There is an objective morality. I would go far as to say that I agree with St. Paul when he talks about each human has the law written in his heart. Someone may say that morality is relative -- until something happens to them. A man may think that it is ok to steal as long as he is not caught, but if something of his is stolen, then suddenly it is wrong and he wants the wrong doer punished. Men may pillage villages and rape their enemies and believe it is alright, but they know that it would be wrong if it happened to them -- their wives raped and children sold into slavery.
To steal, to take another wife, to kill -- by that I mean murder not self defense -- to hate another because of their skin color or religion, all know that it is wrong, even when those who commit these acts have good reasons, in their own minds, to commit them.
The Golden Rule points to an objective morality, to treat others as we would want to be treated. To live that out takes self reflection and self knowledge.
Recommend
Comments (27)
The Golden rule is a good measuring stick but when others sin on a minor level or when I sin with others I think of free will. If it's not harming others does that constitutue as bad moral behaviour? Who is to judge? Sorry, I'm not religious.
Also if someone else sins majorly. A co-worker of mine recently killed someone in a fist fight. I'm sure he didn't mean to do it. The person just happened to die after the fight. How do we judge on that point?
I almost joined the Mormons. They dictate that you can't have premarital sex or drink iced tea or coffee. A friend of mine pointed out that it was ridiculous to have such rules. I valued my friend more than the sanctity of those rules.
Hey, thanks...I've appreciated your past posts! I've thought a bit about 'objective' morality/truth/etc. The M-W definition of objective:
"expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations"So here's a question...can I perceive anything (sin, truth, whatever) without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations? I can imagine its possible to perceive a physical phenomena without feelings, but not sin or truth or anything in which I've personal stake. To attempt to extend the modernist concepts (including 'objective' anything) beyond scientific method and reproducible testing of the physical world seems to stretch the limits of the meaning of the word and is unhelpful to actual human relationship.
Rom 14:23 "But he that doubteth is condemned if he eat, because [he eateth] not of faith; and whatsoever is not of faith is sin" comes to mind. I read this (and other similar versus) as sin is based upon conviction (presumably from a Holy God). It also suggests relationship is required between an actual individual and God....rather than a hypothetical person without personal feelings, prejudices or interpretations.
Its also tempting to say the 10 commandments provide context for defining 'objective' sin, but Jesus (and Paul) seem to throw out that concept when they say (in different ways) the law is merely a tutor and now is written on the human heart. And even the 'Golden rule' seems not objective, but subjective as we each have different ways we want to be treated.
These ideas have been bouncing around in my head for a while...I'd be interested to hear if you think they make sense.
"The Golden Rule points to an objective morality, to treat others as we would want to be treated."
that's not objective, since everyone wants to be treated differently.
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - do they? don't we naturally desire people to respect us and not trample our feelings or sense of dignity?
I'm not sure people know when they sin, all the time, I mean. And I'm not sure sin is always clear. My examples of the way I was treated by Baptists are a perfect example. Was it part of the Golden Rule and the 2nd commandment to tell me to leave because I didn't vote like they did? Or, was I sinning because I ceased using my brain and did what they said I should. There would be flyers on our windshields each Sunday, and one woman pointed out to me that they didn't go far enough and tell her who to vote for.
Right & Wrong you ask ?
Gee, do ya think that's why we're in the horrific mess we're all in today...?? Do ya ???
(if I'd been in charge...well, see Genesis 7, over & Over & OVER I would...!!!)
@nyclegodesi24@xanga - true. but, what i feel like i need to feel respect is usually different from what others demand. so when i let how i treat people reflect that, i tend to come across as a sarcastic bitch :)
no one has the same definition of what it means to be respected or honored.
A man may think that it is ok to steal as long as he is not caught, but if something of his is stolen, then suddenly it is wrong and he wants the wrong doer punished."
I would argue there are better examples that undermine this one - like comparing a poor man stealing food from a corporation to feed his family, versus a suburban teenager stealing the same food from the same place just because he thinks it makes him cool. Same act, different amounts of wrongness.
Logic is objective and philosophy is based on logic, including moral philosophy used to determine ethics. But moral acts do not occur in a vacuum, and the right or wrong of an act is weighted on the context, beings involved, motivation of the actor, et cetera. This isn't so much relative morality as much as normalizing variables.
So yes, morality is objective, but not in the way you've demonstrated here.
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - Stealing is stealing.
We aren't talking about justice or shades of gray.We are talking about objective right and wrong. In a peace time situation stealing is wrong no matter who does it and no matter the reason.
Our civil society has made it so poor people don't need to steal in order to feed themselves.
I live by "that it harm none, do as thou wilt". That and the golden rule, along with a belief a sort of karma helps me with my moral dilemmas. Obviously the first thing I mentioned is incredibly subjective, and totally unfitting in an Abrahamic religion where you do what God, and in the case of Christianity, the Bible says (which you HOPE is the word of God and not edited by some manipulative human(s) at some point), even if it doesn't really make sense in modern times. He knows better than you (I'm not being sarcastic, just repeating what I've heard a lot of Christians say).
UMM I think everybody should read C.S. Lewis' book MERE CHRISTIANITY. It is so good and this topic is right up his ally ;) that is what came to mind when i read this article.
@Parsimony@xanga - Your co-worker did not mean to kill, yet harm was done, and I guess he will have to pay some debt to society. Fighting is based on the desire to infllict harm, as a man I understand that, yet it is still wrong, unless in self defense.
Peace
mark
@god_stories@xanga - I believe that the Golden rule is one of the best ways to decide on how to treat someone, for it does take putting oneself in anothers shoes..."How would I want to be treated if in this persons place". That takes self knowledge and a real effort to understand. Paul said, to do what you believe is wrong, is sin. To do something in ignorance, may not be a sin, yet the same harm is done to oneself and another, it may not be something that affects ones relationship with God. Sin is a wider concept than just personal sin, it is also on the level of society, in the family etc. In the end, it starts with one person experiencing the healing of mercy and forgivness through Jesus Christ, then it ripples out to others.
peace
mark
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - Well not really. Would you want someone to steal you car, or cheat with your wife, or steal from you house, or beat and rob or rape you? I doubt it. If a pimp thought about his sister for instance and what would he think if another pimp treated his sister the way he treats his women, he would know it was wrong to do what he is doing on a very personal level.
Peace
mark
@Pollypinks@xanga -
They failed and were fearful, sorry you had to go through that my friend.
peace
mark
@When_We_Were_Both_Cats@xanga - I like you example thank you. My main point is, if we thought more on how we would want to be treated in any given circumstance, then the world would be different I believe. Also love is the bottom line as well. To judge without love is just an expression of anger, hatred or fear. To judge with love, means that ones own humanity, struggles and yes failures, perhaps in other areas of life are faced honestly. Your example about the poor man stealing food.....his need would override the law, as long as he did not steal more than he needed, or anyone hurt.
Peace
mark
@LillPill@xanga - Thanks, I will read the book, I am a fan of his
Peace
mark
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - Your point is right, however there are times when a poor man does have the right to steal, again, as long as what is taken is what is needed and no one is harmed. In the United States is would be rare perhaps for that to happen.
peace
Mark
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - You know when you are respected or not.
Peace
mark
@markdohle - There is no such thing as the right to steal. Such a concept violates your claim that there exists an absolute right and wrong.
Rights, like morality are absolute. They don't undergo metamorphosis or pop in and out of thin air depending on the circumstance.
Thus the need for due process so that all the facts of a case come to light and justice be administered.
A society where a poor man must steal in order to survive is not a just society so it is questionable whether "theft" is even applicable.
I think rather than go through another fundamentalist experience where I was told exactly how to interpret scripture, regardless of whether I had my own Greek and Hebrew version or not, I'd probably gouge my eyes out and run through the neighborhood naked. Too darn much power converts and convicts idiot mentalities, and that makes for one scary society.
@PrisonerxOfxLove@xanga - LIke your last sentence, I agree.
Peace
mark
@markdohle -
"Would you want someone to steal you car, or cheat with your wife, or steal from you house, or beat and rob or rape you? I doubt it."
true. but those are just a handful of instances. what about more subjective issues, things that aren't legislated against? for example: i'd want a loved one to tell me if i'm too fat to wear a particular article of clothing. by using the Golden Rule, i'd do the same for someone else. but since not everyone feels the same way i do, i'd probably just piss them off.
or take religion, for example. Christians usually tell me i'm going to Hell, but they say they do so out of love. for them, Hell is a reality and they're simply trying to save my soul. applying the Golden Rule, they shouldn't have a problem when an atheist tells them they're all a bunch of morons for having an invisible friend and not being under the age of 8. to the atheist, an absence of a higher power is a reality and they're simply trying to help the Christians lead more sane lives.
"You know when you are respected or not."
true. but my definition of respect might be far different from someone else's. a lot of people think they're entitled to respect simply because they're human. i, on the other hand, was raised to believe that respect is something to be earned. and, using the Golden Rule, i certainly won't give respect to someone who has not earned it. nor would i show respect to someone if i don't care about them respecting me.
The only objective standard of behavior is to cause undesired harm or interference in the life of another. I may caveat somewhat for intention... but even then, it is a minor caveat at best.
@flapper_femme_fatale@xanga - Depends on how you tell someone they are fat, it can be done in a conscending way, a controlling way, a sarcastic way, or it can be done with compassion, once, and dropped, if it needs to be done at all. The golden rule can lead us to see in others another self, not a person we need to judge since we have enough self knowledge to know that we all have struggles. We tend to judge others from our strengths and look down on those who do share them, and have compassion on those who share our weakenesses. Atheist and believers can disagree without insults, to do so is childish and irrational in the end. We need to grow up as a species, we can't do that if we look for 'other' groups to shower contempt on. The Golden Rule is not just in the christian faith, but in all religions, it is central, we fail when we don't live up to that, which is easy to do, I still struggle with it.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment.
peace
Mark