Objective Moral Values, God's Law, and the New Covenant.
- Thread starter Jacob
- Start date
objective moral value
A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.
Google Search
A proposition is objective if its truth value is independent of the person uttering it. A fact is objective in the same way. For morality to be objective, moral propositions such as "Killing is bad","Stealing is bad", etc... need to be true independently of the person who is stating them.
Google Search
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
When I think of objective morality, what I think of is what is objectively determinable. For example, say killing is wrong, we can objectively perceive whether someone is objectively guilty of killing. But then there are circumstances that do not negate an objective moral offense, but can diminish, attenuate, or nullify altogether any imputable guilt or culpability to the objective moral offender, for example if you kill in self defense or in defense of an innocent person, then your guilt for the objective moral offense of killing is not imputed to you. It doesn't mean that killing is now moral, it means that sometimes, an objective moral offense is not entirely or at all due to your free will, and so you are not fully or even at all guilty of the objective moral offense, in certain circumstances that render you less than completely free in your decision to commit an objective moral offense.
Yes.
No. Most people are moral or believe in some morality, no matter whether they believe in God, or in some other deity, or in no gods at all (atheist). None of them think that morality comes from God, even though the authentic Christian faith believes that authentic morality does come from God.
There is a difference between an objective moral value and if someone has done something that is objectively wrong.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
I see that the way you're using "objective," that this is the case.
I offered up another meaning for "objective moral" for thought.
'Idea being, that whatever morality we're discussing, there is the moral offense itself, which is objectively determinable (whether someone did it or not), and then there is what's 'behind the scenes' within the mind of the objective moral offender, such as for example, were they coerced in any way, was there a credible threat on an innocent person's life /limb, anything that might render what they did, not fully attributable to their own free will choice.
In such a case, while the determination of whether a moral offense has been committed (objectively) is untouched, the guilt imputed to the offender might be less than complete, even completely nullified, again due to certain circumstances that render the offender's choice something less than completely due to their free will.
Just food for thought.
People are influenced by others and people make their own decisions, so who is responsible?
genuineoriginal
New member
There is no such thing as truly objective morality, but there is such a thing as apparently objective morality.
Some people have attempted to tie morality to the notion of harm, claiming that if something causes harm then it is immoral (and the opposite is that everything that does not cause harm is moral).
This does not work, because whether something causes harm is subjective and changeable (what did not cause harm last year is now thought of as causing harm this year).
Apparently objective morality is a morality that appears objective to us because it is applied universally to all of mankind but is entirely subjective to God (whatever God deems is immoral at the judgment is immoral and whatever God deems is moral at the judgment is moral).
Because God is the only true judge of what is moral and what is immoral, the commandment "thou shalt not kill" applies as a general rule that killing another person is immoral, but killing another person is not an immoral act under all circumstances.
God has given us a conscience that usually works well for most people in identifying what is moral and what is immoral.
Can it be said that something is wrong? Because we should not have to wait until the judgment to find out.
Idolater
"Foundation of the World" Dispensationalist χρ
Murder---not unqualified killing, but murder---can be said to be objectively wrong. Murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent person. Another definition of murder is killing with malice aforethought.
Objectively it's very easy to determine whether someone has killed. It's trickier to determine whether a killing is also a murder. Our criminal justice system helps to determine that.
Are you searching for something determinable from outside of faith in God? I personally don't believe that there is objective morality aside from believing in God. In fact, if someone does believe in objective morality at all, even if they claim to not believe in God, then they do believe in God, since I don't believe that objective morality is real, aside from God also being real.
genuineoriginal
New member
Sure, but what is wrong in most circumstances may not be wrong in all circumstances.
God has given us a conscience that usually works well for most people in identifying what is moral and what is immoral.
Romans 2:13-15 13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified. 14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: 15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another; ) |
But, there are people that it doesn't work for:
1 Timothy 4:2 2 Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; |
People that have lost the ability to tell what is moral and what is immoral can have that ability restored.
Psalm 51:10 10 Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me. |
So, murder is objectively wrong.
With God. Though someone may come to the conclusion that objective moral values exist without first believing in God. It may be more difficult than believing in God first.
This would be a good prayer to pray, if a prayer. What might be objectively wrong in one circumstance but not in another? Would it then not be objectively wrong?
genuineoriginal
New member
Coveting is apparently objectively wrong and is even compared to idolatry.
Romans 13:9 9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Colossians 3:5 5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth; fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness, which is idolatry: |
But it is not always wrong to covet.
1 Corinthians 12:31 31 But covet earnestly the best gifts: and yet shew I unto you a more excellent way. 1 Corinthians 14:39 39 Wherefore, brethren, covet to prophesy, and forbid not to speak with tongues. |
Can you show the Hebrew and Greek words from your post relating to the word covet?
genuineoriginal
New member
Oh, I see.
The two are different words in Greek, so are not speaking of the same type of coveting.
Thou shalt not covet:
g1937 ἐπιθυμέω epithymeō
Covet the best gifts and to prophesy:
g2206 ζηλόω zēloō
Apparently then there are different kinds of coveting or that is the word that we use.
genuineoriginal
New member
I believe it is a mistranslation.
g2206 ζηλόω zēloō is about zealously striving for something good.
g1937 ἐπιθυμέω epithymeō is about lusting after something forbidden.