Objective Moral Values

[Michael]

Hi Risto,

I just wanted to be apart of the convo and i saw that i could respond to your post, I don't want you to feel like like I've come in swinging.

If we have specific objective moral values, and these are derived from God, then what are they?

We needn't go into specifics - If anything is truly evil, anything at all, it will logically lead to the reality of God. By our moral experience, admit it or not, we know that atleast somethings are objectively morally wrong (whether Christianity agrees or not) e.g. cruelty.

Well, i'm not so sure that Also, why do other religions and or nations get by famously in a similar fashion even if they have many Gods (Hinduism for example).

Remember, the question is NOT "Can we be moral people without BELIEF in God?"
The question is "Can there be true Good and true Evil without God?"

[Risto the Great]

Michael it seems odd to use the existence of "true evil" in leading us to the reality of God.

Remember, the question is NOT "Can we be moral people without BELIEF in God?"
The question is "Can there be true Good and true Evil without God?"

Definitely well worth mentioning and a good point.
I suppose we are back to what constitutes "True Good" and "True Evil" with my case in point being child molestation and its perception throughout the ages.

[Vangelovski]

The Spartans had orgies ignoring that objective moral value. So did Albanians until a couple of hundred years ago apparently.

Are you saying that they knew it was evil? I wouldn't have documented songs about "boy love" if I was an Albanian of 150 years ago if that was the case.

If the Spartans and Albanians (amongst others) did not think this was evil at all, then perhaps child molestation is not one of the objective moral values we are talking about. I feel like we have to assume we are talking about a moral value that has not changed over time like "murder". Although, in the right context, that seems to be fine in the Old Testament.

An interesting discussion that I am sure has had more than a few MTO members talking about it in the past.




A Buddhist perspective on moral relativism is as follows:

By assigning value and spiritual ideals to private subjectivity, the materialistic world view, threatens to undermine any secure objective foundation for morality. The result is the widespread moral degeneration that we witness today. To counter this tendency, mere moral exhortation is insufficient. If morality is to function as an efficient guide to conduct, it cannot be propounded as a self-justifying scheme but must be embedded in a more comprehensive spiritual system which grounds morality in a transpersonal order. Religion must affirm, in the clearest terms, that morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality.

RtG,

The question is not about whether people obey objective moral values. Obviously they do not. Obviously people make up their own subjective moral values. Objective moral values exist regardless of whether anyone, anywhere, in any time agrees with them or not. The Spartans practised those acts because they obviously believed that objective moral values do not exist and as a result developed depraved social norms. The example of the Spartans helps prove the absurdity that can occur when one claims objective moral values to not exist.

An act like child molestation was never acceptable, neither in the Old or New Testaments, whether or not the Spartans agreed. Though, I'm not sure what bearing their practices have on the Bible. With regards to murder, it was never acceptable in the Bible either. You may be making the common misktake of equating "killing" with "murder". The difference being that "murder" is a premeditated or intentional act of taking someones life. "Killing" is an act that can include taking a life in self-defence or in war, or unintentionally taking someones life.

[Risto the Great]

RtG,

The question is not about whether people obey objective moral values. Obviously they do not. Obviously people make up their own subjective moral values. Objective moral values exist regardless of whether anyone, anywhere, in any time agrees with them or not. The Spartans practised those acts because they obviously believed that objective moral values do not exist and as a result developed depraved social norms. The example of the Spartans helps prove the absurdity that can occur when one claims objective moral values to not exist.

An act like child molestation was never acceptable, neither in the Old or New Testaments. I'm not sure how Spartan practices relate to the Bible.

I wasn't really referring to the Bible in that context. But we can look to the Albanians if we want to include an era which the Bible relates.

It would have been a very different world 2000 years ago and we might all have been frowning upon the "madman" who said we can't get it on with the 8 year old.

I personally feel that we are applying our modern moral codes to to an era that did not share the same sentiment. It may well have been a cause for celebration when your kid copped it from a Spartan elite! I also don't think we can limit it to the Spartans, there were a bunch of weird arsed sorts during that era from a modern perspective. On the other hand, I think I believe in a collective consciousness that guides us. I think I am leaning to a relativism perspective. But I love the idea of developing my mind and seeing where it leads me .... I don't fear change.

The Buddhist note that you have provided agrees that objective moral values must exist. I assume that was your intention?

Yes it was.

[Michael]

I suppose we are back to what constitutes "True Good" and "True Evil" with my case in point being child molestation and its perception throughout the ages.

I'm not sure that child cruelty was ever morally ok.. But let's suppose that in the past it was so, and we now recognize that child cruelty is in fact a moral abomination.. This doesn't prove that child cruelty is not objectively evil.. Just because it was once accepted. It merely shows that mans gradual realization/acceptance of the moral laws is not infallible.

There are somethings that we all know are flat out evil, admit it or not.
Is torturing children wrong? What if everyone in the world was brainwashed into thinking it was good? Would it still be wrong?

[Vangelovski]

It would have been a very different world 2000 years ago and we might all have been frowning upon the "madman" who said we can't get it on with the 8 year old.

That may be so, but that in of itself does not tell us whether its good or evil. It was just the Spartan's own subjective moral value system.

We can keep away from ancient examples and stick to modern examples - they will achieve the same objective. What about the Nazi holocuast? What about some of the experiments performed by Nazi doctors on babies? How can we know that they were evil without objective moral values? If we accept moral relativism, then we would have to accept that the Nazi experiments were 'good' because they subjectively believed them to be so within their own relative moral system. Can we accept such an absurdity?

[Soldier of Macedon]

The difference being that "murder" is a premeditated or intentional act of taking someones life. "Killing" is an act that can include taking a life in self-defence or in war, or unintentionally taking someones life.

Tom, where does that leave 'revenge'? Because one can argue that such an act is both premeditated and justified. Also, not all 'kills' in war are justified either, and some of them can easily be considered murder. It would have to depend on the circumstances, would it not?

[Risto the Great]

Just because it was once accepted. It merely shows that mans gradual realization/acceptance of the moral laws is not infallible.

It also suggests we may not have worked out all of the objective moral laws and that human beings are still a "work in progress".

There are somethings that we all know are flat out evil, admit it or not.
Is torturing children wrong? What if everyone in the world was brainwashed into thinking it was good? Would it still be wrong?

I don't think it could ever be interpreted as good, I agree. But then again, circumcision sounds like torture to me.

[Vangelovski]

Tom, where does that leave 'revenge'? Because one can argue that such an act is both premeditated and justified. Also, not all 'kills' in war are justified either, and some of them can easily be considered murder. It would have to depend on the circumstances, would it not?

Well, if you look at revenge objectively, I would say its evil, even though it feels good . Now revenge, as I understand it (and as the Bible defines it) is an individual act and must not be confused with justice being done by a legitimate government.

You are correct that not all kills in war are justified and many murders do take place.

[Risto the Great]

We can keep away from ancient examples and stick to modern examples - they will achieve the same objective. What about the Nazi holocuast? What about some of the experiments performed by Nazi doctors on babies? How can we know that they were evil without objective moral values? If we accept moral relativism, then we would have to accept that the Nazi experiments were 'good' because they subjectively believed them to be so within their own relative moral system. Can we accept such an absurdity?

I am not sure we have a similar example.
During the time of the ancient Hellenes and Romans, it was pretty much the entire world that were running around like fruitcakes. The Nazis were pretty much on their own with the holocaust.

How do we reconcile some of the Old (& New) Testament stuff with objective morality? The treatment and acceptance of slaves is a good example.

[Vangelovski]

I am not sure we have a similar example.
During the time of the ancient Hellenes and Romans, it was pretty much the entire world that were running around like fruitcakes. The Nazis were pretty much on their own with the holocaust.

How do we reconcile some of the Old (& New) Testament stuff with objective morality? The treatment and acceptance of slaves is a good example.

It doesn't matter how many people consider an act as good or evil. It doesn't even matter if noone accepts an act as good or evil. Even if the whole world subjectively believed the Nazi experiments were good, that does not make them good.

Lets take another example, nearly the entire world's population subjectively believes its good to help someone in need. But does the fact that everyone believes that its good, actually make it good? How can we know it really is good if subjective moral values do not exist? And if they do not exist, then there really is no such thing as good or evil, rather everything is relative and everyone is free to do what they like without fear of punishment. Essentially, life without objective moral values would be absurd.

The Bible gives the whole story, the good, the bad and the ugly. It does not hide anything. Slavery in Hebrew/Jewish culture was normally a voluntary practice. Someone who could not pay his debts would normally work them off. Much like we do now, except we don't work directly for our credit lenders. I can look into it further and get back to you on this point in detail.

[Michael]

It also suggests we may not have worked out all of the objective moral laws and that human beings are still a "work in progress".

It doesn't matter if we haven't all fully realized all of them.. That is no reason to deny their objectivity. In the same way that some people have an impaired perception of the world (e.g. colour blindness), it doesn't give us any reason to deny the objective reality of the world.
The point is, atleast somethings are objectively wrong... You agree that child cruelty is objectively wrong?

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Which one of these premises do you deny?

[Soldier of Macedon]

Well, if you look at revenge objectively, I would say its evil, even though it feels good

From an objective perspective, yes, the act itself is evil, but the act is in fact a reaction to a previous evil, which, in this case, could mean justice - an eye for an eye, as stated in the Bible. Ever watched the movie, A Time To Kill? It wasn't about feeling good, but instead about seeking justice through revenge in a society where there was no other option. Would this then mean that an act of evil can result in good (pertaining to the movie, the two individuals that raped the young girl would no longer be around to commit such an offence again)? Interested in your thoughts.

[Risto the Great]

Just being the devil's advocate (literally I imagine) .... I find that it is quite often the case that being a "good Christian" does not mean one have to be "nice" to people.

Do you agree in a collective consciousness?

[Vangelovski]

From an objective perspective, yes, the act itself is evil, but the act is in fact a reaction to a previous evil, which, in this case, could mean justice - an eye for an eye, as stated in the Bible. Ever watched the movie, A Time To Kill? It wasn't about feeling good, but instead about seeking justice through revenge in a society where there was no other option. Would this then mean that an act of evil can result in good (pertaining to the movie, the two individuals that raped the young girl would no longer be around to commit such an offence again)? Interested in your thoughts.

Tough, but legitimate question...let me think about this one, but remind me in case I forget to respond.