|
Post by cupcakes on Feb 15, 2018 19:45:12 GMT
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 15, 2018 20:39:49 GMT
phludowin But there is as it's what God teaches us through His church which is the official Catholic church teachings on morals etc. No it's not. Even if God existed, and I don't believe he/she/it does, if morality came from him/her/it, it would still be subjective from his/her/its point of view. that's the fatal mistake many make as once you decide there is no objective morality then people can basically make things up as they go along A fatal mistake many people make is that they believe that if there is no objective morality, there is no morality at all. Morality is subjective, and socially constructed. They are human morals. But they exist. and morals inevitably decline with that line of thinking as there is a little drop off here and a little there and people don't really see that stuff as it happens slowly but looking back say 60 years ago it's pretty clear in my mind that in many ways morality as taken a solid hit and it's accelerating. In my opinion morality has improved a lot in the past 60 years. One of the most important points: Humans are less likely to be treated as second-class citizens just because they happen to be women or homosexuals. And in general it's not ok to discriminate against humans because they have darker skin than others. It has even become less acceptable to sacrifice decency on the altar of free speech. We live in the best of all possible worlds.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 15, 2018 21:50:23 GMT
More like devolving, at least in many ways. just look at the last 60 years or so... things have clearly gotten more immoral in many ways. but a liberal will probably see that as 'progress'. I can assure you that official Catholic moral teachings, which are the moral guide of the world (even though many ignore them), are not going to change (i.e. abortion/euthanasia/homosexuality etc will always be condemned like they have been since the beginning). so while people can change as time passes, God and His standards do not. God's standards are objective morality and there are in place for everyone's benefit even when they are not always easy to follow, but they are the truth. phludowin But there is as it's what God teaches us through His church which is the official Catholic church teachings on morals etc. that's the fatal mistake many make as once you decide there is no objective morality then people can basically make things up as they go along and morals inevitably decline with that line of thinking as there is a little drop off here and a little there and people don't really see that stuff as it happens slowly but looking back say 60 years ago it's pretty clear in my mind that in many ways morality as taken a solid hit and it's accelerating. Don't just make things up as you go along, let God make things up as he goes along for you. NO, More like let the corrupt and hypocritcal priests and Church officials who wield the power and wealth, make things up as they go along.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 16, 2018 17:30:29 GMT
I can assure you that official Catholic moral teachings, which are the moral guide of the world (even though many ignore them), are not going to change (i.e. abortion/euthanasia/homosexuality etc will always be condemned like they have been since the beginning). so while people can change as time passes, God and His standards do not. But there is as it's what God teaches us through His church which is the official Catholic church teachings on morals etc. I will repeat what I already posted:
The question of slavery appears to be at least one exception to your rule about moral teachings of the Catholic Church never changing:
John Paul II included slavery among matters that are "intrinsically evil" -- prohibited "always and forever" and "without any exception" -- a violation of a universal, immutable norm. Yet slavery in some form was accepted as a fact of life in both Hebrew and Christian Scriptures, in much Christian theology and in Catholic teaching well into the 19th century...The fathers of the church accepted the buying, selling and owning of human beings. So did the popes: Muslim slaves were manning papal galleys until 1800. So did religious orders: Jesuits in colonial Maryland owned slaves, as did nuns in Europe and Latin America. Even St. Peter Claver, who in Colombia befriended, instructed and baptized African slaves, bought slaves to serve as interpreters. Theologians challenged abuses of slaveholding but rarely the practice itself. It was at the urging of Protestant Britain that the papacy condemned the slave trade in 1839. In 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished slavery, the Vatican finally condemned it. www.nytimes.com/2005/05/22/books/review/a-church-that-can-and-cannot-change-dogma.html
Well? Do you agree that slavery is an exception to your rule about moral teachings of the Catholic Church never changing?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 20:20:29 GMT
or do you disagree and STILL maintain that there is an absolute objective morality I think that's something of a false dichotomy. Let's say for the sake of argument that there is some sort of universal moral truth, an idea of goodness if you want to get all Platonic about it. Since you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste goodness, people would debate amongst themselves what is good and as societies change, new arguments appear. In other words if there were an objective goodness, we would likely see the same diversity in moral viewpoints as if there weren't. So agreeing that moral viewpoints are diverse and evolve in no way requires a rejection of universal morality. To take slavery as an example, I can believe that slavery is universally wrong whilst conceding other people throughout history have disagreed. The only difference between the universalist and the subjectivist is the former thinks those who disagree are wrong as opposed to different.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 21:13:19 GMT
or do you disagree and STILL maintain that there is an absolute objective morality I think that's something of a false dichotomy. Let's say for the sake of argument that there is some sort of universal moral truth, an idea of goodness if you want to get all Platonic about it. Since you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste goodness, people would debate amongst themselves what is good and as societies change, new arguments appear. In other words if there were an objective goodness, we would likely see the same diversity in moral viewpoints as if there weren't. So agreeing that moral viewpoints are diverse and evolve in no way requires a rejection of universal morality. To take slavery as an example, I can believe that slavery is universally wrong whilst conceding other people throughout history have disagreed. The only difference between the universalist and the subjectivist is the former thinks those who disagree are wrong as opposed to different. I don't see the difference in your point. People (especially religious people) think that there is a set of universal truths. Others think that they evolve and change.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 21:33:51 GMT
I think that's something of a false dichotomy. Let's say for the sake of argument that there is some sort of universal moral truth, an idea of goodness if you want to get all Platonic about it. Since you cannot see, hear, smell, touch or taste goodness, people would debate amongst themselves what is good and as societies change, new arguments appear. In other words if there were an objective goodness, we would likely see the same diversity in moral viewpoints as if there weren't. So agreeing that moral viewpoints are diverse and evolve in no way requires a rejection of universal morality. To take slavery as an example, I can believe that slavery is universally wrong whilst conceding other people throughout history have disagreed. The only difference between the universalist and the subjectivist is the former thinks those who disagree are wrong as opposed to different. I don't see the difference in your point. People (especially religious people) think that there is a set of universal truths. Others think that they evolve and change. My point was you give examples of moral viewpoints changing and evolving over time and then asked if people disagree and believe in universal morals instead (at least if I understood you correctly). One could however agree with you but still believe in universal morals. So suppose I believe eating meat is universally wrong. You could point out that different societies in different times and places have had different moral stances on eating meat. I could agree but still think those societies who thought eating meat was ok were wrong.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 21:46:16 GMT
I don't see the difference in your point. People (especially religious people) think that there is a set of universal truths. Others think that they evolve and change. My point was you give examples of moral viewpoints changing and evolving over time and then asked if people disagree and believe in universal morals instead (at least if I understood you correctly). One could however agree with you but still believe in universal morals. So suppose I believe eating meat is universally wrong. You could point out that different societies in different times and places have had different moral stances on eating meat. I could agree but still think those societies who thought eating meat was ok were wrong. If you think that eating meat is universally wrong, then you are a universalist. If not, you are not. I don't see another point of view.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 16, 2018 21:48:47 GMT
My point was you give examples of moral viewpoints changing and evolving over time and then asked if people disagree and believe in universal morals instead (at least if I understood you correctly). One could however agree with you but still believe in universal morals. So suppose I believe eating meat is universally wrong. You could point out that different societies in different times and places have had different moral stances on eating meat. I could agree but still think those societies who thought eating meat was ok were wrong. If you think that eating meat is universally wrong, then you are a universalist. If not, you are not. I don't see another point of view. I can't remember if you agree that there are multiple moralities out there or firm in the belief that moralities become extinct over time.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 21:55:00 GMT
If you think that eating meat is universally wrong, then you are a universalist. If not, you are not. I don't see another point of view. Yes, that's right. But pointing out that moral viewpoints have changed over the years does not hurt the universalist standpoint. They're compatible positions. The difference between the universalist and relativist is about whether the diverse morals views are equally valid, not about whether there are diverse views in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 22:02:22 GMT
If you think that eating meat is universally wrong, then you are a universalist. If not, you are not. I don't see another point of view. Yes, that's right. But pointing out that moral viewpoints have changed over the years does not hurt the universalist standpoint. They're compatible positions. The difference between the universalist and relativist is about whether the diverse morals views are equally valid, not about whether there are diverse views in the first place. How can a universalist possibly have a view that once eating meat was morally wrong and now, not so much? That is a contradiction in terms.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 22:02:56 GMT
If you think that eating meat is universally wrong, then you are a universalist. If not, you are not. I don't see another point of view. I can't remember if you agree that there are multiple moralities out there or firm in the belief that moralities become extinct over time. I agree with both, but I don't think either stance is inconsistent with believing in the existence of some objective morality.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Feb 16, 2018 22:07:58 GMT
I can't remember if you agree that there are multiple moralities out there or firm in the belief that moralities become extinct over time. I agree with both, but I don't think either stance is inconsistent with believing in the existence of some objective morality. I would agree, it's just that considering the obvious and ample evidence that moralities fluctuate with time and even mood, there's not way to think about it in terms of beginnings and endings I couldn't remember what goz thinks since it seems like she argues about both sides of it
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 22:09:31 GMT
How can a universalist possibly have a view that once eating meat was morally wrong and now, not so much? That is a contradiction in terms. Because that's not the universalist's view. The view is that eating meat is morally wrong, always has been, always will be. However they can accept that other people in different times and places have believed it not to be immoral. These people are just incorrect. So pointing out moral disagreement is not an argument against moral universalism.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 22:14:46 GMT
How can a universalist possibly have a view that once eating meat was morally wrong and now, not so much? That is a contradiction in terms. Because that's not the universalist's view. The view is that eating meat is morally wrong, always has been, always will be. However they can accept that other people in different times and places have believed it not to be immoral. These people are just incorrect. So pointing out moral disagreement is not an argument against moral universalism. Yes, it is. Universalists believe in an ultimate and (usually) God given ultimatum on a moral question. No change, and no evolution.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 22:22:49 GMT
Because that's not the universalist's view. The view is that eating meat is morally wrong, always has been, always will be. However they can accept that other people in different times and places have believed it not to be immoral. These people are just incorrect. So pointing out moral disagreement is not an argument against moral universalism. Yes, it is. Universalists believe in an ultimate and (usually) God given ultimatum on a moral question. No change, and no evolution. The truth cannot evolve, viewpoints on it can. Your examples are changing viewpoints. What you are essentially saying is diverse viewpoints mean there is no single truth but that doesn't follow.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Feb 16, 2018 22:28:43 GMT
Yes, it is. Universalists believe in an ultimate and (usually) God given ultimatum on a moral question. No change, and no evolution. The truth cannot evolve, viewpoints on it can. Your examples are changing viewpoints. What you are essentially saying is diverse viewpoints mean there is no single truth but that doesn't follow. No. You are not understanding this. "Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. ... Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value." Universalists believe in an ultimate God given truth.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 16, 2018 22:42:15 GMT
How can a universalist possibly have a view that once eating meat was morally wrong and now, not so much? That is a contradiction in terms. Because that's not the universalist's view. The view is that eating meat is morally wrong, always has been, always will be. However they can accept that other people in different times and places have believed it not to be immoral. These people are just incorrect. So pointing out moral disagreement is not an argument against moral universalism. In my opinion morals are social constructs whose purpose is to ensure survival of those who practise them. Whether they are right or wrong can be measured by how well people who abide by them survive. The more they survive, and the happier they are that they do, the better the morals. And since humans have only been on Earth for a relatively short time (a few hundreds of thousand years), and will die out eventually (maybe soon, maybe in three billion years, when the Sun explodes), no morals made from humans can claim to be universal. Another thing: The Universe as a whole has no ambition for survival (at least I consider it unlikely). Therefore it has no morals. Therefore in my opinion, there is no moral universalism.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,672
Likes: 1,297
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 16, 2018 22:45:44 GMT
The truth cannot evolve, viewpoints on it can. Your examples are changing viewpoints. What you are essentially saying is diverse viewpoints mean there is no single truth but that doesn't follow. No. You are not understanding this. "Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. ... Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value." Sure, that's a good definition. So we agree on two things: 1. Moral objectivists believe moral claims have a truth value while moral subjectivists disagree. 2. There has been disagreement about moral stances throughout history. So let's take the moral claim "eating meat is wrong". The objectivist will think this stance is either true or false but they wouldn't argue that people have disagreed on this - such a stance would be obviously false. The subjectivist thinks the claim is neither true nor false. Not necessarily. Plenty of moral universalists don't think God need be involved at all.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 16, 2018 22:50:56 GMT
No. You are not understanding this. "Objective morality is the perspective that there are things about the universe that make certain morals claims true or false. An objectivist would state that the way the world is makes murder an objectively wrong thing to do. ... Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value." Sure, that's a good definition. So we agree on two things: 1. Moral objectivists believe moral claims have a truth value while moral subjectivists disagree. 2. There has been disagreement about moral stances throughout history. So let's take the moral claim "eating meat is wrong". The objectivist will think this stance is either true or false but they wouldn't argue that people have disagreed on this - such a stance would be obviously false. The subjectivist thinks the claim is neither true nor false. The problem is: What is truth when morality is concerned? In my opinion morality is not concerned with truth but with good and evil. In the case of living beings, good is what helps survival, while evil hinders survival. But does survival mean a quest for truth? I don't know.
|
|