AbbyNormal

(Mods, feel free to move this...wasn't sure where to insert it!)

Reader's Digest version of Godspam I received recently:
Little girl raised by "atheist parents" witnesses father shoot mother than shoot himself. Years later girl sees picture of Jesus and declares "Hey! That's the man who held me the night my parents died!" Praise Jesus, yadda, yadda.

In my response I mentioned how nice of it was for Jesus to hold the little girl while the father shot up his mother and himself. Gee, would it be that much more difficult for Jesus to stop the shooting or deliver the girl to more stable parents in the first place?

As the email dialogue progressed the notion of objective vs subjective morality arose and I took the side of subjective morality.

The friend responded by pointing out a contradiction in my arguments. By saying that it was wrong for Jesus to prevent the girl from witnessing the shooting, I have just made an objective claim regarding morality. If I declare that my moral take on the girl witnessing the shooting is subjective, than I can't expect anyone else, and certainly not God, to agree. I can't then make a judgement regarding the morality of God's actions.

Maybe my brain is just getting too muddled, but I'm finding it difficult to reconcile the problem of evil (why would God allow this to happen?) with my belief in subjective morality.

Thoughts?

Regards,
AbbyNormal

Starboy

Hi AbbyNormal,

Perhaps this is off the mark, would god based morals be subjective from the point of view of god? In that case does it make any sense to talk about objective morals? Wouldn't so-called objective morals only be objective if they applied to god as well? Would god be punished if it broke its own commandment? I am not sure if there is a circumstance where objective morals make any sense. I would think that if such a thing as an objective moral existed it would be impossible for a mere mortal to violate it. The fact that we can violate them seems to make the notion of morals subjective at best and irrelevant at worst.

Starboy

AbbyNormal

Hi, Starboy. That's an interesting take: that morals are subjective from God's point-of-view as well. Though I'm not sure it addresses the problem, as I'm not sure we're using the same definition of objective morality.

From the apologists standpoint: there exists an objective standard of morality, defined by God, but humans have free will and thus may choose whether or not to follow that standard. Where else did you get your idea of good and evil, anway?

My standpoint: morality is an evolved concept. Those early tribes that developed taboos against murder, theft, etc, were more likely to survive than those who did not, and thus were able to pass on these "rules" to later generations. Social Darwinism, I suppose.

My dilemna: If I can say that "X is wrong, how can God allow X?" then I must be referring to an objective standard regarding the morality of X. Where did this standard come from?

And with that, I have to get up in five hours. Good night.

Regards,
AbbyNormal

Starboy

AbbyNormal, when you make that statement are you arguing from your point of view or simply pointing out the contradictions inherent in your opponent’s point of view? You are not claiming that there is an objective moral standard are you? It is your opponent that is making the claim correct?

I think the both of you have to agree on the meaning of the word objective:

I usually understand it to be the property of something that exists without regard to my existence, perception or understanding of it. Notice that the definition has nothing to do with god. I am having a hard time trying to visualize how morals could exist without the thing that they apply to also existing. It seems to me that the existence of morals is subject to the existence of the object the morals apply to. Just from that alone it would seem that they are subjective.

It is also hard for me to understand how a human could violate a moral if it did exist objectively. If you think there is an objective brick wall in front of you and yet you can walk through it as if it were not there, is it really a brick wall in front of you or are you only seeing the wall subjectively? Anything claimed to be objective should be evident without the cooperation of the subject. If it is not then it must be subjective. I have never seen a case where a moral could be shown to be anything other then a behavior that was in the mind of the person who claimed it existed. The onus is on your opponent to demonstrate that morals are objective. They must be able to do it without resorting to the bible. They must be able to show that a specific moral like let’s say, “thou shall not kill” would still exist if there were no humans.

I think your dilemma is the result of the misuse of the word objective. You have been suckered in by accepting something as being objective simply because it comes from god. If it is objective it exists outside of a personal existence and would apply to everything, god included. If that were the case then in a religious context your question makes perfect sense. Your opponent has suckered you in because they have redefined objective to mean something that comes from god. You gotta watch those decieving, manupulating, intolerant Christians. They suck!

Starboy