Objective Moral Values

[Redzeppelin]

I think your post creates a circle back into mine. Any "global" agreement on "morality" is just that: an agreement. People can choose to disagree and ignore an agreement when it no longer serves their needs (or they can refuse to endorse it from the start because it disagrees with their view of "right" and "wrong.")

"Objective" means "without bias or prejudice": ultimately, humanly established morality will always be subject to one or both of these flaws - it is inescapable. Morality established by consensus is a necessary tool, but it cannot help mediate problems between cultures because cultures will inevitably have some areas that don't coincide in terms of "right" behavior. Without objective morality, we have to allow atrocious behavior to exist because we really don't have any right to condemn another culture's consensual idea of "right" action.

This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea: the assumption being that a divine being's law is above human bias and prejudice (therefore "objective" in the purest sense of the word); as well, it is beyond human "revision" regardless of technological "advancement" (note my contemptuous quotation marks) and global "diversity."

[Whifflingpin]

"This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea"

It is a disastrous idea when it gets into the minds of heads of powerful states.
As long as they can accept "morality established by consensus is a necessary tool" there is some check on their actions. Once they believe they are speaking for God, and starting talking about an "axis of evil" then they are well on the way to moral insanity.

[Redzeppelin]

"This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea"

It is a disastrous idea when it gets into the minds of heads of powerful states.
As long as they can accept "morality established by consensus is a necessary tool" there is some check on their actions. Once they believe they are speaking for God, and starting talking about an "axis of evil" then they are well on the way to moral insanity.

I won't deny that - fallen beings have unlimited capactity to warp any philosohpy to their own ends. Even technology can be utilized so - but that doesn't make the philosophy/theology or technology inherently bad/wrong/invalid - it just means it is subject to distortion. Auto accidents are either the #1 or #2 cause of death in the US, but nobody's calling for an end to automobiles (at least I don't think so ).

That governments wrap themselves in God's law in order to do as they wish doesn't diminish the value of objective moral law - it just shows how it can be perverted. "Speaking for God" is wrong because humans cannot speak for God - they can only point to what He Himself says (hence the importance of the Bible as authority). Again - as I probably posted elsewhere - objective moral law as created by God can only be wielded in ways consistent with the character of God. If a government is "speaking for God" but acting inconsistent with his character, then that government is abusing the law.

[cuppajoe_9]

"Speaking for God" is wrong because humans cannot speak for God - they can only point to what He Himself says (hence the importance of the Bible as authority).

You do not, I assume, call for the death penalty as punishment for failing to observe the Sabbath, as is described in the Old Testament. Therefore, you need some criterion outside scripture on which to base which parts of scripture you want the law to be based on. Therefore the Bible is not the only legal and moral authority, even to Christians.

[Redzeppelin]

You do not, I assume, call for the death penalty as punishment for failing to observe the Sabbath, as is described in the Old Testament. .

Correct - I do not. One of the key reasons for my agreement with your sugestion is that the New Testament revises the Old Testament. In other words, the Mosaic Laws of which you make reference were nullified by the New Covenant created by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. Much of Christ's confrontation with the religious authorities of His time were due to their insistence of the Mosaic Laws and His refutation of the Law's role in "saving" mankind. The significance of the Bible is in its revelation of God's character - and His character, as seen in the person of Christ, abolished much of the 600 odd Jewish restrictions in the Old Testament. The laws of the OT that are verified by the NT are the ones that matter. The NT did not advocate death penalty for "Sabbath violations."

Therefore, you need some criterion outside scripture on which to base which parts of scripture you want the law to be based on. Therefore the Bible is not the only legal and moral authority, even to Christians.

Well, which "law" are you talking about? Objective moral law cannot be "objective" in its purest sense unless a being capable of objectivity creates it. As well, I'm not sure I advocated that the Bible be the "legal" authority - it wasn't written for that purpose.

By the way, glad to have you posting again, cup - I have missed your sharp-eyed comments

[cuppajoe_9]

Well, which "law" are you talking about?

Political law. I'm trying to leave moral law the hell out of it until I've read some Kant.

Objective moral law cannot be "objective" in its purest sense unless a being capable of objectivity creates it.

Fortunately, it doesn't need to be objective 'in its purest sense'. Morality is something that exists in the minds of humans, and I think we're going to have to deal with that.

As well, I'm not sure I advocated that the Bible be the "legal" authority - it wasn't written for that purpose.

I think I misconstrued your last post. Apologies.

By the way, glad to have you posting again, cup - I have missed your sharp-eyed comments

The sentiment is mutual, I'm sure.

[Redzeppelin]

Well hi there, cuppajoe - I just left you in the Evolution thread...

Political law. I'm trying to leave moral law the hell out of it until I've read some Kant.

I wonder if you'll find Kant to your liking - he's even more inflexible than I am about objective morality. He doesn't allow for circumstance.

Fortunately, it doesn't need to be objective 'in its purest sense'. Morality is something that exists in the minds of humans, and I think we're going to have to deal with that.

Perhaps your first sentence is correct (it certainly is a necessity here on earth in terms of law). As far as your 2nd sentence, you're right: we do need to "deal" with morality because if it only exists in human minds, then it has no guaranteed stability: it's up for constant revision - whether that revision is "majority rule" or cultural bias - neither of which being capable of being free from subjective (and therefore questionable) morality.

[cuppajoe_9]

As far as your 2nd sentence, you're right: we do need to "deal" with morality because if it only exists in human minds, then it has no guaranteed stability: it's up for constant revision.

Thank gawd for that. 500 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with burning cats for entertainment. 200 years ago nobody saw anything morally wrong with denying people employment and housing based on ethnic or religious background. 100 years ago, people took it for granted that it is morally correct for women to be subservient to men. 60 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with dumping toxic waste directly into the ocean.

You are assuming first that morality, as it stands, is not subject to change, and second that if it is allowed to change, it will disappear. Morality is certainly subject to change, it always has been, and we've been getting better at it.

[Redzeppelin]

Thank gawd for that. 500 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with burning cats for entertainment. 200 years ago nobody saw anything morally wrong with denying people employment and housing based on ethnic or religious background. 100 years ago, people took it for granted that it is morally correct for women to be subservient to men. 60 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with dumping toxic waste directly into the ocean.

Some of what you suggest is due to ignorance. And, nothing in the Bible supports the moral atrocities you list above.

You are assuming first that morality, as it stands, is not subject to change, and second that if it is allowed to change, it will disappear. Morality is certainly subject to change, it always has been, and we've been getting better at it.

Christ once said the "you cannot put new wine in old wineskins because the new wine will burst the old skins - you must put new wine in new wineskins" (Matt 9:17 loosely paraphrased). This analogy was Christ's attack against the Pharisee's "letter of the law" approach, because Christ was advocating a "spirit of the law" approach. The letter of the Law must have a certain flexibility (the new wineskin) in order to contain the living law (new wine) of God. So, in other words, I agree: certain revisions are necessary, but they need to occur inside a stable framework or else you get the kind of insanity you listed above.

As far as getting better, you really think so? Perhaps certain things have improved since the decades prior to the 60s - like equality for women and minority groups - but what about the flip-side in terms of sexual mores (and the consequences of those loosened standards), respect to authority and the stabilizing force of Christianity? Disregard my specific examples and consider the rising rates of crime, divorce, abortion, gang violence, teen suicide, etc. Are we really getting better?

[cuppajoe_9]

And, nothing in the Bible supports the moral atrocities you list above.

The people who justified all of those using the Bible seem to think that it did (cat burning excepted).

Christ once said the "you cannot put new wine in old wineskins because the new wine will burst the old skins - you must put new wine in new wineskins" (Matt 9:17 loosely paraphrased).

Christ was obviously dealing wineskin there. Oh well, he can always turn some more water into it.

This analogy was Christ's attack against the Pharisee's "letter of the law" approach, because Christ was advocating a "spirit of the law" approach.

I am advocating a "change the law" (and, eventually, "elliminate the law") approach, but that's beside the point.

As far as getting better, you really think so?

Undeniably. Here's Pinker on it: http://www.edge.org/q2007/q07_1.html#pinker.

...but what about the flip-side in terms of sexual mores (and the consequences of those loosened standards), respect to authority and the stabilizing force of Christianity?

Authority does not deserve to be respected for its own sake, I obviously don't throw much truck in with the stabilizing force of Christianity, and I think sexual repression was just as bad for society as the excessive losening of sexual mores would be.

Disregard my specific examples and consider the rising rates of crime, divorce, abortion, gang violence, teen suicide, etc. Are we really getting better?

Crime, violence and war are all, from the perspective of history, on a downward trend. Abortion experienced a spike when it became medically feaseable, but it is also dropping, if I'm not mistaken, and will continue to drop as oral contraceptives such as Plan B become increasingly available. The divorce rates strike me as a sign that we should be reevaluating our society's constant emphasis that everybody in it must get married and have children, rather than a sign that we are all bad people.

Face it: we're killing each other in smaller numbers and becoming increasingly aware and sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man. We're getting morally better, in other words.

[Redzeppelin]

The people who justified all of those using the Bible seem to think that it did (cat burning excepted).

Just because some Christians have distorted the Bible does not condemn the Bible any more than the actions of Hitler condemns all Germans.

Christ was obviously dealing wineskin there. Oh well, he can always turn some more water into it.

I am advocating a "change the law" (and, eventually, "elliminate the law") approach, but that's beside the point..

Clever, but you didn't address the point I was trying to make.

1.Authority does not deserve to be respected for its own sake,
2.I obviously don't throw much truck in with the stabilizing force of Christianity,
3.and I think sexual repression was just as bad for society as the excessive losening of sexual mores would be....
4.The divorce rates strike me as a sign that we should be reevaluating our society's constant emphasis that everybody in it must get married and have children, rather than a sign that we are all bad people.

I numbered your points for clarity's sake:
1. True - but even authority that deserves respect today gets none.
2. Fine - but despite the horrendous behavior committed by some Christians that so many atheists like to point out, what is conveniently left out is much of the humanitarian efforts and social improvements Christianity has contributed to - Abolition was carried forward on the shoulders of Christians. I think it rather glib to dismiss some of the positive things Christiantiy has contributed to society. I would certainly not dismiss a positive contribution to society based on someone's belief system.
3. What "repression"? Save it until you're married is repressive? How many problems does it solve/avoid to date for a few years, get married and then have sex? How many STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions and fragmented families does doing things in this order help avoid/stop?
4. Where do you get the idea that society says everyone should be married? You may be right, but I may be right too: the divorce rate may be increasing because we have devalued marriage by devaluing the sexual relationship.

Face it: we're killing each other in smaller numbers and becoming increasingly aware and sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man. We're getting morally better, in other words.

Really? I think our society's "It's not my problem" and "that's their business" attitudes point in an opposite direction.

[cuppajoe_9]

Just because some Christians have distorted the Bible does not condemn the Bible any more than the actions of Hitler condemns all Germans.

I didn't condemn all Christians, not by a long shot. My point is that the Bible is open to interpretation, and that your particular interpretation of it is not necesarily definitive (although, to judge from our conversations here, I heartily wish that it was).

1. True - but even authority that deserves respect today gets none.

Example?

. Fine - but despite the horrendous behavior committed by some Christians that so many atheists like to point out, what is conveniently left out is much of the humanitarian efforts and social improvements Christianity has contributed to - Abolition was carried forward on the shoulders of Christians. I think it rather glib to dismiss some of the positive things Christiantiy has contributed to society. I would certainly not dismiss a positive contribution to society based on someone's belief system.

Christianity has indeed contributed positive things to society, but that certainly does not mean that society will crumble if Christianity is removed. The country with the highest atheist population in the world was recently called the second best country in the world in which to live.

What "repression"? Save it until you're married is repressive?

No, not that repression. The "sex is dirty and chastity is pure" repression. People are not helped by the idea that every time they have a sexual thought, they have commited a sin. This was a popular idea in the past (women were commonly burned at the stake for having sexual dreams in the middle ages).

4. Where do you get the idea that society says everyone should be married?

The ideal that society pushes most certainly does involve marriage, particularly it's religious factions. You, in fact, just stated that people should ideally be either married or celibate.

I think our society's "It's not my problem" and "that's their business" attitudes point in an opposite direction.

There was never a time when society did not have those attitudes to some degree. The very fact that you think it's a problem indicates that we are changing.

[Redzeppelin]

Example?

From personal experience: as a teacher, I experience many levels of disrespect that I am certain teachers of 30-40 years ago did not experience. I know disrespect in teenagers has always existed, but I doubt teachers in the 40-50s put up with what I have to - and I'm not even at some "inner city" school full of hoodlums. Second, look at attitudes towards the elderly - they are generally viewed as being a nuisance, irrelevant and a burden - as opposed to part of our rich cultrual/familial heritage that they were in the past.

Christianity has indeed contributed positive things to society, but that certainly does not mean that society will crumble if Christianity is removed. The country with the highest atheist population in the world was recently called the second best country in the world in which to live.

As to your first point: I never implied society would "crumble" - I suggested that the diminshment of Christianity as a central force in society has weakened it in certain ways. As to your second point, what's the criteria for "best"?

No, not that repression. The "sex is dirty and chastity is pure" repression. People are not helped by the idea that every time they have a sexual thought, they have commited a sin. This was a popular idea in the past (women were commonly burned at the stake for having sexual dreams in the middle ages).

I agree - but there are ways to deal with that kind of repression that does not involve "have uncommitted sex with whomever you wish." And, I do believe we're way past the middle ages and that having sexual thoughts hasn't been considered a crime for quite a while.

The ideal that society pushes most certainly does involve marriage, particularly it's religious factions. You, in fact, just stated that people should ideally be either married or celibate.

Religious factions "push" marriage so that sexuality has a safe place to be exercised within. My suggestion offers two equally valid choices - which does not imply that either is more preferable.

[cuppajoe_9]

From personal experience: as a teacher, I experience many levels of disrespect that I am certain teachers of 30-40 years ago did not experience. I know disrespect in teenagers has always existed, but I doubt teachers in the 40-50s put up with what I have to - and I'm not even at some "inner city" school full of hoodlums.

It's a problem. However, I think the increased prevalence of disrespect towards teachers is a decent trade off for, say, the fact that you aren't alowed to beat your students senseless anymore.

As to your first point: I never implied society would "crumble" - I suggested that the diminshment of Christianity as a central force in society has weakened it in certain ways. As to your second point, what's the criteria for "best"?

First: I disagree, plenty of societies are doing just fine without it. Second: I'm not exactly sure, you'll have to ask the UN.

I agree - but there are ways to deal with that kind of repression that does not involve "have uncommitted sex with whomever you wish."

I agree, yes.

And, I do believe we're way past the middle ages and that having sexual thoughts hasn't been considered a crime for quite a while.

See? Moral progress!

My suggestion offers two equally valid choices - which does not imply that either is more preferable.

Yeah, but I (for example) reject both of your suggestions, and suggest that people are perfectly capable of being unamarried and sexually active without being promiscuous. Your suggestions cannot be enfoced, so perhaps we should be looking into some sort of middle ground.

[Redzeppelin]

OK - last post for tonight - I'm beat. You're making me think too hard.

It's a problem. However, I think the increased prevalence of disrespect towards teachers is a decent trade off for, say, the fact that you aren't alowed to beat your students senseless anymore.

Wait a minute - how is it a "decent trade" that students get more respect and I get less?

First: I disagree, plenty of societies are doing just fine without it.

Example? (And what does "fine" mean?)

Second: I'm not exactly sure, you'll have to ask the UN.

I'll get right on that.

See? Moral progress!

Let's hear it for the Straw Man (because you know that the discussion on moral progress was being applied to the 20th century but you purposely went far enough back to find an easily-attacked example - or did you? I assumed you did; perhaps that was my mistake).

Yeah, but I (for example) reject both of your suggestions, and suggest that people are perfectly capable of being unamarried and sexually active without being promiscuous. Your suggestions cannot be enfoced, so perhaps we should be looking into some sort of middle ground.

Fine - but "promiscuity" was not necessarily the issue I was pointing to. Sexual activity outside of a committed marriage creates circumstances that benefit from a committed marriage (children, for example). And, even if the relationship is kept childless, I think that sex creates bonds between people that are far more emotionally tenacious than we realize. As well, sex has the ability to "bind" us emotionally to someone to whom we may - if we had gotten to know them thoroughly before hopping into bed - have discovered is not a good person to be dating at all. But sexual intimacy convinces us that we have a true "bond" with someone - kind of like the false intimacy created between a therapist and client, a student and a teacher - that intimacy is based on proximity and should not be mistaken for a true relational intimacy. Sex indelibly marks us with the heart of the other person, and - like it or not - we "carry" that other person into our next relationship. (And that I connect - in part - to our current divorce rates).