Subjective and Objective Morality

[Tarrou]

TagraNar

Ah, there, it seems my main point was finally worded correctly.
Would there be any sort of change to that if the deity in question did or did not create the universe? Does getting one's set of moral guidelines from a non-human source make it objective?

If the diety did not create the universe then the morals that it imposed would not be inherant in the universe and, as such, not universal. Ergo, the morals would be subjective as another diety or powerful force could create a competing set of morals and niether morality could lay claim to being universally or objectively true.

[Astenwroth]

Boxy

Astenwroth

I tend to lump them together under the titles of "Love & Compassion". And alot of Christians are against even mercy killing. While yes you could fit mercy killings under Love & Compassion it's realy dependant on the person and faith. The Book of Mormon has great warrior heroes that teach about when it is right to fight and the meaning of defending yourself, your faith and others. Not to mention the Law of Vengeance in the Doctrine and Covenants. However if you look at simply a New Testament view you have a much narrower teaching in regards to violence and bloodshed.

A rather horrible one at that.

John 11:47-52 "Then gathered the chief priests and the Pharisees a council, and said, What do we? for this man doeth many miracles. If we let him thus alone, all men will believe on him: and the Romans shall come and take away both our place and nation. And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad."

John 1833-37: "Then Pilate entered into the judgment hall again, and called Jesus, and said unto him, Art thou the King of the Jews? Jesus answered him, Sayest thou this thing of thyself, or did others tell it thee of me? Pilate answered, Am I a Jew? Thine own nation and the chief priests have delivered thee unto me: what hast thou done? Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence. Pilate therefore said unto him, Art thou a king then? Jesus answered, Thou sayest that I am a king. To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world, that I should bear witness unto the truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my voice."

Denying killing seems to deny the legitimacy of the Atonement. Or, mayhaps, insinuates that the Pharisees were cold-hearted bastards rather than foresighted priests of the Jewish old guard simply doing their duty and fulfilling their necessity to offer a sacrifice to atone for sin. The problem wasn't in the crucifixion itself, it stood in the people's attitudes, the mocking, and the extraneous trials which were, in the long run, spit in the face compared to the immensity of the Atonement.

Sounds to me like some good ol'-fashioned anti-semitism at work here.

But didn't in Luke 23:35 Jesus ask that the Father forgive them for they knew not what they did? It doesn't make the killing right. Expected or needed didn't make right. However I think we're also drifting away from the topic at hand.

[TagraNar]

Boxy

If the deity is, indeed, universal and has absolute authority, the instantaneous expression of "that's wrong" applies to that instance. The underlying law and moral that inspired that statement, however, is hypothesized at best.

A better question is, Is the deity saying "that's wrong" because it is wrong, or because he's feeling egotistical? I'd tend to lean on the former rather than the latter 3nodding

But then, if the deity is laying down that law because it thinks it is wrong, does that make it subjective?

sweatdrop

[Boxy]

TagraNar

Boxy

If the deity is, indeed, universal and has absolute authority, the instantaneous expression of "that's wrong" applies to that instance. The underlying law and moral that inspired that statement, however, is hypothesized at best.

A better question is, Is the deity saying "that's wrong" because it is wrong, or because he's feeling egotistical? I'd tend to lean on the former rather than the latter 3nodding

But then, if the deity is laying down that law because it thinks it is wrong, does that make it subjective?

sweatdrop

Only if the deity in question is capable of changing the universe as deemed. To do such, such a deity would have to have former-powers and, assuming a non-creationist deity, such powers would be limited at best.

It all pivots around whether the deity thinks it's wrong because it is wrong and whether or not the deity has the power to institute punishment as per a former-god to institute ongoing mechanisms for punishment.

[Yisp]

TagraNar

Calcy

Yes, X would be objective since the actual statement X would not be determined through an internal human process but through external forces.
The interpretation of X might then however still be subjective. ^__^

Ah, there, it seems my main point was finally worded correctly.
Would there be any sort of change to that if the deity in question did or did not create the universe? Does getting one's set of moral guidelines from a non-human source make it objective?

This is getting into, to quote karashebi, moron-hypotheticals.

Nevertheless, on a human scale, it is in all cases objective, since it is a phenomenon which can be similarily perceived by every member of homo sapiens.

On a universal scale, this is a question about the "nature of deities".
If the deity is omniscient and honest, it would be objective, because there would be no cognitive filters involved.
The deity can fill out no subjective position, because he, "knowledgeably", fills out "all there is".

If the deity perceives the universe in a limited manner, it could be considered subjective, I guess. ^^

[TagraNar]

Moron-hypotheticals? sweatdrop
Ok, well, that seems to make sense, from all the responses I've got, and I can't quite think of anything to provide as a counter-point.

[Yisp]

TagraNar

Moron-hypotheticals? sweatdrop

Discussing objectivity vs. subjectivity on a non-human scale is a bit ridiculous, since both of the concepts stand and fall with modes of perception and cognition.
Talking about the "perception and cognition of deities" is neat, while drinking my third beer. ^__^

[Oh-mi-kaze]

TagraNar

Now, the main question and point to this topic: Does the existance of a deity cause a set of moral guidelines to become objective, and thus universally true?

That depends on what sort of "deity" we're talking about. If, by "deity," you're speaking of a universal creator, then my answer would be "yes." This deity's set of moral guidelines, according to it's own biases, would be automatically incorporated into said deity's model of the universe, because the deity created it with its own logic.

If, however, by deity, you simply mean a "god being" or the state to which man aspires (if you're a fan of humanism), then I'd have to say that the being, by its very nature, is too subjective to have moral guidelines of any real application to a group. I say this because it would be more a perception of a being's perfect aspects, rather than some objective characteristics.

I naturally left out discussing the morality of the second kind of deity, because that would be getting into speculating over questions derived from speculations, i.e. pointless. Letting that alone, objective morality could only happen if the moral code has a universal application, i.e. contradictions to the morality are not viable in any cirumstance. Someone obviously came up with this thought before I did, and the name of the author fails me. Whoever that was, I'd say he/she is my suggested reading material.

[Operation Shoestring]

If morality is subjective, is it really morality, or is it social conditioning?