|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2023 19:07:57 GMT
there can be no objective morality.
Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem? It's not that subjective morality is a problem per se, the issue is that there is evidentially no such thing as objective morality, as a species we have changed our morality a number of times. Morals and ethics are personal, we have some societal ones we ask people to follow and mostly we get compliance, however as the existence of the prison system shows, even those are not held by anyone. There is no such thing as objective morality, and if God™ has a moral code he wants us to follow, it would behoove him to be fractionally more clear about it.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Mar 26, 2023 19:16:33 GMT
What would make morality 'pretty meaningless?' Subjective morality? Why? The whole concept of subjective morality I find contradictory. What’s the purpose of morality if the definition of right and wrong can be changed in any situation based off an individual’s personal feelings, preferences and opinions? Subjectivists have no standard or base to go by, which means they have no right to say something is morally right or wrong. All they got is their opinions and they cannot force them on anyone else. "The whole concept of subjective morality I find contradictory." Not really, if that were true why has the field of philosophy been debating morality for centuries at this point? "What’s the purpose of morality if the definition of right and wrong can be changed in any situation based off an individual’s personal feelings, preferences and opinions?" Again, that's literally what the ENTIRE field of philosophy is for "Subjectivists have no standard or base to go by" Well no, actually we do, there are many different standard to go buy. There's deontology (an action should be based on it's intention rather than outcome) vs consequentialism (an action should be judged in it's outcome rather than intention). There's nihilism, secular humanism, hedonism, individualism, collectivism, modernism, post modernism, etc, really just a long list of different standards to base your morality around. "All they got is their opinions and they cannot force them on anyone else." Well actually we can, it's called voting and enacting laws (laws are basically just state enacted morality) BTW I would make the argument there is no such thing as "objective morality" anyways. Even ignoring the fact that Christians themselves don't actually have one strict set of principles because of the different sects (by "objective morality" I'm assuming your mostly refering to divine command theory), the idea that man should should get their morality from God is in itself just a subjective claim (you would have to argue why we should do that, which is a prescriptive claim, not descriptive)
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2023 19:58:47 GMT
rizdek Forgot to mention, I really don't enjoy long drawn-out set piece battles with heathens. I can feel what's left of my life draining away whenever I get into one of those. You might want to tag Arlon10. He seems to like them. Me, I'm more hit-and-run, like a guerilla. You misspelled monkey.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2023 20:01:27 GMT
Buddhism is actually a polytheistic religion. They just do not believe in a Supreme Creator. It’s not a requirement, but my point is, it is not Christian morality. And there are nations where the population is essentially atheist, so are the Scandinavian nations less moral than America? Name the decade the USA as a nation lived up to its high minded moral claims? north korea, china and the nazi regime are all instances of societies which are atheist (I know that actually most nazis were christian, including most likely Hitler - albeit a really strange kind of islamic Christianity, I think that just furthers the point though)
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2023 20:05:12 GMT
there can be no objective morality.
Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem?
It would appear from various records that the world was a very brutal place before modern religion (for example Judaism) began reforming it. The god of the Bible did not "invent" slaughtering infants. People in the brutal past already did that. The god of the Bible invented a way to take it out of human hands.
And yet somehow you think it has got better?? America has been at war pretty much consistently since 1941, there are more slaves in the world today than there have ever been in the past, and we fight among each other (sometimes to the death) because we don't want to change how we address each other. I would suggest things have got worse since your 'brutal' past, maybe just more subtle.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 26, 2023 20:46:46 GMT
It would appear from various records that the world was a very brutal place before modern religion (for example Judaism) began reforming it. The god of the Bible did not "invent" slaughtering infants. People in the brutal past already did that. The god of the Bible invented a way to take it out of human hands.
And yet somehow you think it has got better?? America has been at war pretty much consistently since 1941, there are more slaves in the world today than there have ever been in the past, and we fight among each other (sometimes to the death) because we don't want to change how we address each other. I would suggest things have got worse since your 'brutal' past, maybe just more subtle.
While things are far from what I would call perfect, yes I do think things are better.
Different things have different progress. Slavery in the Old Testament was not as bad as slavery in the southern United States. Slavery in the Old Testament was not racial. it was just that when people lost their farms or wars or whatever they had nowhere else to go but slavery. It was an almost totally rural economy without any industrial or government jobs. In the southern United States slavery had a bitter racial overtone. Although racial problems still exist today I believe things are improving.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2023 21:25:15 GMT
And yet somehow you think it has got better?? America has been at war pretty much consistently since 1941, there are more slaves in the world today than there have ever been in the past, and we fight among each other (sometimes to the death) because we don't want to change how we address each other. I would suggest things have got worse since your 'brutal' past, maybe just more subtle.
While things are far from what I would call perfect, yes I do think things are better.
Different things have different progress. Slavery in the Old Testament was not as bad as slavery in the southern United States. Slavery in the Old Testament was not racial. it was just that when people lost their farms or wars or whatever they had nowhere else to go but slavery. It was an almost totally rural economy without any industrial or government jobs. In the southern United States slavery had a bitter racial overtone. Although racial problems still exist today I believe things are improving.
to be fair race relations are improving, so year fair call on that one perhaps though we have just redirected our hate?. I think limiting your response around slavery to america is a mistake, for example the slavery among prostitutes world wide is a huge issue, we even have some in dear old New Zealand. My point is I don't really think overall things are necessarily better, different sure, and we HAVE improved our moral outlook in some regards, I feel like we have gone backwards in others, which in itself seems to suggest that there is no moral objectivity.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 26, 2023 22:31:21 GMT
What is an example of objective morality? Thou shalt not kill? But if I kill to protect my father, am I not honoring my father? What morality have I violated?
Is objective morality absolute? Moses' law said, thou shalt not kill. But Moses' said to kill people who violate the Sabbath. Is Moses immoral or are the people throwing the stones?
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 26, 2023 22:53:11 GMT
What is an example of objective morality? Thou shalt not kill? But if I kill to protect my father, am I not honoring my father? What morality have I violated? Is objective morality absolute? Moses' law said, thou shalt not kill. But Moses' said to kill people who violate the Sabbath. Is Moses immoral or are the people throwing the stones? it tends to be a bit more specific when questioned, for example killing for fun is always objectively wrong, however there are situations in which it is ok to kill. At least that is the definition according to google. I would say that makes it subjective, in that killing is sometimes ok, and I would say that yes and objective morality would need to be absolute to be objective, I guess to work it just has to be overly specific. Just to be clear I have never heard a satisfactory answer to what is objective morality, can you provide a workable example.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 27, 2023 0:46:32 GMT
While things are far from what I would call perfect, yes I do think things are better.
Different things have different progress. Slavery in the Old Testament was not as bad as slavery in the southern United States. Slavery in the Old Testament was not racial. it was just that when people lost their farms or wars or whatever they had nowhere else to go but slavery. It was an almost totally rural economy without any industrial or government jobs. In the southern United States slavery had a bitter racial overtone. Although racial problems still exist today I believe things are improving.
to be fair race relations are improving, so year fair call on that one perhaps though we have just redirected our hate?. I think limiting your response around slavery to america is a mistake, for example the slavery among prostitutes world wide is a huge issue, we even have some in dear old New Zealand. My point is I don't really think overall things are necessarily better, different sure, and we HAVE improved our moral outlook in some regards, I feel like we have gone backwards in others, which in itself seems to suggest that there is no moral objectivity.
An argument we often hear when we find more trouble is that we look for it with better tools.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 27, 2023 0:54:21 GMT
It’s not a requirement, but my point is, it is not Christian morality. And there are nations where the population is essentially atheist, so are the Scandinavian nations less moral than America? Name the decade the USA as a nation lived up to its high minded moral claims? north korea, china and the nazi regime are all instances of societies which are atheist (I know that actually most nazis were christian, including most likely Hitler - albeit a really strange kind of islamic Christianity, I think that just furthers the point though) The ideology is the religion, because it’s still putting one’s faith in something unverifiable and metaphysical. Ideology and religion both have an infallible Big Other that generally is not questioned.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 27, 2023 16:22:44 GMT
At least someone might be able to give some reasons for what they deem right/wrong instead of simply pointing to ancient scriptures written by primitive goat herders or brow beating someone from a pulpit with unsupported maxims. Primitive goat herders? Brow beating from a pulpit? You have an ax to grind, don't you? If I understand you, this is what you're asking for. You want to throw out a system of morals, but you also want that same system of morals to validate it for you. If that's what you want, you don't get it. Hey everyone, I want to throw out all existing conventions of right/wrong, but first.........I want that system I'm throwing out to say that what I'm doing is "right." It does not work that way. If you want to throw it out, throw it out. Embrace natural law. Is natural law right? Or wrong? It doesn't matter anymore, because you just threw right/wrong out the window. As I said, I'm not expert on the subject of natural law, but from what I know of it, it's neither right nor wrong. It just is. I don't want to throw out a 'system of morals' just own to the fact that morals should have reasons beyond that they were written by primitives.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 27, 2023 16:32:58 GMT
Primitive goat herders? Brow beating from a pulpit? You have an ax to grind, don't you? If I understand you, this is what you're asking for. You want to throw out a system of morals, but you also want that same system of morals to validate it for you. If that's what you want, you don't get it. Hey everyone, I want to throw out all existing conventions of right/wrong, but first.........I want that system I'm throwing out to say that what I'm doing is "right." It does not work that way. If you want to throw it out, throw it out. Embrace natural law. Is natural law right? Or wrong? It doesn't matter anymore, because you just threw right/wrong out the window. As I said, I'm not expert on the subject of natural law, but from what I know of it, it's neither right nor wrong. It just is. I don't want to throw out a 'system of morals' just own to the fact that morals should have reasons beyond that they were written by primitives. Primitives because they didn't have android phones? Can you make an android phone? If an android phone breaks, can you even fix it? Primitive people had laws against murder. Murder, however satisfying it may be for the individuals committing it, is counterproductive to the interests of society. Because primitives had it, I guess we should just get rid of it, huh?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 27, 2023 16:59:25 GMT
What would make morality 'pretty meaningless?' Subjective morality? Why? The whole concept of subjective morality I find contradictory. What’s the purpose of morality if the definition of right and wrong can be changed in any situation based off an individual’s personal feelings, preferences and opinions? Subjectivists have no standard or base to go by, which means they have no right to say something is morally right or wrong. All they got is their opinions and they cannot force them on anyone else. It seems the dilemma you pose is pretty much what we observe today. Have you had much success convincing someone else of your version of morality without accompanying it with some sort of reasoning...ie have you had success saying 'this is MY morality and it's objective so....you comply?' (except for raising one's children, I mean) Doesn't it still require some sort of common or agreed on reasoning that the majority accept? Even if there IS some objective basis for morality...what is that basis and how does one
a) know that that basis is right since you can't base any decisions on any reasoning (that's what subjectivits do),
b) know what that morality is (again without using reasoning...that subjectivists do) and then
c) convince others that THAT source of morality is THE source of morality if they don't already think it is (without using reasoning that subjectivists do)?
It seems to me that that is what governments do.. provide the mechanism for the majority to impose their idea of what is moral on everyone under that govt. Then laws are written and enforced that capture much of that morality. And given there can be many variations on the details, ultimately it comes down to providing reasons so we're back to subjectivism. And it is precisely that an individual is unable to convince someone else of what they see as wrong/right or force them to comply that they need the support of the majority.
How does one wade through all the options of morality available today without some basis for sifting out the wheat from the chaff...ie what is REALLY wrong vs what is just someone's opinion of what is wrong. It seems to me it all gets down to one's personal views and hopefully they're using reasoning to decide for themselves what is right and wrong....which leads to subjectivism.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 27, 2023 18:45:22 GMT
I don't want to throw out a 'system of morals' just own to the fact that morals should have reasons beyond that they were written by primitives. Primitives because they didn't have android phones? Can you make an android phone? If an android phone breaks, can you even fix it? Primitive people had laws against murder. Murder, however satisfying it may be for the individuals committing it, is counterproductive to the interests of society. Because primitives had it, I guess we should just get rid of it, huh? No, primitive in that some of what they thought they ought to do are no longer believed to be part of the morality of civilized/moral society. EG some ancient cultures believed the way to appease their gods was to sacrifice children to them. THOSE culture also had laws against murder and stealing. We can reason out that sacrificing children is no longer needed/right, but maintain that murder and stealing is still wrong. Some ancient texts suggest women taken in adultery are to be stoned. This was apparently practiced up until the time of Christ if we are to believe the stories in the NT. We still might believe adultery is wrong, but in most civilized societies adulterous women are no longer stoned. Those ancient texts also contended murder and stealing is wrong. Again, we can sift through and reason that laws against murder and stealing are valid, but stoning adulterous women is wrong.
Most civilized societies no longer take the following scriptures seriously:
“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
“No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord. "
Men with damaged goods today in most civilized societies are allowed to worship with others. And bastards aren't 'forbidden from worshiping' the Lord.
The Old Testament failed to take an obvious stand against slavery. In most societies today, we've decided that slavery is wrong. So we can adjust our morality based on current reasoning and will likely continue to do that in the future.
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 27, 2023 18:49:16 GMT
Primitives because they didn't have android phones? Can you make an android phone? If an android phone breaks, can you even fix it? Primitive people had laws against murder. Murder, however satisfying it may be for the individuals committing it, is counterproductive to the interests of society. Because primitives had it, I guess we should just get rid of it, huh? No, primitive in that some of what they thought they ought to do are no longer believed to be part of the morality of civilized/moral society. EG some ancient cultures believed the way to appease their gods was to sacrifice children to them. THOSE culture also had laws against murder and stealing. We can reason out that sacrificing children is no longer needed/right, but maintain that murder and stealing is still wrong. Some ancient texts suggest women taken in adultery are to be stoned. This was apparently practiced up until the time of Christ if we are to believe the stories in the NT. We still might believe adultery is wrong, but in most civilized societies adulterous women are no longer stoned. Those ancient texts also contended murder and stealing is wrong. Again, we can sift through and reason that laws against murder and stealing are valid, but stoning adulterous women is wrong.
Most civilized societies no longer take the following scriptures seriously:
“No one whose testicles are crushed or whose male organ is cut off shall enter the assembly of the Lord.
“No one born of a forbidden union may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of his descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord. "
Men with damaged goods today in most civilized societies are allowed to worship with others. And bastards aren't 'forbidden from worshiping' the Lord.
The Old Testament failed to take an obvious stand against slavery. In most societies today, we've decided that slavery is wrong. So we can adjust our morality based on current reasoning and will likely continue to do that in the future.
I'm of the opinion that slavery never went away. It just morphed, and it's based on debt now.....but that's a story for another thread. I don't think child sacrifice went away either. It just went underground.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 27, 2023 19:24:06 GMT
north korea, china and the nazi regime are all instances of societies which are atheist (I know that actually most nazis were christian, including most likely Hitler - albeit a really strange kind of islamic Christianity, I think that just furthers the point though) The ideology is the religion, because it’s still putting one’s faith in something unverifiable and metaphysical. Ideology and religion both have an infallible Big Other that generally is not questioned. Fair enough, yeah they are in the same ball park, I feel like a God™ providing an objective morality, and a human dictator providing an objective morality are far enough apart though that it's hard to make any real comparison, however I do find it ironic that the Christians tend to be the ones that argue the morality comes from God™ (at least here) and yet over look the fact that the vast majority of Germans in the nazi regime, including the vast majority of actual card carrying nazis were actually quite devout Christians, moreover that frequently the foreign supporters of Nazidom were also Christian, in fact it is easy to point out that it is very much Christianity that drove anti-semitism. Perhaps that could be an objective morality though, I wonder if there are any Christians that see this and say oh yes that is because objectively the Jews are bad. Actually having typed that I already know of a few
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 27, 2023 20:10:58 GMT
If i am not mistaken, its considered Our moral duty to treat the dead with dignity, now in 2020 in Eurasia, dozens of buried Neandertal skeletons was buried, leading some scientists to deduce that, like us, Neandertals buried their dead.
Now if buring the dead is a sign of morality and the the scientist that deuced that Neanderthals buried there dead are correct, that would would mean that Neanderthals had morality, and if they had morality when it came to death than its likely that they had morality over other things to. now if the act of buring dead is morality, and Neanderthals buried their dead, than that would prove that you don`t need God to be moral.
But i am probably wrong, as i know nothing.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 27, 2023 20:14:28 GMT
to be fair race relations are improving, so year fair call on that one perhaps though we have just redirected our hate?. I think limiting your response around slavery to america is a mistake, for example the slavery among prostitutes world wide is a huge issue, we even have some in dear old New Zealand. My point is I don't really think overall things are necessarily better, different sure, and we HAVE improved our moral outlook in some regards, I feel like we have gone backwards in others, which in itself seems to suggest that there is no moral objectivity.
An argument we often hear when we find more trouble is that we look for it with better tools.
So you disagree that we are just as bad if not worse than this 'brutal past'?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 27, 2023 21:32:49 GMT
If they did such an experiment, all it would get at is the effect of belief in God affected morality, not whether some god actually existed. It might be sufficient that people believe there is a god and that said god is the objective basis of morality and if someone wants to control their behavior, slyly insert one's own 'morality' into their indoctrination and call it God's. Oh, and it would hep if they also made it clear that disregarding God's morality (which was really someone's own morality) would lead to an eternity of torment (mental or physical) with no escape. Yes. that would be the point with the experiment. I thought that was obvious. The experiment would be about whether or not belief in God affected morality, not whether or not God exist. English is my second language, so maybe i explained it poorly in my the post. I would imagine belief in/about God is more important than whether God actually exists or not. As Jon Stewart said, he 'acts like' he believes in God which I take to mean he has reviewed many of the mandates attributed to God throughout history, has gleaned through them and weeded out the ridiculous ones and treats the rest like they're really objectively the right thing to do.
|
|