Do you have a problem with abstract reasoning? It's only natural that when speaking of the basis for morality that we be speaking in abstract, general terms - you are trying to account for any number of different scenarios all at once. If you didn't speak in general terms, your moral philosophy would be extremely limited.
Yes altogether there are probably a few dozen distinct personality types when you get down to it - but, quite frankly, that's not that much diversity. And when you consider that the secondary profiles are merely specializations on top of the main profiles - you find they don't differ much from the primary 16 profiles, and that is small number indeed. You can say these don't exactly capture anyone - but they are nonetheless accurate enough for us to speak objectively about people in a general sense. What's more, even with these distinct profiles 16 main profiles, there are commonalities between them. There are four main traits that are evaluated, where each trait has two values. A difference of one trait = a distinct personality type. And then you can get into the theory of shadow functions, and there you find that the opposite traits are still part of the person, they are just recessive in nature - less developed and less expressed, but still very much present.
So, no, people aren't so unique that we can't understand how they think, feel, and reason - even at an abstract/general level.
First off, sixteen personality types is a very finite number. Additionally, those personality types aren't so unique in their own right - they share traits with one another. Each personality shares each of its individual traits with 14 other personalities (only one personality being the exact opposite), and many of those personalities share more than one trait. What is more, there are commonalities with people beyond those four traits that these personality types are categorized on. People simply aren't all that different. And even if there were some very different personalities that we needed to account for - if we can acknowledge them and factor them into our analysis, then they pose no problem for our objective analysis.
Second off, yes you do need to factor in the specifics of a situation to be able to fully analyze it. I've stated many times that the more specific information you have the more accurate your analysis can be. But even if you don't know everything you can still objectively analyze what you do know; including asking what kinds of additional information would effect your moral judgement of the situation.
You seem to think that because some analysis is required that therefore it isn't objective... You are simply wrong here. Rather, if you didn't engage in any analysis of the situation to understand it then you would be engaging in subjective judgement. To arrive at an objective understanding of a situation you must necessarily evaluate the evidence logically.
While I would tend to agree with you - simply stating that it is so won't convince someone who doesn't already agree. The challenge is to build up an objective argument for why such a thing is wrong.
I'm not sure why you would think that - I built up an objective argument, on top of my original, for why favoritism is wrong. This is how you objectively develop a moral system.
Indeed, but we also commit sins in ignorance. Leviticus 5 addresses many such cases. Once you become aware of your sin, or if you suspect that you have sinned and feel guilty, then you are responsible for what you have done. However, in the interim, by the grace of God, you are not held responsible. Hence Jesus' prayer for his persecutors:
Luke 23:33-34 When they came to the place called the Skull, they crucified him there, along with the criminals—one on his right, the other on his left. 34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”[a] And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
Yet the fact that they didn't understand they were doing wrong does not change the fact that they were doing wrong. We simply don't hold people responsible for doing wrong the same way as someone who does wrong knowingly. And rightfully so - for the latter does unjustified harm to you knowingly, disregarding your well-being.
Of course not. To understand why, however, we must understand the difference between the division caused by favoritism and the division that Christ speaks of; for they are distinct. To draw off of our earlier example, let us assume that you were born into white supremacy - you were taught from birth that favoritism for whites is the good and natural way of things, and everyone else gets what is coming to them. Now imagine someone convinces you of the completely wrong and sinful nature of white supremacy. A division will now occur between you and the white supremacists - even your own mother and father. For you see the error of their ways. If you refuse to participate in their delusion - and especially if you make known that you regard their ways as erroneous, then you are no longer one of them.
So you can see the difference between the two scenarios: in the earlier case the division is one in which you decide that one group is to favored over others, disregarding the well-being of others. In the second case, you realize that such is erroneous. A division is formed between you and those who believe that way since you reject their beliefs and sinful actions, and you make this dissent known. Perhaps you even try to convince others of the group that they are wrong. But, as we know, the group as whole won't accept this - and you will be shunned and/or persecuted as a result.
Such is the division that Christ speaks of - he has called us out from the sinful, worldly life that we find ourselves in. Not because the people of the world are to be hated or to be loved less, but because their ways are sinful. It is the world that has created divisions between the worth of people and who harm one another. You are being called out of all that and called to love even those that hate and persecute you. But this is contrary to the ways of the world, and so the world will hate you. God, on the other hand, desires for all to come to know the truth and be saved.
So division arises by recognizing the error of our ways - a division between us and those who share in that error. This is not to be considered sinful, for we seek what is true and good, and would have those still in error join us and repair the relations that were harmed as a result of the error. We would promote reconciliation between the divided parties - and we are rejected by those who would hold onto these divisions. Thus we aren't really creating any divisions in of ourselves - rather it is others who form divisions against us.
Being objective means that we look at the evidence and draw reasonable conclusions from it. There are no different standards for what it means to be objective. Whether someone is clearly at fault for something is based upon objective analysis of the evidence. Example: video footage of a man stealing followed by the man turning himself in and confessing to the crime. All else equal, it is objective to consider that this man did the deed.
I've already gone through and talked about judging cases where one relationship is harmed and another benefited, so I will not bother repeating all of that here. Go back and re-read the last post.
Again, go back and re-read the last post. The short answer: favoritism.
That is not entirely true. You don't know each other of course, but you can rightfully expect them to treat you morally and to abide the laws. If we couldn't expect even this, then society couldn't function save in very small units. So while you may not know one another, you are expected to respect one another. That is your relationship. And when you attack them out of the blue, you have degraded that relationship from an amiable one to a hostile one. You are no longer someone that that man, or anyone else for that matter, can trust to pass-by on the street while they carry out their business - you are someone the cops need to lock up lest you randomly attack more citizens.
First off, you contradict yourself. You just got through agreeing that it is possible to be both objective and wrong, and then you go on to to criticize my approach to morality because you might make an error and conclude that that's why you need an objective standard?!
Second off, as I pointed out earlier, abstract logic is perfectly good and necessary for discussing morality - especially the base principles and concepts. You are attempting to address any number of distinct situations - so there must be "wiggle room" for addressing important factors that differ between these scenarios. If you attempt to discuss morality from overly specific scenarios, then you will fail to produce a framework that can be generally applied to the different situations that we find ourselves in.
Can't say I'm terribly familiar with Ayn Rand. I've heard her name thrown around occasionally. Doing a quick lookup of her moral philosophy, it doesn't strike me as the least bit Christian. It sounds like she tried to take the old "greed is good" non-sense and propose that as morality. That could be an interesting thread in its own right, however: how does Ayn Rand's Objectivism compare to Christian Morality?
Ephesians 5:5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a person is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
