[Bobboau]

objective standard

what exactly do you mean by this? when I hear 'objective' I think in terms of properties of an object, like a ball is round or apples (of certain varieties) are red. Objective morality seems to me like it should be based around it's focus, people. Think about it, in a universe without any life would morality make any sense? would asking what was right and wrong in such a universe not be like asking which direction is up in zero gravity in the middle of space? slightly different scenario, imagine a universe with one intelligent being in it, is right and wrong really possible there? if that being was the only thing there how could it possibly do wrong? who could it hurt or help? Here I think we get to the core of the matter, morality is about and centered on people, in the plural. As such the object by which to measure morality against is humanity (or more generically 'people' if we want to include hypothetical non-human entities or animals). The objective standard by which to judge an action (and by summed extension the actor(s), though this is a major simplification) is it's effect on other people.

What is the 'object' from which you are getting the properties for your standard? God? Most of the morals from the bible come in the form of commandments. How is the proclamation of an authority not subjective? and when those rules come in conflict with basic human decency how do you resolve the conflict? By God's omniscience? if God is all knowing could it not come up with a better solution that does not involve a conflict? Further if God is also omnipotent (I know I'm making all sorts of assumptions here but I think I'm safe in making them) could it not have set up the universe so that no 'bad' action would happen? Free will? how would this have violated our free will any more than what has transpired? God cannot escape from it's omniscience, it knew the effect of the placement of every atom in the cosmos and every trait of humanity as it was placing them, so we were set up for our current situation just as much as if God would have set up the universe for peace and prosperity. If God does not do this for free will reasons then why did God on so many occasions in the Bible violate people's free will? (like hardening pharaoh's heart, seemingly just to give himself a pretext to murder every firstborn in Egypt)

Is it good because God declares it, or does God declare it because it's good?

[Goober5000]

Arguing that God provides an objective moral standard requires you to actually know what moral standard God "promotes".  I really hope you're not going to argue that the Bible provides that.

It does -- but actually, whether or not you know the standard is irrelevant.  The fact is that if God exists, then he represents an objective moral standard.  God's creation, God's rules.

And if not the Bible, then what?  Your own interpretation of it?  Your personal relationship with God?  That's all pretty subjective.

No, I'm a thinking person and am perfectly capable of making moral judgments based on my own sense of morality.  I don't need a magic sky daddy to tell me what's right and wrong.  I can figure it out for myself, and I think everyone else can as well.

Don't you see that you've contradicted yourself here?  If you "figure it out for yourself" then that, by definition, is a subjective moral standard.  Morality then becomes meaningless because there's no reason to choose one subjective standard over another.

[FrikgFeek]

Well, if we take morals as something that helped humans survive and groups with better morals prospered and spread their genes then it's obvious that anything that's beneficial to the group is "good", while anything detrimental to the group is "evil". Therefore, killing is not necessarily evil if it helps the human collective. God seems to have his favourites and only helps them while being very detrimental for the rest of humanity. Satan uses deception and lies, yet his actions often result in the people unifying against a common enemy, making the group stronger. Therefore, Satan's actions are "good". He's not the hero we need, but he might be the one we deserve.

This standard might not be completely objective, as it's hard to say what's good or what's bad for the collective ahead of time, though it's still good enough if you only look at things in retrospect.

[Mongoose]

guys can't we just go back to talking about the funny goat statue?

[AdmiralRalwood]

And if not the Bible, then what?  Your own interpretation of it?  Your personal relationship with God?  That's all pretty subjective.

No, I'm a thinking person and am perfectly capable of making moral judgments based on my own sense of morality.  I don't need a magic sky daddy to tell me what's right and wrong.  I can figure it out for myself, and I think everyone else can as well.

Don't you see that you've contradicted yourself here?  If you "figure it out for yourself" then that, by definition, is a subjective moral standard.  Morality then becomes meaningless because there's no reason to choose one subjective standard over another.

That isn't self-contradictory.

[Aesaar]

Arguing that God provides an objective moral standard requires you to actually know what moral standard God "promotes".  I really hope you're not going to argue that the Bible provides that.

It does -- but actually, whether or not you know the standard is irrelevant.  The fact is that if God exists, then he represents an objective moral standard.  God's creation, God's rules.

Be careful with that.  There's some really disgusting **** in the Bible I don't think you want to say represents "good".

Unless you subscribe to a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible; that it's the unadulterated word of God and is literally true, then your morality is based upon your interpretation of its words, and is therefore as subjective as anyone else's.  I'm sure you don't agree with its repeated endorsement of slavery, for instance.

And if not the Bible, then what?  Your own interpretation of it?  Your personal relationship with God?  That's all pretty subjective.

No, I'm a thinking person and am perfectly capable of making moral judgments based on my own sense of morality.  I don't need a magic sky daddy to tell me what's right and wrong.  I can figure it out for myself, and I think everyone else can as well.

Don't you see that you've contradicted yourself here?  If you "figure it out for yourself" then that, by definition, is a subjective moral standard.  Morality then becomes meaningless because there's no reason to choose one subjective standard over another.

Uh, no, that's not self-contradictory at all.  My moral standard is completely subjective.  That's what I'm saying.  I don't understand why you think that's a bad thing.  I don't get it from some god, I figured it out myself or it was taught to me by my parents.  There is a reason to choose one standard over another: What do you think?  What do you agree with?

When multiple people agree about things, then they tend to make laws that reflect those beliefs.  And then they tend to teach those beliefs to their kids.  That perpetuates those moral standards, and is why society's laws are as close to an objective moral standard as we're going to get.  Big surprise, not everyone agrees about all of those either.

[Grizzly]

If we take into consideration that mankind was shaped after god in his own image, then the morality as dictated by god is itself subjected to the cognetive biases of god, and therefore subjective.

[karajorma]

Politicians spend so much time calling each other the devil. It's a massive PR battle.

The same thing could be going with the supposed battle between God and the devil. We literally only ever hear one side of the story - there's no official Book of the Devil to hear his side of the story.

Now imagine if the bible is like Fox News! All you'd hear is a very biased account of the truth determined to paint the other side as Obama the devil.

[swashmebuckle]

guys can't we just go back to talking about the funny goat statue?

Agreed, worshiping farm animal statues is a smite-worthy offense in the old testament so this funny goat statue will probably determine the future of our civilization. Everyone keep it OT if you value not getting smote.

[Scotty]

And let's not forget that whole homosexuality thing.  According to the Bible's 'objective morality', I've committed a capital offense and must be put to death.

[swashmebuckle]

Sorry Scotty, you seem like a good fellow, but apparently our notions of "good" don't count because God's world God's rules.

If only there were some sort of alternative supernatural being, one who specialized in sticking it to the man upstairs, perhaps a patron of all things that rock.

But that's just crazy talk, there is no such notional entity. Nice knowing you Scotty, prepare for smite!

[An4ximandros]

Ahriman? He's an asshole, ****ed himself just to spawn evil into the world and fornicated a woman so hard women began bleeding every month and... oh you meant that one.

[Goober5000]

Uh, no, that's not self-contradictory at all.  My moral standard is completely subjective.  That's what I'm saying.  I don't understand why you think that's a bad thing.  I don't get it from some god, I figured it out myself or it was taught to me by my parents.  There is a reason to choose one standard over another: What do you think?  What do you agree with?

It's not a bad thing.  The problem is, it's not a good thing either.  A subjective standard by definition doesn't apply to anyone but the person who thought it up.  And there's no basis to judge one subjective standard superior or inferior to another.  An objective standard, on the other hand, treats everyone equally.  It's the difference between relative truth and absolute truth.

[Scotty]

Meanwhile, I'm very interested to hear about whether you believe strongly enough in your Objective Morality to wish I were dead, as your Objective Morality decrees.

[Aesaar]

Uh, no, that's not self-contradictory at all.  My moral standard is completely subjective.  That's what I'm saying.  I don't understand why you think that's a bad thing.  I don't get it from some god, I figured it out myself or it was taught to me by my parents.  There is a reason to choose one standard over another: What do you think?  What do you agree with?

It's not a bad thing.  The problem is, it's not a good thing either.  A subjective standard by definition doesn't apply to anyone but the person who thought it up.  And there's no basis to judge one subjective standard superior or inferior to another.  An objective standard, on the other hand, treats everyone equally.  It's the difference between relative truth and absolute truth.

Explain to me why God's objective moral standard, which endorses slavery, urges people to kill the gays, and tells women to shut the **** up, is superior to my subjective one. 

Bear in mind that "God says so" isn't a good answer.

What you fail to understand is that I don't need to prove my sense of morality is superior to that of someone else.  I don't need validation.  I think I'm right, and if called upon to, I'll explain why I think X is right and Y is wrong.  I'm perfectly happy letting my opinions rise or fall based on their own merit.  I don't need to appeal to a higher authority to give my opinions more weight.

[An4ximandros]

Here's another way to look at it: There is no universal standard and we just try to make things fit into each of ours. The teachings our parents, preachers, teachers, and leaders pass onto us are their standards, nothing more. They try to get us to work into their setup, to wall off possibilities that are unacceptable by theirs.

[Goober5000]

Meanwhile, I'm very interested to hear about whether you believe strongly enough in your Objective Morality to wish I were dead, as your Objective Morality decrees.

I believe this:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Explain to me why God's objective moral standard, which endorses slavery and urges people to kill the gays, is superior to my subjective one.

"Regulate" does not imply "endorse".  God regulates divorce as well despite the fact that he expressly hates it.  And "urging" is most certainly not what those verses are about.

Bear in mind that "God says so" isn't a good answer.

Although there are more answers, "God says so" is entirely sufficient.  A creator can impose any order he wishes on the creation.

What you fail to understand is that I don't need to prove my sense of morality is superior to that of someone else.  I don't need validation.  I think I'm right, and if called upon to, I'll explain why I think X is right and Y is wrong.  I don't need to appeal to a higher authority.  I'm perfectly happy letting my opinions rise or fall based on their merit.

I'm not trying to prove anything.  I certainly haven't been able to persuade anyone, based on the evidence in this thread.  But that doesn't matter, because the truth isn't dependent on the opinion of you or me or anyone else.

[Scotty]

Meanwhile, I'm very interested to hear about whether you believe strongly enough in your Objective Morality to wish I were dead, as your Objective Morality decrees.

I believe this:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

That's a convenient way to not say anything.  Especially since the penalty for homosexuality isn't "death" in the sense that yeah someday we all die, it's "put to death" as in summary execution.  It's really not flexible at all on that point.  There is a very clear dichotomy here, and I'm absolutely going to force you to make a decision one way or another.  Either:

A) You believe that God's will is the One True moral standard and fulfills the criteria for effective objective morality, in which case by my actions and thoughts I should be killed, or
B) God's will is not the One True moral standard and is as open to interpretation as any other.  Do note that by interpreting objective morality you make it subjective.

[SypheDMar]

Bear in mind that "God says so" isn't a good answer.

Although there are more answers, "God says so" is entirely sufficient.  A creator can impose any order he wishes on the creation.

Well, **** that. Just because we can create life doesn't mean we should be inhumane towards our creations. God is an asshole if that's what God thinks.

But fortunately as far as I can tell, supposing God exists, God doesn't give a crap because God is an Existentialist!

[Goober5000]

That's a convenient way to not say anything.

Perhaps.  It's not my answer.  It's the answer I was given to give to you.