did not think so. So we can say it is "wrong" based on our society's ethics, but could someone from that society have said it was "wrong"? If so, in what way, since society, as a whole, had decided that it was acceptable? Would you say that it was not wrong, but in fact was right, but should instead come to be regarded as wrong?

[waynepii]

• Ethic - A norm that a given society (individual, group, culture, religion, etc) has established as the "ideal" of behavior. For example "all [people] are created equal".

Are we differentiating here between values and ethics? The example "all [people] are created equal" isn't a behavior as per your definition. Do you actually mean here that an ethic is an established norm based on (that is, consistent with) any given value statement given by society? Or are you simply equating the value with the ethic, in which ethics is not about behavior but about the values that under-gird behavior?

I meant an "ethic" to be a "value" that is used to define "desirable" vs "undesirable" behaviors.

• Morality - A code of conduct based on a society's established ethics.

This is fair. So would you define something as "immoral" if it goes against a given society's established ethics?

Yes.

• Right - Behavior in accordance with society's morality.
  
  Wrong - Behavior in violation of society's morality.

So to behave "morally" is the same as doing something "right," and "immorally" (I presume?) is to do something "wrong"? Seems easy enough. I'll have a question about how that applies below.

OK

• Good (esp. its relationship to 'right') - The same as "right", although usually used in a religious context.
  
  Evil (esp. its relationship to 'wrong') - Pretty much the same as "wrong", although usually used in a religious context.

Noted. Let's avoid these terms as I don't want to connote any religious undertones in our discussion of the nature of morality.

OK

• objective - not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice - based on facts.

Can we distinguish between epistemological and ontological objectivity and label this the former (or objective[a] and objective)? It seems that you are equating "objective" with ideas, that is, ideas are objective if those ideas are not influenced by our feelings, etc. Yet how would that definition apply to an "objective fact"? Facts themselves are not ideas, are they? Is this a fair distinction, or would you prefer to label it some other way?

I think you are referring to my use of "objective" wrt the Golden Rule(?) If so, I recognize that it is an idea that only gives objective answers in some situations (many but not all) and when used truthfully (ie without special exceptions ("if I were black, I'd want to be segregated from whites", etc)).

• subjective - modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background.

Help me make a clarification here. Consider the two sentences and tell me how the word "subjective" is used in each based on your definition here:

"Isn't that's interpretation very subjective, sir?"

Is there a typo here?

"Whether redheads are prettier than blonds is really just subjective, isn't it?"

The relative "prettiness" of blonds vs redheads depends on (is subject to) the preference of the evaluator.

Do you see a difference? I'm trying to draw a distinction--the first is influenced by personal views, whereas the latter is defined as a personal view (the first begs the question: what is being influenced?). If you see this, what would you call the first and second? Which gets the label "subjective" and in what sense, and what is the other?

Generally, I wouldn't use "subjective" in cases of preference such as your blond/redhead example.

• ontology - a branch of metaphysics concerned with the nature and relations of being.

That's a good textbook definition. So we agree that when we are making an ontological claim we are talking about what a thing is--we are talking about its nature--and not about how we know it, correct?

I think that may be an oversimplification, but let's leave it that way unless and until we need to get into it deeper.

• nature (in the sense of a thing's or action's 'nature') - the inherent character or basic constitution of a person or thing.

This is very good. I especially like the fact that it is inherent. So would you agree that when we are talking about a thing's nature we are asking an ontological question?

OK with the same proviso stated above wrt "ontology".

With all that said, I have one last question to clarify how you are using the words "right" and "wrong." In what sense can I say American slavery was "wrong"? Certainly, you and I both agree that it was, but that society did not think so. So we can say it is "wrong" based on our society's ethics, but could someone from that society have said it was "wrong"? If so, in what way, since society, as a whole, had decided that it was acceptable? Would you say that it was not wrong, but in fact was right, but should instead come to be regarded as wrong?

Yes - but they could have and should have recognized slavery was "wrong" by (proper use of the Golden Rule). And in fact, some DID recognize that slavery was "wrong" and eventually convinced their societies that slavery was, in fact, wrong.