Objective morality vs subjective morality

If he doesn't or didn't tell us or only reveals what is bad through bad consequences after the fact, then god morality is no better than atheist morality.
 
spidergoat said:
If he doesn't or didn't tell us or only reveals what is bad through bad consequences after the fact, then god morality is no better than atheist morality.
Click to expand...

at some point due to imperfect knowledge it becomes an issue of trust. you could say theoretically that if everyone was learning and changing, the need for correction would diminish but that doesn't seem to be the case looking at our society. the issue really does come down to the basis of the morality. if the goal of morality is to benefit the greater good, do you want to trust what is objective (law that governs the universe), or subjective (what you think)?
 
Lori_7 said:
at some point due to imperfect knowledge it becomes an issue of trust. you could say theoretically that if everyone was learning and changing, the need for correction would diminish but that doesn't seem to be the case looking at our society. the issue really does come down to the basis of the morality. if the goal of morality is to benefit the greater good, do you want to trust what is objective (law that governs the universe), or subjective (what you think)?
Click to expand...

There is no innate morality in the universe. I can point to the example of parasites. They lay their eggs in another insect with the intent that they grow there and eat it out from the inside or take over it's brain.
 
spidergoat said:
There is no innate morality in the universe. I can point to the example of parasites. They lay their eggs in another insect with the intent that they grow there and eat it out from the inside or take over it's brain.
Click to expand...

Are you going on about insect morality again? Spider! :p
 
Lori_7 said:
if the goal of morality is to benefit the greater good, do you want to trust what is objective (law that governs the universe), or subjective (what you think)?
Click to expand...

1. On principle, the two might not necessarily be different or mutually exclusive.

2. It is not clear how an individual could distinguish between the two (given that the individual is bound to what he thinks).
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Like the pantheistic Brahmin, Buddha did not acknowledge his dependence on the gods. They were like men, subject to decay and rebirth. The god of today might be reborn in the future in some inferior condition, while a man of great virtue might succeed in raising himself in his next birth to the rank of a god in heaven. The very gods, then, no less than men, had need of that perfect wisdom that leads to Nirvana, and hence it was idle to pray or sacrifice to them in the hope of obtaining the boon which they themselves did not possess. They were inferior to Buddha, since he had already attained to Nirvana. In like manner, they who followed Buddha's footsteps had no need of worshipping the gods by prayers and offerings.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm

A feature of Buddhism is that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. Later Mahayana Buddhism virtually made the Buddha himself into a god, but the existence of God and even the existence of an immortal soul are either denied or irrelevant in Buddhism.

Buddha himself specifically denied the existence of a conscious God. (Buddhism, Bradley S Clough, in Jacob Neuser ed. God, Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1997, p 57).
Click to expand...

I want a Buddhist reference from the Pali Canon that there is no Supreme Personality of Godhead.
 
spidergoat said:
Surely the opinions of individual religious people may differ, but this doesn't mean that each of them respectively is not sure about their own stance - and they are sure about their own stance, even if it may differ from that of another religionist.
Click to expand...
So religion was not the objective source of their stance. Point proven.
Click to expand...

What may be the source of their stance is that they all see the issue related to God and God being the one in ultimate control in the matter.
This is something they all agree on. In this regard, their stance is objective.

They may disagree on some specifics or details, depending on circumstance, time, place, intellect, spiritual attainment and commitment.

It seems you are operating out of the notion that if God existed and some people would be truly religious, then all these people would speak and behave the exact same way, regardless of circumstance, time, place, intellect, spiritual attainment and commitment.

For example, they would all wear thick winter clothes, whether living in British Columbia in the winter, or in Los Angeles in the summer, and they would all plant lettuce, those that live in the Sahara desert and those that live in Nepal, and anywhere else.
They would all drink two liters of water per day, whether infant or elderly or any age inbetween.
 
Mind Over Matter said:
Is it possible to clearly distinguish between objective and subjective morality?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is. Definition is a good start.

An absolute, objective moral order is one which must be ordained by an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-loving Creator God who created all that exists.
Click to expand...

This is a truism.

It is also useless, as in everyday practical examples, we cannot with certainty distinguish between objective and subjective morality.


This order is not subjective according to individual human opinions. Black is black and white is white, but there are circumstances that have various factors, some of which are black and others that are white. People call them grey and find it difficult to look at each factor and weigh each correctly to understand what should be done. If people look at only grey for a long time, many times they forget the black and white and throw up their hands in despair saying "who can know?" and sometimes stop trying to know what is right and wrong. They take the easy way out.
Click to expand...

More truisms that help you criticize others ... :eek:
 
spidergoat said:
Can you explain how there can be any objective morality derived from either god or religion?
Click to expand...

The argument can be made than one needs to distinguish between principles an details.
Principles are objective, details subjective.
 
Signal said:
More truisms that help you criticize others ... :eek:
Click to expand...
Dear Signal,

I don't criticize others. I was simply sharing. I have a sense of the other's worth. I have a sense of honor and esteem for all that involves the well-being of the others. I preciate the importance of this quality of respect the moment I feel myself being treated in a way that is in any way disrespectful -being laughed at, taken lightly, or in any way mistreated are painful experiences. However, I respect all reality and especially all human life as created by God the Father and redeemed by Christ.
 
Signal said:
1. On principle, the two might not necessarily be different or mutually exclusive.
Click to expand...

not comprehensively. not even close. not at this time.

2. It is not clear how an individual could distinguish between the two (given that the individual is bound to what he thinks).
Click to expand...

given the spirit, the individual is not bound to what he would think. if the introduction of the spirit changes what you think, then it must introduce some new information. just the fact that the spirit exists is a hell of a lot of new information.
 
Last edited:
Signal said:
The argument can be made than one needs to distinguish between principles an details.
Principles are objective, details subjective.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me how any broad principles are derived from the existence of a supreme being?
 
Signal said:
I want a Buddhist reference from the Pali Canon that there is no Supreme Personality of Godhead.
Click to expand...

Buddhism isn't like that, especially Zen Buddhism. The basis of Buddhism isn't a text, it is the experience of enlightenment.
 
spidergoat said:
Buddhism isn't like that, especially Zen Buddhism. The basis of Buddhism isn't a text, it is the experience of enlightenment.
Click to expand...

where does that enlightenment come from? i have a friend who's a buddhist and he relates to having an awakening. when i talk to him about some of the spiritual stuff i've experienced, he seems not surprised in the least and empathetic.
 
Last edited:
Mind Over Matter said:
The objective vs. subjective morality debate is really the theist vs. atheist debate in disguise since, with God, there is objective morality and, without God, there is no objective morality. Any takers?
Click to expand...

These days, most Americans don't realize that the question of this particular issue is implicitly present within the "Declaration of Independence"

"We hold these truths to be self evident". The words "self evident" are referring to an "objective" existence of the said "truths". In addition, the "truths" to which the declaration refers, are in fact, part of the objective moral code which formed the basis for their declaration of independence

The fact of that the "self evident" or objective, "truths" are indeed, a part of the moral code, is made apparent by the next statements... "that all men are created equal, that they were endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"

In order for man's rights to be "unalienable", it is necessary that they be objectively "self evident". If any man or group of men were to argue that man's rights are not self evident, then, by default, they would imply that man's rights are determined by subjective relativism

That would mean that man's rights would be determined by men, such as government. However, that is simply a declaration by the persons in government, asserting that they are intrinsically & inherently superior to the humans which they govern

This is precisely what the Colonists faced. Hence, the "Declaration of Independence" reveals that the self evident truths are relevant to being "created" & being endowed by the "Creator". This is relevant to being "procreated" which in turn, is implicit of man's "innateness". Thus, the truths are self evident within nature... as they were endowed by nature's God... the Creator

Now the question becomes; "where within nature does one observe the self evident truths"?

All men are born equally naked & equally ignorant. Thus, no man can possess the right to determine the rights for any other man. This would seem to suggest that "relativism" is valid. However, relativism cannot support its own weight due to the fact that the relativist asserts the validity of relativism, in absolute terms.

Therefor, the determination that can reasonably & logically serve as the correct standard of right & wrong, must originate from a source other than man himself.

Hence, I introduce to you... the "Creator"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top