gary_s wrote:As I listened through the podcast, I began to wonder why Tony is so obsessed with this idea of objective value. Why is it so important?
gary_s wrote:I never saw god as this limited.
scomsjw wrote:In “The Naked Ape” Desmond Morris made a good job of stepping outside humanity and looking at us as if we were another species. I think if you adopt that perspective you can make some interesting speculations about the origins of morality. You could observe that human beings experience lust and explain this as a drive towards reproduction. But you can also see how beings that only experience lust in this context might not survive as well as others who experience love and affection for each other. Once you are capable of loving another being you are on the road to empathy and a great deal of morality is built on that. As an outsider you could observe that a being feels hunger when it needs to eat, thirst when it needs to drink, lust when it needs to reproduce and empathy when it needs to live with other beings. There is an instinct to do whatever should increase the happiness of members of our group. Sometimes we have to work out what course of action would maximise happiness and sometimes we get it wrong. I think the subjugation of women in many societies is the result of men trying to maximise the happiness of themselves and other men – overlooking the need for women to be happy too. I think you can see evidence of people following the instinct to maximise human happiness everywhere – and there are many cases where they get it wrong, usually by focussing on a subgroup rather than the whole of humanity. There are some communities where it is considered morally wrong to help the police, some people think homosexuality is morally reprehensible and so on. It’s hard to reconcile this variety of moral positions with belief in a single objective morality originating with god. It looks more like people following an instinct to increase the happiness of themselves and others but occasionally getting things wrong.
His life will have meaning that is subjective to him. Even his value of a creator because not everyone will share this value and there is no human way to know for certain which creator-belief is true and which is not. I'm fine with saying that there may be an objective meaning out there somewhere, but why does that have to be the only thing of importance to us? Why wouldn't god WANT us to find or own values and meaning that make our lives worth living? Why would he insist that we find this one and only "objective" meaning in life (which isn't very meaningful at all if you ask me), even though we may not live a life that puts us in a position to experience it at all.
It’s hard to reconcile this variety of moral positions with belief in a single objective morality originating with god. It looks more like people following an instinct to increase the happiness of themselves and others but occasionally getting things wrong.
mitchellmckain wrote:gary_s wrote:As I listened through the podcast, I began to wonder why Tony is so obsessed with this idea of objective value. Why is it so important?
This is a basic tool for everyone who want to impose their values on other people. He wants to say people cannot just value whatever they choose they have to value the things that Tony values and so his god becomes his tool by which to say that it is only what he says his god values that really has any value.
My approach to this is a bit different, to say that we can of course value anything we choose. But just because we can make different choices does not mean that all the choices are equal. The pursuit of some values will prove to be more shallow and less capable of providing any lasting happiness that other things. God certainly knows what values are most worth pursuing and which are temporary.gary_s wrote:I never saw god as this limited.
Tell me about it! This is the inevitable result of what legalists do when they taylor god and righteousness to a door at which they can be the gatekeepers. The result is a god that is as small a their own minds.
tonyenglish7 wrote:Of course we all have the subjective experience of life and we all have different likes and dislikes...
The question is more a question of ultimate meaning.
Are humans actually "endowed" with rights, value etc..? Or are the conferred upon us by society, a constitution or declaration of independence? It is not a question of do we experience value, but objectively, outside of whether the state, society, or intergalactic planets value us, do we actually have value and meaning?
Does the Declaration of Independence speak a truism or the actual truth that all men are "created" equal, "endowed" with human rights? Or did the document create these features?
If society decides Atheist are to be killed, do they have an objective right to complain? Can they point to a real law outside of society to appeal too? If all is subjective than the answer is no.
Of course this is not a proof for the existence of God but it is an evaluation of a world view. which view is more consistent?
Ultimate objectivity or objectivity based upon a subjective grounding of society?
When we treat each other with respect, (not defined by agreement but tolerance in disagreement), than we are doing what is actually right because each human being is an amazing creature, with so much value, more than we can even imagine.
Diamonds and gold and beautiful sunsets are nothing compared to the value of a free person who is aware of life, others and themselves.
.To God, this is a gem of great value which he loves. We may want money or fame or whatever but God desires his free persons to find him and live with Him forever
If life is only what you subjectively experience and then it is over, objectively it is meaningless.
If life has a higher purpose, is not over at death and the decisions we make effect an eternal destiny, than there is objective meaning. It cannot be both, it is one or the other...
ScottBarger wrote:As a Christian, I have never been able to come up with an example of an objective, universal moral good other than "obey God." Outside the Christian world view I can come up with things that are more or less morally good, but objectivity is hard to come by. Can anyone give me an example of one of these objective (universal, transcendent...whatever) morals? Without one, I think the whole construct falls apart, doesn't it?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests