From: bil@okcforum.osrhe.edu (Bill Conner)
Subject: Re: After 2000 years, can we say that Christian Morality is
Nntp-Posting-Host: okcforum.osrhe.edu
Organization: Okcforum Unix Users Group
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL9]
Lines: 54


: In my mind, to say that science has its basis in values is a bit of a
: reach. Science has its basis in observable fact. 

I'd say that what one chooses to observe and how the observation is
interpreted and what significance it's given depends a great deal on
the values of the observer. Science is a human activity and as such,
is subject to the same potential for distortion as any other human
activity. The myth that scientists are above moral influence or
ethical concern, that their knowledge can be abstacted whole and pure
from nature untainted by the biases of the scientist, is nonsense.

Bill

: If one is to argue for objective values (in a moral sense) then one must
: first start by demonstrating that morality itself is objective. Considering
: the meaning of the word "objective" I doubt that this will ever happen.

: So, back to the original question:

: And objective morality is.....?

This may be an unfortunate choice of words, almost self-contradictory.
Objective in the sense used here means something immutable and
absolute while morality describes the behavior of some group of
people. The first term is all inclusive, the second is specific. The
concept supposedly described may have meaning however. 
If there is a God as described by the Christians (for instance), then
He has existence apart from and independent of humankind; His
existence is outside of our frame of reference (reality). If this
being declares a thing to be so, it is -necessarily- so since He has
defined Himself as omnipotent and, if His claims are to be believed,
He is at least omnipotent relative to us. God is intrinsically
self-defined and all reality is whatever He says it is - in an
objective sense.
If God determines a standard of conduct, that standard is objective.
If human beings are held accountable for their conformance to that
standard while permitted to ignore it, they substitute a relative
morality or mode of conduct, giving the term morality a nebulous,
meaningless sense that can be argued about by those pretending to
misunderstand. The standard is objective and the conduct required to
meet that standard is therefore objectively determined.
Just because it is convenient to pretend that the term morality is
infinitely malleable, doesn't mean that the objective standard itself
doesn't exist. Morality has come to mean little more than a cultural
norm, or the preferred conduct of "decent" people, making it seem
subjective, but it is derived from an absolute, objective, standard.
Ironically, this objective standard is in perfect accord with our true
nature (according to Christianity at least), yet is condemned as being
contrary to human nre, oppressive and severe. This may be due as

Bill
much to our amoral inclinations as to the standard itself, but like it
or not, it's there.x
