Morality: Objective or subjective?

[Skyler]

Questions for debate:

Is morality objective or subjective? Can we know either way?

Definition of terms:

morality: Differentiation between right and wrong

objective: An entity is objective when it exists independent of whether or not someone believes it.

subjective: An entity is subjective when it only exists if someone believes in it.

[Beto]

An Atheist can base right and wrong on anything they want, but it will still be ultimately meaningless.

Again with this "meaningless". You arbitrarily choose to apply "meaning" to a set of rules dictated by "God" as opposed to an evolved human collective, as if there was a big difference. "Ultimately" it's just as meaningless unless you decide it has meaning. You want rules given by "God" to have meaning to you, even if nothing indicates it's true? Fine. I want the evolved sense of morality, with all the science backing it up, to have meaning to me. Who exactly do you think you are, presuming to dictate what meaning other people should give to any aspect of their existence? Is this apparent megalomania a Christian trait?

If morality is not enforced by anyone then it does not exist.

Currently, it is generally enforced by an elected authority. I suppose you'll say that doesn't count... again arbitrarily.

All that I was saying is that if the government is not going to force me to pay for the services that they provide then I am not going pay it voluntarily.

Because no one else would, right? Humanity at its best, right there.

[McCulloch]

An Atheist can base right and wrong on anything they want, but it will still be ultimately meaningless. If morality is not enforced by anyone then it does not exist.

If morality has to be enforced by someone, it is law not morality. If a theist is pretending to behave morally, for fear of divine punishment, how can that be described as truly moral behaviour?

So this is olavisjo's summary of theistic morality: It is morally wrong to go against what God has said because if you do, God will punish you, if not in this life, in the next. The only basis by which anyone can know what is morally right or wrong, is that God has decreed it.

Did I get it right?

Yes, that is about all there is to it, God has decreed that if we love one another then he will never need to punish us. Love fulfills all our moral obligations to God.

Great. So I'll just love one another and forget about believing in God.

[Nilloc James]

An Atheist can base right and wrong on anything they want, but it will still be ultimately meaningless. If morality is not enforced by anyone then it does not exist.

So it is better to be good out of a fear of punishment in the after lif than for the sake of doing good?

Quote from einstein:

"Man kind is truely poor indeed if he can only be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward in the afterlife"

[olavisjo]

Again with this "meaningless". You arbitrarily choose to apply "meaning" to a set of rules dictated by "God" as opposed to an evolved human collective, as if there was a big difference. "Ultimately" it's just as meaningless unless you decide it has meaning. You want rules given by "God" to have meaning to you, even if nothing indicates it's true? Fine. I want the evolved sense of morality, with all the science backing it up, to have meaning to me. Who exactly do you think you are, presuming to dictate what meaning other people should give to any aspect of their existence? Is this apparent megalomania a Christian trait?

I had loads of megalomania long before I became a Christian.
You can give your morality any meaning that you want to, but it will never be anything more than an adult version of Santa Clause. You are only accountable to yourself for your own behavior, if you can live with yourself, go for it.

If morality is not enforced by anyone then it does not exist.

Currently, it is generally enforced by an elected authority. I suppose you'll say that doesn't count... again arbitrarily.

Your government is an obstacle that gets between you and what you want, but there is no reason that you can't get arround that by a little stealth. You are smart, you can get arround those dumb cops.

All that I was saying is that if the government is not going to force me to pay for the services that they provide then I am not going pay it voluntarily.

Because no one else would, right? Humanity at its best, right there.

If my government is not going to take the alpha role I can't follow it. Evolution instilled that trait into me, evolution at its best. My God must also be the alpha, and as an added bonus he is also the omega.

An Atheist can base right and wrong on anything they want, but it will still be ultimately meaningless. If morality is not enforced by anyone then it does not exist.

If morality has to be enforced by someone, it is law not morality. If a theist is pretending to behave morally, for fear of divine punishment, how can that be described as truly moral behaviour?

Morality is commanded by the gods, law is commanded by political authorities. If the best you can do is pretend, then it is better than nothing. A good healthy fear of God is not a bad thing, it is the beginning of wisdom.

Yes, that is about all there is to it, God has decreed that if we love one another then he will never need to punish us. Love fulfills all our moral obligations to God.

Great. So I'll just love one another and forget about believing in God.

Do that and you will be fine.

So it is better to be good out of a fear of punishment in the after life than for the sake of doing good?

Doing good for the sake of doing good is not bad, I am sure it will be good for rewards in the afterlife. But fear of punishment is a good motivator.

Quote from Einstein:

"Mankind is truly poor indeed if he can only be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward in the afterlife"

Brilliant observation by Einstein, mankind is truly poor indeed.

He also said...
“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.�

[McCulloch]

I had loads of megalomania long before I became a Christian.
You can give your morality any meaning that you want to, but it will never be anything more than an adult version of Santa Clause. You are only accountable to yourself for your own behavior, if you can live with yourself, go for it.

Isn't your God an adult version of Santa Claus?

Morality is commanded by the gods, law is commanded by political authorities.

The unanswered question, is how is obeying a God because he can punish you and you want to avoid negative consequences of disobedience, being moral?

A good healthy fear of God is not a bad thing, it is the beginning of wisdom.

If there was any evidence that God was real, then fearing him would be wise for he is a terrible and fearful thing.

[Nilloc James]

Doing good for the sake of doing good is not bad, I am sure it will be good for rewards in the afterlife. But fear of punishment is a good motivator.

I'm genuinely confused by this.

So your saying being motivated to do good by fear is a good thing?

So a christain donates to charity because it helps him get into heaven is better than an atheist who donates to charity to help people?

Could you clarfy your point?

[Beto]

He also said...
“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.�

Right... and in which authorized biography does this astonishing quote appear?

[bernee51]

He also said...
“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.�

Right... and in which authorized biography does this astonishing quote appear?

Einstein said this (and much more) in an interview in 1929 with George Sylvester Viereck and was quoted in Einstein by by Walter Isaacson.

But there was one religious concept, Einstein went on to say, that science could not accept: a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation. "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God," he argued. Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will, or for that matter human will, plays a role that would violate this cosmic causality.

Time magazine published an interesting article in 2007

[bernee51]

He also said...
“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.�

Right... and in which authorized biography does this astonishing quote appear?

Einstein said this (and much more) in an interview in 1929 with George Sylvester Viereck and was quoted in Einstein by by Walter Isaacson.

But there was one religious concept, Einstein went on to say, that science could not accept: a deity who could meddle at whim in the events of his creation. "The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God," he argued. Scientists aim to uncover the immutable laws that govern reality, and in doing so they must reject the notion that divine will, or for that matter human will, plays a role that would violate this cosmic causality.

On the subject of the OP:

But Einstein's answer was to look upon free will as something that was useful, indeed necessary, for a civilized society, because it caused people to take responsibility for their own actions. "I am compelled to act as if free will existed," he explained, "because if I wish to live in a civilized society I must act responsibly." He could even hold people responsible for their good or evil, since that was both a pragmatic and sensible approach to life, while still believing intellectually that everyone's actions were predetermined. "I know that philosophically a murderer is not responsible for his crime," he said, "but I prefer not to take tea with him."

The foundation of morality, he believed, was rising above the "merely personal" to live in a way that benefited humanity.


Time magazine published an interesting article in 2007

[Beto]

He also said...
“Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.�

Right... and in which authorized biography does this astonishing quote appear?

Einstein said this (and much more) in an interview in 1929 with George Sylvester Viereck and was quoted in Einstein by by Walter Isaacson.

I'm a bit skeptical of this Viereck, and the way he probably tricked Einstein into an interview, since he allegedly thought this nazi apologist was Jewish. Even Freud accused him of having a "superman complex", with Upton Sinclair calling him a "a pompous liar and hypocrite". But I'll go along with it. Doesn't matter either way, as I'm not particularly impressed with appeals to authority, especially misplaced ones. And even being true, I certainly don't feel obligated to agree with Einstein on the "historical Jesus" issue. And since we're into quoting Einstein:

"The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

Btw, is there any other Einstein quote about Jesus?