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.

[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.

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?

Not that I have found.

One o my favourite Einsteinisms:

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."

[olavisjo]

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?

Yes, he is.

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?

There may be more virtue in obeying just because we want to obey, but it is all the same. Do you avoid putting your hand in a flame because you are afraid of getting burned or do you refrain for more noble reasons, either way your hand is preserved.

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.

You are right. As the writer of Hebrews observed.

It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

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

Could you clarify your point?

A Christian who donates to charity because he thinks that it will help get him into heaven is as evil as evil gets. The gift of God can't be bought, and it is the greatest insult to God to think that you can buy it. So it is the Atheist who will be in better standing with God.
Fear of God is a good thing, it shows respect.

[Nilloc James]

A Christian who donates to charity because he thinks that it will help get him into heaven is as evil as evil gets. The gift of God can't be bought, and it is the greatest insult to God to think that you can buy it. So it is the Atheist who will be in better standing with God.

Does this mean I blaspheme to lord as much as i want?

[Homicidal_Cherry53]

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?

I agree with you here, however, I think this is a case of might makes right. While "God" supporting one moral school of thought doesn't make it objective, "God" has the ability to enforce it universally. He has the ability to make sure that his moral viewpoint always wins out. He, in essence, becomes a moral determinist. So, while his morality isn't objective, it is the one that should be followed unless you want to suffer the consequences.

(Note: My post was entirely hypothetical. It made several assumptions that I myself do not believe in. I assumed things such as the existence of God, God being absolute, God holding moral values, etc. for the purpose of argument)