Mormon Worldview

[drumdude]

Objective morality is a story people tell themselves want they want to force their subjective systems of morality on others.

This. Exactly this.

I get so tired of DCP claiming the Holocaust was morally acceptable if we don’t have an absolute morality. We have an infinite number of moralities, a moral landscape as Sam Harris puts it. Just because we can’t see the absolute peak does not mean we can’t see hills that are better and valleys that are worse.

The idea of absolute morality serves no function. It is a platonic ideal that does not exist. Just like the perfect triangle does not exist. And we don’t need it to exist to be able to talk about triangles.

[pgm1985]

By taking what the Bible defines as life in order to apply it to the commandment. Psalm 139:13–16, Jeremiah 1:5, Job 31:15, Psalm 22:10–11, and Luke 1:41–43 all imply the unborn is a human being. Modern science is able to show us when an embryo is a new life. At fertilization, a new genetic code is created, thus resulting in a new life being born at conception.

Next we look at how different types of contraceptives work and evaluate whether they prevent fertilization or is it an abortifacient. For example, barrier methods, vasectomy, and tubal ligation all prevent fertilization and would not be considered violating the 6th commandment. Intrauterine devices kill a fertilized egg so would be sinful. Oral contraceptives are trickier and would require research, prayerful discernment, and consultation with a doctor to fully understand how the contraceptive is designed to work.

There’s your false consciousness at work. The passages themselves do not “imply” any thing. You are inferring conclusions based on the text. That makes your conclusion subjective, not objective. The second you interpret the text, you forfeit any claim to “objective” morality.

So the commandment not to murder doesn’t actually mean not to murder? Here’s your line of argument as I understand it:
Any interpretation is subjective.
Subjectivity cannot be applied objectively.

So why do we have a constitutional government or enforce laws? Enforcement is based on an interpretation of law. How can you apply any type of moral judgement to anyone beside yourself? The fact you disagree with me violates this premise because you are interpreting my words and expecting me to value your interpretation.

[pgm1985]

Objective morality is a story people tell themselves want they want to force their subjective systems of morality on others.

This. Exactly this.

I get so tired of DCP claiming the Holocaust was morally acceptable if we don’t have an absolute morality. We have an infinite number of moralities, a moral landscape as Sam Harris puts it. Just because we can’t see the absolute peak does not mean we can’t see hills that are better and valleys that are worse.

The idea of absolute morality serves no function. It is a platonic ideal that does not exist. Just like the perfect triangle does not exist. And we don’t need it to exist to be able to talk about triangles.

So why do you believe the Holocaust was morally unacceptable?

[Res Ipsa]

There’s your false consciousness at work. The passages themselves do not “imply” any thing. You are inferring conclusions based on the text. That makes your conclusion subjective, not objective. The second you interpret the text, you forfeit any claim to “objective” morality.

So the commandment not to murder doesn’t actually mean not to murder? Here’s your line of argument as I understand it:
Any interpretation is subjective.
Subjectivity cannot be applied objectively.

So why do we have a constitutional government or enforce laws? Enforcement is based on an interpretation of law. How can you apply any type of moral judgement to anyone beside yourself? The fact you disagree with me violates this premise because you are interpreting my words and expecting me to value your interpretation.

Yes. Any interpretation is subjective.

Constitutions and laws are the rules of the road that allow people to function in groups without killing each other. Do you want anybody who has more guns than you to be able to take your property? Me neither. Do you want to be able to for a walk without fear of being kidnapped and tortured? Me too. Every individual has conflicting desires for both autonomy and security. Laws are how a society mediates that contradiction by creating rules that provide some mix of autonomy and security. No objective morality required. Just a negotiation based on rational or irrational self interest.

That doesn’t mean that morality is irrelevant to law. People will appeal to morality as a basis for enacting or not enacting any given law. But that doesn’t that mean that objective morality is a necessary condition for enacting laws.

I’m not claiming that murder is not murder. I’m saying that the word murder is just marks on a page until you give it meaning. And, as soon as you do that, you’ve moved into subjectivity. Now, we may have widespread agreement on some application of the word murder to real life situations, but agreement does not mean objective.

Can you quote me the definition of murder from the Bible that will allow me, without any need to interpret the language, to apply the world in all cases and reach a result that we would agree is moral?

Which premise of my argument are you claiming that our disagreement violates?

[drumdude]

This. Exactly this.

I get so tired of DCP claiming the Holocaust was morally acceptable if we don’t have an absolute morality. We have an infinite number of moralities, a moral landscape as Sam Harris puts it. Just because we can’t see the absolute peak does not mean we can’t see hills that are better and valleys that are worse.

The idea of absolute morality serves no function. It is a platonic ideal that does not exist. Just like the perfect triangle does not exist. And we don’t need it to exist to be able to talk about triangles.

So why do you believe the Holocaust was morally unacceptable?

The justification for punishing those who carried it out in the Nuremberg trials was based largely on the work of a Soviet intellectual. A summary of his ideas is here:

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=gsp

Trainin played a central role in establishing the legal framework for the Nuremberg Trials. He proposed that a new legal concept, "the crime of aggression", be used to hold Nazi Germany's military and political leadership accountable for the numerous countries they invaded and occupied. Along with the other jurists involved in crafting the Nuremberg Charter, Trainin was influential in establishing the new legal field of international law.

Again, all of this legal framework was created without any appeal to God or ultimate morality. Because if we used that, we would end up living under a hodgepodge mess of Judaic law, Muslim Law, Mormon law, etc.

To live in a modern secular society we have to navigate the moral landscape without appealing to anyone’s God.

You’re free to live by your own religious morality if you choose but it’s not objectively correct enough to write laws around it. It’s just a personal preference for you like enjoying peanut butter more than almond butter.

[huckelberry]

So the commandment not to murder doesn’t actually mean not to murder? Here’s your line of argument as I understand it:
Any interpretation is subjective.
Subjectivity cannot be applied objectively.

So why do we have a constitutional government or enforce laws? Enforcement is based on an interpretation of law. How can you apply any type of moral judgement to anyone beside yourself? The fact you disagree with me violates this premise because you are interpreting my words and expecting me to value your interpretation.

pgm1985, as far as I can see it you are the only person here who thinks subjectivity cannot be applied objectively.
The rest of us appear to think subjectivity is applied objectively in all parts of all human life all of the time.

[pgm1985]

So why do you believe the Holocaust was morally unacceptable?

The justification for punishing those who carried it out in the Nuremberg trials was based largely on the work of a Soviet intellectual. A summary of his ideas is here:

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=gsp

Trainin played a central role in establishing the legal framework for the Nuremberg Trials. He proposed that a new legal concept, "the crime of aggression", be used to hold Nazi Germany's military and political leadership accountable for the numerous countries they invaded and occupied. Along with the other jurists involved in crafting the Nuremberg Charter, Trainin was influential in establishing the new legal field of international law.

Again, all of this legal framework was created without any appeal to God or ultimate morality. Because if we used that, we would end up living under a hodgepodge mess of Judaic law, Muslim Law, Mormon law, etc.

To live in a modern secular society we have to navigate the moral landscape without appealing to anyone’s God.

You’re free to live by your own religious morality if you choose but it’s not objectively correct enough to write laws around it. It’s just a personal preference for you like enjoying peanut butter more than almond butter.

Again, you have argued for an objective moral standard. Without that standard, you cannot say the holocaust was morally wrong. Without a moral standard, you cannot impose your personally morality on the Nazis because they held their actions were moral. This is the irrationality of relativism. Keep in mind, I am not advocating for legislation of morality. I know that is impossible. My point is morality is part of humanity because we are created in the image of God even if secular society does not recognize it. I acknowledge unbelievers can have ethics and live a moral life. The God of the Bible presupposes truth and morality in man. Without that we would live in chaos.

[pgm1985]

So why do you believe the Holocaust was morally unacceptable?

The justification for punishing those who carried it out in the Nuremberg trials was based largely on the work of a Soviet intellectual. A summary of his ideas is here:

https://digitalcommons.usf.edu/cgi/view ... ontext=gsp

Trainin played a central role in establishing the legal framework for the Nuremberg Trials. He proposed that a new legal concept, "the crime of aggression", be used to hold Nazi Germany's military and political leadership accountable for the numerous countries they invaded and occupied. Along with the other jurists involved in crafting the Nuremberg Charter, Trainin was influential in establishing the new legal field of international law.

Again, all of this legal framework was created without any appeal to God or ultimate morality. Because if we used that, we would end up living under a hodgepodge mess of Judaic law, Muslim Law, Mormon law, etc.

To live in a modern secular society we have to navigate the moral landscape without appealing to anyone’s God.

You’re free to live by your own religious morality if you choose but it’s not objectively correct enough to write laws around it. It’s just a personal preference for you like enjoying peanut butter more than almond butter.

[pgm1985]

That is exactly my point, it is faulty logic to conclude a person or society can operate on moral relativity My argument is everyone does agree that stealing a car is wrong, which presupposes an absolute moral authority. Are you arguing there is not a moral standard?

pgm1985, everybody speaking here agrees there is a moral standard. There are disagreements as to how specifically we know that . Most of us think that people in the context of government come together to form the best understanding available.Laws are made by valid human government.I think the fact that we are created in the image of God gives us the ability to make those judgments. Yes sin causes humans to fudge rules, fake them and sometimes disregard them still we have the sense God gave us to search after those. The scriptures and the Holy Spirit encourage and drive us toward truthfulness and away from the fakes.

I do not think anybody here thinks you are the moral authority and when you stand on the Bible people see your limited understanding putting itself first. I certainly do not trust you with that much authority.

I disagree, the argument here is there is NOT a moral standard. I am not claiming to be that standard. I am claiming the Bible is that standard that provides the basis for government, laws, and all of life. Again this not my standard, it is Gods because He is the ultimate authority of all creation, not just the moral authority.

[pgm1985]

So the commandment not to murder doesn’t actually mean not to murder? Here’s your line of argument as I understand it:
Any interpretation is subjective.
Subjectivity cannot be applied objectively.

So why do we have a constitutional government or enforce laws? Enforcement is based on an interpretation of law. How can you apply any type of moral judgement to anyone beside yourself? The fact you disagree with me violates this premise because you are interpreting my words and expecting me to value your interpretation.

Yes. Any interpretation is subjective.

Constitutions and laws are the rules of the road that allow people to function in groups without killing each other. Do you want anybody who has more guns than you to be able to take your property? Me neither. Do you want to be able to for a walk without fear of being kidnapped and tortured? Me too. Every individual has conflicting desires for both autonomy and security. Laws are how a society mediates that contradiction by creating rules that provide some mix of autonomy and security. No objective morality required. Just a negotiation based on rational or irrational self interest.

That doesn’t mean that morality is irrelevant to law. People will appeal to morality as a basis for enacting or not enacting any given law. But that doesn’t that mean that objective morality is a necessary condition for enacting laws.

I’m not claiming that murder is not murder. I’m saying that the word murder is just marks on a page until you give it meaning. And, as soon as you do that, you’ve moved into subjectivity. Now, we may have widespread agreement on some application of the word murder to real life situations, but agreement does not mean objective.

Can you quote me the definition of murder from the Bible that will allow me, without any need to interpret the language, to apply the world in all cases and reach a result that we would agree is moral?

Which premise of my argument are you claiming that our disagreement violates?

Why is murder in any context morally wrong? Either you have competing views of subjectivity, as the murderer does not think his actions was morally wrong, or an objective standard must be applied.