I find when it comes to morality, a lot of theists do not understand the terms "subjective" and "objective". Unfortunately, in our society, we've come to associate "objective" with "real" and "subjective" with "not real" and therefore we attach value judgments to these terms. Objective means that which is an object. It can be sensed and measured. Subjective is a human idea, like beauty, morality, purpose, or justice. An idea can be good, important, and a "real" idea, but it is still subjective.
i said a lot of things about "deducing" morality or "reasoning" to it but didnt give details. do you think its possible to draw an inference from the general (yet to be evaluated, yet to have had a judgment made upon it) state of affairs to an assuredly value-based judgment like morality? as the great scott lad david hume might say, could you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?
god created everything, including morailty. there is no such thing as transcending god. that implies that he is not god. dont think of god like a person--its anthropoorphic. besides if you are omnipotent, your perspective isnt subjective anyway. god, his consciousness and being, are otally objective my friend.
I'm thinking of god like a person, I'm thinking of him as an independent mind. But that's neither here nor there. I don't mean that god has a bias or something (when you describe an individual as objective, that is generally what you mean; correct me if i am wrong). I mean that since he is an individual, his idea of morality is HIS IDEA, and therefore subjective. If nothing can transcend god, than objective morality does not exist. I hate having to condense like this for comments.
it is his idea but it is not subjective because he is omnipresent and omniscient. subjectivity arises out of epistemic disparities (eg. i see the world from one perspective that leads to beliefs a,b, and c while you see the world from another that leads to beliefs x, y, and z). but god sees the world from all perspectives so his views are completely objective. his ideas are not ideas in that they could be false. his ideas are always objectively true.
perhaps i should be more clear though.. i dont think god "made" morals in the sense that he could make the holocaust a good event as opposed to an evil one. he made the world of contingent things and from there we can derive the principles to determine moral acts deductively. in this world, the moral code could not be otherwise but god could have made a different world. thus, we arrive at morals through reason, not simply by obeying god though he is responsible for the moral code in the end
I mean that if he were (hypothetically) to do something immoral, could it be seen as being immoral? If it could, then morality transcends god. If it couldn't, then I think it obvious that morality is subjective.
You will probably say it's arbitrary because "it's not in his nature," but it is a question very important to the nature of morality.
right, so we would agree that he would never do something immoral by choice. by defintion, he is omnibenevolent but ill play along with this hypothetical scenerio..
like i said morals are imposed on this world by deductive reasoning drawn from how this world is. since god is transcendent to this world, im not sure how you can say morals apply to him except when acting in reference to this world. contd.
so if he acted immorally (in reference to this world's moral code)--yes, it would be seen as immoral. but i dont think morality transcends him in this case because morality IS world bound. so, if god had made a different world, through deductive reason, we would establish (potentially) a different set of moral values. he could then interact with this other possible world in the same manner as we hypothetically supposed of ours, and it would not be seen as immoral.
reason is transecendent to god--he cannot make a four-sided triangle. morals are established on reason but god sets the foundations for reason by creating the universe in the first place.
So, you wouldn't say that morality comes from the bible, but what deduce based on the laws of the universe which god set into motion? Correct me if I am wrong.
yes, i think we could deduce the morality if there is no god. i cant think of a reason why not but i wouldnt argue for the existence of god from morality anyway.
Indeed. Idk if you watched his video, but the entire point of it was "well if there is no god then how are you moral?" Your logic (which seems rather well-grounded to me) didn't really leave room for that.
right. but just appealing to a higher power doesnt seem like a very good basis for morality anyway. its like asing a kid why stealing is wrong and he'll say "because my mom said so"
Exactly! That's doesn't seem like a reasonable mode for decision-making to me (on an intellectual level... of course it's reasonable not to do things if you have violence threatened against you or something like that)
I find when it comes to morality, a lot of theists do not understand the terms "subjective" and "objective". Unfortunately, in our society, we've come to associate "objective" with "real" and "subjective" with "not real" and therefore we attach value judgments to these terms. Objective means that which is an object. It can be sensed and measured. Subjective is a human idea, like beauty, morality, purpose, or justice. An idea can be good, important, and a "real" idea, but it is still subjective.
DandAinTac 1 year ago
i said a lot of things about "deducing" morality or "reasoning" to it but didnt give details. do you think its possible to draw an inference from the general (yet to be evaluated, yet to have had a judgment made upon it) state of affairs to an assuredly value-based judgment like morality? as the great scott lad david hume might say, could you derive an 'ought' from an 'is'?
mohamedbongfish 1 year ago
god created everything, including morailty. there is no such thing as transcending god. that implies that he is not god. dont think of god like a person--its anthropoorphic. besides if you are omnipotent, your perspective isnt subjective anyway. god, his consciousness and being, are otally objective my friend.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
I'm thinking of god like a person, I'm thinking of him as an independent mind. But that's neither here nor there. I don't mean that god has a bias or something (when you describe an individual as objective, that is generally what you mean; correct me if i am wrong). I mean that since he is an individual, his idea of morality is HIS IDEA, and therefore subjective. If nothing can transcend god, than objective morality does not exist. I hate having to condense like this for comments.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
it is his idea but it is not subjective because he is omnipresent and omniscient. subjectivity arises out of epistemic disparities (eg. i see the world from one perspective that leads to beliefs a,b, and c while you see the world from another that leads to beliefs x, y, and z). but god sees the world from all perspectives so his views are completely objective. his ideas are not ideas in that they could be false. his ideas are always objectively true.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
Would you say that god is subject to morality?
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
he acts morally, yes. but other than that im not sure what you mean by that.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
perhaps i should be more clear though.. i dont think god "made" morals in the sense that he could make the holocaust a good event as opposed to an evil one. he made the world of contingent things and from there we can derive the principles to determine moral acts deductively. in this world, the moral code could not be otherwise but god could have made a different world. thus, we arrive at morals through reason, not simply by obeying god though he is responsible for the moral code in the end
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
I mean that if he were (hypothetically) to do something immoral, could it be seen as being immoral? If it could, then morality transcends god. If it couldn't, then I think it obvious that morality is subjective.
You will probably say it's arbitrary because "it's not in his nature," but it is a question very important to the nature of morality.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
right, so we would agree that he would never do something immoral by choice. by defintion, he is omnibenevolent but ill play along with this hypothetical scenerio..
like i said morals are imposed on this world by deductive reasoning drawn from how this world is. since god is transcendent to this world, im not sure how you can say morals apply to him except when acting in reference to this world. contd.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
so if he acted immorally (in reference to this world's moral code)--yes, it would be seen as immoral. but i dont think morality transcends him in this case because morality IS world bound. so, if god had made a different world, through deductive reason, we would establish (potentially) a different set of moral values. he could then interact with this other possible world in the same manner as we hypothetically supposed of ours, and it would not be seen as immoral.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
reason is transecendent to god--he cannot make a four-sided triangle. morals are established on reason but god sets the foundations for reason by creating the universe in the first place.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
So, you wouldn't say that morality comes from the bible, but what deduce based on the laws of the universe which god set into motion? Correct me if I am wrong.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
yes, i think your rendering is accurate.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
Ok. I must say two things about your idea:
(1) I think it works.
(2) I think jezuzfreek and most Christians would disagree with you.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
Do you think we could deduce morality based on the laws of the universe if god DIDN'T set them in motion?
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
1. thanks.
2. im sure you are correct.
yes, i think we could deduce the morality if there is no god. i cant think of a reason why not but i wouldnt argue for the existence of god from morality anyway.
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
Indeed. Idk if you watched his video, but the entire point of it was "well if there is no god then how are you moral?" Your logic (which seems rather well-grounded to me) didn't really leave room for that.
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago
right. but just appealing to a higher power doesnt seem like a very good basis for morality anyway. its like asing a kid why stealing is wrong and he'll say "because my mom said so"
mohamedbongfish 2 years ago
Exactly! That's doesn't seem like a reasonable mode for decision-making to me (on an intellectual level... of course it's reasonable not to do things if you have violence threatened against you or something like that)
DeflocculatedDentist 2 years ago