• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

1robin vs The_Fisher_King: What forms of religion would account for objective morality?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Do you want to kick off with an opening answer to this question?

Hello Fisher King, it seems you really want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes concerning morality and it's source. So before we dive in I want to make sure I understand what it is you wish to concentrate on. Once you confirm or deny what I think you are asking for then I will begin, unless you wish to.

1. I believe from our prior discussions that you wish to initially concentrate on the types of theological world views that can account for objective morality.

2. And then perhaps once we resolve which religions can account for the existence of an objective moral realm of facts and duties. Then did you wish to switch gears to the evidence and arguments which justify my claim that of those religions that can account for morality that Christianity has by far the highest likely hood of being true?

So in summary do you wish to concentrate on no 1, and then if we reach a consensus or an understanding then dig into no 2? Please confirm this or if I am mistaken then please tell me what specifically you want to investigate. Then we will begin.
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
Hello Fisher King, it seems you really want to see how deep the rabbit hole goes concerning morality and it's source. So before we dive in I want to make sure I understand what it is you wish to concentrate on. Once you confirm or deny what I think you are asking for then I will begin, unless you wish to.

1. I believe from our prior discussions that you wish to initially concentrate on the types of theological world views that can account for objective morality.

2. And then perhaps once we resolve which religions can account for the existence of an objective moral realm of facts and duties. Then did you wish to switch gears to the evidence and arguments which justify my claim that of those religions that can account for morality that Christianity has by far the highest likely hood of being true?

So in summary do you wish to concentrate on no 1, and then if we reach a consensus or an understanding then dig into no 2? Please confirm this or if I am mistaken then please tell me what specifically you want to investigate. Then we will begin.

Spot on! Thanks for seeking clarification :)
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Spot on! Thanks for seeking clarification :)
Sorry I have been out of pocket lately.


So for now we are going to consider what religions are consistent with and explanatory for objective morality. First it needs to be understood that I cannot investigate all of the thousand and thousands of religions that have ever existed, and then list all those that can account for objective morality. So instead of listing actual specific religions I will state what I think a religion must have to explain objective morality. Once I do so it can just be understood that whatever religions have those components would be in the set containing religions that can account for objective morality.

I must first make sure we both understand what I mean by objective morality. I will supply two ingenious definitions of morality to establish what I mean. Both are Latin.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

This is what I mean by objective morality. A moral value or duty which is not based on the opinions of the subjects of that moral system. There are some who try and say that God's morality is subjective instead of objective because he simply invented morality. This is called Euthyphro's dilemma. However there is no dilemma because God's eternal nature is where his morality comes from not his opinions. At least that is true of Yahweh and is probably true of many monotheistic religions.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malum

This second category is often confused with objective morality, but this category is better understood to be ethics or legality. This category is not what I mean by objective morality. This category is actually subjective, and without God is not even true because without God there exists no transcendent moral facts or duties for our ethics and laws to correspond with.

To keep this from growing too large too fast lets stop here and make sure we both have the same understanding. Do you understand what it is I am going to show is explained by certain types of religions? I am not going to show anything connected with Mallum prohibitum because it is not objective nor objectively binding on us all. I am going to show why I think Mallum en se' values and duties exist and what aspects of a religion must exist to account for those objective values and duties.

So basically at this point I just need to know we are on the same page concerning the above. If so then next I will show that objective moral values and duties do exist and what is necessary to account for them. So do you understand all of this so far? If not please let me know what needs additional clarification.
 
Last edited:

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
Sorry I have been out of pocket lately.


So for now we are going to consider what religions are consistent with and explanatory for objective morality. First it needs to be understood that I cannot investigate all of the thousand and thousands of religions that have ever existed, and then list all those that can account for objective morality. So instead of listing actual specific religions I will state what I think a religion must have to explain objective morality. Once I do so it can just be understood that whatever religions have those components would be in the set containing religions that can account for objective morality.

I must first make sure we both understand what I mean by objective morality. I will supply two ingenious definitions of morality to establish what I mean. Both are Latin.

Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from malum prohibitum, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.

This is what I mean by objective morality. A moral value or duty which is not based on the opinions of the subjects of that moral system. There are some who try and say that God's morality is subjective instead of objective because he simply invented morality. This is called Euthyphro's dilemma. However there is no dilemma because God's eternal nature is where his morality comes from not his opinions. At least that is true of Yahweh and is probably true of many monotheistic religions.

Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute,[1] as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.[2]

Nuguria - Wikipedia

This second category is often confused with objective morality, but this category is better understood to be ethics or legality. This category is not what I mean by objective morality. This category is actually subjective, and without God is not even true because without God there exists no transcendent moral facts or duties for our ethics and laws to correspond with.

To keep this from growing too large too fast lets stop here and make sure we both have the same understanding. Do you understand what it is I am going to show is explained by certain types of religions? I am not going to show anything connected with Mallum prohibitum because it is not objective nor objectively binding on us all. I am going to show why I think Mallum en se' values and duties exist and what aspects of a religion must exist to account for those objective values and duties.

So basically at this point I just need to know we are on the same page concerning the above. If so then next I will show that objective moral values and duties do exist and what is necessary to account for them. So do you understand all of this so far? If not please let me know what needs additional clarification.

Sorry for going AWOL - had a bit of a mental health meltdown and haven't been on RF for 9 or 10 months or thereabouts (first day back today).

I hope you're still about - and will accept my apology - so that we can continue the discussion. I'm certainly still on the same page as you so far!
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Sorry for going AWOL - had a bit of a mental health meltdown and haven't been on RF for 9 or 10 months or thereabouts (first day back today).

I hope you're still about - and will accept my apology - so that we can continue the discussion. I'm certainly still on the same page as you so far!
Sure, but I haven't been debating much lately either. Hope your doing ok now.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Hmm. Curious!
Yeah, it was a new one on me. I had two alerts in a row from you that both went to the same post.

Looks like the last issue we were discussing is that with God objective morality may exist, but without God objective morality can't possibly exist. Do you concur with that fact?
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
Yeah, it was a new one on me. I had two alerts in a row from you that both went to the same post.

Looks like the last issue we were discussing is that with God objective morality may exist, but without God objective morality can't possibly exist. Do you concur with that fact?

Just to be clear, how are you defining God here?
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Just to be clear, how are you defining God here?
In this context God only requires a few attributes.

1. He needs to be a personal God.
2. He needs to be a necessary being.
3. He must be a free moral agent.
4. He must be self consistent.

He may have thousands of other attributes but to ground objective morality he needs only the above.
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
In this context God only requires a few attributes.

1. He needs to be a personal God.
2. He needs to be a necessary being.
3. He must be a free moral agent.
4. He must be self consistent.

He may have thousands of other attributes but to ground objective morality he needs only the above.

Must He exist outside of His creation? i.e. not be contained by it
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Must He exist outside of His creation? i.e. not be contained by it
I do not think a God being bound by his creation is logically coherent like square circles or married bachelors. Regardless whether God is or is not bound by creation is irrelevant concerning morality.
 

The_Fisher_King

Trying to bring myself ever closer to Allah
Premium Member
I do not think a God being bound by his creation is logically coherent like square circles or married bachelors. Regardless whether God is or is not bound by creation is irrelevant concerning morality.

Okay. So let's proceed.
 
Top