In defense of objective morals

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3613
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by jlay »

Kenny wrote:
plouiswork wrote: Slavery is one of many things that causes problems for our society. I don't just mean from a utilitarian standpoint of what children born into slavery can accomplish for society. I mean from a psychological perspective of what it does to all citizens, both would-be slave owners and those who are put under subjugation. It fosters the belief that a person is deserving of respect, not for their inner qualities or contributions to society, but for the status of their birth. More importantly, it curbs the development of empathy, limiting it only to those people who are "like me" on both sides of the divide. These psychological effects, of course, have corresponding manifestations in behavior.
If we look at slavery as practiced in the USA during the 18th and 19th centuries, the society practicing slavery saw the primitive people they enslaved as inferior to themselves. They didn’t have the modern POV that all people are equally capable of contributing to society, they felt they were more capable of thinking and controlling, and those they enslaved were only good for working and taking orders. When you dehumanize an entire race of people that way, the psychological effects you spoke of isn’t going to apply to them.
plouiswork wrote: One of the biggest dangers in today's society is the "us vs them" mentality. Small, dedicated groups (such as terrorists) have required our society to heighten security measures and breaches of privacy just to contain this real threat. Slavery would extend this threat to every household in which it's implemented, as slaves have been designated as outside of those with protection of basic rights. What motive do slaves have to cooperate with society if their basic rights are being overruled by the personal preferences of others? The only reliable motive I can see is through the use of force that slave owners have through their power over their slaves, and this behavior has further implications for the issues of domestic abuse and violence within families, to say nothing of the rising resentment of the oppressed.
Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.


Ken
Not following this.
Are you saying it is wrong to be raised to believe an enslaved race is inferior?
What you appear to be saying is that the slave holders weren't really wrong, because they believed that slaves were again to a lower animal.
But it seems once again you are smuggling in OM, in saying that the modern view is BETTER. Again you are measuring without grounding any standard of measure.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Kenny »

plouiswork wrote:
Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.
I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument.
How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Kenny »

PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.
When I say morality is subjective; not objective, I am referring to what is viewed as right and wrong. IOW the actions judged as right or wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by PaulSacramento »

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.
When I say morality is subjective; not objective, I am referring to what is viewed as right and wrong. IOW the actions judged as right or wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act

Ken
You have it backwards Kenny.
It isn't that "right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act", that is pure subjectiveness.
It is that there IS a right and wrong.
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by PaulSacramento »

Kenny wrote:
plouiswork wrote:
Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.
I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument.
How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Ken
What kind of slavery are you referring to?
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Kenny »

PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
plouiswork wrote:
Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.
I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument.
How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Ken
What kind of slavery are you referring to?
The type where one human being is the legal property of another

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Kenny »

PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.
When I say morality is subjective; not objective, I am referring to what is viewed as right and wrong. IOW the actions judged as right or wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act

Ken
You have it backwards Kenny.
It isn't that "right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act", that is pure subjectiveness.
It is that there IS a right and wrong.
But how does right and wrong exist unless it is applied to an act?
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by PaulSacramento »

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:It is very simple and I don't why why people STILL continue to argue this.
Morals are objective:
The notion of right and wrong, good and bad is universal to ALL people and ALL culture through recorded history.
The only thing that IS subjective is WHAT is viewed as right and wrong BUt the notion, the understanding of there BEING a RIGHT and a WRONG is absolute and objective as recorded history shows us.
If you disagree, please show evidence of any culture or group that believed that ANYTHING is permissible and that there is no good or bad at all.
Not theoretical evidence ( hearsay) but concrete evidence.
When I say morality is subjective; not objective, I am referring to what is viewed as right and wrong. IOW the actions judged as right or wrong. Right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act

Ken
You have it backwards Kenny.
It isn't that "right and wrong are meaningless unless applied to an act", that is pure subjectiveness.
It is that there IS a right and wrong.
But how does right and wrong exist unless it is applied to an act?
How can an act be right or wrong UNLESS there IS a right and wrong?
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by PaulSacramento »

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
plouiswork wrote:
Kenny wrote:Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.
I don't agree, but it is enough for me to see why someone would believe objective morality is necessary to prevent things such as slavery in light of my argument.
How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Ken
What kind of slavery are you referring to?
The type where one human being is the legal property of another

Ken
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.
User avatar
Kurieuo
Honored Member
Posts: 10038
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Kurieuo »

PaulS, I think it is better today is Western societies where we cast people out on the street into the cold and without food, and then turn a blind eye to it all. Such is definitely more compassionate and less barbaric than the social laws suppose to be set in place for Israel.

"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Kenny »

jlay wrote:
Kenny wrote:
plouiswork wrote: Slavery is one of many things that causes problems for our society. I don't just mean from a utilitarian standpoint of what children born into slavery can accomplish for society. I mean from a psychological perspective of what it does to all citizens, both would-be slave owners and those who are put under subjugation. It fosters the belief that a person is deserving of respect, not for their inner qualities or contributions to society, but for the status of their birth. More importantly, it curbs the development of empathy, limiting it only to those people who are "like me" on both sides of the divide. These psychological effects, of course, have corresponding manifestations in behavior.
If we look at slavery as practiced in the USA during the 18th and 19th centuries, the society practicing slavery saw the primitive people they enslaved as inferior to themselves. They didn’t have the modern POV that all people are equally capable of contributing to society, they felt they were more capable of thinking and controlling, and those they enslaved were only good for working and taking orders. When you dehumanize an entire race of people that way, the psychological effects you spoke of isn’t going to apply to them.
plouiswork wrote: One of the biggest dangers in today's society is the "us vs them" mentality. Small, dedicated groups (such as terrorists) have required our society to heighten security measures and breaches of privacy just to contain this real threat. Slavery would extend this threat to every household in which it's implemented, as slaves have been designated as outside of those with protection of basic rights. What motive do slaves have to cooperate with society if their basic rights are being overruled by the personal preferences of others? The only reliable motive I can see is through the use of force that slave owners have through their power over their slaves, and this behavior has further implications for the issues of domestic abuse and violence within families, to say nothing of the rising resentment of the oppressed.
Again; if you were raised to believe the enslaved race is inferior to your race, to mistreat them would be akin to mistreating your dog.


Ken
Not following this.
Are you saying it is wrong to be raised to believe an enslaved race is inferior?
What you appear to be saying is that the slave holders weren't really wrong, because they believed that slaves were again to a lower animal.
But it seems once again you are smuggling in OM, in saying that the modern view is BETTER. Again you are measuring without grounding any standard of measure.
I was just disagreeing with his claim that slavery causes psychological, (or anything other than moral)problems for those who were enslaving others.

ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Kenny »

PaulSacramento wrote:
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.
I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 9224
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by PaulSacramento »

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.
I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken
Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:
How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.
Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.
Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3745
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Kenny »

PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.
I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken
Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:
How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.
Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.
Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken
RickD wrote
"What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence".
User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 6024
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: In defense of objective morals

Post by Byblos »

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:
You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.
I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken
Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:
How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.
Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.
Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken
:shakehead: :shakehead: Months and months of conversing through countless posts and kenny comes up with that. Just ... wow. :shakehead: :shakehead:
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Post Reply