Objective Moral Values

[Risto the Great]

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?

Child cruelty is wrong except for when I am dishing out my own brand of torture to my kids.

I believe moral values and duties exist. Joining the dots to God will take me some time for reflection.

[Vangelovski]

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?

Being a Christian isn't about being 'good'. Its about realising that you're evil and that you deserve eternal punishment. Its about recognising that God himself (Jesus) took the punishment for our evil on the cross and because of this He will waive our just deserves if we repent and put our faith in Him.

We can try to be as good as we possibly can, but a) that will not 'earn' us salvation, and b) we can never meet the standard set in the 10 commandments.

You'll have to define 'nice'

[Vangelovski]

I believe moral values and duties exist. Joining the dots to God will take me some time for reflection.

If you believe that objective moral values and duties exist, then you're 95% of the way there. You only need to reflect on how they could possibly exist if God did not exist.

[julie]

Julie, leave the Bible and Christianity out of it for a second and think about what you are saying. If morals are relative, how can you demand justice if you were raped (God forbid!)? According to you, the perpertrator could believe what he did is good. YOU might think its evil, but he, depending on his own morally relative value system, may think its good. If there are no objective moral values, how can you demonstrate what he did was evil?

Demanding justice for an act of rape, justice by society’s standards?
Working with rape victims many years ago, found that society today seeks to discredit the rape victim in court, they are the ones proving their innocence as opposed to the perpetrator guilt being proven. Justice under the Westminster legal system in Australia is shit. Being a court companion as a social welfare worker had me leave the field within 3 years of getting my degree. Justice is never served. It is far easier for a rape victim to seek counselling for themselves and to learn to forgive the perpetrator within their own soul so they can move on with their lives. The system rapes them again in court, and it leaves them further scarred. Justice for me is removing the genitals of all rapists, and pedophiles who can never rehabilitate, they have a sick psyche. The victim needs to forgive, for their own emotional healing, to forgive within their own soul or they will continue to carry it with them and never be able to lead a normal life. The perpetrator can think it is good, but you do not understand my point to you in everything is relative with objective morals IN THE SOCIETY THEY LIVE IN. Moral relativism is subjective to someones cultural, moral perspective within their own environment, and what is considered good/evil is judgement.

How I can demonstrate what someone does is evil is within the workings of what is socially acceptable in the environment I am living in, the laws and rules we must abide by, if a law is broken, the matter should be dealt with by law.
I do not consider myself a Christian. I would take joy in cutting the genitals off pedophiles

[Vangelovski]

How I can demonstrate what someone does is evil is within the workings of what is socially acceptable in the environment I am living in, the laws and rules we must abide by, if a law is broken, the matter should be dealt with by law.
I do not consider myself a Christian. I would take joy in cutting the genitals off pedophiles

That does not show that the act is evil, it just demonstrates acceptance of a subjective moral value. What about a society in which rape is considered 'good'. Is it good just because they believe it to be good?

[julie]

That does not show that the act is evil, it just demonstrates acceptance of a subjective moral value. What about a society in which rape is considered 'good'. Is it good just because they believe it to be good?

Vangelovski, show me a society today that condones rape

[Vangelovski]

Vangelovski, show me a society today that condones rape

I can't think of one off the top of my head, but that lends to the existence of objective moral values rather than the opposite, don't you think?

[julie]

I have not disagreed with you on objective moral values, its when we get to the subject of moral relativism it becomes subjective

[indigen]

Vangelovski, show me a society today that condones rape

Check the search results below:

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=rape+as+punishment+in+pakistan

[julie]

Thank you indigen, I really needed the tears

[indigen]

I
The Bible gives the whole story, the good, the bad and the ugly. It does not hide anything.

Hi Tom,
I don't want to get involved in discussions such as these but I see that you have a passion for such topics and thus I want to ask if the Bible, in your opinion, is the only true source of "objective" moral values?

[indigen]

Thank you indigen, I really needed the tears

Some of those search results point to countries other than Pakistan and many are viewed as valuable and staunch allies of the "model democracy" in the world - USA (a state built on rape, pillage, murder, slavery and conquest and had race segregation laws until 1960s!).

[Vangelovski]

Hi Tom,
I don't want to get involved in discussions such as these but I see that you have a passion for such topics and thus I want to ask if the Bible, in your opinion, is the only true source of "objective" moral values?

I believe that God is the only source of objective moral values. Anything else is subjective. Of course, our own subjective moral values may coincidentally align with God's objective moral values.

[makedonin]

I do want to make one point about objective moral values, which you attempt to use (in a perverted way) to argue the non-existance of God (which is in fact what you are doing). If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist. Any moral view would be subjective (such as veiws on the holocaust). Nothing would be either inherently good or evil, it would only be subjective personal opinion. In which case, all of your attempts to provide moral value (such as justice, loyalty to country etc) would be completely irrelevant as no such thing would exist. Loyalty to people and country, for example, would hold no value whatsoever and it would neither be bad to be a traitor nor good to be a patriot.

Vangelovski, you are making no sense. OziMak, Julie, Jankovska, Oziris have made very valid and good points that you fail or avoid to understand.

Let us put some perspective in here.

Question: What is a moral?

Well the moral per definition is derived as follow:

mid-14c., "pertaining to character or temperament" (good or bad), from O.Fr. moral, from L. moralis "proper behavior of a person in society," lit. "pertaining to manners," coined by Cicero ("De Fato," II.i) to translate Gk. ethikos (see ethics) from L. mos (gen. moris) "one's disposition," in plural, "mores, customs, manners, morals," of uncertain origin.
Source

So in other words, moral is a set of rules that are used as control instance for individuals behavior in certain society.
It describes how the individual is related to the society and society to the individual.
This includes relation to other individuals in society as well as to relation of the natural resources, property etc.

Reflecting in history, where nothing was global as today, this makes the moral very vague and dependent on which society you are looking at, which certainly was the case.

Question: What is objective?

Objective had few definitions, here is one of them:

1610s, originally in the philosophical sense of "considered in relation to its object" (opposite of subjective), formed on pattern of M.L. objectivus, from objectum "object" (see object (n.)). Meaning "impersonal, unbiased" is first found 1855, influenced by Ger. objektiv. The noun is 1738, with sense of "something objective to the mind;" meaning "goal, aim" is first as a military term from the American Civil War, 1864 (in objective point), from French; general use of it is first attested 1881.
Source

When set of rules used as control instance of the behavior of individual into certain society is concerned, the objectivity (goal) of those rules would certainly try to regulate the individual behavior in relation to the functionality of the given society and the survival of the given group, in order to guarantee the accomplishment of those objectives!

This rules will be than set by consideration of the whole society, union of given individuals, who will evaluate and reevaluate the given set of rules, and try to abstract from the personal goals and project to the group or society goals.

It is actually self evident that rules are needed in order that society be functional, thus the interest of the society is placed over the interest of the individual, while the individual in return receives security and help from the group i.e. society.

So, related to the so called "objective moral" of "murder", it is more than obvious that if "murder" as tool for personal interests such as revenge, personal accomplishment such as theft etc. is allowed, society will sink in chaos and anarchy, which will render the group or society as non functional and will bring destruction, thus will not guarantee the survival of the group or the given society.

The fact that we even have objective moral value is one proof of God's existence. Without God to tell us what is morally good and evil, there is no other foundation for objective moral value.

It is obvious that you can't actually comprehend that the so called "objective morals" have evolved out of the relation of individual to it's fellow tribes man.

Like I explained it above, morals are always bound to the behavior of individual into a group and society and the so called "objective morals" are only a abstraction which sets the wealth of the group above the one of the individual by describing the relation of the individual to the group and vice versa, which will actually guarantee the survival of the given group or society.

It is perfect self regulating system which does not need any other instance.

Of course, zealots and abusive individuals from certain groups have introduced the supernatural entity which has to stand above relative nature of this world, which than should bring order to certain groups.

The flaws with this views are many, one of them is the manipulative nature of it. Those individuals who perpetuate to know the personal mind of this supernatural entity mostly bent the "given rules" from the same supernatural entity to go in their favor.

This brings favoritism in the whole picture, favoritism of individuals, the prophets, priests, the "holy man" and everyone who can pay the price (pay a goat or silver for your sins see more Leviticus 5:15)etc. which stands in contradiction to the "objective moral" purpose that places the wealth of the group above the individual one.

Another type of favoritism that religions subscribe is the group favoritism. They all claim in extent that they are favored by this supernatural entity over another group or society.

However, this entity which supposedly created the nature can't be subscribed to favoritism, because the nature that it supposedly created knows no favoritism. Believers and non believers of certain religion are treated the same by nature, and there is no slight evidence that Believers are favored by nature and somehow spared by the misery of the world.


Another problem with the comment "objective moral is evidence for God" is the question "which God you mean?".

There are many religions in this world that call upon the same supernatural entity for "objective morals" but they differ in the understanding of this "objective morals", so it renders them questionable who is the true "will" of the given supernatural entity.
Special plead won't help here, cause all claim the same inspiration and the same direct link to the given supernatural entity.

Makedonin,

You can squirm around all you like, but the question YOU opened up is: IF OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES DO NOT EXIST HOW CAN YOU CLAIM ANYTHING AS EITHER GOOD OR EVIL. The example I provided was of your son being molested (God forbid!). If the predators moral values are different than yours and you accept that he is able to have his own subjective moral values, how can you claim what he did to your son (God forbid!) is evil? That would only be YOUR subjective view and not HIS!

But with objective moral values, the act is evil REGARDLESS of what anyone believes.

The above is typical Vangelovski.

First of all, I never claimed that moral values are subjective, it is you that is trying to put that word in my mouth. Show me one instance where I have done that, than we can discuss.

I said morals are relative as everything else, and I have explained it above and in previous post why they are relative.

If you have any capacity go and figure it out do it, other wise I consider you as not worthy of wasting time with you.

Second, the question above is isolation from given reality and if taken as it is will render the human judicial system obsolete.

There will never exist a isolated case as above, cause if that case would happen, the doer and the victim would not be isolated from the group, other than if they live on some isolated island in the pacific, in which case morality won't play any role, cause the stronger will subjugate the weaker.

If such crime happen, than the group will also be concerned, and even though the given parties involved in the crime will have personal grudges, the group will step in and judge the case, which may result in more objective resolve of the given crime.

Naturally justice will never be done to the concerned individuals according to their own relative view of the case, or at least one party or the other will feel injustice be done to it, but the "objective moral" of the given group will ascertain that the interests of the group are rendered above those of the individuals so that the group remains in tact and more or less unaffected by the crime.

such as veiws on the holocaust

I don't think you serve your purpose with such examples.

The mentioned holocaust was inspired mostly by the antisemitic stance of Johns gospel

This is recognized by many scholars, to name few:

Antisemitism is unique in both its persistence and virulence. Over the last twenty years a growing body of Christian opinion has suggested that the answer lies in its theological roots. For example, in "The Holocaust as Interruption" (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, Ltd., 1984) Dr. E. Florenza (Professor of New Testament Studies) & Dr. D. Tracy (Professor of Philosophical Theology) say that, "Christian biblical theology must recognize that its articulation of anti-Judaism in the New Testament ... generated the unspeakable sufferings of the Holocaust."

Drs. A.L. & R.E. Eckhardt (the latter a Methodist minister) say the same. They write that within the, "New Testament ... the defamation of the Jewish people ... constitutes in and of itself an incitement to corporate murder", "Long Night's Journey into Day", Wayne University Press, 1988. They make specific reference to the Holocaust as an example. See also Eckhardt, A.R., "Jews and Christians", Indiana University Press, 1986.

In "Top Ten Profs" (Schwanger & Miller, The Philadelphia Enquirer, 21 09 1986) Professor David Efroymson (Chair of the Department of Religion at a leading Catholic university) admits that there is a "direct line" from the New Testament "to the Holocaust".
Finally, Rev. James Parkes, a UK Christian who has done more than most to further the cause of Jewish-Christian understanding writes, "It is dishonest henceforth to refuse to face the fact that the basic root of modern antisemitism lies squarely in the Gospels and the rest of the New Testament." In: Davies A.T. (ed) "Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity", Paulist Press, New York, 1979, p. xi.
Source

The core of the antisemitic issue are passages of Johanine literature where the reference of "the Jews" is found about 71 times.

Many have argued that "the Jews" means something else, but that doesn't really matter when considering the holocaust, because what ever "the Jews" initially meant to the writer of the gospel, to crippled and stupefied mind such as Hitlers who looks for gratification for given act, it can be translated exactly into what it needs. Obviously the supposed supernatural entity that have given this hate doctrine was in agreement with the acts of Hitler cause it did not step in and prevent the given crime.

Just to give an example of this hate doctrine:

31 To the Jews who had believed him, Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. 32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

33 They answered him, “We are Abraham’s descendants and have never been slaves of anyone. How can you say that we shall be set free?”

34 Jesus replied, “Very truly I tell you, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. 35 Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever. 36 So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed. 37 I know that you are Abraham’s descendants. Yet you are looking for a way to kill me, because you have no room for my word. 38 I am telling you what I have seen in the Father’s presence, and you are doing what you have heard from your father.[a]”

39 “Abraham is our father,” they answered.

“If you were Abraham’s children,” said Jesus, [B]“then you would do what Abraham did. 40 As it is, you are looking for a way to kill me, a man who has told you the truth that I heard from God. Abraham did not do such things. 41 You are doing the works of your own father.”

“We are not illegitimate children,” they protested. “The only Father we have is God himself.”

42 Jesus said to them, “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I have come here from God. I have not come on my own; God sent me. 43 Why is my language not clear to you? Because you are unable to hear what I say. 44 You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
John 8:31-44

Those Jews first believed in him, but than questioned him, than his argument goes on saying that if they don't love him, they are not Gods children, thus they must be devils children.

This rhetoric reminds me of Vangelovskis rhetoric and tactics. If you are not with me, your argument does not count, thus you are my enemy!

Than go and talk about "objective morals" such as love your enemy!

So who ever "the Jews" meant here, it is obvious that Hitler would look at this and put the equation as follow:

"The Jews > are looking for a way to kill Jesus, because they don't have no room for his word > since they did not love Jesus > they belong to their father, the devil.

Thus in the sic mind of Hitler he had justification that the Jews were devils children, which has to be destroyed.

What a objective moral is preached in the Bible. You gotta love it.

Further, God has given humans inalienable rights (natural rights) and inalienable responsibilities (natural responsibilities). Our national rights stem from these individual rights.

Having said that, our overriding loyalty is to God. And I see no contradiction to this - why would you be obidient and/or loyal to a government, law or person that opposes Biblical principles? A government, law or person that opposes God is in fact opposing you and your inalienable natural rights!

That is absurdity. The nations are human creation.

Other than that, if the supreme goal of Christianity is to create new world where only one Gods nation will exist, than that renders the nation system of today as obsolete and not needed.

This is exactly what your friend the Philosopher has stated here:

I identify first and foremost as a Christian. The flesh profits little; my being a Greek, Macedonian, or Italian, etc, means something but not everything.

Being born one race means little because the flesh profits little; it is the second birth that means everything. Our eternity depends on being a Christian first; our status in the next world of being one nation as opposed to another is nothing.

Good that you agree with him.

And about not having any contradiction, it is only in your mind! It is contradicting cause the one renders the other obsolete.

Second to that, those Macedonians of 19 Century were greater Christians than you ever will be, and we know exactly what happened when they followed their religious needs.

They attended the Bulgarian Exarchate and Greek Patriarchate and became good Bulgarians and Greeks, which for them was equal to Christians, but than cause that the Macedonian name was almost forgotten.

Its actually quite the opposite. By putting God at the centre of your life you realise just how many responsibilities you have towards your country and your people and how significant they are. We are obliged to have a positive influence on both our country and our people.

Nothing is obvious, since your loyalty towards God renders your loyalty towards your country, kinsmen etc.

Jesus said, you can't be servant of two masters! Both are mutual exclusive.

If your God by any given reason requires you to kill your own fellow man cause he is unbeliever or does not adhere to your God, you have to kill him!

That is a fact, and here is your example:

17But thou shalt utterly destroy them; namely, the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites, and the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites; as the LORD thy God hath commanded thee:

18That they teach you not to do after all their abominations, which they have done unto their gods; so should ye sin against the LORD your God.
Deuteronomy 20:17-18

Talking about preemptive attack!

The reason to annihilate others is obvious, cause they might lead you astray and "sin" against your God!

So in understanding of the above passage, you ought to kill me, cause I may entice you in a way or another to sin.

Go figure it out.

PS. Interestingly enough, in similar previous debate, a supporter of Vangelovski jumped in the discussion right when he needed it. His user was Atanasovski. Now we have the same scenario where another supporter of his jumped when he needed one. His nick name is Michael. Both have only posted on topics to support Vangelovski.
Call me what you will, but something stinks in here.

[indigen]

I believe that God is the only source of objective moral values. Anything else is subjective. Of course, our own subjective moral values may coincidentally align with God's objective moral values.

As far as I am aware, not all religions are based on the one God concept and native peoples in the "uncivilised" lands (Africa, Australia, the Americas, and etc.) who have not been (or before they were) converted by colonialist missionaries have (or had) their own laws and beliefs. Are (or were) the morals and values of these societies "objective" or subjective since they did not originate from the "word" of God - the Bible?

Secondly, where does God (the Bible/Christianity) stand on the age of consent and rape in marriage? I ask this because there are today varying laws in the world in regards to the age of consent and what may be permissible in some countries could get you serious jail time in places such Australia and is tantamount to paedophilia.