Archived

Moral Argument

Read 10095 times

jdschoone

  • **
  • 108 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: If OMV are true....
« Reply #15 on: March 30, 2016, 11:53:42 am »
There are other claims by Jesus.  "do unto other as you would have do unto your self"  is a subjective moral claim, yet is is probably a maxim that is a corner stone for christian behavior.

"Love your neighbour as you love yourself."

But the examples you give appear to be examples of objective moral claims. When Jesus says "love your neighbour as yourself"
But he is giving it a subjective grounding in you, yourself.  This makes it subjectively grounded.
Same as Do unto others as yourself...    again the grounding for your behaviour is you.

Quote
he does not appear to be claiming that this statement is true depending on the subject. One ought to love one's neighbour for this the right thing to do. He appears to be making an objective and universal claim about morality here.

But he is asking you to be the measure... "as yourself" a subjective grounding.

I think you misunderstand. Obviously when Jesus states that you should love your neighbor as yourself he seems to presuppose that one usually loves oneself (I don't think we should take Jesus' statement to mean that if one hates oneself one is allowed to hate ones neighbor). But when it concerns the question about ontological objectivity or subjectivity this is irrelevant, for the rule as a whole (love your neighbor as yourself) is not grounded in you or in your neighbor. If it were then it would be up to you whether you would believe this to be truly good or not. The whole point is that the statement "love your neighbor" is good, independent of your own personal feelings or beliefs concerning this statement. The same goes for almost every moral statement that Jesus makes, whether it is about loving God or about divorce or about reaching for the sword. All his statements seem to be both objective (grounded in something else than personal preferences) and universal (applicable under all or most circumstances).
I disagree with you, and you are cherry picking by leaving the qualifiers out.

Love your neighbour you say...    in what measure exactly?   how is that maxim of any benfit or can be fruitful with out a m

Quote
In other words: the fact that moral statements are about people does not mean that they are ontologically grounded in people.

It is actully the fact jesus is using us (people) as the judge is what makes the ontological source of Morality Man himself.     
I am open to the idea that God maybe talking to the hearts of men who believe and follow Jesus Maxims, but on face value, that is not being said.

Again, you seem to confuse things like the practical benefit of a commandment, or the way the commandment should be interpreted, with the ontological foundation of that commandment. The confusion seems to lie in the "as yourself" part of this specific commandment. However, this does not make the sentence as a whole subjectively grounded.

If this makes it confusing then you can take the first commandment that Jesus speaks of, namely "Love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind". Apparently Jesus believed that this greatest of all commandments is something that everyone should follow. It seems strange to state that such a commandment is grounded in someones personal preference or feelings. There must be some reason why this commandment is something which is good, and that reason has to be independent of peoples feelings (if, for instance, one beliefs that one should not love God, then one is wrong in that belief).

1

Aaron Massey

  • ****
  • 5483 Posts
  • absit iniuria verbis
    • View Profile
Re: If OMV are true....
« Reply #16 on: March 30, 2016, 05:21:14 pm »
Again, you seem to confuse things like the practical benefit of a commandment, or the way the commandment should be interpreted, with the ontological foundation of that commandment.

Umm they go hand in hand.  You cant have a ontological argument with out having Moral statements/claims.

Quote
The confusion seems to lie in the "as yourself" part of this specific commandment. However, this does not make the sentence as a whole subjectively grounded.

Im not confused.  so rather than asserting that i am, get off your high horse.

Quote
If this makes it confusing then you can take the first commandment that Jesus speaks of, namely "Love God with all your heart, all your soul and all your mind". Apparently Jesus believed that this greatest of all commandments is something that everyone should follow. It seems strange to state that such a commandment is grounded in someones personal preference or feelings.


Operative Word.   "Your" again.   Love God with "your" heart and mind.   that is a direct command to come about to loving God by your own reasoning, Desire and Will. 
 
Quote
There must be some reason why this commandment is something which is good, and that reason has to be independent of peoples feelings (if, for instance, one beliefs that one should not love God, then one is wrong in that belief).

Again, God or Jesus has never made any claims it is independant.  They Call on "you" "yourself" to do love god with your heart and mind.   You, they never ask you to draw from God to love God...  they ask you, and that is completly subjective.

I think my point stands, the bible does not advocate OMV.

IT does advocate to apply and practice to learn Gods will, which is not OMV, and a very different beast to a ontological source.
Proverbs 8:30 "then I was beside him, like a master workman, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing before him always, rejoicing in his inhabited world and delighting in the children of man."

2

jdschoone

  • **
  • 108 Posts
    • View Profile
Re: If OMV are true....
« Reply #17 on: April 02, 2016, 03:21:15 am »
Operative Word.   "Your" again.   Love God with "your" heart and mind.   that is a direct command to come about to loving God by your own reasoning, Desire and Will. 
 
Quote
There must be some reason why this commandment is something which is good, and that reason has to be independent of peoples feelings (if, for instance, one beliefs that one should not love God, then one is wrong in that belief).

Again, God or Jesus has never made any claims it is independant.  They Call on "you" "yourself" to do love god with your heart and mind.   You, they never ask you to draw from God to love God...  they ask you, and that is completly subjective.

I think my point stands, the bible does not advocate OMV.

IT does advocate to apply and practice to learn Gods will, which is not OMV, and a very different beast to a ontological source.

But why would you have to learn Gods will if morality is subjective?

Suppose that, with my own reasoning, I come to the conclusion that I ought not to love God. Or suppose that, looking at the way I feel about myself, I come to the conclusion that I hate myself and therefore should hate others like I hate myself instead of love others. Do you honestly believe that Jesus would agree with these conclusions since you used your own reasoning skills and desires to draw these conclusions? If you think that's the case then you really do believe that Jesus teaches a type of subjective morality.

However, if you think that the commandment to "love God" or to "love your neighbor" is not open to that kind of interpretation then there seems to be an objective element to Jesus' statements. I think that this is the way we should interpret his statements. It seems obvious to me that if Jesus commands to love God with all your heart, and you proceed to hate God with all your heart, perhaps because of some terrible things that happened in your life which you blame on God, then you are not upholding the first commandment. But this view entails that there is something outside yourself, an objective standard if you will, which implies that "hating God" is wrong.

Finally, that Jesus uses terms like "you" or "your" or "yourself" does not make the entire statement subjective. If I state that "you should not murder a child" that does not mean that the statement is subjective simply because the statement concerns something you should or should not do. Even a statement such as "you ought to act like Mother Theresa" can be an objective moral statement if the reason why one should act like Mother Theresa is because the way she lived her life corresponds to some objective moral good.

PS: You seem to be thinking that when I state that you are confused about something that this is some kind of a personal attack. It is not. I don't simply assert that you are confused, I am attempting to show where the confusion lies and why I disagree with your view on the biblical moral commandments. That does not mean that I think that as a person you are somehow confused or anything like that...

3

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
Re: If OMV are true....
« Reply #18 on: August 28, 2016, 02:17:00 am »
An easy approximate way to determine whether something is subjective or objective is to ask "Sez who?".

If the answer is something such as "me", or "the majority", it is (inter)subjective.  If it is "the nature of the world", or (a step further removed) "the transcendent creator of the world", it is objective.
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.

4

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: If OMV are true....
« Reply #19 on: August 28, 2016, 02:18:15 pm »
An easy approximate way to determine whether something is subjective or objective is to ask "Sez who?".

If the answer is something such as "me", or "the majority", it is (inter)subjective.  If it is "the nature of the world", or (a step further removed) "the transcendent creator of the world", it is objective.

Of course the person who is asserting the statement is the one who is asserting the statement. The answer trivially only could be "me", as I am the one saying it. But this has absolutely nothing to do with whether the statement about an objective or subjective matter.

On the other hand, the nature of the world can't speak and, worse, that a transcendent creator is the one asserting the statement has nothing to do with whether the statement is about an objective or subjective matter. Who the subject is doesn't make a difference--as long as you're appealing to a subject at all to explain the nature of morality then you're a subjectivist.
« Last Edit: August 28, 2016, 02:22:37 pm by aleph naught »

5

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
The final authority
« Reply #20 on: August 29, 2016, 09:30:22 am »
Of course the person who is asserting the statement is the one who is asserting the statement. The answer trivially only could be "me", as I am the one saying it.
But "Sez who" asks - not for the utterer, but - for the authority behind the rule.

If I say "You may not go faster than 100 km/h", and you reply "Oh yeah?  Sez who?", then you'd probably expect me to answer: "The law does".  Now the law is subjective, in that people have said that the law should say that.  (For the Romans the law was a divine subject, and some countries still have the pagan saying "In the name of the Law".)

If I say "You can't go faster than 300 000 km/h", and you reply "Oh yeah?  Sez who?", then you wouldn't expect me to answer "I do", or even "Einstein does", but rather: "Nature does", i.e.: it is an objective, inviolable law of nature.  Of course it remains my subjective opinion that this law indeed exists, but the law itself, if it exists, is objective.

Quote
Who the subject is doesn't make a difference--as long as you're appealing to a subject at all to explain the nature of morality then you're a subjectivist.
That is true - but God, qua Creator, is not a subject.  The English language is particularly unhelpful here, but in Latin terms: God is not an ens, but is esse.  (Or if you know German: »Er ist nicht ein seiende, sondern das Sein«.)

Only to the extent that God ingredes in His creation (as an Ens to Whom one can pray, as Jesus, and in many other ways)  does He become 'a being', a subject.  But such an ingredient God, qua ingredient, is not the Creator.  The Creator is a step more objective than nature.

Unfortunately I don't have the energy to get into a discussion here - maybe someone else will pick it up, or maybe I'll come back much later and make a few more remarks.
« Last Edit: August 29, 2016, 09:37:05 am by Biep »
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.

6

aleph naught

  • ****
  • 7392 Posts
  • For the glory of the Canadian empire.
    • View Profile
Re: The final authority
« Reply #21 on: August 29, 2016, 02:48:17 pm »
Of course the person who is asserting the statement is the one who is asserting the statement. The answer trivially only could be "me", as I am the one saying it.
But "Sez who" asks - not for the utterer, but - for the authority behind the rule.

If I say "You may not go faster than 100 km/h", and you reply "Oh yeah?  Sez who?", then you'd probably expect me to answer: "The law does".  Now the law is subjective, in that people have said that the law should say that.  (For the Romans the law was a divine subject, and some countries still have the pagan saying "In the name of the Law".)

If I say "You can't go faster than 300 000 [000] km/h", and you reply "Oh yeah?  Sez who?", then you wouldn't expect me to answer "I do", or even "Einstein does", but rather: "Nature does", i.e.: it is an objective, inviolable law of nature.  Of course it remains my subjective opinion that this law indeed exists, but the law itself, if it exists, is objective.

You're conflating two senses of the word "law". In the former paragraph you're talking about rules, or pieces of legislation. In the latter paragraph you're talking about necessary and universally quantified facts (e.g., no physical thing can go faster than the speed of light). (By the way the speed of light has 8 zeros).

But there are no such thing as "moral rules", because rules and legislation are inherently subjective. There are moral laws in the latter sense, in that there are necessary and universally quantified facts about morality (e.g., suffering is intrinsically bad). But in this latter sense of a "law", talk of authority and "sez who?" is incoherent.

Quote
Who the subject is doesn't make a difference--as long as you're appealing to a subject at all to explain the nature of morality then you're a subjectivist.
That is true - but God, qua Creator, is not a subject.  The English language is particularly unhelpful here, but in Latin terms: God is not an ens, but is esse.  (Or if you know German: »Er ist nicht ein seiende, sondern das Sein«.)

Only to the extent that God ingredes in His creation (as an Ens to Whom one can pray, as Jesus, and in many other ways)  does He become 'a being', a subject.  But such an ingredient God, qua ingredient, is not the Creator.  The Creator is a step more objective than nature.

Unfortunately I don't have the energy to get into a discussion here - maybe someone else will pick it up, or maybe I'll come back much later and make a few more remarks.
[/quote]

If God isn't a subject then God is compatible with atheism.

7

Biep

  • **
  • 909 Posts
    • View Profile
    • Apologetics in Dutch
Re: The final authority
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2016, 12:01:55 pm »
You're conflating two senses of the word "law".
On the contrary, I am showing a means to distinguish them.

Quote
(By the way the speed of light has 8 zeros).
Sorry - in copying and pasting I forgot to change the 'h' to an 's'.  300 000 km/s is a fair approximation.

Quote
But in this latter sense of a "law", talk of authority and "sez who?" is incoherent.
The beauty of an imprecise, popular expression such as "Sez who?" is that is can be applied across categories.  The answer will make the distinction - somewhat like the "type" predicate in some dynamically-scoped languages.  For "authority" the same thing holds - in more precise language one would have to refer (in a first approximation) to something such as 'the final reason for its existence'.

It is possible to formalise all this, but (1) I don't have the energy to write that out here, and (2) it would be much less accessible, or even useful.  The "Sez who?" test is not infallible, but it is quick and does a surprisingly good job.

Quote
If God isn't a subject then God is compatible with atheism.
Correct - which is why the early Christians were accused of atheism.  Since then they have redefined the word, of course, but especially deism is a form of what in the ancient world would be called atheism.
But Christianity teaches that God does ingrede, and become a subject - and the Good News is that He has done so for our eternal salvation.  So the subjective aspect of God is very relevant to Christianity.
Our knowing God (as opposed to knowing about God) is all about knowing this Subject.
« Last Edit: September 05, 2016, 12:11:03 pm by Biep »
-- Biep
I tend to post and run, but always hope to return eventually.  Don't hold your breath, though.

I have very little energy at the moment, so don't expect much of me right now.