I agree that subjective is not arbitrary. I also agree that common moral laws should not be based on what extreme individuals claim or how they act.
Defining morality in the way you do seems to lead to circular reasoning. How the majority behave defines morality and morality defines how we behave.
Which culture should we use as a model when we form the ‘correct’ morality?
Culture and values in USA are somewhat different than those in distant cultures, for example in China. Our modern culture and values are different than those 1000 years ago. If we jump to future, culture and values might change within the next 500 years.
What is the value of an individual? Is a human more valuable than a chimp? Why should we think that a human is more valuable than another animal? Is it morally right to kill another human if the other is seriously sick and does not want to live? Why or why not?
There are thousands of questions where it is not easy to tell what is the morally ‘correct’ answer if morality is subjective. Answers differ depending on who is answering.
That circle is broken by Hume’s Is/Ought problem. Morality isn’t based on how the world behaves, but how we believe it ought to behave. That’s the difference. Morality is aspirational, and it doesn’t default to what people happen to be doing at the moment. Morality is based on arguments and reason, not the current state of the world.
Whichever one we think is the best, based on our understanding of the human condition and the arguments we put forth for that moral code.
I happen to think improving morality is a good thing. I don’t see how unchanging rules are somehow more moral.
Again, our answers to those questions should be based on the human condition, not on edicts that can’t be questioned.
Yes. No one said that morality should be easy. The important part is that we continually question moral codes and not treat them as dogma.
How we believe it ought to behave rises from our culture and teaching. We are told what is right and wrong and if we see that others behave in that way, we suck the model into our thinking and worldview.
The culture in US is individualistic and ‘human rights’ (rights of an individual) play an important role. No wonder that those born in US think that the freedom and rights of an individual are an important element in ‘correct’ morality. In many other cultures, extended family, tribe or a larger unit is seen as more valuable than an individual - it is acceptable to sacrifice some ‘human rights’ for the collective good. People growing in these cultures do not necessarily value those that try to push their individualistic worldview as the ‘correct’ model of morality.
What we believe it ought to believe is subjective and depends on how those surrounding us teach and behave.
It is not the worldview that we want from the Bible but the very otherworldly ideals, some of which we have made a part of our worldview which they had not.
Why would we think there is ANYTHING good about turning back the clock to a time of such horrible physical, mental, and social conditions? We do not WANT the worldview of people of that time. There was nothing good about it.
I simply refute the idea that the Bible teaches a worldview that has any value today. Ideals? Yes. But worldview? No.
definition of “worldview” from Google?
a particular philosophy of life or conception of the world.
No we cannot get a good version of either of these from the Bible. You need a conception of TODAY’S world and a philosophy to deal with TODAY’S problems. The best we can do is use the ideals in the Bible to inform our construction of a relevant worldview.
Maybe we look at the biblical scriptures from different viewpoints. These scriptures have been written during a long time period and the world and culture changed meanwhile. World continued to change even after the scriptures were written, as we know. The scriptures include descriptions and culture of the time. These scriptures include also much that is valid today, IMHO.
We need to separate what was culture-dependent and what is still valid. We also need to recognize the difference between the old covenant (the laws included in Torah) and the new covenant given through Jesus. The laws in Torah do not bind us, if we are in the new covenant.
I gladly tell that I have adapted much of the lasting worldview presented in the scriptures. This worldview centers around our relationship with God and His will. I confess that Jesus Christ is my Lord, so His teachings have the highest authority I know. Much higher than the opinions of today’s people. Of course these teachings do not tell everything we need to know and decide in the modern world but the principles and worldview are still valid and can be applied to modern life.
IMO, modern Christians use their own subjective sense of morality to adapt and apply scripture to their moral worldview. I do think that both believers and unbelievers share that same subjective morality which is why we can find a lot of agreement in our moral worldviews.
It is too usual that the scripture, or rather the subjective interpretation of the scripture, is used to support a subjective worldview. In that sense, you are right.
Maybe I am a bit idealistic or optimistic but I do believe that there are believers who truly search the objective truth. Not to strengthen a subjective worldview but to adjust the personal worldview to what is the real message of the biblical scriptures or to the findings learned from the other book of God, nature. I hope that I am one of those persons. It is a long journey and I realize very well that my current understanding is not the whole or the final truth. Maybe I will one day be among those who learn the whole truth, not in this life but in the future Kingdom of God.
I am saying that they determine what the real message is using their subjective sense of morality. Also, the human authors of scripture were using their subjective sense of morality to write the scriptures to begin with. From my reading, this view is supported by scripture:
Hebrews 10:16 (NIV) “This is the covenant I will make with them after that time, says the Lord. I will put my laws in their hearts, and I will write them on their minds.”
From my reading, even the Bible is telling us that we do have an inner sense of morality (i.e. subjective morality) that we should trust.
From a deeper philosophical view, there are all sorts of problems that arise if we aren’t using subjective morality or do not have the ability to judge morality for ourselves. For example, what does it mean if we say that God is good if we have no ability to differentiate between good and evil for ourselves? Do we simply say that no matter what God does it is good by definition? If so, such a statement is meaningless. If we lack the ability to judge morality then we wouldn’t know if we were committing evil by following the commands of God.
I would also suggest that subjective morality is the foundation for justice within society. A good example is the Nuremburg trials after WWII. Some of the war criminals tried in those trials said that they were just following orders. According to you, this is just fine. After all, they were following an objective morality. However, they were still found guilty because they were expected to know that what they did was wrong because they possess the ability to determine right and wrong for themselves, a subjective morality.
I agree that most people have an inner sense of morality. External input (conditions, people and personal experiences) may twist the sense of morality or dampen it but some sort of sense of right and wrong is part of being a healthy human. Whether it is solely a product of evolution, given by God or both is something I don’t know.
Our viewpoints differ in that I believe that God is and that He has the ability to tell objective truths to humans. If God does not exist, morality is just subjective.
What may be a problem with people following the orders of God is that the source of the orders is not always God, although the people would believe it. Manipulating authorities are eager to claim that what they say is the will of God. Mentally unbalanced persons may hear all kind of misleading voices that they believe is from God. This leaves personal responsibility to us in that we need to judge whether the orders are truly from God. We also have to decide whether we are willing to follow the will of God, despite the consequences. So, following the orders of God does not happen without personal responsibility.
One problem I have with subjective morality is that it is not clear for me why humans would be more important than other life on earth, if we forget the value that God has given to us. As a biologist, I see humans as one species among thousands of other species. In most environments, humans are the bad actor destroying other life on this globe and simultaneously deteriorate the living conditions of future generations. Humans have of course behaviors that aim to increase the survival of the individual and close relatives but are these behaviors a sufficient reason to act as humans would be the only truly valuable species on earth?
To some extent I understand the feelings of those who think that destroying a large part of human population would be good for the life on earth and would give the survivors a better future. Personally, I do not support such ideas. Yet, from the viewpoint of all life on this globe, it is not clear to me that the only ‘correct’ morality is to act in ways that increase the survival of humans. Why would the subjective morality that aims to better future by reducing drastically the number of humans be inferior to subjective morality that aims to increase the survival of our neighbors?
As can be easily seen, I am not a humanist. Thank God that I believe that He determines what is right or wrong. Otherwise, my subjective morality would be different than the subjective morality of humanists.
I would agree that it is a matter of belief. I see no way that we could demonstrate that God (if he exists) has access to an objective morality nor could we demonstrate that the morality in the Bible is objectively moral.
If God exists morality could still be subjective.
From what I have seen, the source is never God with respect to the Bible. The Bible was written entirely by humans, so the source is humans.
Are all of the biblical authors manipulative authorities?
I’m an atheist and I think other humans have value. I don’t see why one would need to believe in God in order to believe that other humans have value. Humans have value because they experience the world like I do. Other humans have needs, hopes, and a whole host of emotions just like I do. I value my experience as a human, and through empathy I can see that same value in others. The whole reason that I find value in other people is my subjective experience as a human.
I also don’t see that same sentience and sapience in other species which is why I don’t see the same value in other species. At the same time, I do afford more value to species that approach our own level of sentience. For example, I wouldn’t feel the same emotions killing a cockroach as I would killing a gorilla.
According to the Bible, God thought it was a good idea on more than one occasion. First, there was the Noah’s flood thing. God also called for the genocide of entire populations. God didn’t see anything wrong with killing a bunch of children in Egypt to punish their parents for not releasing the Hebrew people.
Would you want to be killed in such a genocide? If not, then it isn’t moral to kill others in a genocide. It’s as simple as that. However, if God commands you to commit genocide, what then? What justification do you have for disobeying that order if you believe God is giving you an objectively moral command?
It wouldn’t have to be genocide. You could kill equal proportions of each nation, race and sect to keep it fair, but maybe a higher percentage of the biggest polluters? (I haven’t worked out the arithmetic yet.) The goal would be to save the planet. I might volunteer, because I know to some degree who and what awaits me.
We also maybe should not presume what justice for lèse-majesté, “to do wrong to majesty”, against God might entail. (One might expect some serious repercussions if they called a queen a whore to her face.) That’s something that Job did not do amidst his many sufferings:
That is a very selfish and human-centered worldview. Being a human, I can understand it. I could hunt a deer for food but killing a human would be psychologically harder. Having these kind of sentiments does not make humans more valuable than the other life.
If I forget God and try to be as objective as I can, I do not see that humans would have much more value than other mammals. Maybe a bit more value because there are probably a low number of species that will develop this level of intelligence, reach the ability to travel in space. Yet, if I have to weight human value against all other life we see in the ecosystems around the globe, humans lose. Well, if we would lose all other life on earth, humans would also die which makes this kind of comparisons unrealistic. Anyhow, a human-centered worldview could be compared to tribes/nations that consider themselves to be more valuable than the other people and therefore, can do whatever they want with the ‘inferior’ people.
An alternative is to think that all life is just temporary and without everlasting value. Therefore, it is acceptable to value your own kind above any other species and rule other life as wanted. I hope we do not meet advanced aliens that treat us with the same principle.
How you think about being killed in a genocide depends on how you value your own life relative to the life of others and also whether you believe in life after death. We all have to die so being ready to meet our Lord is more important than when we die.
I have to confess that if I would get ‘orders’ to commit a genocide, I would not believe that the order comes from God. In this sense, it is an unrealistic question.
Theoretically, the question is more interesting. Should we obey God no matter what He commands?
Abraham had enough of experience of God to obey when he was ordered to sacrifice his son. This is not fully comparable to committing a genocide because Abraham had the faith to believe that God would fulfill the promises given to him, even if the child mentioned in those promises would die. God can give or take a life, so giving a new life to a dead child would not be an impossible thing. Abraham probably believed that he would return with the child, even if God would demand a sacrifice.
My experience of God is that He would not demand a genocide from me.
That is a matter of belief. Humans wrote the scriptures but I believe that the Spirit of God inspired the writers and that the prophets of God got messages from God. Everything in the biblical scriptures is not from God, as the scriptures report comments made by unbelievers, historical events, etc.
1 Corinthians lists the ability to distinguish the spirits as a gift of the Holy Spirit. Some have that gift but most believers not. Scriptures in the New Testament teach that, for most believers, it is mainly a matter of experience, confirmed by the Holy Spirit in/with us. Believers living in a close relationship with God learn something of the nature of God. It is like living with a spouse decades, you learn the way how she/he usually responds and reacts. With God, there is also the expectation that what He says matches what He has told in the biblical scriptures - if the message is in conflict with the biblical scriptures, it is very likely that it is not from God.
Edit:
In many cases, we need to be humbly enough to say ‘I don’t know’. None of us has perfect knowledge. If unsure, better wait for increased understanding or confirmation than do something stupid.
