Unchanging objective morals

[Wertbag]

I had a Christian say "There are unchanging objective morals, things that were as valid for the ancient people as they are for us today".  I politely asked him the question "The bible says that stoning people to death who work the sabbath is the right thing to do.  That it is a crime so horrendous it is worthy of capital punishment.  If objective morals are unchanging, then shouldn't that still be the case today?"

His response was a tirade of insults and abuse with no real answer.  I know Christians say those were old laws, they only applied to the Israelites or they were surpassed by Jesus's teachings, but surely if any of that is true it just means the moral standard has changed?  What was horrendous is now not, and regardless of why, that is exactly the opposite of an unchanging moral standard.  Is it even possible to have a changing objective standard?

[walterpthefirst]

Wertbag,

 

This isn't an answer to your questions, but have you considered what kind of morality this 'Christian' must have if they responded to you with insults and abuse?

 

Thank you.

 

Walter.

[wadori]

Your questions are better than his answers (or nonanswers). Judeo-Christian ethics have changed greatly over time.  (Although, I did hear about some representative in California who wanted to kill off gays with one shot between the eyes.  I don't know if he was serious, but the fact that this is ludicrous and horrific to even suggest shows that, yes, the rules change over time.)  I do believe there is an unchanging basis for morality, though:  Do no harm.  (Therefore, of course, the Bible is very immoral.)

[Sexton Blake]

It endlessly annoys me when christians preach on morals.

 

They say they get their morals from god:

 

https://dwindlinginunbelief.blogspot.com/2010/04/drunk-with-blood-gods-killings-in-bible.html

 

a god who would have to look in a dictionary to find the meaning of the word "love".

 

And you wonder if without the threat of hell, would they torture, rape and murder?

[Myrkhoos]

Morality , as in system of rules governing behaviour is clearly culture-bound.

     Yes there are some similarities, but I would argue many of them are just the same with all social animals. This similarity can be also explained by evolutionary advantage. A group that would promote murder, theft, violence without any restriction would just die out very quickly. There needs to be a level of cooperation for a group to survive. So you could say there are "objective" morals only insofar as you say, according to the known laws of biology, survival and more than that, prosperity, depend on certain behaviours in the social organisation. 

    I mean a colony of ants would rapidly disintegrate if the ants starting killing each other, you know?

[LogicalFallacy]

Hey @Wertbag 

 

In order for morality to be objective, truly objective it would have to be a standard independent of God. Now our Christian friends don't like this idea as they think God is the objective moral standard. But that can't be because all you have is a moral standard that's subject to God - i.e it's a subjective standard.

 

So say the objective standard is that it's wrong to kill babies - well then God has broken this moral standard multiple times (The flood, killing the first born of Egypt, multiple orderings of the Israelites to slaughter EVERYTHING)

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I don't know, @LogicalFallacy.  Some might say that god is the objective standard for morality, thus whatever god does is both moral and just.  It would then devolve into the argument of "is it good because god did it or did god do it because it is good?"  Personally, I would counter the original claim by pointing out the many times god has been anything but objective in his behavior and rationale and leave the apologist with the burden of proof for the claim of god's objectivity.  

[◊ Krowb ◊]

I am familiar with the claim that anything god does it good and just.  By definition then, no matter how horrendous, how much pain, torture, and distress it causes, it is just and righteous - just like hell.  You cannot have an evil god from this point of view.

 

Similarly, if satan were to somehow usurp "god's" throne, how would you know?  god is always good and just.  Slaughter and rape are good and just when god commands it.

 

An absurd position.

[disillusioned]

On 10/28/2021 at 3:53 AM, Wertbag said:

Is it even possible to have a changing objective standard?

 

Yes it is.

 

It's objectively the case that it is legal for me, in Canada, in 2021, to purchase and use cannabis.

 

In 2000, it was objectively illegal.

 

The standard, in this case, is the law of Canada. Clearly the standard has changed.

 

For something to be objectively the case all that is required is that it be the case irrespective of individual opinion. Some things are objectively the case because of collective opinion (see: the law). Such things can change. I would argue that morality is like this. Some things are objectively the case irrespective of collective and individual opinion (see: that the earth is round). Such things can also change, but, usually, we can't change them. I call the former type of thing "epistemic truths" and the latter "ontological truths". I've dealt with this in depth in the colosseum already, so I won't rehash it here.