Objective Morality Scares me!!

[Mr.Badham]

The idea of objective morality scares me more than the idea of subjective morality, for the same reason that objective patriotism scares me more than subjective patriotism.
I can't say for sure that there is no objective morality, but I can say for certain that no one knows what it is. Morality would appear to be fluid. It ebbs and flows. It evolves over time, all the while people profess to know what it is.
It subjectively seems to me that in order to be moral, one must harbour feelings of empathy, intend to do no harm and gain consent.
Rape, murder and slavery are immoral because by definition they lack consent. Anyone who carries out these acts lacks empathy, and they intend to hurt the victim.
Only someone who claims to know what is objectively moral could claim that murder, slavery and genocide are at times (when God orders it) acceptable.

Can anyone think of an immoral act that could be done with empathy, consent and without the intent to hurt?

[Jolly_Penguin]

[Replying to post 28 by Johannes]

We moderns do indeed pass laws against slavery, and forbid it absolutely. But why? Why should there be an absolute prohibition against something so clearly useful?

I can't think of any good reason other than an understanding of the human that is fundamentally Christian, either directly so, or as an inertially held post-Christian belief.

Because we value freedom and have a sense of empathy. Do you think Christians are the only people in the world who have spoken against slavery? Do you really think that a book failing to condemn slavery is the bedrock of its opposition?

And not to disdain the obvious, the great majority of the leaders of the modern abolitionist movement in Europe, England, and America, were Christians acting on explicitly Christian grounds. Those laws prohibiting slavery you are so proud of are largely the work of Christian reformers.

Only because there were so many Christians at the time. It was also mostly Christians who fought against the abolitionists, and they had the bible on their side.

And just as people used the Bible to oppose the abolition of slavery, they now use the bible to block equal rights for homosexuals and block life saving stem cell research.

Of course, many Christians were complicit in the institution of slavery, but no one in his right mind claims that Christians have some special power to be perfect or transcend the limitations of their time.

Sure, Christians don't have some special power to be perfect or transcend the limitations of their time, but God should have exactly that, if he exists. If we see the Bible as some books written by men at the time saying what they thought was right and just, that is one thing. But these books are claimed to be revelations from God.

Slavery was regarded by the early Christians as a natural evil, something that could not be got rid of in a fallen world, but that which had been annulled in any ultimate sense by Christ. There are no slaves in Christ, nor in the kingdom of God, nor the life to come.

The relationship between Christian and God looks very much like one of slavery. Just because it isn't made as explicit as in Islam, doesn't make it not a slave mindset.

And as I mentioned in my last post, all countries in the world officially have laws against slavery. This is good. And yet slavery persists in the modern world. Why is that?

Poverty persists in the modern world. Why is that?

Inequality persists in the modern world. Why is that?

Injustice persists in the modern world. Why is that?

Much easier to explain such things if you don't postulate an all knowing, all powerful, and all good God. People can be selfish and cruel.

One non-insane explanation is that human nature is such that these things are (in practice) ineradicable. The best we can do is to 1. recognize the wrongness of them, and 2. do whatever we can to ameliorate them. In think poverty is the most instructive comparison, since like slavery, it is a social evil.

I agree. And we have come a long way, and have a lot further to go. The old testament bible has little of value, but the new testament had some good ideas written into it. Nothing unique or special to the book, but good nonetheless.

It was a good recording of good morality at the time. But as you said, we've developed further now. Just as we should not blame ancient peoples for not adhering to modern morality, we should not hold ourselves back today by adhering to what they wrote then. We can do better. We have done better.

[Johannes]

[Replying to post 28 by Johannes]

I can't think of any good reason other than an understanding of the human that is fundamentally Christian, either directly so, or as an inertially held post-Christian belief.

Because we value freedom and have a sense of empathy. Do you think Christians are the only people in the world who have spoken against slavery? Do you really think that a book failing to condemn slavery is the bedrock of its opposition?

Yes, but our love of freedom is not always incompatible with a love of slavery. Love of my freedom does not translate directly into my valuing your freedom.

No, I don't think that; that would be foolish. As far as I know though, the first human being to make a moral demand for the complete abolition of slavery, perhaps only in the Western world, but I doubt it, was Gregory of Nyssa, a Christian and a Father of the Church. And Gregory argued then, as most Christians would today, that Christianity logically and morally entails that one ought to be an abolitionist. The fact that nearly no Christians could understand this implication of their faith, in no way diminishes the necessity of the implication. So, yes, I do think that Christianity was the one of the primary motivating forces of the abolitionist movement, though of course not the only one, nor without mixed motives by individual Christians even on the abolitionist side. And awareness of this necessary conflict between Christianity and slavery was a strong moving force both in the abolition of old pagan slavery in the Middle Ages and in the abolition of modern slavery -- again, I do not say the ONLY moving force. In America, it was certainly possible oppose slavery on the strictly American principles of freedom and equality, without any explicit Christianity being involved, but as a simple matter of fact, the majority of the abolitionists saw themselves as fighting a Christian fight against a real evil.

And not to disdain the obvious, the great majority of the leaders of the modern abolitionist movement in Europe, England, and America, were Christians acting on explicitly Christian grounds. Those laws prohibiting slavery you are so proud of are largely the work of Christian reformers.

Only because there were so many Christians at the time.

Really? You seriously think that Christianity deserves no credit for good things done in ages "when there were lots of Christians"?

No Christian, at any time or place, has ever done a truly good act as a direct result of her Christian beliefs? Really?

And just as people used the Bible to oppose the abolition of slavery, they now use the bible to block equal rights for homosexuals and block life saving stem cell research.

Why do you keep mentioning the Bible? I haven't mentioned it.

And, yes, many Christians do oppose recognition of same-sex marriage and stem cell research.

Do you think there are no good reasons a person could hold these positions? Or do you automatically consider people who don't think like you do to be evil?

Of course, many Christians were complicit in the institution of slavery, but no one in his right mind claims that Christians have some special power to be perfect or transcend the limitations of their time.

Sure, Christians don't have some special power to be perfect or transcend the limitations of their time, but God should have exactly that, if he exists. If we see the Bible as some books written by men at the time saying what they thought was right and just, that is one thing. But these books are claimed to be revelations from God.

Christians believe that the scriptures are the word of God, yes. Christians are not gnostics. Christ did not come to give us esoteric knowledge or wisdom. Christ came to save us. The scriptures are the "deposit of faith" given to the Church by Christ. They were the things that we needed to know.

Any statement beginning with "God should have ..." is going to end with the speaker looking a bit of a fool, for the simple and sufficient reason that an omniscient and omnipotent being, if one exists, necessarily knows what He is doing, and did it in the right way. It is utterly impossible for God to make a mistake. If it were even possible, then he would not be perfect, and therefore not God (as Jews, Christians, Muslims, and many others) understand Him. There's simply no non-question-begging way to establish that what God did was not exactly the perfect thing to do in the circumstances.

Not to mention that the way in which God acts upon the world is a pretty complicated subject.

Slavery was regarded by the early Christians as a natural evil, something that could not be got rid of in a fallen world, but that which had been annulled in any ultimate sense by Christ. There are no slaves in Christ, nor in the kingdom of God, nor the life to come.

The relationship between Christian and God looks very much like one of slavery. Just because it isn't made as explicit as in Islam, doesn't make it not a slave mindset.

For the Jews, God is the Lord, who has chosen us among all the peoples of the world to be His chosen people. For the Muslims, God is the Master, and we his slaves (some obedient, some rebellious). But for the Christian, we are the children of god, we are His sons and daughters and He is our Father. Surely you see there is an important difference between King/subject, Master/slave, and Father/child, even though, yes, they kind of "look like" one another.

I can't speak for you--perhaps you had an unfortunate relationship with your father--but no, I do not think a father-child relationship necessarily involves a slave mindset.

And as I mentioned in my last post, all countries in the world officially have laws against slavery. This is good. And yet slavery persists in the modern world. Why is that?

Poverty persists in the modern world. Why is that?

Inequality persists in the modern world. Why is that?

Injustice persists in the modern world. Why is that?

Much easier to explain such things if you don't postulate an all knowing, all powerful, and all good God. People can be selfish and cruel.

Yes they can. And we, as a civilization, seem to be getting steadily more selfish, although it is true that we have a marked aversion to cruelty. However, I think a great part of that aversion is due to a cultural habit of squeamishness, the kind of weakness that Nietzsche rightly diagnosed as a morbid fear of suffering. But I have faith (!) in human nature, and it doesn't take more than a single generation to rediscover the taste for cruelty. We're only squeamish about messy, wet cruelty; virtual cruelty, we adore.

I don't think history can be accurately predicted, since unexpected events do shift its course, but I will say that, given human nature, the direction things are headed now, and given (say) 300 years for technology to advance and Christianity to diminish in influence, I conjecture that the world will be a very dark and unhappy place.

One non-insane explanation is that human nature is such that these things are (in practice) ineradicable. The best we can do is to 1. recognize the wrongness of them, and 2. do whatever we can to ameliorate them. In think poverty is the most instructive comparison, since like slavery, it is a social evil.

I agree. And we have come a long way, and have a lot further to go. The old testament bible has little of value, but the new testament had some good ideas written into it. Nothing unique or special to the book, but good nonetheless.

It was a good recording of good morality at the time. But as you said, we've developed further now. Just as we should not blame ancient peoples for not adhering to modern morality, we should not hold ourselves back today by adhering to what they wrote then. We can do better. We have done better.

And we have done worse, much worse. The 20th century saw the decline of Christianity in Europe and the rise of horrific barbarism. Nietzsche accurately saw that Christianity had ceased to be an essential force in the West. The West is now to advance boldly into the post-Christian future: but where are we going? A neo-corporate fascism? A Communist paradise where equality reigns? A technoocracy? A frivolous and hedonistic consumer society devoted to the acquisition of material comforts and distracting entertainment while a tiny minority of humanity steadily acquires most of the resources of the planet? I expect it will be a bad age for humanity, but a good one for Christians.

As for "back then" and "modern morality", if there really is a natural moral order to the world, there can be no ultimate distinction between the two. This does not mean to say that the various precepts of the Jewish Law in the Torah are automatically moral principles or truths. Christianity is regards the OT laws as things that can be studied and learned from, but not all of them as absolute moral commandments.

I didn't say we could not judge Christians (and others) for their behaviors: I said we have to judge them fairly. And by any fair judgement, Christianity was from the very beginning, a force that opposed slavery, and came to oppose it more and more strongly, until it finally began to press for its abolition. This was not moral *change*, as if before,

1. All ancient Christians endorsed slavery whole-heartedly, because it is not condemned in the Bible. The were just plain OK with it.
2. During the Christian Middle Ages, slavery disappeared for some or several reasons, but Christianity certainly played no part (except maybe to fight FOR slavery!)
3. All modern Christians condemn slavery, but they have no Christian ground for doing so, because slavery is not absolutely condemned in the Bible.

That is nonsense. Nonsense on stilts, even, in the breadth of oversimplification. It is significant that the Bible does teach that there are no masters and slaves in Christ, so that, in the way that really matters, slavery has already been abolished (not to mention death); and though evils still flourish in the world, Christians are commanded to ameliorate them: feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, give to the poor, and treat slaves with justice and compassion as brothers and sisters in Christ.

The Romans were well aware of this, if you aren't. One of the main accusations against Christians (besides atheism) was sedition: namely, the seditious teaching that Christ had in a way broken all bonds. How do you think a slave society and economy like Rome is going to react to a new cult going about saying, among other things, that all the slaves have been set free?

Answer: Murderously

ζητειτε,
_Johannes

[Hatuey]

That is nonsense. Nonsense on stilts, even, in the breadth of oversimplification. It is significant that the Bible does teach that there are no masters and slaves in Christ, so that, in the way that really matters, slavery has already been abolished (not to mention death); and though evils still flourish in the world, Christians are commanded to ameliorate them: feed the hungry, visit the prisoners, give to the poor, and treat slaves with justice and compassion as brothers and sisters in Christ.

Death hasn't been abolished, and neither has slavery. Slavery is alive and well all over the globe. Christ's promises are as empty as the Christian god is undetectable and therefore, irrelevant. The problem with the bible and Christianity is that anybody can interpret it to justify any action at all. See the Inquisition and those bible believers who find it disgusting...see those in support of slavery and their bible verses and those opposed and their bible verses. There's no way any interpretation to be tested and measured as "true" or "untrue," so it's any interpretation is valid because there's no way to invalidate any interpretation. If there was, there'd be no denomination or debate over what dogma is "true."

Unsurprising for any myth-evolved-into-religion, but not what we would expect if Christianity WAS the truth, for sure.

[Jolly_Penguin]

[Replying to post 32 by Johannes]

Because we value freedom and have a sense of empathy.

Yes, but our love of freedom is not always incompatible with a love of slavery. Love of my freedom does not translate directly into my valuing your freedom.

True. And that is where empathy comes in. Empathy is that sense of seeing yourself in others and feeling what they feel. It is why we care about other people. It is what some religious folks bury deep down inside themselves, and deny the existence of when they say things like "without God, all things are permissible" or "how can you be good without god?". I trust you are not that sort of religious person.

Empathy is strongest the more we can see ourselves in one another, the more we identify them as part of our group, and the less we see them as outsiders and threats to our group, as foreign to our nation or infidels to our Gods. Religion is by no means the only way that we use to demonize those we wish to feel good about hating, but it is by far the most effective.

Do you think Christians are the only people in the world who have spoken against slavery?

No, I don't think that; that would be foolish.

Then why did you write this when talking about opposing slavery?

I can't think of any good reason other than an understanding of the human that is fundamentally Christian, either directly so, or as an inertially held post-Christian belief.

As far as I know though, the first human being to make a moral demand for the complete abolition of slavery, perhaps only in the Western world, but I doubt it, was Gregory of Nyssa, a Christian and a Father of the Church.

According to a quick Google search, he was born in 335 CE. According to an equally quick search, a few others sought to abolish slavery before him, including Emperor Wang Mang in China, born 45 BCE, who forbid the buying and selling of slaves. Google shows a few others as well, popping up prior to Christianity existing.

Yes, there were some Christians who opposed slavery, no doubt. But you really "can't think of any good reason to oppose slavery other than an understanding of the human that is fundamentally christian, either directly so, or as an inertially held post-Christian belief?" Really?

In America, it was certainly possible oppose slavery on the strictly American principles of freedom and equality, without any explicit Christianity being involved, but as a simple matter of fact, the majority of the abolitionists saw themselves as fighting a Christian fight against a real evil.

And the majority of those fighting to protect the institution of slavery saw themselves as fighting a Christian fight against a real evil as well. The big difference being, that they had the bible on their side. As famously said by Baptist leader Richard Furman at the time of the civil war "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example". And yes, it was. St. Paul wrote "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).

Really? You seriously think that Christianity deserves no credit for good things done in ages "when there were lots of Christians"?

For some good things? Sure. Not for the abolition of slavery. Not when there was as much in Christianity and as many Christians fighting to keep slavery as there were fighting to abolish slavery. And not while the Bible fails to condemn slavery.

No Christian, at any time or place, has ever done a truly good act as a direct result of her Christian beliefs? Really?

Did I say this? You have a knack for creating straw men.

And, yes, many Christians do oppose recognition of same-sex marriage and stem cell research.

Do you think there are no good reasons a person could hold these positions? Or do you automatically consider people who don't think like you do to be evil?

I have yet to hear any rational and ethical reason for opposing same-sex marriage. It all seems to come down to either bigotry or obedience to religion and tradition. If you have something else, I'd love to hear it. Same for stem cell research.

Do I consider people who don't think like me to be evil? No. That is an ironic question coming from a supporter of Abrahamic religion (which has a long history of doing exactly that).

Any statement beginning with "God should have ..." is going to end with the speaker looking a bit of a fool, for the simple and sufficient reason that an omniscient and omnipotent being, if one exists, necessarily knows what He is doing, and did it in the right way.

It means he would necessarily do it the way he wants to. It in no way means that he would necessarily be benevolent to anybody but himself. perhaps he created us to love us and guide us and be good to us. Perhaps he created us to toy with us merely for his entertainment. Perhaps he is kind. Perhaps he is cruel.

If we say that God created the world, then we are saying God has created some incredible suffering, to both humans and non-humans. There are "creations of God" that have no way to survive but to do horrible and painful things to other "creations of God". The breeding cycle of some animals on this planet are absolutely sickening, some even eat others from the inside out. This makes perfect sense under the framework of evolution. It makes no sense whatsoever under the framework of a compassionate God.

I can't speak for you--perhaps you had an unfortunate relationship with your father--but no, I do not think a father-child relationship necessarily involves a slave mindset.

Most father-child relationships don't. Some do. Human fathers can be very controlling and can abuse children physically and psychologically, on par with slavery. But human fathers can't take it to quite the level that God is written to in the Bible, since human fathers can't dominate or abuse their children after death.

Finally, what was with that last bit of your post? You listed some straw men and then called them nonsense. Hatuey addressed that, so I'll leave it be.

[McCulloch]

And we have done worse, much worse. The 20th century saw the decline of Christianity in Europe and the rise of horrific barbarism. Nietzsche accurately saw that Christianity had ceased to be an essential force in the West. The West is now to advance boldly into the post-Christian future: but where are we going? A neo-corporate fascism? A Communist paradise where equality reigns? A technoocracy? A frivolous and hedonistic consumer society devoted to the acquisition of material comforts and distracting entertainment while a tiny minority of humanity steadily acquires most of the resources of the planet? I expect it will be a bad age for humanity, but a good one for Christians.

The blood bath of the first half of the twentieth century is over. The cold war is over too. While war has not been eliminated, the number of casualties of war are at an all time low and have been for several decades.

[Jolly_Penguin]

[Replying to McCulloch]

Indeed. We live in the most peaceful time in human history:

http://www.salon.com/2014/01/15/were_li ... n_partner/

Studies demonstrate the world is becoming less violent, and that human warfare is on the decline. There is one aspect of the human existence, however, that continues to ignite humans to commit violence and atrocities against fellow humans. A major new study published by the Pew Research Center shows that religious hostilities reached a 6-year high in 2012.

Dr. Steven Pinker, Pulitzer prize-winning author and Harvard psychology professor, writes, “Today we may be living in the most peaceful era in our species’ existence.� He acknowledges: “In a century that began with 9/11, Iraq, and Darfur, the claim that we are living in an unusually peaceful time may strike you as somewhere between hallucinatory and obscene.� Pinker points out, wars make headlines, but there are fewer conflicts today, and wars don’t kill as many people as they did in the Middle Ages, for instance. Also, global rates of violent crime have plummeted in the last few decades. Pinker notes that the reason for these advances are complex but certainly the rise of education, and a growing willingness to put ourselves in the shoes of others has played its part.

[ThePainefulTruth]

What scares me are the PEOPLE who claim there is objective morality, and that their morals are objective.

What are our choices? Take the word from a self-appointed prophet for what "God" says is moral, or determine an objective moral code, which is possible. The problem is all the extraneous behavior which has be labeled immoral over the eons, by the various religions and politicians. Way too much behavior which is individual virtue, has been labeled moral. Morality should ONLY be the code that governs how we interact with each other, and the only objective should be good order.

I think there is little if anything beyond following the Golden Rule which should be called immoral, but it needs to be stated more precisely. To wit (ahem):

Morality is honoring the equal rights of all* to life, liberty, property and self-defense from violation through force or fraud.

Except for the (*), that's it. The asterisk is there to declare that those rights are absolute for all adults, but there are grey areas involving children (including childhood's duration and the gradual acquisition of each of those rights), the mentally handicapped, and treatment of the higher animals. Yes, we could go on and on about the gray areas, but I think we'd find a surprising degree of agreement about them. The real issues, the ones we go to war to protect or violate, are adult rights.

And though these rights are absolute, how they are enforced is also subjective and arbitrary as to degree, even to deciding punishment on a case by case basis for some crimes. But again, I think we'd find surprising agreement on punishment except possibly for the death penalty, or punishment at all for victimless (non-immoral and therefore should be non-punishable) crimes.