Can morals be objective?

[ashdod_mogger]

Who are u talking too?

God of the Bible (tanackh) in a formal rationalist metaphysical sense (as in “the Lord makes heaven and earth” [Psalms 124:8, and also 121:2]) , is not bound to anthropocentric moral notions, which are quite meaningless ideas and are made up by the subject, this is the God represented in Book of Job. @PrinceLuenLeoncur

With that being said, ultimately there might aswell isn't holy grail for ethics and they fall out of the equation eitherway

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

The Book of Job does not say that our fate is determined by God, but rather that it can be concluded that God can intervene and change nature for a specific purpose (something that was previously taken for granted). Job was righteous, God testifies explicitly about him (Job 24:7): And it came to pass afterward that the Lord spoke these words to Job, and the Lord said to Eliphaz the Temanite, "My anger is kindled against you and against your two friends, for you have not spoken to me what is right, as my servant Job has." At the beginning of the book, we are told: "There was a man in the land of the wood, whose name was Job; and that man was blameless and upright, and one who feared God and shunned evil." Lest we be mistaken and think that he had sinned.

Speakings on the Holidays of Israel and Its festival: Midrashic Excerpts from the Scrolls of "Song of Songs" and "Lamentations," Reflections on "Ecclesiastes" and Discussions on the Book of Job, Israel Tevet 5770 [Second Printing: Tishrei 5772], pp. 219 ff. (Yeshayahu Leibowitz), deals with Job. He interprets Maimonides' words (p. 222) in that Job's earlier perception was that God was "a kind of patron who grants benefits to His servants-followers," and later he understood that nature is not governed to achieve human goals, but rather that God's providence is expressed in the natural conduct of the world, "in natural reality itself," so that the laws of nature are indifferent to man.



some other book author, gives a different interpretation of the Rambam. According to him, the Rambam's intention is that Job previously thought that the world was governed by chance, and in the end he regrets and changes his view. The existential message of the Book of Job is "It is the love of God through reflection on His actions that brings us happiness. If we are aware that God's rule is absolute and wonderful over us, we can bear any harm, and no trouble will add to our doubts about God and His providence."



Now I will present the problem of evil:

C1: God is omnipotent.

C2: God is omniscient.

C3: God is morally perfect.

C4: There is evil in the world.

Claims 1, 2, and 3 do not agree with claim 4. What is the answer? God has other moral considerations that justify the presence of evil in the world, such as allowing free choice, an ordered nature whose laws do not change and cause chaos, or any other answer that we do not have knowledge of - but that God has.

I’m no Jew an their interpretations are bullshit and retarded.

Evil is easily solved as evil has no ontological existence it’s simply going agaisnt God that’s all it is. Anything against god is evil. God gives u the option to go against him or not. Such a low tier GAYtheist question it’s not worth my time debunking

 

[ashdod_mogger]

I’m no Jew an their interpretations are bullshit and retarded.

Evil is easily solved as evil has no ontological existence it’s simply going agaisnt God that’s all it is. Anything against god is evil. God gives u the option to go against him or not. Such a low tier GAYtheist question it’s not worth my time debunking

watched the attached vid. Whereas you define evil as going against God's word, as a solution to the problem of evil, in question, isn't that's whole circular reasoning/begging the assumption that you're looking 4? Furthermore , What your're implying: "Evil can only be seen in human forms and doesn't exist in the world for itself" (noumenon, e.g the evil is just opposite/absence of Good, in a way of concradiction~)? Is so, i agreed to this proposition

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

watched the attached vid. Whereas you define evil as going against God's word, as a solution to the problem of evil, in question, isn't that's whole circular reasoning/begging the assumption that you're looking 4? Furthermore , What your're implying: "Evil can only be seen in human forms and doesn't exist in the world for itself" (noumenon, e.g the evil is just opposite/absence of Good, in a way of concradiction~)? Is so, i agreed to this proposition

No because it’s recursive. Ultimately every view and point falls into a form of circularity but what differentiates the two is that one is an logical fallacy that still has presuppositions and things that it’s dependant upon whereas this axiom is one that has an foundation in something that isn’t reliant on anything else. This is thus a true recursive.

Even I struggle to explain it so ima let GPT Elab more on it




A circular argument is when:

The conclusion is assumed in the premise
Example:

“God exists because the Bible is true, and the Bible is true because God wrote it.”



A recursive system is when something:

Refers to itself as part of its structure, but in a non-arbitrary, grounding way

Examples outside theology:

• Mathematics defining numbers using prior numbers
• Language defining words using other words
• Logic relying on basic axioms

These aren’t fallacies because:

• They don’t try to prove themselves
• They act as foundational starting points

God is not one more thing needing justification

God is the precondition for justification itself

So instead of:

• “God exists because X”

It becomes:

• “Without God, you couldn’t have logic, truth, or knowledge at all

This is closer to a transcendental argument, not simple circular reasoning.

 

[Gamerspyy786]

yes because there are things objectively well for society and objectively detrimental for society. long term that is.

 

[Vannx]

Title

maybe everything that is beneficial to the survival of the human species is morally good objectively the morality we have built over time is based on that I think?

 

[Incelforeever]

yes because there are things objectively well for society and objectively detrimental for society. long term that is.

Objectively well for society = objectively good? Every society has different premises for whats well and whats not throught history, and even today. People argue between different economic systems, different set of laws, its still all so subjective, everyone can have a valid reason for why something is good or bad

 

[Incelforeever]

I’m no Jew an their interpretations are bullshit and retarded.

Evil is easily solved as evil has no ontological existence it’s simply going agaisnt God that’s all it is. Anything against god is evil. God gives u the option to go against him or not. Such a low tier GAYtheist question it’s not worth my time debunking

what are ur thoughts about heaven?

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

what are ur thoughts about heaven?

It’s the same river of life that is experienced by those in hell as the lake of fire for it is an divine energy of God the same warmth experienced by those that accept gods will and mercy is the same divine energy experienced by those that reject his warmth due to their alignment In in life thus making them experience the eschaton as hell.

That’s the Orthodox view. It’s horrible for those that react badly to gods energies (Hell) and great for those that do (heaven)

 

[Incelforeever]

It’s the same river of life that is experienced by those in hell as the lake of fire for it is an divine energy of God the same warmth experienced by those that accept gods will and mercy is the same divine energy experienced by those that reject his warmth due to their alignment In in life thus making them experience the eschaton as hell.

That’s the Orthodox view. It’s horrible for those that react badly to gods energies (Hell) and great for those that do (heaven)

I was asking more in terms of how sentient beings like us would funcation there. Would evil (going against god) not be even possible? could u fall from heaven? how exactly would ur thought process be? free will possible? etc

 

[kisslessvirgin]

kant b

 

[PrinceLuenLeoncur]

I was asking more in terms of how sentient beings like us would funcation there. Would evil (going against god) not be even possible? could u fall from heaven? how exactly would ur thought process be? free will possible? etc

Our natures would skin with that of gods so evil wouldn’t be possible for our nature would be tilted towards gods thus that we wouldn’t want to nor even be able or capable of doing evil to begin with. You’d have free will to do anything that within the holy nature of God.

That’s what God always wanted anyways was for humans to live with him happy and in peace but tha was all fucked ip when Adam and Eve ate the fruit. Christs nature is pure and perfect he took on human nature therefore at the end of days we will be tied to him and thus all possibility and desire to sin wil be erased so no you cannot lose your place in heaven

 

[Gamerspyy786]

Objectively well for society = objectively good? Every society has different premises for whats well and whats not throught history, and even today. People argue between different economic systems, different set of laws, its still all so subjective, everyone can have a valid reason for why something is good or bad

Yes objectively well for the individual and society long term = objectively good.

There are things clear cut that are objectively wrong for society like interest, murder, gambling etc. they may provide short term benefit but long term it causes nothing but the detriment to society

 

[Incelforeever]

Yes objectively well for the individual and society long term = objectively good.

There are things clear cut that are objectively wrong for society like interest, murder, gambling etc. they may provide short term benefit but long term it causes nothing but the detriment to society

this isn’t objectivety. It’s a framework u came up with. Just ur opinion at the end of the day

 

[Gamerspyy786]

this isn’t objectivety. It’s a framework u came up with. Just ur opinion at the end of the day

Not exactly. Theres objective truths in the world. Like for example we know drinking alcohol everyday is bad for your health. So on and so forth. The same can be applied for morals. There are things objectively moral and beneficial for society and the opposite too

 

[Incelforeever]

Not exactly. Theres objective truths in the world. Like for example we know drinking alcohol everyday is bad for your health. So on and so forth. The same can be applied for morals. There are things objectively moral and beneficial for society and the opposite too

yes, but that relies on a framework that whats benfit society = good, and people are even conflicted on that. comparing health to morals is not a good comparsion

 

[Nosferatu666]

Morality does not exist in nature

 

[Lecherous]

Morality does not exist in nature

Naturalistic fallacy.
There are no objective morals though. But 'nature tho' is a bad argument.