Morality and Subjectivity

I haven't been sure that "subjective" is the right word for what you are getting at either. But I know what you mean. You mean morality has no ultimate basis for it, but is subject to change from culture to culture, and sometimes from person to person. There is no way to say any given moral principle is absolutely right, even though there may be plenty of logical supports for it. It can always be answered the way you have been doing, that there is nothing keeping you -- nothing logical or authoritative that is -- keeping you from ignoring the moral principle or violating it at will -- basically because you don't find the premises for it compelling. abe: It's all "made up."You contrasted this at one point with what you consider to be objective or logically grounded morality which would be morality given by the Creator God. Maybe you had another example but I don't remember it.Perhaps clearer terminology is needed.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-13-2006 12:31 PM

And if the Creator of the universe declares moral standards, would those be objective, that is, logically binding?

Philosophically I suppose that is right, but practically speaking, probably not. Much as I agree with you that all the other moral claims are subjective and meaningless, all those suggested by everyone on this thread for instance, nevertheless there's no way to live without some version of those.And of course I think there is a reason for that. There is a God and morality is built into us, even if it's distorted and people come up with absurd subjective rationalizations for their morality.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 02:02 AM

Yes, experientially they are based on feelings, but I nevertheless think they are a reflection of our original nature as the image of God, blurred by the Fall of course, and we all are affected by the Fall in different areas of our mental life to different degrees. Some people have strong consciences, some very little or even seemingly none, etc.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 02:15 AM

Actually it is possible to disobey a mathematical or physical law, if you are a sentient being at least, but what this means is that you will be punished for it -- if you ignore gravity for instance. The law continues to operate in spite of your disrespecting it of course.And the same is true for God's moral laws. They are just as inexorable as the physical and mathematical laws of the universe and disobedience of them brings punishment, both now and at the Final Judgment. Some people are sensitive enough to recognize the operations of the moral law in their own and others' lives, the blessings that follow obedience and the misfortunes that follow disobedience. The Fall was the punishment of the first disobedience.It is the inexorable nature of the moral laws that makes sinners of all of us, and required the sacrifice of Christ if any of us are to be saved from the eternal punishment for disobeying them.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 11:55 AM

I don't think the distinction makes much of a difference. Both kinds of laws operate inexorably no matter what we do. In a sense the moral law could also be called a "law of nature." That is my point. It is a description of what always happens, just as any law of nature is. The difference is that we are morally desensitized since the Fall and don't understand why this or that has happened to us, though it is really the moral law in operation. Those who believe in Karma may be more sensitive to it than we in the West are, although nobody can follow the cause and effect of the moral law perfectly.God may suspend either kind of law. His miracles show that He can suspend the physical laws. Likewise with the moral laws, He may punish, or pardon and forgive. In the moral case He requires sacrifice to make forgiveness possible.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 12:20 PM

And it is.ABE: That is, there are valid comparisons, besides the differences. Such as:If it's wrong it's wrong in the same absolute sense.
If it's wrong there are consequences of its being wrong.Of course you can correct your math error, and perhaps catch it before you apply it to some real problem where its being wrong could have serious physical consequences.You can also repent of your moral disobedience or "error" and God will forgive you under certain circumstances, but here's where the differences start to enter. Forgiveness isn't guaranteed. It's conditioned on the sacrifice of Christ.Probably the main difference is that math primarily affects things rather than beings, although obviously beings may suffer from mathematical errors. But violations of the moral laws bring pain and suffering to human beings.So it's only in their inexorability that they are the same. The difference in results of course matters to us where violations bring us pain, although in their implacable operations they are the same.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 02:09 PM

We're discussing a moral law DEFINED as given by God, so you can't change the definition at this point to suit yourself. I've acknowledged the differences, and in context yours are merely semantic. Disobedience vs. ignoring are the same thing with respect to the different contexts.

If math works it is because it is objectively true. If math doesn't work then nothing we think we know works. Science becomes bunk.

How do spurious statistical correlations or anything you are saying make the MATH itself wrong?

I didn't mean "work" for any particular purpose, I meant work, period, be correct.Or incorrect of course. But that's human error. Not what I'm talking about.ABE: If you are using the wrong equation that is your fault, not the fault of the math. This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 10:59 PM

You are missing the point. I am talking about the math itself, not anything concerning its uses, its misuses, human error, statistical erroneous conclusions from bona fide math. If the math is bona fide then it is bona fide. Everything else is extraneous to the point being made here.

I was going to post that laws are not moral, or not necessarily so. They MAY be moral, but the speed limit is merely a convenient and arbitary law for the sake of keeping social order.

I just posted this on the atheism thread, but I think it fits here better (slightly changed). This was in answer to Chiroptera who wrote that if you consider your moral standards to be absolute then they are.http://EvC Forum: Atheism, Regimes and belief systems -->EvC Forum: Atheism, Regimes and belief systems What the Marxists believe, or atheists about the absoluteness of their ethics and morality, or what theists believe about theirs, or in fact what anybody at all believes about their own ethics and moral standards, does not determine whether their ethics and morality are ACTUALLY absolute or otherwise. What people believe is subjective.For ethics or morals to be absolute or objective, there must be an EXTERNAL standard that is recognizable as such. This is supplied by the Bible for instance. It needn't be recognized by everybody as binding in order to be recognized as an absolute standard, but it is clearly presented as an absolute standard given by the Creator, and it is for that reason outside all subjective moralities and ethics. It doesn't matter what anyone THINKS about it, it is an absolute objective standard simply because it was given by God. You can dispute that it was given by God but it is still an absolute standard by definition because it is imputed to God.All other standards held by anyone for whatever reason, are subjective standards, because they are human-originated, determined by one's own personal feelings, or a particular system of thought, or a culture or whatever, but human-originated.The only way I can see that a human-originated standard could be considered to be objective or absolute is if all human beings without exception always recognized it as absolute.Since atheists do not believe in God they do not have that external basis for claiming their standards are absolute, and they certainly don't have 100% of human beings on their side so they don't have that external basis either.

I'm inclined to agree with you overall, but when speed limits get added into this abstract discussion about morality it seems to get us off the main point. Also, the 55-MPH limit was inaugurated as the least gas-guzzling speed during the 1970s gas crisis. Or was it 50 and then it was upped to 55? Anyway it was about the gas crisis, not safety. Of course gas usage could be considered a moral category too, I'll grant you that. But before that there was a 60 MPH limit on the highways. Now we have 65 and 70 MPH limits. Have they decided those speeds are safer now than they used to be? Maybe. Do we guzzle less gas at those speeds than cars used to? I don't know. Certainly safety is the main idea, but the numbers seem more or less arbitrary to me.But overall I agree with you that law is based on morality.But on this thread we're looking for the basis of objective or absolute morality as opposed to circumstantial or relative or subjective morality. Can you help us sort out the relevant categories?This message has been edited by Faith, 04-15-2006 04:36 PM