Is morality objective or subjective?

[Immanuel Can]

...one would need to know a specific question in order to get any sense of how complicated the answer might be.

What about the OP here? How "profound" would the discussion be to deal with it?

The first step in dealing with the topic would be to stop asking fuzzy, meaningless questions such as that one.

It meets your criteria: it asks something superficially very simple...just a choice of two. You can't get easier than that, in a sense. It its problem that it's....profound?

Why is a simple answer necessarily comforting?

Because it's easy. It gives one a sense of having grasped everything worth grasping,

And what is difficult about saying, "because the Bible tells me so"?

You'd best ask somebody who says that.

The world is fine as it is, nothing more needs to be discussed, there's no further uncertainty, all has been solved, there are no serious doubts left...very comforting, indeed.

But what when the simple answer is, the world isn't fine as it is; that doesn't seem particularly comforting.

That turns out to be the gateway to a whole lot of additional questions: like, "why is the world not fine," "what would a fine world be," "what does it lack," "what needs to be done about it, if anything," "how do we know the world's not fine," "how can we complain about something we can't change anyway..." etc.

So that answer loses its winsome simplicity very early on. Does that make it better not to ask it?

And what is more smug than saying, "I'm right because God says so"?

It's only smug if God didn't say it. So that criticism is simply a begging of the whole question. If God said it, then it's true, and then anybody who also says it is speaking the truth -- God's truth, not his own. He'd be immoral NOT to say it...in fact, if he knew the truth and pretended he didn't, he'd be a kind of liar.

Both give one the sense of having resolved all the relevant controversies, or at least all that anybody can be responsible to solve.

That is a matter of what type of person you are, not whether you believe in God.

And that's the problem with the old canard, "You only believe in God because it's comforting." Atheism and agnosticism can also be merely comforting. The issue remains not the level of comfort of the speaker, but the truth.

[Gary Childress]

Well, wisdom takes work...mental work...and often, it takes suffering as well, actually. How many people do you know who have never suffered much, and yet are wise?

If you look at the daily news, you'll find no wisdom. You'll find factoids, all elicited in aid of an agenda...at least, for the most part. Wisdom has to do with the things that do not change, the truly profound things of life, not merely with the changeable circumstances marshalled by the news.

Heck, their name gives it away: the daily "NEW-s". It ain't the daily "permanent realities."

Sometimes it takes mental work and sometimes it is almost effortless.

Hmmm...I'm trying to think of anything genuinely wise that somebody learned without paying anything (whether in mental effort or blood or tears) for learning it. Maybe you have something in mind...

Every time a baby doesn't stick it's finger in a socket, every time a person doesn't blow their hand off lighting firecrackers are effortless acts of wisdom. Every time someone says no to hard drugs, it's an act of wisdom, often effortless with some people. Then I see a kid sitting on a street corner with a big cross he's carrying, sweating and accomplishing nothing extraordinary except making a fool of himself to the majority of passers by, I see foolishness in my opinion. Foolishness can take effort too. Some people put a lot of effort into it.

[Immanuel Can]

Every time a baby doesn't stick it's finger in a socket, every time a person doesn't blow their hand off lighting firecrackers are effortless acts of wisdom.

How did they become wise, in that situation? Was by being afraid to try anything? That doesn't seem wise, even if it's safe. Or was it not by watching somebody else do something unwise...and pay the price?

Wisdom can be acquired by watching others pay the price. That much is true.

[promethean75]

"Atheism and agnosticism can also be merely comforting. The issue remains not the level of comfort of the speaker, but the truth."

Ew now this is kinda clever. You're actually reversing the general trend's history and calling the thing once associated with skepticism toward platonism, metaphysics and pseudo-science - the 'truth' - is now a possession of the philosophy of Christianity; this religion is no longer concerned with establishing itself at the table of sirius philosophy and confidently declares itself as the truth.

The christian charades as the disinterested socratic type of inquirer concerned with the Truth for its own sake... but only after it is made agreeable, given purpose and a happy ending. Not before.

That very disinterested socratic type used to be the atheists and agnostics of the day, not the Platonists and Pythagoreans. Today, what would be laughed at by greek sophists and skeptics (Christianity) now claims to possess and produce the genuine ethos of critical thinking and skepticism. Now how fuckin ironic is that?

Of course all the greatest christian philosophers had to struggle walking the line between aristotlean logic and materialism and pure metaphysics and theology. How to make Christianity scientific, even by medieval standards, was the challenge. It got as far as it could go with Descartes. He was the last of em. The scholastic school that evolved out of a product of combining aristotle with christian mythology.

So what's happened is, Christianity has been around for so long that by sheer force of its continued presence does it establish itself as a religion that is impervious to skepticism toward it. In other words, the default view if you're a kid or young adult in suburban ermerica, is Christianity. U don't question it. Only if u went looking for alternative beliefs would u find atheism and the like. It's now part of the intellectual furniture and history of this great nation!

[Gary Childress]

Every time a baby doesn't stick it's finger in a socket, every time a person doesn't blow their hand off lighting firecrackers are effortless acts of wisdom.

How did they become wise, in that situation? Was by being afraid to try anything? That doesn't seem wise, even if it's safe. Or was it not by watching somebody else do something unwise...and pay the price?

Wisdom can be acquired by watching others pay the price. That much is true.

Who knows for what reason they abstained from something or where wisdom comes from? Maybe they saw the expression of distress on their parent's face the first time they motioned like they were going to stick their finger in a socket and somehow realized from it that they'd better not do it. Or what is your impression of a wise person? Who do you deem wise?

[Harbal]

What about the OP here? How "profound" would the discussion be to deal with it?

The first step in dealing with the topic would be to stop asking fuzzy, meaningless questions such as that one.

It meets your criteria: it asks something superficially very simple...just a choice of two. You can't get easier than that, in a sense. It its problem that it's....profound?

It isn't profound, whatever you mean by that, it is simplistic, and certainly not merely a choice of two. It is impossible to even give the question any serious consideration before the terms in the question have been clearly defined.

And what is difficult about saying, "because the Bible tells me so"?

You'd best ask somebody who says that.

I'm asking you, because you often say it in one way or another.

And what is more smug than saying, "I'm right because God says so"?

It's only smug if God didn't say it.

Then it would always be smug on that account alone. But it is mainly smug because of the misplaced moral superiority of insufferable Bible snobs.

If God said it, then it's true, and then anybody who also says it is speaking the truth -- God's truth, not his own. He'd be immoral NOT to say it...in fact, if he knew the truth and pretended he didn't, he'd be a kind of liar.

What a load of codswallop, but a good way of avoiding personal responsibility for your actions.

That is a matter of what type of person you are, not whether you believe in God.

And that's the problem with the old canard, "You only believe in God because it's comforting." Atheism and agnosticism can also be merely comforting. The issue remains not the level of comfort of the speaker, but the truth.

I have no idea how comforting your belief in God is for you, and would never claim to know. Likewise, I don't know what comfort anyone might find in their state of none belief. But you, it seems, are able to read minds. I have no idea what your reference to truth relates to.

[Immanuel Can]

Every time a baby doesn't stick it's finger in a socket, every time a person doesn't blow their hand off lighting firecrackers are effortless acts of wisdom.

How did they become wise, in that situation? Was by being afraid to try anything? That doesn't seem wise, even if it's safe. Or was it not by watching somebody else do something unwise...and pay the price?

Wisdom can be acquired by watching others pay the price. That much is true.

Who knows for what reason they abstained from something or where wisdom comes from?

Well, if nobody knows, we aren't likely to get much.

Wisdom generally comes from life experience. I would differentiate it from mere "knowledge," like knowledge of facts, by its applicability to life, its universality, its depth of truth. As I was suggesting, I think wisdom has to do with things that do not change, and knowledge has to do with things that come and go. Today's "knowledge" is often tomorrow's "defunct idea," "obsolete belief," or "passing trend." But wisdom is forever.

For instance, your grandpa might not have much knowledge; maybe he was not formally educated, and worked with his hands, and was very blue-collar all his life. But all the same, he might be wise. It depends on how well he's taken to heart and understood the lessons that life has had to teach him. It depend whether or not he's learned self-control, and the proportionality of the value of things, and how life really goes, and how to craft a well-lived life. It's closer to what Aristotle calls "phronesis."

[Gary Childress]

How did they become wise, in that situation? Was by being afraid to try anything? That doesn't seem wise, even if it's safe. Or was it not by watching somebody else do something unwise...and pay the price?

Wisdom can be acquired by watching others pay the price. That much is true.

Who knows for what reason they abstained from something or where wisdom comes from?

Well, if nobody knows, we aren't likely to get much.

Wisdom generally comes from life experience. I would differentiate it from mere "knowledge," like knowledge of facts, by its applicability to life, its universality, its depth of truth. As I was suggesting, I think wisdom has to do with things that do not change, and knowledge has to do with things that come and go. Today's "knowledge" is often tomorrow's "defunct idea," "obsolete belief," or "passing trend." But wisdom is forever.

For instance, your grandpa might not have much knowledge; maybe he was not formally educated, and worked with his hands, and was very blue-collar all his life. But all the same, he might be wise. It depends on how well he's taken to heart and understood the lessons that life has had to teach him. It depend whether or not he's learned self-control, and the proportionality of the value of things, and how life really goes, and how to craft a well-lived life. It's closer to what Aristotle calls "phronesis."

fair enough.

[Immanuel Can]

The first step in dealing with the topic would be to stop asking fuzzy, meaningless questions such as that one.

It meets your criteria: it asks something superficially very simple...just a choice of two. You can't get easier than that, in a sense. It its problem that it's....profound?

It isn't profound, whatever you mean by that, it is simplistic, and certainly not merely a choice of two. It is impossible to even give the question any serious consideration before the terms in the question have been clearly defined.

So which word is giving you trouble: "objective," "subjective" or "moral"?

If God said it, then it's true, and then anybody who also says it is speaking the truth -- God's truth, not his own. He'd be immoral NOT to say it...in fact, if he knew the truth and pretended he didn't, he'd be a kind of liar.

What a load of codswallop, but a good way of avoiding personal responsibility for your actions.

On the contrary: if I'm in a burning building, and you know it, and you don't tell me there's a fire, then it's you that is avoiding personal responsibility for your actions. You're criminally negligent, in fact.

But you, it seems, are able to read minds.

No. Just see the logical consequences of particular ideas. One doesn't have to pass any judgment about the person holding the idea to do that. One can, and should, judge the idea on its own merits. That's logic. The alternative is merely the ad hominem, the first refuge of the rascal who's losing a debate.

[Harbal]

What a load of codswallop, but a good way of avoiding personal responsibility for your actions.

On the contrary: if I'm in a burning building, and you know it, and you don't tell me there's a fire, then it's you that is avoiding personal responsibility for your actions. You're criminally negligent, in fact.

Nevertheless, I suspect I would be considered a hero by many.

[Immanuel Can]

What a load of codswallop, but a good way of avoiding personal responsibility for your actions.

On the contrary: if I'm in a burning building, and you know it, and you don't tell me there's a fire, then it's you that is avoiding personal responsibility for your actions. You're criminally negligent, in fact.

Nevertheless, I suspect I would be considered a hero by many.

Plausibly so.

[Will Bouwman]

...knowledge does not equal making.

If God foreknew what would happen in this world, and he made this world, he made everything that happens in this world happen.
As you say:

The equation is actually just that straightforward.

I'm not interested in your musings about "the Atheist",

I can understand why.

You could understand better were you to finish the sentence:

I'm not interested in your musings about "the Atheist", that is as much a product of your needs as your God is.

[Immanuel Can]

...knowledge does not equal making.

If God foreknew what would happen in this world, and he made this world, he made everything that happens in this world happen.

Notice how you had to equivocate the verb: you had to turn "know" into "made." That's because they're different verbs. If you'd written, "If God foreknew...he foreknew everything...," then it would have been trivial and circular.

Nobody in your entire life, or anybody else's, made somebody DO something simply by KNOWING he would, Will. They're just different verbs. That's the point.

You could understand better were you to finish the sentence:

I'm not interested in your musings about "the Atheist", that is as much a product of your needs as your God is.

Yeah, that adds nothing. It's just an ad hominem, and an untrue assumption as well. I forgave it instantly, and chose not to make any note of it. And, of course, it works equally as an insult against any Atheist: "You're only an Atheists because Atheism is a product of your needs." That sort of remark goes nowhere.

Instead, I pointed out the logical problems with Atheism itself, which remain serious and intractible. If I treated your remark with more seriousness than perhaps it required, culpa mea.

[Will Bouwman]

Nobody in your entire life, or anybody else's, made somebody DO something simply by KNOWING he would, Will. They're just different verbs.

I'm sure we both understand that make in itself is two different verbs: coerce and create. I'm not suggesting there is any coercion from your God, although the threat of eternal damnation is close enough, rather I am pointing out the bleedin' obvious. If God knew everything that would happen in this world, he created a world in which exactly those things happen. You might feel that you have freewill, but in fact you are going to do what God already knows you are going to do. Either that, or he doesn't know what you are going to do. If your God exists, I'm sure it's the latter; an eternity without surprise or discovery would be a very dull place.

[Immanuel Can]

Nobody in your entire life, or anybody else's, made somebody DO something simply by KNOWING he would, Will. They're just different verbs.

I'm sure we both understand that make in itself is two different verbs: coerce and create.

Well, yes...and more, actually. "Make" has several synonyms. But none of them is "know."

I'm not suggesting there is any coercion from your God, although the threat of eternal damnation is close enough,

It's not. If fear of eternal damnation were any kind of coercion, wouldn't everybody capitulate to it? But on the contrary, people seem to need to be convinced of their peril in that regard, and don't at all take it for granted -- and that's the vast majority. So it seems it's very possible to resist that alleged "coercion."

If God knew everything that would happen in this world, he created a world in which exactly those things happen.

Not so "obvious."

It would only be true if the world He created ran on strictly Deterministic lines, with God's will being the only effective will (i.e. the will that can make choices that make a difference to things) in the universe. But as the Biblical account goes, God gave man free will; which means man's will is effective in the universe, too. While it is limited by his mortal limitedness, his boundedness by a body and a location, man's will is a microcosm of the divine will, in that it is a volition that can make a difference, too.

Now, if there are five paths before us, say, and we are genuinely free to choose among them, and God is sovereignly able to foresee all possible roads, then it is not at all the case that the only way God can manage the situation is by forcing us down one particular road. For example, you have the relationship of divine foreknowledge and human choice-making modelled in David's decision at the city of Keilah, in 1 Samuel 23. You have again Jesus Himself speaking of a division between what God would prefer and what human beings choose to do in Luke 13:34. And we could cite many, many more passages, including all that have to do with salvation, which emphasize the impossibility of salvation apart from human faith. So we're neck deep in evidence that what you're saying is nothing like the Biblical view.

What's very clear is that the Bible does not at all back a Deterministic view of the universe, but rather emphasizes the volitional freedom God has uniquely given to mankind...and for which all men are responsible.