Christianity's Morality is Objective

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my argument why Christianity's Morality* is Objective, but its degree of objectivity is negligible, i.e. say, like, 0.0000001/100 relative to scientific objectivity.
* this is related to specific moral elements within morality [as defined].
Despite that we cannot deny it has contributed significantly to deter evil within humanity since its emergence.

I am only using post to PH as a reference point; this discussion is open to all.

Oh. My mistake. I thought there was an argument for moral objectivity, which must rely on a non-circular description of moral rightness and wrongness. 'X is morally right/wrong because...'

For example, 'Murder is morally wrong because...' Now, that's supposed to be a moral fact, so there's a factual reason why murder is morally wrong.

But, let's not hold our breath - because moral moral objectivists can't explain why murder is morally wrong.

Moral objectivism and realism is a fucking joke.

I keep telling you, your above views are grounded on an illusion.
PH's What is Fact is Illusory
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39577

Here is the factual 'what is fact';
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

"This sentence contains words." accurately describes a linguistic fact [because the linguistic FSK said so], and
"The sun is a star" accurately describes an astronomical fact. [because the astronomical FSK said so] Further,
"Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States" and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated" both accurately describe historical facts. [because the US legal FSK said so]
Generally speaking, facts are independent of belief and of knowledge and opinion.

Scientific facts [as the scientific FSK said so] are verified by repeatable careful observation or measurement by experiments or other means. ibid

Do you deny the above from WIKI with my added qualification of an FSK?

From the above, re Christian morality, "Killing of another human is immoral' is moral fact because the Christian moral FSK said so.
You cannot deny this based on 'what is fact' re the WIKI article above.

Because the above facts are conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects within a FSR-FSK, they are independent of individuals' belief and of knowledge and opinion, thus they are objective [as defined].

Therefore, you cannot deny in placing "Killing of another human is immoral' is moral fact from the Christian Moral FSK and is objective on the starting block of being factual and objective.

However, it is evident there are difference in the degrees of objectivity between the scientific FSK [the most objective] and the linguistic, astronomical and historical.

As I had explained, whilst "Killing of another human is immoral' the qualifies [for the starting block] as a moral fact and is objective, it failed to get off the starting block because the whole of the Christian FSK is grounded on an illusory God. Therefore its degree of objectivity is negligible, say 0.0000001/100.

Analogy:
It is like an athlete qualified for an Olympics 100 meters final but he failed to get off the starting block, thus disqualified - no rating. However, there is no denial the athlete is an Olympian athlete.

The Christian Moral FSK degree of objectivity is negligible due to its grounding on an illusion.
Moral FSKs that do ground their claims on verifiable and justifiable empirical evidences and has near equivalent objectivity to the scientific FSK, the moral facts will have higher degree of objectivity.
For example [among many] Hume's moral FSK grounded on sympathy [empathy] do have some reasonable degrees of objectivity because empathy* can be traced [in some degrees] to mirror neurons which are represented by its physical neural correlates.
* empathy is not an absolute correlation to morality but in some ways it does.

Since I have justified against your OP, there are moral facts and morality is objective.
Do you have any counter for the above?

Discuss?
Views from others??

[Veritas Aequitas]

Notes: T.B.A.

[LuckyR]

I don't disagree. Moral codes based on arguments (and opinions) are subjective since arguments (and opinions) with opposite conclusions can be drawn. Moral codes that are based on dogma (like just about any religion, including Christianity) are locally objective, since they are based on a text that contains objective writings. Of course to nonbelievers, the basis for the moral codes is non-existant, though even they can understand that to a believer it appears objective.

[Sculptor]

Here is my argument why Christianity's Morality is Objective, but its degree of objectivity is negligible, i.e. say, like, 0.0000001/100 relative to scientific objectivity.
Despite that we cannot deny it has contributed significantly to deter evil within humanity since its emergence.

Objectivity is not so easily quantifyable and neither is the claim that it has detered evil
Christianity is objectively EVIL

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't disagree. Moral codes based on arguments (and opinions) are subjective since arguments (and opinions) with opposite conclusions can be drawn. Moral codes that are based on dogma (like just about any religion, including Christianity) are locally objective, since they are based on a text that contains objective writings. Of course to nonbelievers, the basis for the moral codes is non-existant, though even they can understand that to a believer it appears objective.

My OP [being a title and attention getter] is misleading but as I had implied in the details,
we cannot take the whole of Christianity as a moral system; we have to deal with the moral elements therein separately.

First we need to define what is morality;
morality is the management of evil to enable its related good.
What is evil, i.e. evil acts or thoughts are those that is net-negative to the individuals and therefrom to humanity.

The main system of Christianity is that of Soteriology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology
i.e. salvation with eternal life and avoiding Hell.

Morality is merely a sub-system within Christianity to facilitate salvation.
In this case, we have to pick up the specific moral elements in dealing with it as a subject in alignment with morality-in-general [as defined above].

Because Christianity is conditioned upon a Framework, System and its specific Constitution [Gospels] from an illusory God, it qualifies to be considered 'objective' albeit of negligible degrees.

We cannot say the moral codes, e.g. 'Thou Shall Not Kill, Period!' within the Christian moral FSK is non existent because the moral maxim 'the ought-not-ness to kill humans' is universal within ALL moral systems.
We have to consider each moral element.

From a MetaEthical perspective, the 'Thou Shall Not Kill, Period! is inferred by human theologians based on their intuitions without knowing the real and existing facts of it.

From a metaethical morality-proper perspective the moral element Thou Shall Not Kill, Period! is a verifiable and justifiable objective moral fact grounded on the scientific FSK.

If there are other moral elements within Christianity, then, they have to be deliberated separately in detail as above.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Here is my argument why Christianity's Morality is Objective, but its degree of objectivity is negligible, i.e. say, like, 0.0000001/100 relative to scientific objectivity.
Despite that we cannot deny it has contributed significantly to deter evil within humanity since its emergence.

Objectivity is not so easily quantifyable and neither is the claim that it has detered evil
Christianity is objectively EVIL

There is nothing that can be quantified with 100% precision.
Objectivity can be quantified subject to being aware of its laid out limitations.

Re 'evil' note my post above.

There is a moral element within Christianity's moral system [as defined].
There is no denial the moral maxim from Christianity, i.e.
'Thou Shall Not Kill, Period!' or else Eternal Hell awaits;
had been and is at present a deterrent to many Christians to carry out the inherent impulse to kill when triggered by various reasons.

Where Christians had killed humans e.g. Crusades, etc. that is not their contractual obligation as a Christian-per-se from Christianity's constitution, i.e. commands in the Gospels only [not the OT];
rather they had killed while being motivated by their personal interests and feelings, thus, had sinned morally with the hope they will be forgiven by God for doing a good cause for the religion after repentance.

[Sculptor]

Here is my argument why Christianity's Morality is Objective, but its degree of objectivity is negligible, i.e. say, like, 0.0000001/100 relative to scientific objectivity.
Despite that we cannot deny it has contributed significantly to deter evil within humanity since its emergence.

Objectivity is not so easily quantifyable and neither is the claim that it has detered evil
Christianity is objectively EVIL

There is nothing that can be quantified with 100% precision.
Objectivity can be quantified subject to being aware of its laid out limitations.

And so you begin to learn. It's been a struggle watching you try.

Re 'evil' note my post above.

There is a moral element within Christianity's moral system [as defined].
There is no denial the moral maxim from Christianity, i.e.
'Thou Shall Not Kill, Period!' or else Eternal Hell awaits;
had been and is at present a deterrent to many Christians to carry out the inherent impulse to kill when triggered by various reasons.

This is a 100% circular argument, and hence worthless.
Different Chritian sects cannot even agree about the meaning or wording. Go into any Baptist church in the Uk and it will read "Thou shalt do no murder". not "kill" - this, of course justifies the government executing people, and justifies soldiers killing other humans in times of war.
Initially the commandment was devised not only as a rule against murder but also to protect stockholders, dealings in meat and butchers, who wanted to protect their rights over the meat industry.

Obvously it is not objectively evil to kill. It's just an opinion.
When it comes to law, however the parameters can be more clearly defined; but whether this cultural and historical relativism truly amounts to objectivity is less of a moot point than a falsehood.

Where Christians had killed humans e.g. Crusades, etc. that is not their contractual obligation as a Christian-per-se from Christianity's constitution, i.e. commands in the Gospels only [not the OT];
rather they had killed while being motivated by their personal interests and feelings, thus, had sinned morally with the hope they will be forgiven by God for doing a good cause for the religion after repentance.

If you can find the actual list of 10 commandments in the Bible you wiull have achieved more than all the theologicans in the last 2000 years.

I find it highly amusing that you can so easily dismiss the centuries of the Crusades as some sort of aberration when the whole of Europe found plenty of justification in the bibles for their murder and mayhem, as did the Moor from their own versions of the scriptures.


But even if you found all you needed from the Scriptures, this would not make it objective. It would just be rpeating a set of opinions.


So much for objectivity

[Skepdick]

This is a 100% circular argument, and hence worthless.

As evaluated in what non-circular system of worth?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Objectivity is not so easily quantifyable and neither is the claim that it has detered evil
Christianity is objectively EVIL

There is nothing that can be quantified with 100% precision.
Objectivity can be quantified subject to being aware of its laid out limitations.

And so you begin to learn. It's been a struggle watching you try.

Re 'evil' note my post above.

There is a moral element within Christianity's moral system [as defined].
There is no denial the moral maxim from Christianity, i.e.
'Thou Shall Not Kill, Period!' or else Eternal Hell awaits;
had been and is at present a deterrent to many Christians to carry out the inherent impulse to kill when triggered by various reasons.

This is a 100% circular argument, and hence worthless.
Different Chritian sects cannot even agree about the meaning or wording. Go into any Baptist church in the Uk and it will read "Thou shalt do no murder". not "kill" - this, of course justifies the government executing people, and justifies soldiers killing other humans in times of war.
Initially the commandment was devised not only as a rule against murder but also to protect stockholders, dealings in meat and butchers, who wanted to protect their rights over the meat industry.

Obvously it is not objectively evil to kill. It's just an opinion.
When it comes to law, however the parameters can be more clearly defined; but whether this cultural and historical relativism truly amounts to objectivity is less of a moot point than a falsehood.

Where Christians had killed humans e.g. Crusades, etc. that is not their contractual obligation as a Christian-per-se from Christianity's constitution, i.e. commands in the Gospels only [not the OT];
rather they had killed while being motivated by their personal interests and feelings, thus, had sinned morally with the hope they will be forgiven by God for doing a good cause for the religion after repentance.

If you can find the actual list of 10 commandments in the Bible you wiull have achieved more than all the theologicans in the last 2000 years.

I find it highly amusing that you can so easily dismiss the centuries of the Crusades as some sort of aberration when the whole of Europe found plenty of justification in the bibles for their murder and mayhem, as did the Moor from their own versions of the scriptures.


But even if you found all you needed from the Scriptures, this would not make it objective. It would just be rpeating a set of opinions.


So much for objectivity

Your thinking is too superficial, narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

I have argued,
There are Two Senses of 'Objective'
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39326
Scientific Objectivity
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39286

You complained what I am presenting is not objectivity while you are ignorant your sense of objective [i.e. mind-independent objective reality] is grounded on an illusion.
Do you have a counter for the above?

Christianity is objective [as defined] because it is conditioned upon a constitution [the Gospels from God] within a collective of billions, except the degree of objectivity is negligible in contrast to scientific objectivity.

When you enter into any contract, you are obligated to comply with the terms of agreement in the contract.
A Christian is one who has entered into an implied contract [John 3:16] with God and the terms of agreement [contract/covenant] with Christ & God is in the Gospels only, not the whole Bible.

The overriding maxim of the Gospels is 'love all even enemies' which support 'Thou Shall Not Kill' as stipulated the in the OT an appendix to the contract with God.

A person plays many roles in life, i.e. specifically a father, mother, employee, soldier scientist, volunteer, Christian [others], etc. each conditioned by its constitution or social norms.

Therefore when a person killed other humans, that person cannot be conditioned within the Christianity dictates because there are no such permissions in his contractual terms.
Thus, when he killed another person it is either in his own personal capacity, his contractual terms as a soldier [crusades or modern political system].
If a Christian killed another human in his personal capacity, he had sinned and is expected to be punished.
There is no room in Christianity per se that permit a Christian to kill another human.
Do you have a counter for this?

On the other hand, a Muslim has a contractual obligation to kill non-Muslims as stipulated in the terms of agreement when he covenanted with his God.

I predict, as usual, you will handwave the above with your tail between your leg.
Else give me your rational counters to the above.

[Sculptor]

There is nothing that can be quantified with 100% precision.
Objectivity can be quantified subject to being aware of its laid out limitations.

And so you begin to learn. It's been a struggle watching you try.

Re 'evil' note my post above.

There is a moral element within Christianity's moral system [as defined].
There is no denial the moral maxim from Christianity, i.e.
'Thou Shall Not Kill, Period!' or else Eternal Hell awaits;
had been and is at present a deterrent to many Christians to carry out the inherent impulse to kill when triggered by various reasons.

This is a 100% circular argument, and hence worthless.
Different Chritian sects cannot even agree about the meaning or wording. Go into any Baptist church in the Uk and it will read "Thou shalt do no murder". not "kill" - this, of course justifies the government executing people, and justifies soldiers killing other humans in times of war.
Initially the commandment was devised not only as a rule against murder but also to protect stockholders, dealings in meat and butchers, who wanted to protect their rights over the meat industry.

Obvously it is not objectively evil to kill. It's just an opinion.
When it comes to law, however the parameters can be more clearly defined; but whether this cultural and historical relativism truly amounts to objectivity is less of a moot point than a falsehood.

Where Christians had killed humans e.g. Crusades, etc. that is not their contractual obligation as a Christian-per-se from Christianity's constitution, i.e. commands in the Gospels only [not the OT];
rather they had killed while being motivated by their personal interests and feelings, thus, had sinned morally with the hope they will be forgiven by God for doing a good cause for the religion after repentance.

If you can find the actual list of 10 commandments in the Bible you wiull have achieved more than all the theologicans in the last 2000 years.

I find it highly amusing that you can so easily dismiss the centuries of the Crusades as some sort of aberration when the whole of Europe found plenty of justification in the bibles for their murder and mayhem, as did the Moor from their own versions of the scriptures.


But even if you found all you needed from the Scriptures, this would not make it objective. It would just be rpeating a set of opinions.


So much for objectivity

Your thinking is too superficial, narrow, shallow and dogmatic.

I think you just looked in a mirror

[Age]

I don't disagree. Moral codes based on arguments (and opinions) are subjective since arguments (and opinions) with opposite conclusions can be drawn. Moral codes that are based on dogma (like just about any religion, including Christianity) are locally objective, since they are based on a text that contains objective writings.

LOL

Of course to nonbelievers, the basis for the moral codes is non-existant, though even they can understand that to a believer it appears objective.

What do 'you' think or believe the word 'objective' means, or refers to, exactly?

And, how, exactly, could a moral code be based on 'dogma'? What does the 'dogma' word mean or refer to, to 'you', exactly, "luckyr"?

[Age]

I don't disagree. Moral codes based on arguments (and opinions) are subjective since arguments (and opinions) with opposite conclusions can be drawn. Moral codes that are based on dogma (like just about any religion, including Christianity) are locally objective, since they are based on a text that contains objective writings. Of course to nonbelievers, the basis for the moral codes is non-existant, though even they can understand that to a believer it appears objective.

My OP [being a title and attention getter] is misleading but as I had implied in the details,
we cannot take the whole of Christianity as a moral system; we have to deal with the moral elements therein separately.

First we need to define what is morality;
morality is the management of evil to enable its related good.
What is evil, i.e. evil acts or thoughts are those that is net-negative to the individuals and therefrom to humanity.

'you' ARE COMPLETELY and UTTERLY TWISTED and DISTORTED here "veritas aequitas".

The main system of Christianity is that of Soteriology
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soteriology
i.e. salvation with eternal life and avoiding Hell.

Morality is merely a sub-system within Christianity to facilitate salvation.
In this case, we have to pick up the specific moral elements in dealing with it as a subject in alignment with morality-in-general [as defined above].

Because Christianity is conditioned upon a Framework, System and its specific Constitution [Gospels] from an illusory God, it qualifies to be considered 'objective' albeit of negligible degrees.

We cannot say the moral codes, e.g. 'Thou Shall Not Kill, Period!' within the Christian moral FSK is non existent because the moral maxim 'the ought-not-ness to kill humans' is universal within ALL moral systems.
We have to consider each moral element.

From a MetaEthical perspective, the 'Thou Shall Not Kill, Period! is inferred by human theologians based on their intuitions without knowing the real and existing facts of it.

From a metaethical morality-proper perspective the moral element Thou Shall Not Kill, Period! is a verifiable and justifiable objective moral fact grounded on the scientific FSK.

If there are other moral elements within Christianity, then, they have to be deliberated separately in detail as above.

[Iwannaplato]

From the above, re Christian morality, "Killing of another human is immoral' is moral fact because the Christian moral FSK said so.
You cannot deny this based on 'what is fact' re the WIKI article above.

Because the above facts are conditioned upon a collective-of-subjects within a FSR-FSK, they are independent of individuals' belief and of knowledge and opinion, thus they are objective [as defined].

Therefore, you cannot deny in placing "Killing of another human is immoral' is moral fact from the Christian Moral FSK and is objective on the starting block of being factual and objective.

However, it is evident there are difference in the degrees of objectivity between the scientific FSK [the most objective] and the linguistic, astronomical and historical.

As I had explained, whilst "Killing of another human is immoral' the qualifies [for the starting block] as a moral fact and is objective, it failed to get off the starting block because the whole of the Christian FSK is grounded on an illusory God. Therefore its degree of objectivity is negligible, say 0.0000001/100.

Analogy:
It is like an athlete qualified for an Olympics 100 meters final but he failed to get off the starting block, thus disqualified - no rating. However, there is no denial the athlete is an Olympian athlete.

The Christian Moral FSK degree of objectivity is negligible due to its grounding on an illusion.
Moral FSKs that do ground their claims on verifiable and justifiable empirical evidences and has near equivalent objectivity to the scientific FSK, the moral facts will have higher degree of objectivity.
For example [among many] Hume's moral FSK grounded on sympathy [empathy] do have some reasonable degrees of objectivity because empathy* can be traced [in some degrees] to mirror neurons which are represented by its physical neural correlates.
* empathy is not an absolute correlation to morality but in some ways it does.

Since I have justified against your OP, there are moral facts and morality is objective.
Do you have any counter for the above?

Discuss?
Views from others??

So, as long as more than one person thinks X is true, this is an objective position, even if it's objectivity is negligible.

It's objectivity is a tiny %. So, what is the rest of it. If it is .000001 objective. Then it must be 99.99999 % subjective. Wouldn't it be better then to label it as subjective, since it is primarily subjective?

[LuckyR]

I don't disagree. Moral codes based on arguments (and opinions) are subjective since arguments (and opinions) with opposite conclusions can be drawn. Moral codes that are based on dogma (like just about any religion, including Christianity) are locally objective, since they are based on a text that contains objective writings.

LOL

Of course to nonbelievers, the basis for the moral codes is non-existant, though even they can understand that to a believer it appears objective.

What do 'you' think or believe the word 'objective' means, or refers to, exactly?

And, how, exactly, could a moral code be based on 'dogma'? What does the 'dogma' word mean or refer to, to 'you', exactly, "luckyr"?

Objective? Not subject to opinion or differences of perspective.
Dogma? A conclusion accepted as is, not through a consideration of data for and against.

You? What's your belief or thought?

[Age]

I don't disagree. Moral codes based on arguments (and opinions) are subjective since arguments (and opinions) with opposite conclusions can be drawn. Moral codes that are based on dogma (like just about any religion, including Christianity) are locally objective, since they are based on a text that contains objective writings.

LOL

Of course to nonbelievers, the basis for the moral codes is non-existant, though even they can understand that to a believer it appears objective.

What do 'you' think or believe the word 'objective' means, or refers to, exactly?

And, how, exactly, could a moral code be based on 'dogma'? What does the 'dogma' word mean or refer to, to 'you', exactly, "luckyr"?

Objective? Not subject to opinion or differences of perspective.

Now, how can ANY thinking be not 'subjected to' 'opinion', when absolutely ALL 'thinking' is 'of an opinion'?

Also, your definition of 'Objective' being not 'differences of perspective' is, more or less, my OWN definition as well. That is; ONLY when LOOKING and/or SEEING FROM the One perspective FROM ALL can 'Objectivity' be REACHED, ACHIEVED, SEEN, and/or KNOWN, as well as Truly UNDERSTOOD.

That is; ONLY 'that', which is IN AGREEMENT and IN ACCEPTANCE WITH EVERY 'thing' is WHERE thee Truth LAYS and True Objectivity IS FOUND.

Or, in other words, WHERE there IS NO 'differences of perspective'.

Dogma? A conclusion accepted as is, not through a consideration of data for and against.

Okay.

Is there a 'moral code', which you are aware of, that is NOT based on 'conclusions accepted as is, and not through a consideration of data for and against?

If no, then your so-called 'moral codes' as well as absolutely EVERY other 'thought' and 'thinking' is based on 'local objective'. The 'locality' is just ALWAYS smaller and narrower or bigger and larger.

Also, absolutely EVERY text contains 'objective writings', to some degree. Well according to your text and writing above here.

But if you are aware of a 'moral code' that is through a consideration of data for and against, and not based on 'conclusions accepted as is', then will you share 'that code' with us here?

You? What's your belief or thought?

ON 'what', EXACTLY?

Until then, to me, within human bodies there are 'thoughts'. Absolutely EVERY one of 'these thoughts' IS 'subjective'. As in 'subjective' to what each and every body has, for lack of better wording 'personally', experienced. Now, OBVIOUSLY, EVERY body has experienced different 'things', and thus has also had different past experiences, and it is these different bodily experiences WHY there are different, personal, or subjective, 'thoughts' and 'thinking' WITHIN each and EVERY human body.

Now, ONLY 'that', what absolutely EVERY one can AGREE WITH and ACCEPT I say and claim is the ACTUAL Truth, of 'things', and WHAT 'Objectivity' IS, EXACTLY. Looking and/or seeing FROM the perspective of EVERY 'thing' therefore, to me, is WHERE 'Objective Truth' LAYS and IS FOUND.

'Subjective truth', or in another word, to me, 'truth' is just the 'differences of truth', which 'you', adult human beings, continually squabble and/or fight over. It is those Wrong INTERPRETATIONS of the ACTUAL Real and IRREFUTABLE Truth WHERE and WHY 'conflict' among 'you', adult human beings, PERSISTS.

BUT, maybe you were asking for clarification regarding what is my belief or thought about some thing ELSE. So, I will now WAIT, your response.