Evidence for God from Science

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Regardless you still fail to see that you employ an objective moral reality in order for your "consideration" about what's moral to take place.

What is it about my moral views that convinces you that they are objective?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Regardless you still fail to see that you employ an objective moral reality in order for your "consideration" about what's moral to take place.

What is it about my moral views that convinces you that they are objective?

Ken

Why are your subjective moral opinions any better than any other subjective moral opinion?

Also your question is a loaded one and shifts to a different argument.

When I look at the intended design in nature, I see an objective morality.

Now this either came via a supreme being like God who impresses His own subjective/objective (call-it-what-you-will) morality into creation, us and the design of things. OR, it arises via random evolutionary processes, survival of the fittest what-have-you for the good of the species.

So, we see with woman and man, the intended design is for the two to be joined together. When they do so, children are normally born. Children grow up and the intention appears to leave and cleave to their own partner and repeat the process. For added incentive, incest relationships are genetically bad. The incentive seems to me to look for a partner away from your home.

Now what is subjective about this? Nothing. I've looked to nature for an idea as to a Greater Mind's intention, or if you find such distasteful, the best way forward for humanity which is a culmination of Unguided Naturalistics processes for the good of humanity's survival and well-being. Break this design and things can and do go wrong because it's not meant to naturally be some other way.

Some might weigh up the consequences of going against and break the natural design of things, and in their rather short-sighted view of things diminish or ignore certain consequences in pursuit of selfish desires (e.g., father raping daughter, brother taking sister, or man being repulsed by woman and getting with another man) == breaking down of the family structure found in nature. BUT, the one thing that cannot be said, is that this is right -- the correct order of nature.

In any case, whether or not you find the examples I present adequate, the fact remains Kenny that we find impressions of objective standard in the real world all around us. By objective, I mean a standard all can see and subscribe to. Is it any wonder that marriage between men and women is seen throughout all cultures and societies? Try as we might in our selfishness to break the natural order of things, the natural order of things is strong.

We may create new and elaborate ways to avoid natural consequences, to get what we want without following the natural design and without any natural repercussions -- but this just shows a desire within us to rebel against the objective standard, rules that really exist.

Now I have not argued for this natural moral standard being some foundational objective standard found in God directly, but one must wonder what foundation lays beneath the natural standard we observe if such really is found in nature and humanity, and not our subjective selves.

To clarify further Kenny..

To say morality is subjective is to say morality is dependent upon peoples opinions. To say morality is objective is to say there are certain actions which are right or wrong independent of people's opinions. So for example, to say murder is objectively wrong is to say it is wrong regardless of other people thinking it is right.

If you agree that the proposition "murder is wrong" is true regardless of whether or not people agree you therefore acknowledge that an objective moral reality exists.

Squible wrote:To clarify further Kenny..

To say morality is subjective is to say morality is dependent upon peoples opinions. To say morality is objective is to say there are certain actions which are right or wrong independent of people's opinions.

Would you say some moral actions are objective and others are subjective? IOW Is lying always wrong? How about if an innocent person’s life is at stake; is it still wrong?

Squible wrote:So for example, to say murder is objectively wrong is to say it is wrong regardless of other people thinking it is right.

If you agree that the proposition "murder is wrong" is true regardless of whether or not people agree you therefore acknowledge that an objective moral reality exists.

Murder is not a good example for objectivity; because murder by definition is subjective. Because murder is defined as killing an innocent person, weather the person is innocent or not is left up to interpretation (subjective). So lets stick with lying. Lying is defined as trying to convince someone of something you know is not true; that's a bit more objective.

To use the example I used before, if it were 1936 and you lived in Nazi Germany, and the SS came to your house asking if there were any Jews there for them to take to the death camps, and you knew you had an innocent Jewish family hiding in your attic, if lying were objectively wrong, it would be wrong for you to try to lie to the SS. If lying were subjectively wrong, that means it is left up to interpretation, and you might conclude lying to the law in this particular situation is the right thing to do.

Ken

Kenny,

Your response demonstrates that either you fail to understand what I wrote or perhaps you are trying to side step answering it directly because you didn't like the conclusion.

The reasons for someone committing murder are by definition subjective Kenny, whether murder is right or wrong is a different thing all together.

Now I was making the point that if certain actions are right or wrong regardless of what others think then objective morality exists.

Answer the question directly and to use something you did a few posts back:

Is murdering someone due to their skin colour wrong regardless of what other people think?

Yes or No.

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Your response demonstrates that either you fail to understand what I wrote or perhaps you are trying to side step answering it directly because you didn't like the conclusion.

The reasons for someone committing murder are by definition subjective Kenny,

I didn’t say that; I said weather the killing is murder or not is subjective. If the person killed is innocent it’s murder; if he is guilty it is not murder

Squible wrote:whether murder is right or wrong is a different thing all together.

Now I was making the point that if certain actions are right or wrong regardless of what others think then objective morality exists.

Answer the question directly and to use something you did a few posts back:

Is murdering someone due to their skin colour wrong regardless of what other people think?

Yes or No.

Of course it is wrong! I’ve never suggested it was anything other than! But it is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong. You seem to be under this impression (like many others here) that subjective morality is equal to no morality at all; that the only way morality counts is if it were objective.

Now that I’ve answered your question; please answer mine. Is lying to the SS wrong?

Ken

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Your response demonstrates that either you fail to understand what I wrote or perhaps you are trying to side step answering it directly because you didn't like the conclusion.

The reasons for someone committing murder are by definition subjective Kenny,

I didn’t say that; I said weather the killing is murder or not is subjective. If the person killed is innocent it’s murder; if he is guilty it is not murder

Squible wrote:whether murder is right or wrong is a different thing all together.

Now I was making the point that if certain actions are right or wrong regardless of what others think then objective morality exists.

Answer the question directly and to use something you did a few posts back:

Is murdering someone due to their skin colour wrong regardless of what other people think?

Yes or No.

Of course it is wrong! I’ve never suggested it was anything other than! But it is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong. You seem to be under this impression (like many others here) that subjective morality is equal to no morality at all; that the only way morality counts is if it were objective.

Now that I’ve answered your question; please answer mine. Is lying to the SS wrong?

Ken

Kenny,

As for your lying to the SS question, Kurieuo gave a good answer in another thread here.

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

Squible wrote:Kenny,

Your response demonstrates that either you fail to understand what I wrote or perhaps you are trying to side step answering it directly because you didn't like the conclusion.

The reasons for someone committing murder are by definition subjective Kenny,

I didn’t say that; I said weather the killing is murder or not is subjective. If the person killed is innocent it’s murder; if he is guilty it is not murder

Squible wrote:whether murder is right or wrong is a different thing all together.

Now I was making the point that if certain actions are right or wrong regardless of what others think then objective morality exists.

Answer the question directly and to use something you did a few posts back:

Is murdering someone due to their skin colour wrong regardless of what other people think?

Yes or No.

Of course it is wrong! I’ve never suggested it was anything other than! But it is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong. You seem to be under this impression (like many others here) that subjective morality is equal to no morality at all; that the only way morality counts is if it were objective.

Now that I’ve answered your question; please answer mine. Is lying to the SS wrong?

Ken

Kenny,

As for your lying to the SS question, Kurieuo gave a good answer in another thread here.

The part of Kuriuo’s reply that I feel addressed my point is:

but this doesn't change the fact we still strongly feel and believe that it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to them. We will tolerate and make allowances in certain situtations, but that doesn't change the fact the stealing is wrong.

(I bolded the area to make a point) If you are allowed to make allowances in certain situations, that is an example of subjectivity. If stealing were objectively wrong, you can’t make allowances when it suits you, because nothing is up for interpretation. Objective is cut in stone. IMO he made my point.


Ken

Ken wrote:
The part of Kuriuo’s reply that I feel addressed my point is:

but this doesn't change the fact we still strongly feel and believe that it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to them. We will tolerate and make allowances in certain situtations, but that doesn't change the fact the stealing is wrong.

(I bolded the area to make a point) If you are allowed to make allowances in certain situations, that is an example of subjectivity. If stealing were objectively wrong, you can’t make allowances when it suits you, because nothing is up for interpretation. Objective is cut in stone. IMO he made my point.

Kenny,

You still don't understand. Choosing to make allowances in certain circumstances isn't making an argument for subjective morality. It's more a matter of situational ethics.

Let's take your lying to the Nazis example.
I'm a homeowner in nazi Germany's who is hiding Jews in my attic. The SS knocks on my door and asks if I have any Jews in my house. Now, I know lying is wrong, objectively wrong. But I decide in the situation I'm in, that lying to the Nazis is a better choice than allowing Jews to be killed. In that situation, my choosing to lie, over my other option of choosing to allow people to be murdered does nothing to change the fact that lying is still objectively wrong. In other words, I choose to lie, even though I know it's wrong.

I hope that helps.

Ken wrote:
The part of Kuriuo’s reply that I feel addressed my point is:

but this doesn't change the fact we still strongly feel and believe that it is wrong to take something that doesn't belong to them. We will tolerate and make allowances in certain situtations, but that doesn't change the fact the stealing is wrong.

(I bolded the area to make a point) If you are allowed to make allowances in certain situations, that is an example of subjectivity. If stealing were objectively wrong, you can’t make allowances when it suits you, because nothing is up for interpretation. Objective is cut in stone. IMO he made my point.

Kenny,

RickD wrote:You still don't understand. Choosing to make allowances in certain circumstances isn't making an argument for subjective morality. It's more a matter of situational ethics.

I fail to see the differences.

RickD wrote:Let's take your lying to the Nazis example.
I'm a homeowner in nazi Germany's who is hiding Jews in my attic. The SS knocks on my door and asks if I have any Jews in my house. Now, I know lying is wrong, objectively wrong. But I decide in the situation I'm in, that lying to the Nazis is a better choice than allowing Jews to be killed. In that situation, my choosing to lie, over my other option of choosing to allow people to be murdered does nothing to change the fact that lying is still objectively wrong. In other words, I choose to lie, even though I know it's wrong.

I hope that helps.

It definitely helps. What you seem to be saying is; lying to the evil SS is the lesser of two evils. Lying is wrong but telling the truth would result in something worse.
I believe it was Jerry Garcia who said; “even when you choose the lesser of two evils; you are still choosing evil”

I don’t consider lying to the evil SS as evil; I see it as fighting evil. When it comes to fighting evil, you take the gloves off and lie, scratch, bite, pull hair; you do whatever is necessary to hinder, or even defeat it.
I don’t consider lying in that situation as wrong, I would even go as far as to say you would have a moral obligation to lie to the SS in an effort to hinder their evil actions.

I don’t think you and I will ever agree on this issue, perhaps we can agree to disagree on it.

Ken

@Kenny, do you understand the difference between moral values and moral laws?

Kurieuo wrote:@Kenny, do you understand the difference between moral values and moral laws?

Moral values: Moral issues you find important
Moral laws: Moral issues you are required to live by

I get the feeling you see them as interpreted differently. How do you define the two terms?

Ken

Kenny wrote: Of course it is wrong! I’ve never suggested it was anything other than! But it is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong.

I never said you did. But it seems you side stepped the deeper question in a slight of hand. You didn't agree that it is wrong regardless of what other people think. Therefore you are saying, Murdering people for the color of their skin is wrong, but the moral view "murdering people for the color of their skin is wrong" is dependent upon other peoples opinions.

If this is the case then really those who did it were just following the reigning opinion at the time and at that time there wasn't really anything wrong with it, since it wasn't wrong regardless of peoples opinions.

Or do you wish to agree that it is wrong regardless of what other people think?

Kenny wrote: You seem to be under this impression (like many others here) that subjective morality is equal to no morality at all; that the only way morality counts is if it were objective.

I never said anywhere that those who believe in subjective morality are immoral and this is what your statement here implies. Anyway, this is not what the conversation is about.

The point is to establish whether or not objective moral values and duties exist.

You can hold that some/all moral views are subjective and argue until the cows come home, but if there are certain actions which are right or wrong regardless of what other people think, then these moral facts are not dependent upon peoples opinions and that there is an existence of an objective moral reality.

So answer the question with a yes or no.

Is it wrong to murder people for the color of their skin regardless of whether or not people agree?

Kenny wrote: Of course it is wrong! I’ve never suggested it was anything other than! But it is subjectively wrong; not objectively wrong.

Squible wrote:I never said you did. But it seems you side stepped the deeper question in a slight of hand. You didn't agree that it is wrong regardless of what other people think. Therefore you are saying, Murdering people for the color of their skin is wrong, but the moral view "murdering people for the color of their skin is wrong" is dependent upon other peoples opinions.

If this is the case then really those who did it were just following the reigning opinion at the time and at that time there wasn't really anything wrong with it, since it wasn't wrong regardless of peoples opinions.

Or do you wish to agree that it is wrong regardless of what other people think?

It was not my intention to side step anything; perhaps I wasn’t clear enough, allow me to rephrase.
I believe murdering people because of the color of their skin is wrong regardless of what others think.
With that said; I also believe there are some things are wrong that according to your Bible is right; thus you will perceive as right as well. I believe these things are wrong regardless of what you or others might say; and regardless of what the Bible says.
Now is that Subjective? or Objective.

Kenny wrote: You seem to be under this impression (like many others here) that subjective morality is equal to no morality at all; that the only way morality counts is if it were objective.

Squible wrote:I never said anywhere that those who believe in subjective morality are immoral and this is what your statement here implies. Anyway, this is not what the conversation is about.

No; I said you seem to believe subjective morality equals no morality at all.

Squible wrote:The point is to establish whether or not objective moral values and duties exist.

What are Objective moral duties? Can you provide some examples of them?

Ken