Objective Morality

[jlay]

If there is something I neglected to respond to, let me know and I will be happy to give a response.

There were several things you neglected, but let's start with how i ended two of my post. Why are you here?

I said I can demonstrate it is wrong using MY moral standards; not his.

This is saying that your moral standards are arbitrary and not based on objective truth.

I said I couldn’t argue why someone shouldn’t steal using THEIR standards, only my own; which they would not respect.

Ummm, you can demonstrate why their standard is wrong and why they should adopt a BETTER one.

So are you changing your mind now? Are you back-tracking? At first you said the Golden Rule is true in all places, and times regardless of opinion; which includes depraved behaviour. Now you are saying the Golden Rule does not work in depraved behaviour. Sounds like you are making my point.

Asked and answered Ken, but you deem to be too stubborn to comprehend. Your example, If you get pleasure from watching someone else pleasure your wife, does not mean that you should pleasure someone else's wife. Your wrongly assuming that we can take the GR and apply it to depraved behavior (which this most certainly is). The GR first presumes OM. So, we could say that in all cases, at all times, regardless of opinion, it is not right to do morally depraved things to another person. Thus, the GR holds, and your example is fallacious.

I don’t see that as measuring morality. Murder is wrong weather it is labelled subjective or objective. The act doesn’t become less immoral become some lexicographer put it in the category of subjective.

First Ken, what does the "weather" have to do with it.
2nd, your statement is self-defeating and contradictory.
I have to wonder if you even read what you wrote? You are saying murder is wrong REGARDLESS, which of course means it is wrong in all times and places regardless of opinion, or even labels as you put it. Which of course is the very definition of objective morality. You are in essence stating (at least in regards to murder) that objective moral values exist.

Would you mind responding to what I said?

Ken, I can't respond to logical absurdities except to demonstrate that they are in fact absurd. I am not going to justify your wrong thinking.

There was a time when most Christians in the USA thought interracial marriage was as immoral as they currently believe same sex marriage is today! Are you telling me for 170 years most Christians had this objective morality wrong then in the last 50 years ( around the time the law changed) they finally saw the light and realized interracial marriage was okay after all?

You just argued for objective moral truth. Saw the light? You mean they saw what was REALLY right and corrected their WRONG behavior and belief? You just told me that you couldn't convince someone they were right or wrong, and just provided an excellent example that we can. I agree, those Christians were WRONG.
However, being wrong on that issue doesn't necessarily dictate that they are wrong regarding same sex marriage. You'd have to argue that on its own grounds. And according to you, you are incapable of doing such.

So yes, those Christians had it wrong. Their values were NOT in line with OM. The law (if there was one) was also in conflict with objective morality.

I gave my definitions of subjective moral claims and objective moral claims as you asked. Would you mind responding to that please?

No you haven't. You've blurred the lines and made contradictory, self-defeating statements.

I believe rules and laws are objective. If the law says to not steal and I tell you it is against the law to steal, I can point to the portion of the law that says don’t steal, and that would be proof that stealing is illegal

Law and rules are objective? Huh, what? This is exactly what I'm talking about Ken. Contradictory.

Yes! According to my standard. I think what it comes down to is we have different interpretations of subjective morality. You seem to think subjective morality means all opinions should be given equal consideration. I disagree; I believe only my opinion should be considered because all others are wrong.

How did you arrive at the conclusion of "equal consideration" for someone who adheres to OM? That SHOULD be your opinion, not mine. You are the one espousing that moral values are subjective and that there is no reason to accept objective moral values. In that case, the proper reasoning means you MUST give all moral values equal consideration. Following your starting point, no moral position is intrinsically better than another. That is, there is nothing outside of preference to say that one ethic is superior to another. So again, you are being inconsistent and not demonstrating to really understand the subject or how these terms are defined.
Ken, as i've stated all along, I agree that people have different interpretations of morality. But what I'm saying is that to interpret something it has to what? ................Exist.

That’s easy! They have the same standard that you have. It’s easy to demonstrate when they share the same standards as you! I’m talking about those with different standards. From my understanding, the United Methodist Church has a different standard on Gay right than many other denominations. Everybody reads the same bible, everybody worships the same God yet there is inconsistency on the Gay rights issue. How can you call this objective? You have 2 people arguing at each other, pointing to the same bible saying they are right and the other person is wrong.

I'm not calling it objective. Where did you get that impression?
I've always said on this forum that there are laws in the bible that are universal. These apply in all times and all places. (Don't murder for example) Then there are rules in the bible which are prescriptive. (such as don't mix fabrics) They do not apply to all people at all times and all places. The argument for OM is part of natural theology. It is not what you think it is, otherwise you wouldn't have made that statement. There is an objective standard, which can either be correctly or incorrectly interpreted, just like you exampled with interracial marriage. That is, we SHOULD not discriminate against someone because of their ethnicity.

I'm not saying the bible is OM. I would however say that the source of the bible is also the source of OM. That being God.

People can read the Bible and make different interpretations. However, they cannot both be correct. They can both be wrong, but they can't both be right. That is the principle of the law of non-contradiction.

I would assume that person does not know math, because the rules of math are agreed upon by everybody. The rules of morality are not.

As already stated, math is a human invention to understand objective reality. Math in itself does not 'exist.' Rules are not OM. Rules and laws are trying to understand objective reality. Your statement makes a good point. If someone is ignorant of the rules of math, then they don't agree. And someone not agreeing means everybody does not agree. However, their ignorance doesn't change whether that particular rule of math is correctly interpreting reality. You would say but 2+2=4 is so simple anyone can understand. Sure. And there are things about moral truth which are just as obvious. You've already evidenced that in your post. (you just won't plainly admit it) But like in math, there are more complicated facets that are much more difficult to interpret and grasp. (As it is with morality)

Many of them, you and I will never grasp. Ken, you have already built a case (without knowing it) in your own responses that objective moral values exist. The only real question is what is their source. But, it is also obvious that you are having some difficulty with the terminology. You don't have to have a philosophy degree (i don't) but you can learn and apply the terms in the correct way. You aren't. Making a statement like "murder is subjectively wrong all the time" only exposes this.

You aren't simply arguing against theists but also against many atheists. You have to understand that OM is not exclusive to the Christian faith and there are even atheists who adhere to some form of OM, as odd as it sounds.

As far as the Christians on this thread who are saying OM is limiting God, then please provide an argument. It sounds like you have a problem with understanding what is being argued here.

[Kenny]

JlayThere were several things you neglected, but let's start with how i ended two of my post. Why are you here?


Ken
I post here to find out why you believe morality is objective instead of subjective. I think I found out why; you see subjective morality differently than I do. As I said before, you seem to see it as meaning all opinions are equal and should be given equal consideration; I do not see it that way.

Jlay
This is saying that your moral standards are arbitrary and not based on objective truth.
Ken
True

Jlay
Ummm, you can demonstrate why their standard is wrong and why they should adopt a BETTER one.
Ken
I can do that as long as I can use my moral views as the standard of what is right.

Jlay
I have to wonder if you even read what you wrote? You are saying murder is wrong REGARDLESS, which of course means it is wrong in all times and places regardless of opinion, or even labels as you put it. Which of course is the very definition of objective morality. You are in essence stating (at least in regards to murder) that objective moral values exist.

Ken
To say I believe something is wrong regardless of opinion is not how I define objective morality. Is suspect we agree on the same ideas, we just disagree on the lables.

Jlay
You just argued for objective moral truth. Saw the light? You mean they saw what was REALLY right and corrected their WRONG behavior and belief? You just told me that you couldn't convince someone they were right or wrong, and just provided an excellent example that we can. I agree, those Christians were WRONG.
Ken
I don’t think they corrected their wrong behavior and belief, I think they all just died out and the Christians who replaced them (their children) saw things differently.

Jlay
However, being wrong on that issue doesn't necessarily dictate that they are wrong regarding same sex marriage. You'd have to argue that on its own grounds. And according to you, you are incapable of doing such
Ken
Going strictly by theistic track records, I will bet when this generation dies out, the Christians that replace them (their children) will decide same sex marriage is okay as well.

Jlay
How did you arrive at the conclusion of "equal consideration" for someone who adheres to OM? That SHOULD be your opinion, not mine.
Ken
You misunderstood me. I said you believed it was for someone who adheres to SM or subjective morality.

Jlay
I'm not calling it objective. Where did you get that impression?
I've always said on this forum that there are laws in the bible that are universal. These apply in all times and all places. (Don't murder for example) Then there are rules in the bible which are prescriptive. (such as don't mix fabrics) They do not apply to all people at all times and all places. The argument for OM is part of natural theology. It is not what you think it is, otherwise you wouldn't have made that statement. There is an objective standard, which can either be correctly or incorrectly interpreted, just like you exampled with interracial marriage. That is, we SHOULD not discriminate against someone because of their ethnicity.
Ken
If I am understanding you correctly, you believe some moral issues are subjective and some are objective? If so, would you mind answering the questions I asked 7/24/14 at 3:31pm?

Ken

[1over137]

An objective truth claim is a claim that is true and that can be demonstrated. If I made the claim that all 3 sides of an equilateral triangle are equal, that claim is true and it can be demonstrated Thus it is objective.

Can you demonstrate that? Please, do not use Math axioms people invented.

The truth claim is about Geometry. A geometry question requires a geometry answer. I cannot answer the question without using math. What is your point?

Ken

Maybe I cannot answer morality question without "using" God.

[jlay]

I post here to find out why you believe morality is objective instead of subjective. I think I found out why; you see subjective morality differently than I do. As I said before, you seem to see it as meaning all opinions are equal and should be given equal consideration; I do not see it that way.

I don't see it that way. Ken, what I am saying is that if you TRULY view all morality (which you really don't) as subjective, then you have nothing on which to ground your morality. Therefore you must view all positions as having the same inherent value. You just admitted that your moral standards are arbitrary and not based on objective truth. If so, then all moral standards are arbitrary and none has any more reason to be adopted than another, including your own. It's simply preference.
For example, you say it's wrong to murder. I say it's right to murder. Is one of those positions better than the other? Hint: "it's wrong to murder." It doesn't have to do with your opinion, or whether you 'prefer' not being murdered to being murdered. In reality, it is wrong to murder. Humans ought not murder one another. Even if you lived in some weird society where everyone believed murdering was good, it would not make it so. Just as the Nazis believed they were doing humanity a favor by wiping out the Jews. (And they really did) Others realized this wasn't just a difference in preference, but was objectively wrong, an thus sought to fight against injustice and atrocity.

I can do that as long as I can use my moral views as the standard of what is right.

No Ken, you can't. Your moral view isn't a STANDARD. It's a preference. Again, this has to do with philosophical discussions that have been going on for millennia. An opinion is not a standard. So, if you have nothing to ground your morality upon, it's like saying vanilla is better than chocolate.

To say I believe something is wrong regardless of opinion is not how I define objective morality. Is suspect we agree on the same ideas, we just disagree on the lables

I suggest you look up the term objective. Because Ken if you aren't going be reasonable there is no point in you being here. Discounting what 'objective morality' actually means and then arguing against it is just plain foolishness.

I don’t think they corrected their wrong behavior and belief, I think they all just died out and the Christians who replaced them (their children) saw things differently.

Ken, you used the term, "saw the light." Now you are just back peddling. You are using double speak and then changing your story to suit your argument.
So, let me get this straight. You don't think they were really wrong to be racist? Wait, I'll answer for you. According to your standard, they were wrong. Nothing personal Ken, but I don't care about your standard, which is no standard at all. Everyone has opinions and you know what people say about that.

Going strictly by theistic track records, I will bet when this generation dies out, the Christians that replace them (their children) will decide same sex marriage is okay as well.

You could very well be right. So what? And in the future, child sacrifice may come back in vogue. None of this speaks to whether it is actually good or right.

You misunderstood me. I said you believed it was for someone who adheres to SM or subjective morality.

Ken, it you who is having trouble understanding. You simply refuse to follow your worldview through to its logical conclusions. You should, because willful ignorance is no defense before God.

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe some moral issues are subjective and some are objective? If so, would you mind answering the questions I asked 7/24/14 at 3:31pm?

1. Do you believe all moral issues are objective? Or do you feel some issues are objective and others are subjective. (example; maybe rape is objectively wrong but sex outside marriage or having more than one wife is subjectively wrong)
2. Do all reasonable people agree on the objective moral issues? (example; if homosexuality is objectively wrong; everybody knows it is wrong even though many pretend it is right because their hearts are wicked and prefer wrong over right)
3. For those who believe some issues are objective and some are subjective; (if you believe all moral issues are objective; disregard this question) does everybody agree on which moral issues are objective and which ones are subjective?

Objectively, all cultures will agree on certain principles. However, those cultures may have subjective opinions on how those principles are applied. So, it could be against the law to marry at 15 in one country and legal in another. One country may even view it as immoral. But none of this really gets to the ontological question. People disagree on a number of things that have moral implications, it doesn't change what is objectively true. Both groups are attempting to interrupt OM.

So, the question you ask, "do all reasonable people agree on objective moral issues?" The answer is, yes and no. reasonable people will agree that law is better than no law, justice is better than injustice, order is better than chaos. But they often disagree on many of the details. But, we've already discussed this.

The proper way to phrase this is that I adhere to objective morality. That is, morality is grounded in something that transcends the opinion of men. Ultimately this states that, regarding morality, there is a way things ought to be. Well, even atheist, Sam Harris, agrees with this statement to some extent. However, we would not agree what grounds those moral values and duties. HIs solution is to strip the terms good an evil of any real meaning. Theism provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. It accounts for the position that humans have intrinsic value and thus it really does matter how we behave and treat one another. This is of course grounded in a moral law giver, God.

If nature is all there is, and nature is a amoral (morally neutral), then you are left with a multitude of problems. You've already admitted that murder is wrong in all context. But, you have nothing to ground this opinion. It's just like saying, "Vanilla is better than chocolate." But there is nothing to actually support this being the case. It wars against what you know in your heart to be true. And ultimately this is why you, Ken, need Christ.

[Lonewolf]

based on the diff interpreations that hundreds upon hundreds of millions have had on so-called objective morality from God or the Bible, it is all still subject to human subjective morality., what is good for the gander is not necessarily good for the goose

[jlay]

Lone wolf,
You realize that is just your opinion?

Also, i think your example is faulty. The nature of 'objective' means that "interpretation" is irrelevant. This simply states, regarding morality, there is a way things ought to be. And, that this reason is grounded in a transcendent moral law giver.

Perhaps you familiarize yourself with natural theology which dates back to Aristotle and Plato.

[PaulSacramento]

Objective morality - the fact that there is such a thing as Good and Evil or right and wrong if you prefer.
Subjective Morality - What is considered Good and Evil / right and wrong.

[Byblos]

Byblos wrote:
Can you please provide an example of a subjective truth?

I'd actually like to see this too.

Bump.

[Kenny]

Kenny, before we answer these questions I would like you to answer mine first if you don't mind.

Is truth knowable?

Excellent question!
I would say objective truth (that which can be proven or demonstrated) is knowable. Subjective truth is only believed. What do you think?

Ken

Can you then give me an example of a subjective truth?

Sure! I will give you the same answer I gave Jlay when he asked me the same question

"An objective truth claim is a claim that is true and that can be demonstrated. If I made the claim that all 3 sides of an equilateral triangle are equal, that claim is true and it can be demonstrated Thus it is objective. If I made the claim that same sex relationship, and interracial relationships are immoral; that is a subjective claim because it can’t be demonstrated."

Do you agree with my definition/example? If not; where am I going wrong?

Ken

Ken,
Objective morality, that there IS such a thing as right and wrong has been proven and is demonstrable.
Every single culture, though out history and TODAY believe that there is such a thing as right and wrong.
It is demonstrable and verifiable by historical evaluation and by direct observation.

Right and wrong does not exist by itself, they only exist as concepts by intelligent beings. If intelligent beings did not exist, neither would right and wrong.

Ken

[Kenny]

Kenny, before we answer these questions I would like you to answer mine first if you don't mind.

Is truth knowable?

Excellent question!
I would say objective truth (that which can be proven or demonstrated) is knowable. Subjective truth is only believed. What do you think?

Ken

Can you then give me an example of a subjective truth?

Sure! I will give you the same answer I gave Jlay when he asked me the same question

"An objective truth claim is a claim that is true and that can be demonstrated. If I made the claim that all 3 sides of an equilateral triangle are equal, that claim is true and it can be demonstrated Thus it is objective. If I made the claim that same sex relationship, and interracial relationships are immoral; that is a subjective claim because it can’t be demonstrated."

Do you agree with my definition/example? If not; where am I going wrong?

Ken

But I wasn't asking you about objective truth, we're not there yet. You stated there was a difference between objective and subjective truth. I asked you for an example of the latter. Can you please provide an example of a subjective truth?

Your are right! In my hast to reply, I mistakenly gave the same answer I gave to Jlay. He asked for definition, you asked for an example.
An example of subjective morality is;"racism is immoral".
Now I can explain to someone why racism is bad; because it includes unfair/unequal treatment for specific races, but I can only do this if he agrees with my moral concepts. If his moral concepts includes the belief that a specific race is a direct decendant of Cane (Adam & Eve's son) and God directed mankind to mistreat these decendants of Cain; I cannot demonstrate to him why racism is bad in the context of his morals I can only demonstrate to him if he abandons his morals and adopts mine which does not recognize this Cain claim. I will say his morals are wrong, he will say mine are wrong; and there is no higher authority to intervene to prove anyone right.

Ken

[Kenny]

An objective truth claim is a claim that is true and that can be demonstrated. If I made the claim that all 3 sides of an equilateral triangle are equal, that claim is true and it can be demonstrated Thus it is objective.

Can you demonstrate that? Please, do not use Math axioms people invented.

The truth claim is about Geometry. A geometry question requires a geometry answer. I cannot answer the question without using math. What is your point?

Ken

Maybe I cannot answer morality question without "using" God.

Then by all means, if the use of God is necessary in order for you to answer questions about morality; feel free to use God.

Ken

[Kenny]

Objective morality - the fact that there is such a thing as Good and Evil or right and wrong if you prefer.
Subjective Morality - What is considered Good and Evil / right and wrong.

Exactly points! I say Good and evil; right and wrong do not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings didn't exist; neither would good and evil. Now obviously what is CONSIDERED good and evil exist thus good, evil, right, wrong are subjective not objective.
Do you agree?

Ken

[Kenny]

I post here to find out why you believe morality is objective instead of subjective. I think I found out why; you see subjective morality differently than I do. As I said before, you seem to see it as meaning all opinions are equal and should be given equal consideration; I do not see it that way.

I don't see it that way. Ken, what I am saying is that if you TRULY view all morality (which you really don't) as subjective, then you have nothing on which to ground your morality. Therefore you must view all positions as having the same inherent value. You just admitted that your moral standards are arbitrary and not based on objective truth. If so, then all moral standards are arbitrary and none has any more reason to be adopted than another, including your own. It's simply preference.
For example, you say it's wrong to murder. I say it's right to murder. Is one of those positions better than the other? Hint: "it's wrong to murder." It doesn't have to do with your opinion, or whether you 'prefer' not being murdered to being murdered. In reality, it is wrong to murder. Humans ought not murder one another. Even if you lived in some weird society where everyone believed murdering was good, it would not make it so. Just as the Nazis believed they were doing humanity a favor by wiping out the Jews. (And they really did) Others realized this wasn't just a difference in preference, but was objectively wrong, an thus sought to fight against injustice and atrocity.

I can do that as long as I can use my moral views as the standard of what is right.

No Ken, you can't. Your moral view isn't a STANDARD. It's a preference. Again, this has to do with philosophical discussions that have been going on for millennia. An opinion is not a standard. So, if you have nothing to ground your morality upon, it's like saying vanilla is better than chocolate.

To say I believe something is wrong regardless of opinion is not how I define objective morality. Is suspect we agree on the same ideas, we just disagree on the lables

I suggest you look up the term objective. Because Ken if you aren't going be reasonable there is no point in you being here. Discounting what 'objective morality' actually means and then arguing against it is just plain foolishness.

I don’t think they corrected their wrong behavior and belief, I think they all just died out and the Christians who replaced them (their children) saw things differently.

Ken, you used the term, "saw the light." Now you are just back peddling. You are using double speak and then changing your story to suit your argument.
So, let me get this straight. You don't think they were really wrong to be racist? Wait, I'll answer for you. According to your standard, they were wrong. Nothing personal Ken, but I don't care about your standard, which is no standard at all. Everyone has opinions and you know what people say about that.

Going strictly by theistic track records, I will bet when this generation dies out, the Christians that replace them (their children) will decide same sex marriage is okay as well.

You could very well be right. So what? And in the future, child sacrifice may come back in vogue. None of this speaks to whether it is actually good or right.

You misunderstood me. I said you believed it was for someone who adheres to SM or subjective morality.

Ken, it you who is having trouble understanding. You simply refuse to follow your worldview through to its logical conclusions. You should, because willful ignorance is no defense before God.

If I am understanding you correctly, you believe some moral issues are subjective and some are objective? If so, would you mind answering the questions I asked 7/24/14 at 3:31pm?

1. Do you believe all moral issues are objective? Or do you feel some issues are objective and others are subjective. (example; maybe rape is objectively wrong but sex outside marriage or having more than one wife is subjectively wrong)
2. Do all reasonable people agree on the objective moral issues? (example; if homosexuality is objectively wrong; everybody knows it is wrong even though many pretend it is right because their hearts are wicked and prefer wrong over right)
3. For those who believe some issues are objective and some are subjective; (if you believe all moral issues are objective; disregard this question) does everybody agree on which moral issues are objective and which ones are subjective?

Objectively, all cultures will agree on certain principles. However, those cultures may have subjective opinions on how those principles are applied. So, it could be against the law to marry at 15 in one country and legal in another. One country may even view it as immoral. But none of this really gets to the ontological question. People disagree on a number of things that have moral implications, it doesn't change what is objectively true. Both groups are attempting to interrupt OM.

So, the question you ask, "do all reasonable people agree on objective moral issues?" The answer is, yes and no. reasonable people will agree that law is better than no law, justice is better than injustice, order is better than chaos. But they often disagree on many of the details. But, we've already discussed this.

The proper way to phrase this is that I adhere to objective morality. That is, morality is grounded in something that transcends the opinion of men. Ultimately this states that, regarding morality, there is a way things ought to be. Well, even atheist, Sam Harris, agrees with this statement to some extent. However, we would not agree what grounds those moral values and duties. HIs solution is to strip the terms good an evil of any real meaning. Theism provides a sound foundation for objective moral values and duties. It accounts for the position that humans have intrinsic value and thus it really does matter how we behave and treat one another. This is of course grounded in a moral law giver, God.

If nature is all there is, and nature is a amoral (morally neutral), then you are left with a multitude of problems. You've already admitted that murder is wrong in all context. But, you have nothing to ground this opinion. It's just like saying, "Vanilla is better than chocolate." But there is nothing to actually support this being the case. It wars against what you know in your heart to be true. And ultimately this is why you, Ken, need Christ.

Jlay
I don't see it that way. Ken, what I am saying is that if you TRULY view all morality (which you really don't) as subjective, then you have nothing on which to ground your morality. Therefore you must view all positions as having the same inherent value.

Ken
Now this doesn’t make sense to me. If you can ground your morality in the word of your God, why is it so difficult for you to believe that I could ground my morality in what makes sense to me? I am unable to understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Jlay
For example, you say it's wrong to murder. I say it's right to murder. Is one of those positions better than the other? Hint: "it's wrong to murder." It doesn't have to do with your opinion,
Ken
Yes it does! It is my opinion, it is your opinion, and it is what you claim as your God’s opinion. Now obviously my opinion carries no weight in your eyes, and your claim of God’s opinion doesn’t carry any weight in my eyes, so why is your claim any better than mine?

Jlay
No Ken, you can't. Your moral view isn't a STANDARD. It's a preference.
Ken
I decide my standards. I’ve decided my moral view is my standard.

Jlay
I suggest you look up the term objective. Because Ken if you aren't going be reasonable there is no point in you being here. Discounting what 'objective morality' actually means and then arguing against it is just plain foolishness.

Ken
As I said with Paulsacramento; Good/evil, right/wrong does not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings did not exist, neither would good or evil.

Jlay
So, let me get this straight. You don't think they were really wrong to be racist? Wait, I'll answer for you. According to your standard, they were wrong. Nothing personal Ken, but I don't care about your standard, which is no standard at all. Everyone has opinions and you know what people say about that.
Ken
The standard you use is only valuable to you and those who agree with you. The standard I use is only important to me and those who agree with me. Now how does the standard you use carry any more weight than the standard I use?

Jlay
Ken, it you who is having trouble understanding. You simply refuse to follow your worldview through to its logical conclusions. You should, because willful ignorance is no defense before God.
Ken
You shouldn’t assume if I followed my world view to its logical conclusions; I would conclude the same thing as you.

Jlay
Objectively, all cultures will agree on certain principles. However, those cultures may have subjective opinions on how those principles are applied. So, it could be against the law to marry at 15 in one country and legal in another. One country may even view it as immoral. But none of this really gets to the ontological question. People disagree on a number of things that have moral implications, it doesn't change what is objectively true. Both groups are attempting to interrupt OM.
Ken
So if I understand you correctly; you believe all moral issues are objective. BTW if morality is objective, why does it need to be interpreted?

Jlay
So, the question you ask, "do all reasonable people agree on objective moral issues?" The answer is, yes and no. reasonable people will agree that law is better than no law, justice is better than injustice, order is better than chaos. But they often disagree on many of the details. But, we've already discussed this.
Ken
I didn’t ask anything about justice preferred over injustice, I asked if everybody agrees on objective moral issues. In other words; do all reasonable people agree on all moral issues such as sex out of wedlock, interracial, same sex relationships, stem cell research, abortion, etc. Do all reasonable people agree on these things?

Jlay
The proper way to phrase this is that I adhere to objective morality. That is, morality is grounded in something that transcends the opinion of men
Ken
Sounds to me like you are suggesting objective morality is only for those who believe in God.
Jlay
If nature is all there is, and nature is a amoral (morally neutral), then you are left with a multitude of problems.
Ken
If nature was all there was; and mankind didn’t exist; neither would morality.

Ken

[Lonewolf]

you guys are killing me with all the quote on quote going on ., I'm getting cross eye

[LittleHamster]

lol. When the posts get more than a dozen paragraphs, I tend to move on to another thread.