I know that there are (negative) critiques of Objectivist morality out there. I might see if I can find some.

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

At the same time, children come with a sense of moral relativism, which as mature adults, we grow out of it.

We know right from wrong, and I believe, most human beings share a common pallet of moral sensibilities. We know injustice when it happens to us.

Jesus summarized his ethics in the statement, “Treat others the same way you want them to treat you.” His advice presupposes that we all share a common universal set of ideas concerning how one ought to be treated; such that, I can be safe to use my own innate moral sense as a guide for how I ought to treat others.

Moral relativism shows its ugly head in terms of how we judge the behavior of others relative to how we judge our own behavior. Typically, to my shame, I will tend to condemn you when you inflict injustice on me; but I will excuse my behavior when I inflict injustice on you.

In fact, the morally mature among us carry a set of balanced scales by which a man measures himself with the same measure he weighs another man.

Report comment to moderator

Objective morality treats moral principals as another “part of reality” that is “independent of thought or an observer” (quotes from definition 8).

And if you take the situation out of the morality equation, then there is no longer any context (that is, real interplay of objects) in discussion, so how can you have an objective pronouncement without any context? How do you determine an astronomical unit without a sun and earth?

Report comment to moderator

Report comment to moderator

I do have a problem with that definition of the word though, so I looked it up, and here are what I think are the pertinent definitions from dictionary.com:

ob·jec·tive – Pronunciation Key [uhb-jek-tiv] –noun

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
6. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.
7. being the object of perception or thought; belonging to the object of thought rather than to the thinking subject (opposed to subjective).
8. of or pertaining to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

—Synonyms 1. object, destination, aim. 5. impartial, fair, impersonal, disinterested.
—Antonyms 5. personal.

Report comment to moderator

Some sites that can explain Objective morality better than I can are:
The Atlas Society.
The case for Objectivist morality.
Moral relativism and objectivism.

I’m not saying that I agree with all the objectivist positions, but I’m just linking the sites to show that some people hold to objective standards that don’t rely on appeals to Divine authority.

Report comment to moderator

Aye there’s the rub… But y’know…

…you don’t really know this either, you just believe it – since, as you say, it is not self evidently true.

Can you prove that the Bible’s Genesis is not from God?

I would also have to argue with your concept of “knowledge”. Musing and I have had many a discussion about this subject, which quickly becomes onesided. (Because Musing goes down so many rabbit trails, and asks an interminable amount of questions that one never has time to think of fully in order to make a coherent answer.)

Presently I think I agree with Polanyi’s concept that knowledge is personal. We “know” things because we act upon unprovable assumptions.

If this is the case, then the western “objective/subjective” duality is a false one. There should be no huge dividing line between what we “know” about the hard sciences, and the arts and humanities. In order to “know” the hard sciences, we act upon unprovable assumptions each day, almost every second of the day. Unfortunately this fact is glossed over, swept under the rug, or ignored fully. It is the unacknowledged elephant in the room of the empericists.

Report comment to moderator

And yet, all viewpoints have exactly this genesis.

I realize that you are speaking under the assumption that the Bible has a divine genesis. But at least admit that you believe this; you do not know it. And as you and Icarus have established, there are a number of other religious traditions that have their own books that they also believe to have a divine genesis.

Ultimately, the decision to take the Bible, or any other holy book, as revealed and authoritative, is a decision that rests on human reasoning as much as any other. You — in your flawed and fallible human mind — make the choice to take the Bible as such. It is not self-evidently true.

Report comment to moderator

Yes. I’ve already assumed what your response to the authoritative position would be.

Report comment to moderator