This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. I wish people would stop confusing subjective vs objective morality.

User Info: kozlo100

kozlo100
1 month ago#11
SockThief posted...
God sets the objective moral standard.


My thing there is that an objective standard doesn't seem to need setting by my reckoning. I'd say that either God sets the best subjective standard for some reasonable definition of 'best', or God tells us what the objective standard is.

Setting and objectiveness seem mutually exclusive to me.
Time flies like the wind,
and fruit flies like a banana.

User Info: shipwreckers

shipwreckers
1 month ago#12
zinformant posted...
shipwreckers posted...
When ANY authoritative figure makes rules / laws (e.g. a dad who makes rules in his house), the dad himself has OBJECTIVE meaning (knowing full well what he wants and expects from the people he has authority over).

This is not what is meant by the terms. Objective morality suggests that there is a natural, Platonic right and wrong. These things don't exist, at least in the way you're presenting. If God lays down a moral code, it defines good and otherwise because a deity has the leverage to prescribe behavior as such. However, the exercise is inherently subjective, as there is no reason why God could not have chosen different laws.


What you are saying is 100% true in the context of HUMAN thought. But as I mentioned earlier, we're not dealing with a human here. We're dealing with an omniscient being, who would fully see all "good" or "bad" effects of all actions (not in terms of "moral benevolence," but in terms of objective "benefit" or "detriment") So, when the "God" makes a law, he's not thinking through some moral code of good or bad. He's omnisciently KNOWING what's "good" or "bad" in the literal sense (as in it's good or bad FOR YOU / murder and stealing hurt. Don't do that. It's literally "bad" for you and others).

Sorry for the confusion there, but your post points out a core part of the problem in these discussions on "theism." People have a tendency to think of God just like they do humanity (e.g. the "big man upstairs" / where he's like mankind, but happens to have more power / authority.) If you view "God" with the same mindsets and frameworks you apply to human thought, that is going to severely cause misunderstanding of how and why a "God" thinks or acts a certain way. He's not a man, and he's not going to think like a man. That's a CRITICALLY important thing to grasp in any discussion on "theism."
Money is overrated...
(edited 1 month ago)

User Info: shipwreckers

shipwreckers
1 month ago#13
LunaticCritic posted...
So, to summarize, if one is a theist, there is an objective morality...the subjectivity comes in from our interpretation of it, since we are but humans trying to understand a higher being such as a deity. Correct?


Yes, this is a pretty good summary. An omniscient God doesn't think in terms of MORAL good. He doesn't need to form opinions of "right" or "wrong," because he is omnisciently thinking in terms of OBJECTIVE, beneficial "good," (or detrimental "bad"). Humans then subjectively attempt to frame a sense of morality around it (under our emotional appeal to be "good-natured" / benevolent in our own right). So yeah, I think we're getting somewhere here. God does use objectivity in all that he thinks and does, and he doesn't use "morality" in the same sense people do. He's strictly looking at what's OBJECTIVELY good or bad (helpful or detrimental) for his creation.
Money is overrated...
(edited 1 month ago)

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
1 month ago#14
shipwreckers posted...
zinformant posted...
shipwreckers posted...
When ANY authoritative figure makes rules / laws (e.g. a dad who makes rules in his house), the dad himself has OBJECTIVE meaning (knowing full well what he wants and expects from the people he has authority over).

This is not what is meant by the terms. Objective morality suggests that there is a natural, Platonic right and wrong. These things don't exist, at least in the way you're presenting. If God lays down a moral code, it defines good and otherwise because a deity has the leverage to prescribe behavior as such. However, the exercise is inherently subjective, as there is no reason why God could not have chosen different laws.


What you are saying is 100% true in the context of HUMAN thought. But as I mentioned earlier, we're not dealing with a human here. We're dealing with an omniscient being, who would fully see all "good" or "bad" effects of all actions (not in terms of "moral benevolence," but in terms of objective "benefit" or "detriment") So, when the "God" makes a law, he's not thinking through some moral code of good or bad. He's omnisciently KNOWING what's "good" or "bad" in the literal sense (as in it's good or bad FOR YOU / murder and stealing hurt. Don't do that. It's literally "bad" for you and others).

Sorry for the confusion there, but your post points out a core part of the problem in these discussions on "theism." People have a tendency to think of God just like they do humanity (e.g. the "big man upstairs" / where he's like mankind, but happens to have more power / authority.) If you view "God" with the same mindsets and frameworks you apply to human thought, that is going to severely cause misunderstanding of how and why a "God" thinks or acts a certain way. He's not a man, and he's not going to think like a man. That's a CRITICALLY important thing to grasp in any discussion on "theism."

In order to make the argument that you're making confidently, you would have to have the mind of a deity in order to understand. Since you are facing epistemic limitation of your own admission, you can only discuss in terms of 'human' thought. However, I maintain that there is no distinction to be made because you're implicitly claiming that there is objective good that we're blind to. That's quite the accusation against all of our mental faculties!
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: darklao

darklao
1 month ago#15
It's kind of hard to get "Thou shalt not kill," out of a reading that includes the universe as it exists. I mean unless you think billions of years of predation is just, like, bad behavior?

User Info: zinformant

zinformant
1 month ago#16
darklao posted...
It's kind of hard to get "Thou shalt not kill," out of a reading that includes the universe as it exists. I mean unless you think billions of years of predation is just, like, bad behavior?

This is often taken in a subtle distinction between 'kill' and 'murder'.
Is it naive to dream of a world without war?

User Info: darklao

darklao
1 month ago#17
God: Thou shalt not murder.
Moses: Cool, cool. What's murder?
God: Killing outside of the law.
Moses: Which law?
God: This one. About murder.
Moses: So no killing then, check.
God: No, no murder.
Moses: Ooookay. *writes down Thou Shalt Not Kill*

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
1 month ago#18
darklao posted...
God: Thou shalt not murder.
Moses: Cool, cool. What's murder?
God: Killing outside of the law.
Moses: Which law?
God: This one. About murder.
Moses: So no killing then, check.
God: No, no murder.
Moses: Ooookay. *writes down Thou Shalt Not Kill*


God: If a man commits adultery, he must be killed
Moses: But you said "no killing?"
God: No, I said no murder. Isn't that what you have written down?
Moses: Whoops, I dropped the tablet and it shattered into a million pieces. Lets start over...

User Info: JDavidC

JDavidC
1 month ago#19
As far as objective morality is concerned, only God would actually *know* what that is, and he knows everyone else will have to operate with subjective morality. When he judges people, he would have to know it'd be unfair to judge them according to objective morality that he knowingly withheld from them, when all they have is subjective morality.

In order to have objective morality, you may well need to be omniscient to have that, as you'd have to know what *all* of the consequences of every action (or lack of) you take are.
3DS FC: 3093-7112-3992

User Info: OrangeWizard

OrangeWizard
1 month ago#20
JDavidC posted...
he would have to know it'd be unfair to judge them according to objective morality that he knowingly withheld from them, when all they have is subjective morality.


Unless, of course, if he were to write down that morality in some kind of a book and give it to us...
  1. Boards
  2. Religion
  3. I wish people would stop confusing subjective vs objective morality.