Objective Morality

strobe

Are human beings born moral or do humans need to be thought morality?

I had a whole big post that I deleted twice.


Do you (the anti-royal you) believe in an absolute god given morality? Are humans born moral or are morals something that must be taught*?

philologos

Right and wrong are defined by God as I would see it. People can determine these things through thought, or through law. Paul in Romans writes of this:

Romans 2:14-16 wrote:

Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.) This will take place on the day when God will judge men’s secrets through Jesus Christ, as my gospel

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

Are human beings born moral or do humans need to be thought morality?

Depends on whether you believe knowledge or morality is a social construct.

Many postmodern theorists believe that knowledge is socially constructed. Practicing scientists however would view it differently and say undiscovered planets still exist even if we can't see them.

Similar for morality.

Do you (the anti-royal you) believe in an absolute god given morality? Are humans born moral or are morals something that must be thought?

Taught or thought or caught? the idea of which you speak is referred to as "natural law" or sometimes "natural and constitutional justice" (by legal people so they don't have to involve God in a legal issue)

Christians believe the source of natural law is God but one does not have to believew in God to accept the truth of natural law.
Because of the intersection between natural law and natural rights, it has been cited as a component in United States Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. The essence of Declarationism is that the founding of the United States is based on Natural law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_Irish_law#Natural_law

Legal science is primarily the creation of German legal scholars of the middle and late nineteenth century, and it evolved naturally out of the ideas of Friedrich Carl von Savigny. Savigny argued that German codification should not follow the rationalist and secular natural law thinking that characterized the French codification but should be based on the principles of law that had historically been in force in Germany.
John H. Merryman et al., The Civil Law Tradition: Europe, Latin America, and East Asia, Cases and Materials 481 (LexisNexis ed., 1994) (reprinted 2000).
from the wiki on legal science

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+Natural+Law

See also "positive law"

Fanny Cradock

Yes, I believe in objective morality, and I think that most people agree on some very fundamental and broad principles of right and wrong. I don't believe we always know what that objective morality says and that, of course, is where the trouble starts. However, in my more optimistic moments I think that objective morality is a thing that is revealed to us and over time we are getting closer. From a Christian context, I think this ultimate optimism in humanity - "thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven" - is central to its message.

krudler

I'm pretty sure humans would have figured out that murdering each other and taking other peoples stuff was bad without any religious influence.

PDN

Yes, I believe there is an objective morality.

However, I also believe we need to be taught morality because our innate sense of morality (conscience, if you will) is twisted and corrupted by our sinful natures.

philologos

Or that based on their God given conscience they manage to work this out. Certainly.

One can say that one could imagine that one could do X without God. However, that all depends on whether or not we've actually ever lived in a universe without God. The problem I guess, would be that I and other Christians would hold that we've never lived in a universe without God, and we can never imagine one, because this is His creation. It seems a futile act to me. Whereas at the same time you would hold the reverse assumption.

ISAW

Jakkass wrote: »

Or that based on their God given conscience they manage to work this out. Certainly.

One can say that one could imagine that one could do X without God. However, that all depends on whether or not we've actually ever lived in a universe without God. The problem I guess, would be that I and other Christians would hold that we've never lived in a universe without God, and we can never imagine one, because this is His creation. It seems a futile act to me. Whereas at the same time you would hold the reverse assumption.

Fair enough in a decent debate but quite a lot of the time unbelievers are anti religious and only want to attack religion . Look here for example how asking about objective morality descended into the actual real motive of attacking belief
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054937976&page=9

Zombrex

ISAW wrote: »

Fair enough in a decent debate but quite a lot of the time unbelievers are anti religious and only want to attack religion . Look here for example how asking about objective morality descended into the actual real motive of attacking belief
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054937976&page=9

That was 4 years ago. How are you defining "quite a lot of the time"? :pac:

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote: »

Or that based on their God given conscience they manage to work this out. Certainly.

One can say that one could imagine that one could do X without God. However, that all depends on whether or not we've actually ever lived in a universe without God. The problem I guess, would be that I and other Christians would hold that we've never lived in a universe without God, and we can never imagine one, because this is His creation. It seems a futile act to me. Whereas at the same time you would hold the reverse assumption.

Then it becomes an issue of can we do this without being taught from a Christian source. The answer would seem to be yes with a but, given that humans left to their own devices will come up with moral systems similar to different the Christian notions of morality.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That was 4 years ago. How are you defining "quite a lot of the time"? :pac:

I don't want to start pointing the finger at anyone. I just happened to be doing a search on morals and objectivity and natural law and it turned that up. Because the particular poster isn't posting here there is no need to point fingers. Nevertheless the point is still valid if it was four hours or years ago. If you want me to say whether I mean Wicknight I don't actually.
I think the difference between unbelievers and anti christian/ anti religion posters is usually quite visible. One only has to read what they post elsewhere.

that isn't to say the religious boards don't have their own share of kooky posters.

a4j_ie

krudler wrote: »

I'm pretty sure humans would have figured out that murdering each other and taking other peoples stuff was bad without any religious influence.

I think this sums it up!
Of course humans would have figured out morality without anyone telling them it! That's because each person has a conscience and that conscience has within it a moral law that they know to be true. Now whether they decide to do something against it or not is a different argument.

It's clear that humans have an intrinsic understanding that some things are absolutely wrong and other things right. There is a transcendent moral law and we appeal to it every time we use the words "ought" and "should" in relation to moral topics.

Is it ever morally right to torture and then murder a baby ANYWHERE on this earth? NO! Of course not, and that's because there is objective morality and we know it's there whether we choose to obey it or not.

Romans 1 is a great chapter describing what happens when we reject the existence of God and the moral law that emanates forth from his character and nature.

strobe

a4j_ie wrote: »

.

Is it ever morally right to torture and then murder a baby ANYWHERE on this earth? NO! Of course not, and that's because there is objective morality and we know it's there whether we choose to obey it or not.

What if you take something like theft. Is it always morally wrong to steal? The bible says so. Rule number 7. What if I stole to feed starving children? What if I stole someones gun because I heard them saying they were going to shoot someone dead. Is subjectivity not immediately in play?

PDN

strobe wrote: »

What if you take something like theft. Is it always morally wrong to steal? The bible says so. Rule number 7. What if I stole to feed starving children? What if I stole someones gun because I heard them saying they were going to shoot someone dead. Is subjectivity not immediately in play?

No, I don't think it is. You are referring to a form of relativity that differs significantly from subjectivity.

'Subjectivity' means that an act has no absolute value one way or another, but only in as much we choose to ascribe value to it.

'Relativism' is sometimes used in the same way - but 'relativity' carries a slightly different idea - namely that things still carry an intrinisic value, but it is worth losing that value to preserve or gain something of even grater value.

To use a simple illustration. If I take €10 out of your wallet, then is that a loss or not? A subjective approach would argue that €10 is not necessarily valuable, so my theft of it may or may not be considered a loss depending on your point of view. But an objective approach would say that €10 possesses an intrinsic value, even if you are mentally impaired enough to think the note is not worth anything. So, a loss has occurred whether or not you think it has from your subjective viewpoint.

Now, suppose that I still remove the €10 from your wallet, but I also insert a €50 note in the process. From your subjective standpoint the discovery of the €50 may make you feel ok about the loss of the €10 - but that does not negate the intrinsic value of the €10. Objectively speaking, you have both gained €50 and lost €10. Relativity makes you feel ok about it - but the €10 still constitutes an actual loss, because you would be happier if I had just inserted the €50 and left the €10 in there as well.

Still with me? OK, let's look at your examples.

Stealing is morally wrong. Saving the life of a child is morally good - and, for most of us looking at it from a relative standpoint, the intrinsic positive value of saving a child is much greater than the intrinsic negative value of stealing. But, and this is the crucial point, even when you steal to save a child's life the intrinsic value of each act has not changed. And the proof of this? Given a choice, most of us would see it as morally superior to save a child's life without resorting to theft than by resorting to theft. This is true in the same way that you would prefer my dips into your wallet to leave you with a net gain of €50 rather than of €40.

The same applies to stealing a gun. Murder is wrong, and most of us would be prepared to commit the lesser wrong of stealing a gun to prevent the greater wrong of murder - but that does not make theft right.

From a Christian standpoint, anything that is morally wrong diminishes you as a person. So, imagine I am a police officer trying to prevent another 9/11 from occurring. I am questioning a suspect who possesses information that could save 2000 innocent lives. The law says I am entitled to lie to the suspect to trick him into giving me the information. The law also says I am not allowed to pull his fingernails. Why is that?

It is not that lying is morally right whereas pulling fingernails out is morally wrong. Both are morally wrong. But the law judges that the evil of lying to a suspect is outweighed by the value of what he might say once I've tricked him. However, the moral evil of having a police force that pulls peoples fingernails out (with all that implies for what we have become) is greater than even preventing a terrorist atrocity.

Now, you may argue the relative merits of torture and of terrorism if you wish - but the basic principle is, I think clear. A lesser evil may prevent a greater evil - but both of the acts still remain evil, and we would all be happier if we could prevent the greater evil without committing the lesser evil. Furthermore, committing a lesser evil to prevent a greater evil still negatively affects me as a human being.

Sorry for the long post.

strobe

PDN wrote: »

Sorry for the long post.

LOL Well thanks for putting the effort in. But "you're thinking of relativism" probably would have sufficed. You're right of course.

ISAW

Wicknight wrote: »

That was 4 years ago. How are you defining "quite a lot of the time"? :pac:

So what if it was 400 years ago? The example demonstrates the principle. For more recent comments try Dawkings and his pals who view religion as a destructive influence on society.

ISAW

strobe wrote: »

What if you take something like theft. Is it always morally wrong to steal? The bible says so. Rule number 7. What if I stole to feed starving children? What if I stole someones gun because I heard them saying they were going to shoot someone dead. Is subjectivity not immediately in play?

I have had talks with Muslims and hindus and others on this. One Sikh said forget about all the Christian "ten commandment" they had a single commandment dont steal. what about killing - you are stealing a life - adultry - stealing a wife etc. Another concept was "not taking what you do not know to be yours" - Islamic I think. so if you find money you can't just take it because it is not yours.

On the food - Christian social teaching would not suggest starve to death. On the Gun it is contextual but one cant do a wrong to facilitate a right thing happening.