Objective Morality

[csuguy]

It has been a while since I've seen a good thread on morality, so thought I'd fan the flames by discussing the objectiveness of morality. I will here put forth some basic definitions, arguments, and background information.

OVERVIEW
------------------------------------
First we must ask ourselves, what is morality or a moral system? There are many competing views but they all focus upon discerning right from wrong, good from evil. There are two major camps: one says that good/evil is innate to our very being, a matter of who you are, the circumstances of your birth. Due to your good/bad nature you will simply do good or bad things because of what you are. The only way to change your deeds is for your nature to be changed - and this change must necessarily come from outside yourself. A good nature won't change itself to be bad, nor will a bad nature change itself to be good.

The second major camp focuses upon the choices that we make, and the circumstances surrounding that decision. You have a choice in performing good or bad deeds. With this choice comes moral responsibility and the ability to change who you are through your own freewill.

If we go with the first camp, then people are as mere animals: acting purely on instinct, incapable of reasoning about good or evil and acting accordingly. I'd say this is plainly false. The struggle between good and evil is ingrained into human nature and into all societies. As individuals we all have had to struggle with temptation to do wrong at one point or another, sometimes giving in and at other times resisting. The subject is addressed, to varying degrees, by all religions and by a great many philosophers.

Moving onto the second camp: we have some capacity for moral decision making (and moral responsibility). This is far more interesting, as now we must ask ourselves what constitutes a good or bad action? Under what circumstances are we morally compelled to act or not act? When we do something good/bad, should such actions be rewarded/punished? And how do good and bad actions correspond to one another: do they cancel each other out?

Obviously there are many competing moral systems in this second camp. Utilitarianism focuses upon the net good: an action which ultimately leads to a better net good is the moral action. Buddhism proposes karma and samsara as a system for perfectly rewarding and punishing based upon one's wholesome or unwholesome actions. Christianity has justice, but also mercy - which is considered preferable where applicable. Still others consider morality a mere cultural phenomenon, where each culture defines its own morals and you must act according to the rules of the society in which you find yourself. For this latter camp there is no objective basis for morality.


An Objective Basis for Morality
----------------------------------------------
From here on out I will focus upon the second camp that states morality is a matter our actions and the circumstances around our actions (intent, results, etc.). If a moral system is going to label our decisions as "good" or "bad" - we must ask upon what basis such categorizations are made? And, more than that, why do we care what people do?

Let us observe Proposition #1: our actions carry with them the ability to positively or negatively influence others, the environment, and can even influence future generations well beyond our own life-times.

Proposition #2: Our actions shape our relations. People (and animals for that matter) remember how we have treated them, and this tends to shape how those people view us. In particular, people tend to act in kind. Treat them well and you will be treated well. Treat them with indifference and you will be treated indifferently. Treat them with contempt and anger and you can expect them to dislike you and be angry with you. This is not a science of course, but people by nature tend to reciprocate.

Proposition #3: How we treat an individual has the capacity to influence those who have some relationship with the individual. Those who care (one way or the other) about the well-being of that individual will tend to take to heart how you treat them, forming how they view you. Indeed, it may even spur them to act in response. This may in turn cause those who care (one way or the other) about your well-being to act. In this manner, individual relations lead to group relations.

Proposition #4: We are social creatures by nature. We live together in cities and form nations because of this. When we have synergistic relations with others, we build each other up and enable each other to live good lives. We become far stronger than the individual can ever be. On the other hand, antagonistic relations have the opposite effect - leading to fights and wars, ruining people's lives.

An objective morality will address how our individual (in)action(s) objectively influence people. This includes those immediately influenced, to those who react upon learning of our (in)action(s), and back to ourselves. This includes not only short-term re-actions, but the influences of our long-term relations. And we care about this information because it can be used to help guide our decisions so as to promote good relations and avoid developing bad relations.

Based upon all this we may say that "good" actions are those which promote peaceful, harmonious relations. On the other hand, "bad" actions are those which are promote division and animosity. Love is the epitome of what is good, and Hate the epitome of that which is bad.

Let me know what you think - agree/disagree?

 

[csuguy]

Hmmm, no one has any thoughts on this argument for Objective Morality?

 

[6days]

We are inately 'bad' in God's eyes. That is to say, we are sinners. All humanity is born with a nature where we reject Him and break His commands.
However, I think most people see themselves as 'good', and see others that way also. We seldom want to do the self examination....or open ourselves to God's examination where we realize we really are desperately wicked.

 

[6days]

Hope this doesn't derail your thread, but here are a series of questions about morality that can really challenge a person... You might be familiar with the fat man and the train?
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/
Don't be surprised if you contradict yourself as you answer the questions.

 

[annabenedetti]

Hope this doesn't derail your thread, but here are a series of questions about morality that can really challenge a person... You might be familiar with the fat man and the train?
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/
Don't be surprised if you contradict yourself as you answer the questions.

I scored 100% consistent, but it was pretty easy to see how to accomplish that. :chuckle:

 

[annabenedetti]

Hmmm, no one has any thoughts on this argument for Objective Morality?

Your OP is thoughtful and thought-provoking, csuguy.

I have a question about proposition #2. Very often in life people don't respond in kind. For example, people are unkind, dishonest, and worse to people who did nothing to deserve such treatment. On the other hand, people also are capable of responding with patience or kindness in the face of rudeness or anger. How would you categorized something "good" that results from bad, or "bad" from good?

 

[Clete]

It has been a while since I've seen a good thread on morality, so thought I'd fan the flames by discussing the objectiveness of morality. I will here put forth some basic definitions, arguments, and background information.

OVERVIEW
------------------------------------
First we must ask ourselves, what is morality or a moral system? There are many competing views but they all focus upon discerning right from wrong, good from evil. There are two major camps: one says that good/evil is innate to our very being, a matter of who you are, the circumstances of your birth. Due to your good/bad nature you will simply do good or bad things because of what you are. The only way to change your deeds is for your nature to be changed - and this change must necessarily come from outside yourself. A good nature won't change itself to be bad, nor will a bad nature change itself to be good.

The second major camp focuses upon the choices that we make, and the circumstances surrounding that decision. You have a choice in performing good or bad deeds. With this choice comes moral responsibility and the ability to change who you are through your own freewill.

If we go with the first camp, then people are as mere animals: acting purely on instinct, incapable of reasoning about good or evil and acting accordingly. I'd say this is plainly false. The struggle between good and evil is ingrained into human nature and into all societies. As individuals we all have had to struggle with temptation to do wrong at one point or another, sometimes giving in and at other times resisting. The subject is addressed, to varying degrees, by all religions and by a great many philosophers.

Moving onto the second camp: we have some capacity for moral decision making (and moral responsibility). This is far more interesting, as now we must ask ourselves what constitutes a good or bad action? Under what circumstances are we morally compelled to act or not act? When we do something good/bad, should such actions be rewarded/punished? And how do good and bad actions correspond to one another: do they cancel each other out?

Obviously there are many competing moral systems in this second camp. Utilitarianism focuses upon the net good: an action which ultimately leads to a better net good is the moral action. Buddhism proposes karma and samsara as a system for perfectly rewarding and punishing based upon one's wholesome or unwholesome actions. Christianity has justice, but also mercy - which is considered preferable where applicable. Still others consider morality a mere cultural phenomenon, where each culture defines its own morals and you must act according to the rules of the society in which you find yourself. For this latter camp there is no objective basis for morality.


An Objective Basis for Morality
----------------------------------------------
From here on out I will focus upon the second camp that states morality is a matter our actions and the circumstances around our actions (intent, results, etc.). If a moral system is going to label our decisions as "good" or "bad" - we must ask upon what basis such categorizations are made? And, more than that, why do we care what people do?

Let us observe Proposition #1: our actions carry with them the ability to positively or negatively influence others, the environment, and can even influence future generations well beyond our own life-times.

Proposition #2: Our actions shape our relations. People (and animals for that matter) remember how we have treated them, and this tends to shape how those people view us. In particular, people tend to act in kind. Treat them well and you will be treated well. Treat them with indifference and you will be treated indifferently. Treat them with contempt and anger and you can expect them to dislike you and be angry with you. This is not a science of course, but people by nature tend to reciprocate.

Proposition #3: How we treat an individual has the capacity to influence those who have some relationship with the individual. Those who care (one way or the other) about the well-being of that individual will tend to take to heart how you treat them, forming how they view you. Indeed, it may even spur them to act in response. This may in turn cause those who care (one way or the other) about your well-being to act. In this manner, individual relations lead to group relations.

Proposition #4: We are social creatures by nature. We live together in cities and form nations because of this. When we have synergistic relations with others, we build each other up and enable each other to live good lives. We become far stronger than the individual can ever be. On the other hand, antagonistic relations have the opposite effect - leading to fights and wars, ruining people's lives.

An objective morality will address how our individual (in)action(s) objectively influence people. This includes those immediately influenced, to those who react upon learning of our (in)action(s), and back to ourselves. This includes not only short-term re-actions, but the influences of our long-term relations. And we care about this information because it can be used to help guide our decisions so as to promote good relations and avoid developing bad relations.

Based upon all this we may say that "good" actions are those which promote peaceful, harmonious relations. On the other hand, "bad" actions are those which are promote division and animosity. Love is the epitome of what is good, and Hate the epitome of that which is bad.

Let me know what you think - agree/disagree?

Your thesis is somewhat self-contradictory.

The objective basis of morality cannot be relationships because relationships are subjective, by definition.

The objective basis for morality that you're looking for is life. More specifically, it is the life of a rational being since morality, as your opening post rightly points out, is meaningless without choice and because choice is meaningless without reason. Thus, that which is proper to life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. (Proverbs 11:19, Ezekiel 18 (the whole chapter) and elsewhere).


Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[6days]

Solzhenitsyn said that there is no state line...class line...party line etc that seperates good from evil. He says that line runs through every human heart. 'God' and evil exist within each of us, but we are all sinners. As R.C.Sproule says, "We are not sinners because we sin; we sin because we are sinners".

 

[quip]

Let me know what you think - agree/disagree?

I agree...good breakdown.

 

[csuguy]

Your OP is thoughtful and thought-provoking, csuguy.

I have a question about proposition #2. Very often in life people don't respond in kind. For example, people are unkind, dishonest, and worse to people who did nothing to deserve such treatment. On the other hand, people also are capable of responding with patience or kindness in the face of rudeness or anger. How would you categorized something "good" that results from bad, or "bad" from good?

Thank you annabenedetti

With regards to people not always acting reciprocally, I would say this deserves further analysis beyond the OP. I would not say that it challenges the proposition - for people certainly do, as a general rule, act in a reciprocal manner. But there are always exceptions that we should account for.

I have yet to formalize it as I have the OP, but I would argue that there are a range of values between the greatest good to and the worst evil. The kind of basic morality that I outline in the OP is the lowest subset of that which maybe called "good." However, as you point out, there are those who rise above their base reciprocal nature and who choose to love those who persecute them. Indeed, all Christians are called to just this - Christ serving as our example. Such disposition goes beyond morality and into saintliness. Saints are willing to sacrifice of themselves in order to achieve peace, reconciliation, and to protect the well-being of others. As Christ taught, the greatest act of love is to lose one's life for one's friends.

With regards those who treat badly those who have treated them well, surely we can categorize this as a sin. Within sin I tend to see two main branches: selfishness & hate. When we ignore the harm that our actions will bring others for our own benefit/desire, such as with greed, this is one form of sin. Hate, on the other hand, is a sin where we desire to harm and/or destroy another. Hate is the furthest from that which is good, but selfishness can be just as destructive in practice.

Love is the ideal, but sin is a reality that we must address. For this same reason, not everyone is saved. The Law and Justice exist to address those who refuse to mend their ways. However, mercy and forgiveness are available to those who are willing to mend their ways and do what they can to reconcile with those they have harmed. Mercy triumphs over judgement.

 

[csuguy]

We are inately 'bad' in God's eyes. That is to say, we are sinners. All humanity is born with a nature where we reject Him and break His commands.
However, I think most people see themselves as 'good', and see others that way also. We seldom want to do the self examination....or open ourselves to God's examination where we realize we really are desperately wicked.

I must disagree; we are neither innately bad or good. We are designed to do good, but have been given freewill so that we must choose at any time whether to do good or evil. We hold the potential for both. As I noted in the OP, this is evident in our common human experience. For we have all been tempted - at times resisting and at other times giving in. We have also had opportunities to do good - at times doing so and at other times not doing so. Below is a really good scriptural passage on the subject.

Deuteronomy 30:11-20 Now what I am commanding you today is not too difficult for you or beyond your reach. 12 It is not up in heaven, so that you have to ask, “Who will ascend into heaven to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, so that you have to ask, “Who will cross the sea to get it and proclaim it to us so we may obey it?” 14 No, the word is very near you; it is in your mouth and in your heart so you may obey it.

15 See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and destruction. 16 For I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in obedience to him, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will live and increase, and the Lord your God will bless you in the land you are entering to possess.

17 But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, 18 I declare to you this day that you will certainly be destroyed. You will not live long in the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.

19 This day I call the heavens and the earth as witnesses against you that I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life, so that you and your children may live 20 and that you may love the Lord your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him. For the Lord is your life, and he will give you many years in the land he swore to give to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.​

 

[csuguy]

Your thesis is somewhat self-contradictory.

The objective basis of morality cannot be relationships because relationships are subjective, by definition.

The objective basis for morality that you're looking for is life. More specifically, it is the life of a rational being since morality, as your opening post rightly points out, is meaningless without choice and because choice is meaningless without reason. Thus, that which is proper to life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. (Proverbs 11:19, Ezekiel 18 (the whole chapter) and elsewhere).


Resting in Him,
Clete

To the contrary, relationships are not subjective by definition. Like many things, you can approach relationships from both a subjective and objective point of view. It is objective that we are a social creature - hence we live in cities and these cities join together to form states and nations. We can objectively categorize different kinds of relations: parent/child, husband/wife, student/teacher, peers, siblings, etc. And, more to the point, we can objectively speak of how different kinds of actions effect people - physically, emotionally, etc. We can then objectively extrapolate how this effects one's relationships.

For instance, if some random stranger came and punched you in the face, you would likely have a mix of emotions: anger, confusion, pain, perhaps some fear, etc. Due to this person's actions, your relationship has changed. No longer is this some random stranger - this person is an active threat to your well-being. How you respond will depend upon the circumstances at the time. Perhaps you fight back, perhaps others step in and stop it, or perhaps you run away. Whatever the case, your relationship to this person has been shaped by their actions against you.

Conversely, say a kid is being bullied when another child shows up and fights to protect the one being bullied. We can reasonably and objectively expect that the bullied child be very appreciative for the heroics of the one who fought for them. If they weren't already friends, then this would certainly form the basis for friendship. If they already were friends, then the bullied child would value them all the more. At any rate, objectively we can expect such an act to positively effect the relations between the two, especially from the bullied kids perspective.

This is all fairly generic - the more specific the scenario the more detailed the analysis can be. Nevertheless, these examples demonstrate how we can objectively evaluate how some action(s) in a given scenario can objectively influence the relations between people.

 

[csuguy]

Hope this doesn't derail your thread, but here are a series of questions about morality that can really challenge a person... You might be familiar with the fat man and the train?
http://www.philosophyexperiments.com/fatman/
Don't be surprised if you contradict yourself as you answer the questions.

The Trolley Problem is a fun one to ponder; I've studied it before. While the specifics of the specific trolley problem being presented are important, I've found that a good guide to this kind of problem is the biblical principle of impartiality. Favoritism is a sin, you must regard the lives of both sets of people at risk equally, assuming all else is equal.

 

[annabenedetti]

Thank you annabenedetti

With regards to people not always acting reciprocally, I would say this deserves further analysis beyond the OP. I would not say that it challenges the proposition - for people certainly do, as a general rule, act in a reciprocal manner. But there are always exceptions that we should account for.

I have yet to formalize it as I have the OP, but I would argue that there are a range of values between the greatest good to and the worst evil. The kind of basic morality that I outline in the OP is the lowest subset of that which maybe called "good." However, as you point out, there are those who rise above their base reciprocal nature and who choose to love those who persecute them. Indeed, all Christians are called to just this - Christ serving as our example. Such disposition goes beyond morality and into saintliness. Saints are willing to sacrifice of themselves in order to achieve peace, reconciliation, and to protect the well-being of others. As Christ taught, the greatest act of love is to lose one's life for one's friends.

With regards those who treat badly those who have treated them well, surely we can categorize this as a sin. Within sin I tend to see two main branches: selfishness & hate. When we ignore the harm that our actions will bring others for our own benefit/desire, such as with greed, this is one form of sin. Hate, on the other hand, is a sin where we desire to harm and/or destroy another. Hate is the furthest from that which is good, but selfishness can be just as destructive in practice.

Love is the ideal, but sin is a reality that we must address. For this same reason, not everyone is saved. The Law and Justice exist to address those who refuse to mend their ways. However, mercy and forgiveness are available to those who are willing to mend their ways and do what they can to reconcile with those they have harmed. Mercy triumphs over judgement.

That's a lot to think about, csuguy. Thank you for taking the time to write that out, and I'll be thinking about it.

It's good to see you around.

 

[Clete]

To the contrary, relationships are not subjective by definition. Like many things, you can approach relationships from both a subjective and objective point of view. It is objective that we are a social creature - hence we live in cities and these cities join together to form states and nations. We can objectively categorize different kinds of relations: parent/child, husband/wife, student/teacher, peers, siblings, etc. And, more to the point, we can objectively speak of how different kinds of actions effect people - physically, emotionally, etc. We can then objectively extrapolate how this effects one's relationships.

You can try but you will fail. It has been attempted many times before.

And you've made another error here. I didn't say that the fact that relationships exist isn't an objective fact of reality. It is each relationship that is subjective. It always will be because no two people are the same and no two people have the same relationships. The relationships a person has and the way those relationships define and affect each person's life is necessarily different for every single person who exists. That is the very epitome of what it means to be subjective.

For instance, if some random stranger came and punched you in the face, you would likely have a mix of emotions: anger, confusion, pain, perhaps some fear, etc. Due to this person's actions, your relationship has changed. No longer is this some random stranger - this person is an active threat to your well-being. How you respond will depend upon the circumstances at the time. Perhaps you fight back, perhaps others step in and stop it, or perhaps you run away. Whatever the case, your relationship to this person has been shaped by their actions against you.

Are we the only two people in the world?

His actions harmed me and damaged the relationship between the two of us but maybe he's a gang initiate and had to find a random white guy to punch in the face to be accepted into his new "family" and his punching me in the face has greatly improved his situation.

Which relationship are you going to use to gauge the rightness or wrongness of his action and why?

There is no answer to that question that isn't arbitrary. This is because relationships are not an objective way to gauge right and wrong and cannot be.

Conversely, say a kid is being bullied when another child shows up and fights to protect the one being bullied. We can reasonably and objectively expect that the bullied child be very appreciative for the heroics of the one who fought for them. If they weren't already friends, then this would certainly form the basis for friendship. If they already were friends, then the bullied child would value them all the more. At any rate, objectively we can expect such an act to positively effect the relations between the two, especially from the bullied kids perspective.

There is simply no way for you to know this. There are as many different ways people react to each other as there are people to interact with. The kid who interfered may himself have been a subject of bullying (perhaps of a different sort) and his interference may have cemented the other kids status as a subject of bullying. Perhaps if the kid who interfered had left it alone, the kid being bullied may have successfully defended himself and come out relatively unscathed.

The point being that hypotheticals aren't going to help your case because, as I said before, relationships are amazingly complex things and no two people have the same relationships.

This is all fairly generic - the more specific the scenario the more detailed the analysis can be. Nevertheless, these examples demonstrate how we can objectively evaluate how some action(s) in a given scenario can objectively influence the relations between people.

I have hopefully shown how they do not but whether or not I've convinced you that relationships are subjective, you should notice that none of the value judgments you've made in the hypotheticals would change given the truly objective (and biblical) standard of right and wrong that I mentioned in my first post.

Put very simplistically, the good is that which leads to life and sin (i.e. evil) is that which leads to death. To be sure, sin definitely damages relationships but the relationship damage is not the defining characteristic of what makes it wrong (e.g. I want to have poor relations with evil people.) If it were, not only would right and wrong be a subjective issue but it would not be possible to sin against yourself, which the bible clearly teaches can be done.

There is one sense in which a damaged relationship defines the evil. That being one's relationship with God. But that is only just another way of saying the same thing because God is Life. Damaging one's relationship with God is to rebel against Life itself. This, by extension, means that damaging one's relations with good people is also a form of evil. That, in turn, implies the question, "Who are the good people and who are the bad?". In other words, whether a person is good or evil (generally speaking), should define your relationship with them and in many cases determine whether the relationship should exist in the first place. Thus, relationships are, in many ways, defined by right and wrong, not the other way around.

Resting in Him,
Clete

P.S. Just wanted to say that this is a terrific thread! Very interesting topic and very thoughtful posts. Excellent!

 

[quip]

Your thesis is somewhat self-contradictory.

The objective basis of morality cannot be relationships because relationships are subjective, by definition.

The objective basis for morality that you're looking for is life. More specifically, it is the life of a rational being since morality, as your opening post rightly points out, is meaningless without choice and because choice is meaningless without reason. Thus, that which is proper to life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil. (Proverbs 11:19, Ezekiel 18 (the whole chapter) and elsewhere).


Resting in Him,
Clete

You answered your own objection. The sum of societies' (subjective) relationships/interactions form our collective (objective) moral environs...for good, bad or a mixture of both.

 

[csuguy]

And you've made another error here. I didn't say that the fact that relationships exist isn't an objective fact of reality. It is each relationship that is subjective. It always will be because no two people are the same and no two people have the same relationships. The relationships a person has and the way those relationships define and affect each person's life is necessarily different for every single person who exists. That is the very epitome of what it means to be subjective.

I've made no such error - my answer applies whether speaking of the concept of a relationship or whether you are speaking of a specific relationship. A relationship has objective and subjective components to it. It is true that no two people are exactly the same, but neither are people so drastically different that we can't speak of people generically. Of course, the more specific knowledge you have of the people in question, and the more specific the scenario you construct, the more detailed and accurate you can make your analysis. Look at professional personality tests and such that are derived from the field of psychology - they are able to categorize you into one of a fairly limited number of personalities. What's more, those personality profiles are pretty detailed and accurate.

Are we the only two people in the world?

His actions harmed me and damaged the relationship between the two of us but maybe he's a gang initiate and had to find a random white guy to punch in the face to be accepted into his new "family" and his punching me in the face has greatly improved his situation.

Which relationship are you going to use to gauge the rightness or wrongness of his action and why?

There is no answer to that question that isn't arbitrary. This is because relationships are not an objective way to gauge right and wrong and cannot be.

A valid and important issue to discuss, though I think not quite as perplexing as you make it out to be. To evaluate such a scenario we need to dive a bit deeper, beyond the OP, and into the matter of competing relations. It would be nice if everyone could just get along, but reality isn't so nice. Inevitably there will be scenarios like this where you are presented with a choice of helping one person/group at the expense of another. A compelling case might be that someone is holding a loved one hostage, and will kill them unless you harm/kill who they tell you too. Even if the moral option is obvious, making that choice can be very emotional and difficult.


Let us consider the matter of favoritism and how this effects relations. Let us say you love person X and person Y, but you love person X more. As such, when person X conflicts with person Y, you side with person X regardless of the nature of the conflict and regardless of who is at fault. Person X will likely enjoy this favoritism, especially if you have say in how the conflict is resolved - as with a judge. On the other hand, your relationship with person Y will be strained. Once it becomes clear to person Y where your loyalties lie, your relationship will be fundamentally changed - at least when it comes to person X. You will no longer be viewed by person Y as someone they can trust regarding person X. What's more, the acts that person X committed against person Y will now be associated with you as well, since you sided with person X over those matters.

Let us imagine the son of land owner in the early Americas. The family owns many slaves. Let us suppose this son actually likes some of the family slaves. However, his family has ingrained into him the idea that slavery, and all the cruel treatment that went along with it in the early Americas, was somehow justified. In fact, he even believes its for their own good in the end. As such, whenever a slave is randomly beaten, raped, murdered etc. by the family, the son sides with the family. How do you imagine the family slaves regard this son? He might not engage in these activities himself, but his endorsement for them nevertheless color the slaves view of the boy - he is one of them. He may say he cares, but when you get down to it he isn't someone the slaves can trust anymore than the ones maiming and murdering them.

What, then, can we say about such favoritism with regards morality? Clearly it is immoral, for it necessarily creates a divide between a two persons/groups. This subjective divide that we create for ourselves in our mind is made manifest through our actions where conflict arises between the two sides. Once this favoritism is objectively observed by the two sides, and especially the side not favored, this will create a divide between you and the unfavored party.

Removing favoritism from the equation then, how then are we to address conflicts between two persons or groups when pulled into the matter? We start by listening to each side, and objectively investigating the conflict. We treat each side equally, judging them not by who they are but by their actions and reasoning with regards the conflict. We render judgment that is fair; if one side is clearly at fault for something then they are held accountable. If both sides have some merit, then you acknowledge both. In the end, you want to render an objective verdict that aims to resolve the conflict based upon the evidence. Only through such an objective and even-handed approach can you meaningfully resolve such conflict in a moral manner.

Applying all this back to your scenario: the clear favoritism towards the white supremacist's is the first immoral factor. You've decided they are more important than some stranger - creating a divide between you and the stranger in your own mind. You then attacked said stranger, making manifest your disregard for this stranger's well-being. As such, we can objectively regard the actions of the attacker in this scenario as immoral.

There is simply no way for you to know this. There are as many different ways people react to each other as there are people to interact with. The kid who interfered may himself have been a subject of bullying (perhaps of a different sort) and his interference may have cemented the other kids status as a subject of bullying. Perhaps if the kid who interfered had left it alone, the kid being bullied may have successfully defended himself and come out relatively unscathed.

The point being that hypotheticals aren't going to help your case because, as I said before, relationships are amazingly complex things and no two people have the same relationships.

First off, let me point out that being objective isn't a matter of knowing absolutely that something is a certain way. Being objective is a matter of looking at the evidence and drawing reasonable conclusions. You can simultaneously be wrong and objective just as you can reach correct conclusions subjectively.

Second off, as I noted earlier, while everyone is unique, we aren't all that different. Put people in similar scenarios and you will see a similar set of reactions. No, they won't behave exactly the same, but there is a rational range of behavior that we can expect to see. In fact, this is what enables us to empathize with others, and how Hollywood can produce emotional scenes that cause us to feel emotional - whether that be anger, sadness, love, etc.

Put very simplistically, the good is that which leads to life and sin (i.e. evil) is that which leads to death. To be sure, sin definitely damages relationships but the relationship damage is not the defining characteristic of what makes it wrong (e.g. I want to have poor relations with evil people.) If it were, not only would right and wrong be a subjective issue but it would not be possible to sin against yourself, which the bible clearly teaches can be done.

You've got your work cut out for you before you can present this as an objective argument for morality. Assume you are discussing this with a non-believer and you can't quote scripture to defend a position: what do you mean by "that which leads to life?" Whose life? My life? Your life? Every life? While I may value my life, why is it "good" to preserve it? And if I accept that preserving my life is what is "good" - then does that justify me doing anything and everything to that end? Even taking other people's lives?

While from a scriptural standpoint I agree with the idea that good actions lead to eternal life, I would never define good in terms of eternal life. Nor would I define evil in terms of death; Christ died after all. These are rewards/punishments from God based upon judgment of the culmination of our lives, not innate qualities of good/bad actions. This then re frames the question to: why does God reward these actions with life and these other actions with death? Answering this question is the real challenge.

P.S. Just wanted to say that this is a terrific thread! Very interesting topic and very thoughtful posts. Excellent!

Thanks, glad your enjoying it. I've always found morality to be a very engaging subject

 

[Crucible]

Making rocket science out of objective morality is exactly why you just shouldn't debate it with atheists. It's their aim to make a conundrum of the matter, not to come to an objective conclusion.

Morals are abstract- they are in God's will and codified in the minds of every person. You don't 'learn' them, you 'relearn' them- as you have been depraved of it's full knowledge.
The Scriptures state the beginning of wisdom starts with God, but what they ultimately teach is a reformation of wisdom which became corrupted.

 

[quip]

Morals are abstract- they are in God's will and codified in the minds of every person. You don't 'learn' them, you 'relearn' them- as you have been depraved of it's full knowledge.

So, you can't trust yourself to be moral sans the administrations of god?

The incapacity to hold moral faith upon and within oneself is a rather sad self-acknowledgement. Don't (or rather, can't) you agree?

 

[Ben Masada]

Objective Morality

What is Objective Morality?" Objective Morality is a trace of character which is developed according to the culture under which one has been raised at from birth. It develops naturally and usually predisposes a man or woman into being amoral. The only morality being what is akin to the State. Hence, objective morality. A very good example in the NT is the case of Paul who grew up amoral due to his Hellenistic culture as he was the son of a well-to-do Hellenistic couple from the city of Tarsus in Cilicia. When he entered into contact with Jewish morality, he saw no objectivity. So, an aversion to it remained to the end. He could never conciliate his being amoral to the subjective morality of Israel.