Morality and Subjectivity

Philosophically I suppose that is right, but practically speaking, probably not. Much as I agree with you that all the other moral claims are subjective and meaningless, all those suggested by everyone on this thread for instance, nevertheless there's no way to live without some version of those.And of course I think there is a reason for that. There is a God and morality is built into us, even if it's distorted and people come up with absurd subjective rationalizations for their morality.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 02:02 AM

As far as I can make out, our morals are based on feelings.I myself find that I have srong feelings in private affairs, and very weak feelings in public affairs.Some people seem to have strong feelings in public affiars, which to me is strange. I guess I do not have the capacity for impersonal feelings.

Yes, experientially they are based on feelings, but I nevertheless think they are a reflection of our original nature as the image of God, blurred by the Fall of course, and we all are affected by the Fall in different areas of our mental life to different degrees. Some people have strong consciences, some very little or even seemingly none, etc.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 02:15 AM

I'm going to guess that you accept the phenomena of gravity studied by phyics as objective.Does it have an absolute meaning? If so what is it?lfen

When you throw the ball into the air, it comes down. Always.

Well I can cite examples when it doesn't, not that that disproves the theory.Let me approach this from the other end. Can you give me an example of something objective that also has meaning or is meaning?I readily identify meaning as subjective. What I don't know is if there is even the possibility of objective meaning.lfen

If you can prove it, it has an "objective meaning."If you can prove that murder is wrong, without begging the question, without introducing another groundless moral rule, it would have an objective meaing.

Can you give me examples of things you can prove that you think are meaningful?I have a suspicion that what can be proved are tautologies. What could be the meaning of the square root of 2 being irrational? Or what could be the meaning of the DNA molecule having a double helix structure?lfen

That's not tautological. We can't deduce that the DNA molocule has such a structure. It might have had a different structure.

Okay it's not a tautology. Do you have an answer for my question about what it means? Actually, I would simply like to have an example of what you consider logically objective and meaningful. At this point I can't think of something that is both. As far as I can see at this point meaning is subjective. Useful as objective knowledge is it doesn't give meaning. But I'm tired and could easily be missing the obvious.lfen

No. As I've explained to rr before, if morality were like mathematics then no-one could ever act immorally. But clearly people do act immorally, clearly people do reject God's moral law. Therefore, even if there is a God, his moral standards are not logically binding in the way rr expects them to be.(Maybe I should have written this reply to rr ).

---

The true mystery of the world is the visible, not the invisible

quote:

---

At this point I can't think of something that is both. As far as I can see at this point meaning is subjective. Useful as objective knowledge is it doesn't give meaning. But I'm tired and could easily be missing the obvious.

---

I don't think you are missing anything obvious.Objective: Death is the permanent ending to life.
Objective: Means of death (natural, accident, etc.)
Objective: The effect murder has on a family or community. (grief, fear, retaliation, etc.)
Subjective: Human feelings and thoughts concerning the act of murder.
Subjective: Decisions made concerning murder.
Objective: Actions taken concerning murder.IMO, a tribe or society decides whether murder is moral or immoral based on the objective knowledge and their subjective feelings.If the tribe or society decides that they will not tolerate murder, then it becomes unlawful and therefore wrong (unlawful or not in accordance with an established standard.) or immoral (not in conformity with accepted principles of behavior)I can't think of anything that is inherently both. Since the objective is reality and the subjective is mental, mankind employs both to decide on acceptable behavior. Decisions are mental.IMO, even in mathematics the equations are not objective. I can't step outside and see a mathematical equation. Those were devised in the minds of mankind.

---

"Peshat is what I say and derash is what you say." --Nehama Leibowitz

Actually it is possible to disobey a mathematical or physical law, if you are a sentient being at least, but what this means is that you will be punished for it -- if you ignore gravity for instance. The law continues to operate in spite of your disrespecting it of course.And the same is true for God's moral laws. They are just as inexorable as the physical and mathematical laws of the universe and disobedience of them brings punishment, both now and at the Final Judgment. Some people are sensitive enough to recognize the operations of the moral law in their own and others' lives, the blessings that follow obedience and the misfortunes that follow disobedience. The Fall was the punishment of the first disobedience.It is the inexorable nature of the moral laws that makes sinners of all of us, and required the sacrifice of Christ if any of us are to be saved from the eternal punishment for disobeying them.This message has been edited by Faith, 04-14-2006 11:55 AM

We are talking about 2 different types of laws.A "law of nature" is just a description of what things always do.A moral law is legislative.This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-14-2006 11:09 AM

If math was not objective, then these formulas would be just something we made up--in which case we might have made up something different."Objective" means we didn't just make it up. We discovered it.