Is morality subjective?

Originally posted by whodey
My only point here is that our morality is based upon authority figures whether they be the law, the church, your peers, your parents etc. For those under the Mosaic law, the morality was given by God himself.

That is why when slavery was legal in the 1800's, it was largely seen as OK. For them, the law of the land was the real authority in their view so ...[text shortened]... in our sin laden world. This means that eventually sin will be conquered in its entirety.

"My only point here is that our morality is based upon authority figures whether they be the law, the church, your peers, your parents etc."

It is plausible that a people will enshrine their moral code (and other rules) in religion and teach that God is the divine authority, for several reasons, including to give it more weight and to immunize it against being questioned. A side effect is that parts of the code may become obsolete or may be misapplied because the context has changed.

Originally posted by FMF
Many of the people that supported slavery cited the OT. They cited biblical "authority".

Slavery was condoned because the slaves were seen as inferior. Otherwise they would have also been moved to give them a days rest and set them free after so many years.

If not, why were slaves not white as well?

Originally posted by whodey
Slavery was condoned because the slaves were seen as inferior. Otherwise they would have also been moved to give them a days rest and set them free after so many years.

If not, why were slaves not white as well?

Your excuses don't work on me, whodey.

Your apparent need to make these excuses diminishes your credibility to offer commentary on "morality".

Originally posted by FMF
Your excuses don't work on me, whodey.

Your apparent need to make these excuses diminishes your credibility to offer commentary on "morality".

Again, they are not excuses. They are merely some thoughts of mine on the matter. I don't condone slavery.

The difference between those of faith and those of faith is not having the answers, it is more about being OK with not having all the answers and being OK with that.

In the end, all of us will have the question, "Why God?" with no answer is sight.

Originally posted by whodey
Excuses? If there be a God, he needs no excuses. He also does not need my feeble attempt to defend him.

If he exists he is who he is and if he is really all powerful he can do as he pleases. In the end he is the final judge and will establish whatever moral code he thinks is best. It may make sense to us or it may not.

Although none of us understand ...[text shortened]... s, I'm betting the house that he is really just and loving. If not, we are all screwed anyway.

If you truly don't believe that the God of the OT needs your "feeble attempt[s] to defend him, why do you insist on trying to do so? Why are you trying to pretend that you weren't trying to make excuses for the God of the OT?

I also provided incontrovertible evidence that the God of the OT had laws that cannot be reconciled with the laws of the God of Jesus which includes condoning slavery. Once again you refused to address it or even acknowledge this fact.

What's more, I provided incontrovertible evidence that the way you try to portray the slavery of the OT is false. You refused to address it or even acknowledge this fact.

What I can't understand are Christians, like you, who are so afraid to shine the light of truth upon their faith. Given the teachings of Jesus, one would think that they'd welcome the opportunity to do so.

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
If you truly don't believe that the God of the OT needs your "feeble attempt[s] to defend him, why do you insist on trying to do so? Why are you trying to pretend that you weren't trying to make excuses for the God of the OT?

I also provided incontrovertible evidence that the God of the OT had laws that cannot be reconciled with the laws of the God of iven the teachings of Jesus, one would think that they'd welcome the opportunity to do so.

I'm saying that the issue was not being treated fairly. Clearly the Bible, both old and new testaments, takes a grim view of slavery even though it is not outlawed. To not acknowledge this is disingenuous.

Where exactly did Jesus attack slavery? Do you think he was ignorant of it or just indifferent to it?

As for myself, I'm guessing Jesus would have approached slavery the same way he approached the topic of divorce. He probably would have just shrugged his shoulders and explained that because of the sinfulness of man these things were allowed, but were never optimal.

Originally posted by whodey
I'm saying that the issue was not being treated fairly. Clearly the Bible, both old and new testaments, takes a grim view of slavery even though it is not outlawed. To not acknowledge this is disingenuous.

Where exactly did Jesus attack slavery? Do you think he was ignorant of it or just indifferent to it?

As for myself, I'm guessing Jesus would have ...[text shortened]... ained that because of the sinfulness of man these things were allowed, but were never optimal.

Let's see, the God of the OT condones not only the keeping of permanent slaves, but also condones beating slaves so severely that unless the slave dies within a day or two, there is no punishment. How does that fit with the notion that the OT "takes a grim view of slavery"?

I did not say that "Jesus attack[ed] slavery". It's dishonest of you to try to imply that I did.

What I said follows:

The God of the OT had laws that are not the laws of the God of Jesus.
[quote]Matthew 7
12“In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

Clearly condoning slavery does not fit the laws of the God of Jesus.

No matter how many excuses you attempt to make for the God of the OT, the God of the OT had laws that are NOT the laws of the God of Jesus. They do not fit the criteria for the laws of the God of Jesus. Condoning slavery is but one. [/quote]

In Matthew 7:12, Jesus clearly states that the Law and the Prophets IS "In everything, therefore, treat people the same way you want them to treat you".

Do you sincerely believe that condoning slavery can possibly be reconciled with what Jesus clearly states IS the Law and the Prophets?

Originally posted by ThinkOfOne
Let's see, the God of the OT condones not only the keeping of permanent slaves, but also condones beating slaves so severely that unless the slave dies within a day or two, there is no punishment. How does that fit with the notion that the OT "takes a grim view of slavery"?

I did not say that "Jesus attack[ed] slavery". It's dishonest of you to try to ...[text shortened]... y can possibly be reconciled with what Jesus clearly states IS the Law and the Prophets?

Would you want someone to divorce you?

Jesus still made a provision for it.

As for beating slaves, I don't condone that like I don't condone divorce, but then, how else will you make a slave do their work? Time outs?

Originally posted by whodey
Would you want someone to divorce you?

Jesus still made a provision for it.

As for beating slaves, I don't condone that like I don't condone divorce, but then, how else will you make a slave do their work? Time outs?

Divorcing someone [or someone divorcing you, or two people agreeing to get divorced] is not an abhorrent transgression of basic human rights, while slavery is. It's not clear why anyone should take your juxtaposition and comparison of these two things seriously. Perhaps you are just being sarcastic.

Originally posted by JS357
"...so the "prevailing " group moral code determines the individual's behaviour."

I believe what you are describing as subjective morality is called moral relativism by philosophers.

"Meta-ethical moral relativists believe not only that people disagree about moral issues, but that terms such as "good," "bad," "right" and "wrong" do not stand subject to u ...[text shortened]... ndividual or a group of people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

Methinks not only the truth or falsity of moral judgments and/ or their justification is not absolute or universal and relative to the traditions, convictions and/or or practices of a group of persons; but in addition, the “truth” and the “falsity” of them is purely subjective, since morality is nothing but a product of the human mind. The consensus, as regards specific systems of morality accepted within a society by the majority of its members, does not turn the subjectivity of this product of the human mind into objectivity😵

Originally posted by black beetle
Methinks not only the truth or falsity of moral judgments and/ or their justification is not absolute or universal and relative to the traditions, convictions and/or or practices of a group of persons; but in addition, the “truth” and the “falsity” of them is purely subjective, since morality is nothing but a product of the human mind. The consensus, as ...[text shortened]... its members, does not turn the subjectivity of this product of the human mind into objectivity😵

I suppose something can be both relative and subjective, if that is what you mean. I wonder if being purely a product of the human mind qualifies a thing as subjectively true as opposed to objectively true. One theory of truth is the correspondence theory which says that a proposition is true if it corresponds in a certain way to reality. "The cat is black" is true iff in fact, the cat is black. I suppose you are saying the experience of a statement's being true (by any theory of truth) is subjective, as all experiences are subjective.

The way that moral statements come into problem-land with respect to their objectivity is, IMO, due to the naturalistic fallacy -- getting "ought" from "is." Efforts to eliminate this fallacy always seem to reduce moral "ought" statements to "tips for savvy living in your society." "Honesty is the best policy"-- why? Because it will in the long run best serve your interests. The Golden Rule will deliver the best return on investment. Stuff like that, testable rules. It seems to take the virtue out of being moral. Maybe that's not a bad thing if it results in less killing.

Originally posted by OdBod
So we both see morals as entirely subjective. By definition if individuals seek to justify themselves , it must be in relation to others,so the "prevailing " group moral code determines the individual's behaviour. As suggested the group code could be anything.

I believe there is an element to that, but there is a reason!
We know there is a right and wrong way we are always attempting to justify
ourselves due to it, but we have lost the means by which to know it, so we
flounder around trying to make it up as we go. If right and wrong were not real
and we were not subjected to it, we would just act like animals we would not
attempt to justify ourselves by ourselves.
Kelly

Originally posted by black beetle
Methinks not only the truth or falsity of moral judgments and/ or their justification is not absolute or universal and relative to the traditions, convictions and/or or practices of a group of persons; but in addition, the “truth” and the “falsity” of them is purely subjective, since morality is nothing but a product of the human mind. The consensus, as ...[text shortened]... its members, does not turn the subjectivity of this product of the human mind into objectivity😵

I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what we actually mean by 'morality' and the different aspects of it.
Here is my understanding of it:
The basic rule of morality is: do not cause unnecessary harm to other entities that can experience suffering either through direct action or neglect.
Anything not covered by this rule is not morality.
Where we tend to differ is when evaluating:
1. what other entities can experience suffering and to what degree we recognise their importance.
2. to what degree we feel obliged to follow morality in relation to personal cost.
3. how we calculate complicated situations where multiple entities are affected.

I think it is very important to realise that morality is not equivalent to doing right or wrong. Something can be right or wrong without being morally right or wrong. It may also be right to do something that is morally wrong. I think some posters are confusing the two issues.

Originally posted by JS357
I suppose something can be both relative and subjective, if that is what you mean. I wonder if being purely a product of the human mind qualifies a thing as subjectively true as opposed to objectively true. One theory of truth is the correspondence theory which says that a proposition is true if it corresponds in a certain way to reality. "The cat is black" is ...[text shortened]... ue out of being moral. Maybe that's not a bad thing if it results in less killing.

Not only morality is both relative and subjective, but methinks it is purely a product of the human mind and, as such, it qualifies solely as subjectively true. To state that “The cat is black" is true if in fact the cat is black to us, but anyway “The cat is black” solely due to the fact that our cognizant apparatus decodes the photons we receive from the cat in a way that its “blackness” takes place; this specific reality of ours is not identical to the reality, say, that is conceived (and thus unveiled, triggered into existence) from the cognizant apparatus of a dog of or another sentient being that decodes this information differently.

I evaluate morality as an empty plexus of systems that are designed for the well being of the people that created them. And I cannot see the slightest trace of “objectivity” in none of them😵

Originally posted by twhitehead
I think there is a lot of confusion in this thread about what we actually mean by 'morality' and the different aspects of it.
Here is my understanding of it:
The basic rule of morality is: do not cause unnecessary harm to other entities that can experience suffering either through direct action or neglect.
Anything not covered by this rule is [b]not[/b ...[text shortened]... ight to do something that is morally wrong. I think some posters are confusing the two issues.

Edit: “The basic rule of morality is: do not cause unnecessary harm to other entities that can experience suffering either through direct action or neglect.”

I evaluate as “morality” specific codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group or an individual for the behavior of a whole society, of its members and of each individual, and furthermore as a code of conduct that under specific circumstances can be put forward by all rational persons.

As regards the rest of your post, by and large we agree😵