Subjective Morality: A Case In Point

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Recently, in this most auspicious forum, we have been invited to believe that everything is subjective; and while I can't help but rejoice over the idea that a christian is inadvertently admitting that objective morality doesn't come from the bible or its god (because how can it, if everything is subjective?), it has gotten me in the mood to consider morality, by looking at the actions of one man.

 

His name was Oskar Schindler.  Many of us are familiar with his story from the film "Schindler's List".  I, however, have gone further into researching his life.  I've even visited the Oskar Schindler museum in Krakow built inside the old D.E.F. factory.  I think he will be a fair representation of the questions I ultimately want to ask.

 

First, a little background.  According to the bible (that's the book where objective morality comes from, by the way) it is perfectly moral to commit genocide against "inferior" races.  We see this with the Amalekites, as an example.  So, for the Nazi's to seek a "Final Solution" to the "Jewish question" was perfectly within biblical guidelines.

 

Oskar Schindler, however, sought to undermine the Nazi regime every chance he got; and this included ultimately rescuing over 1,000 Jews, clearly flying in the face of the very regime that had "Gott Mit Uns" (god With Us) inscribed onto their belt buckles, and their biblical mandate of exterminating "inferior" races.

 

The bible also makes it very clear that adultery is wrong.  Oskar Schindler was a shameless womanizer, despite being married to a most faithful wife.  Clearly, he fell short of the glory of god on that score as well.

 

So, my first question is this:  From the position of objective morality, as demonstrated by the sacred text, which of Schindler's sins was greater--undermining the extermination of an "inferior" race, or cheating on his wife?

 

My second question:  From the position of subjective morality, as demonstrated by godless humanity, which of Schindler's sins was greater?

[pratt]

subjective to the standards of the bible, if one is to believe the god's law is the ultimate objectiive measurement of all things great and small.

[Joshpantera]

Clearly the cheating was out of line with the Bible more so than genocide. 

 

Praise YHWH, and let's go wipe out the evil Jews.....

[SnarkyAntiTheist]

Definitely an interesting take on this. I would have to say that the sin of saving those who were condemned to genocide was much greater than the sin of adultery. Many men were absolved of their sin of adultery, even in the old testament. David was practically rewarded for it. On the other hand, let's look at "Rahab the harlot" who assisted the spies so Jericho could be taken. Her hand in the genocide got her life spared, despite the fact that she was just a female prostitute. In contrast, Achan pissed god off so much that god was mad at everyone, just because he stole some shit while they were busy killing everyone off. 

[Vigile]

Objective morality leaves no room for the greater good.  Xians are told to obey their government.  Was Schindler wrong to disobey the government to save 1,000 people? 

 

Rom. 13:1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.

[midniterider]

Objective morality leaves no room for the greater good.  Xians are told to obey their government.  Was Schindler wrong to disobey the government to save 1,000 people? 

 

Rom. 13:1 Obey the government, for God is the one who put it there. All governments have been placed in power by God. 2 So those who refuse to obey the laws of the land are refusing to obey God, and punishment will follow.

 

Obey the government... unless it's Obama being reelected ... in which case "you (being me) took that verse out of context. It doesnt really mean that", claimed the Xian on my FB feed. :-)

[Guest end3]

So, my first question is this:  From the position of objective morality, as demonstrated by the sacred text, which of Schindler's sins was greater--undermining the extermination of an "inferior" race, or cheating on his wife?

 

My second question:  From the position of subjective morality, as demonstrated by godless humanity, which of Schindler's sins was greater?

1) I don't know that we may completely know the objective morality to which you speak. I am thinking all we have is faith in what the Bible tells us that all sin in equal. Ultimately my view is that which causes figurative or literal death is sin. Just have to wing it.

 

2) From our subjective view, both don't appear moral.

[Guest end3]

BTW BAA, dear brother, I have placed you on ignore. Have never done that to anyone. You should feel special. Happy New Year!

[mymistake]

 

2) From our subjective view, both don't appear moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Adolf Hitler orders the extermination of millions of people it would be immoral to resist.

 

Got it.

 

 

 

Not recognizing an objective reality leads to madness.

[Guest end3]

 

2) From our subjective view, both don't appear moral.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If Adolf Hitler orders the extermination of millions of people it would be immoral to resist.

 

Got it.

 

 

 

Not recognizing an objective reality leads to madness.

 

What the hell are you complaining about? I said BOTH don't appear moral from the subjective view. You would like me to say genocide is moral?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1) I don't know that we may completely know the objective morality to which you speak. I am thinking all we have is faith in what the Bible tells us that all sin in equal. Ultimately my view is that which causes figurative or literal death is sin. Just have to wing it.

 

2) From our subjective view, both don't appear moral.

1).  That which causes death... is sin (a subjective perspective, mind you, based on faith).

 

2.  Oskar Schindler preventing death appears immoral (sin).

 

End3, you just destroyed your first point with your second.  Do you still not see how brain-fucking yourself into believing that everything is subjective warps your perspective to the point that two completely contradictory statements can still make sense to you?

[Guest end3]

 

1) I don't know that we may completely know the objective morality to which you speak. I am thinking all we have is faith in what the Bible tells us that all sin in equal. Ultimately my view is that which causes figurative or literal death is sin. Just have to wing it.

 

2) From our subjective view, both don't appear moral.

1).  That which causes death... is sin (a subjective perspective, mind you, based on faith).

 

2.  Oskar Schindler preventing death appears immoral (sin).

 

End3, you just destroyed your first point with your second.  Do you still not see how brain-fucking yourself into believing that everything is subjective warps your perspective to the point that two completely contradictory statements can still make sense to you?

 

 

 

Let me clarify as I missed an important part of your statement when you said undermining genocide. I don't think from my subjective view that genocide is moral. If God were to decide on genocide, then that would be different....it's His creation.

 

So it was a sin in my mind for him to cheat and not a sin choosing to undermine Hitler.

 

I don't understand why God would choose to wipe out a people. That is why it would be called faith. Jesus does say on the cross, forgive them, they don't know. If we knew, it would certainly make it much easier to pick the correct answer.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

1) I don't know that we may completely know the objective morality to which you speak. I am thinking all we have is faith in what the Bible tells us that all sin in equal. Ultimately my view is that which causes figurative or literal death is sin. Just have to wing it.

 

2) From our subjective view, both don't appear moral.

1).  That which causes death... is sin (a subjective perspective, mind you, based on faith).

 

2.  Oskar Schindler preventing death appears immoral (sin).

 

End3, you just destroyed your first point with your second.  Do you still not see how brain-fucking yourself into believing that everything is subjective warps your perspective to the point that two completely contradictory statements can still make sense to you?

 

 

 

Let me clarify as I missed an important part of your statement when you said undermining genocide. I don't think from my subjective view that genocide is moral. If God were to decide on genocide, then that would be different....it's His creation.

 

So it was a sin in my mind for him to cheat and not a sin choosing to undermine Hitler.

 

I don't understand why God would choose to wipe out a people. That is why it would be called faith. Jesus does say on the cross, forgive them, they don't know. If we knew, it would certainly make it much easier to pick the correct answer.

 

This is why it is so dangerous to attempt to base morals on faith.  The bible is a subjective book.  Its perspective of god was not only created by subjective men, but is now interpreted by subjective men.  There can be no objectivity in morality based on faith, because faith itself is subjectively believing without objective proof.  "god wills it" has gotten more people killed throughout history than any epidemic.

 

Moreover, even if there was evidence for the existence of a god, and there was an objective way of knowing that this god had ordered a genocide, who would have to carry out those orders?  People.

 

So, would it be more moral to follow god's orders and commit genocide?  Or would it be more moral to disobey and attempt to save lives?  Keeping in mind that "that which causes death... is sin".

[Guest end3]

So, would it be more moral to follow god's orders and commit genocide?  Or would it be more moral to disobey and attempt to save lives?  Keeping in mind that "that which causes death... is sin".

I've already answered that. God hasn't told me to kill someone.

 

Let me ask you this. So is there moral evolution?

[mymistake]

 

What the hell are you complaining about? I said BOTH don't appear moral from the subjective view. You would like me to say genocide is moral?

 

 

 

It is my sincere hope that someday you realize that opposing genocide is moral.

[mymistake]

 If God were to decide on genocide, then that would be different....it's His creation.

 

 

 

With all due respect, fuck your god with a pineapple. 

 

 

 

I don't understand why God would choose to wipe out a people.

 

 

Because God is a work of fiction created by genocidal leaders who were doing the Hitler thing thousands of years before Hitler was born.

 

 

 

 

Edit:

​By the way when your God chooses to wipe out an entire people he isn't a God anymore but has become a Godzilla.  Do you have any idea how many science fiction or spy movies would still work if the villain were the God of the Old Testament?

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

So, would it be more moral to follow god's orders and commit genocide?  Or would it be more moral to disobey and attempt to save lives?  Keeping in mind that "that which causes death... is sin".

I've already answered that. God hasn't told me to kill someone.

 

Let me ask you this. So is there moral evolution?

 

 

How do you know that God hasn't told you this, End..?

 

God is a part of the objective reality which you say you can never know.

 

Please stay true to your stated beliefs.

 

KYH (BAA)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I've already answered that. God hasn't told me to kill someone.

 

Let me ask you this. So is there moral evolution?

 

 

 

 

 

 If God were to decide on genocide, then that would be different....it's His creation.

 

So it was a sin in my mind for him to cheat and not a sin choosing to undermine Hitler.

 

I don't understand why God would choose to wipe out a people. That is why it would be called faith.

 

No, you answered it without answering it.  First you say that saving lives would be moral; then you backtrack and say that if god decides on it, then it's different.  You understand that the Nazi's believed (subjectively) that they were doing god's will in exterminating the Jews.  Hitler, himself, mentioned several times that he was doing the lord's work.

 

So, which is it?  Is committing a god-ordained genocide moral?  Or is saving lives moral?

 

Answer these questions first; then later we can talk about moral evolution.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

 

 

So, would it be more moral to follow god's orders and commit genocide?  Or would it be more moral to disobey and attempt to save lives?  Keeping in mind that "that which causes death... is sin".

I've already answered that. God hasn't told me to kill someone.

 

Let me ask you this. So is there moral evolution?

 

 

How do you know that God hasn't told you this, End..?

 

God is a part of the objective reality which you say you can never know.

 

Please stay true to your stated beliefs.

 

KYH (BAA)

 

Quoted to KYH, End.

[bornagainathiest]

BTW BAA, dear brother, I have placed you on ignore. Have never done that to anyone. You should feel special. Happy New Year!

 

Thanks for the heads up, End.  

 

I'll be shifting gear somewhat too - when it comes to keeping you honest, that is.

 

As you'll find out..!  

[Guest end3]

This is why it is so dangerous to attempt to base morals on faith.  The bible is a subjective book.  Its perspective of god was not only created by subjective men, but is now interpreted by subjective men.  There can be no objectivity in morality based on faith, because faith itself is subjectively believing without objective proof.  "god wills it" has gotten more people killed throughout history than any epidemic.

 

Moreover, even if there was evidence for the existence of a god, and there was an objective way of knowing that this god had ordered a genocide, who would have to carry out those orders?  People.

 

So, would it be more moral to follow god's orders and commit genocide?  Or would it be more moral to disobey and attempt to save lives?  Keeping in mind that "that which causes death... is sin".

I don't know how we may proceed OTHER than faith Prof. For example, if I do something make a moral judgment and then carry it out objectively, I really have no idea what the end result of that will be.

 

To answer your question, one could argue that killing the agents of Hitler as it caused grief and pain in the families of those that were killed. On another note, the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated.

 

So objectively, what moral decision would you make with the IS?

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

BTW BAA, dear brother, I have placed you on ignore. Have never done that to anyone. You should feel special. Happy New Year!

 

Thanks for the heads up, End.  

 

I'll be shifting gear somewhat too - when it comes to keeping you honest, that is.

 

As you'll find out..!  

 

I look forward to that, BAA.

[Guest end3]

 

 

BTW BAA, dear brother, I have placed you on ignore. Have never done that to anyone. You should feel special. Happy New Year!

 

Thanks for the heads up, End.  

 

I'll be shifting gear somewhat too - when it comes to keeping you honest, that is.

 

As you'll find out..!  

 

I look forward to that, BAA.

 

Maybe y'all should get married...

[mymistake]

 

 

 

BTW BAA, dear brother, I have placed you on ignore. Have never done that to anyone. You should feel special. Happy New Year!

 

Thanks for the heads up, End.  

 

I'll be shifting gear somewhat too - when it comes to keeping you honest, that is.

 

As you'll find out..!  

 

I look forward to that, BAA.

 

Maybe y'all should get married...

 

 

 

Instead of getting angry at people why don't you stop for a minute and consider that maybe there is an objective reality.  Maybe you don't have to get angry at people who are trying to help you.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

This is why it is so dangerous to attempt to base morals on faith.  The bible is a subjective book.  Its perspective of god was not only created by subjective men, but is now interpreted by subjective men.  There can be no objectivity in morality based on faith, because faith itself is subjectively believing without objective proof.  "god wills it" has gotten more people killed throughout history than any epidemic.

 

Moreover, even if there was evidence for the existence of a god, and there was an objective way of knowing that this god had ordered a genocide, who would have to carry out those orders?  People.

 

So, would it be more moral to follow god's orders and commit genocide?  Or would it be more moral to disobey and attempt to save lives?  Keeping in mind that "that which causes death... is sin".

I don't know how we may proceed OTHER than faith Prof. For example, if I do something make a moral judgment and then carry it out objectively, I really have no idea what the end result of that will be.

 

To answer your question, one could argue that killing the agents of Hitler as it caused grief and pain in the families of those that were killed. On another note, the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated.

 

So objectively, what moral decision would you make with the IS?

 

Well, to begin with, I proceed just fine without faith, as do, I would assume, most of the other members on this site.  It doesn't require faith to know the difference between right and wrong; nor does it require subjective belief to navigate through black and white and various shades of grey.  I make moral decisions every day without the help of gods, angels, or the divine logos.

 

Secondly, (KYH) if you make a (subjective) moral judgment, there is no possible way to carry it out objectively, given that everything in your reality is subjective.  Unless you are willing to admit that you put objective thought into your moral decision-making process.  In which case, not everything is subjective (oops).

 

Third, killing anyone would cause pain ad grief to that person's loved ones; but wholesale slaughter is in a completely different league than the justice of putting the perpetrators to the sword.  Moreover, we don't really know that the greater good prevailed because Hitler was defeated.  It could be that some minor troubles between Palestinians and Jews becomes the very spark that ignites the entire world in flames and destroys humanity.

 

Lastly, my objective, moral decision concerning IS is the same as it has been since we started Operation Desert Storm; that is, we have no business being in the Middle East.  We've only made matters worse; and now that we are producing plenty of our own oil, there's simply no reason to be there.  With that said, let's not derail this thread with politics; we can do that in TOT.