|
Post by rizdek on Mar 27, 2023 21:35:14 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. Some of the basic elements of morality seem to me to be due to evolutionary adaptations in that the human species gene pool probably had to produce individuals with the make up of humans today to have survived. I note that there were more than one hominid species but us humans were the ones that survived. It could have been because our species won out in massive wars and conflicts, or maybe we had just the right balance of the instinct for self preservation and willingness toward altruism, self-sacrifice and support of the tribe.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 27, 2023 23:04:05 GMT
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? The definitions don’t change. We may disagree about what is right or wrong, but not about what right and wrong is. Morality itself is not subjective.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 27, 2023 23:25:23 GMT
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? The definitions don’t change. We may disagree about what is right or wrong, but not about what right and wrong is. Morality itself is not subjective. You mean we dont change the meaning of the words right and wrong? That still leaves the application of right and wrong, which are applied subjectively, for example, murder is a crime and morally wrong, killing in war is not, unless you lose. Or it's ok to have slaves until it's not
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 28, 2023 1:12:27 GMT
The definitions don’t change. We may disagree about what is right or wrong, but not about what right and wrong is. Morality itself is not subjective. You mean we dont change the meaning of the words right and wrong? That still leaves the application of right and wrong, which are applied subjectively, for example, murder is a crime and morally wrong, killing in war is not, unless you lose. Or it's ok to have slaves until it's not Mork sat in chairs upside down. I say he’s doing it wrong he says he’s doing it right and we’re both correct but like morality, the chair isn’t right or wrong or objective or subjective because it’s just a chair.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 28, 2023 1:29:59 GMT
You mean we dont change the meaning of the words right and wrong? That still leaves the application of right and wrong, which are applied subjectively, for example, murder is a crime and morally wrong, killing in war is not, unless you lose. Or it's ok to have slaves until it's not Mork sat in chairs upside down. I say he’s doing it wrong he says he’s doing it right and we’re both correct but like morality, the chair isn’t right or wrong or objective or subjective because it’s just a chair. The chair may not be right or wrong, it's application could be. Morality is not moral or immoral, it is the discussion of the ethics of action, the application of morality decides if a deed is right or wrong, and that could be either subjective or objective. although I do not agree that there is such a thing as objective morality.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 28, 2023 1:37:37 GMT
Mork sat in chairs upside down. I say he’s doing it wrong he says he’s doing it right and we’re both correct but like morality, the chair isn’t right or wrong or objective or subjective because it’s just a chair. The chair may not be right or wrong, it's application could be. Morality is not moral or immoral, it is the discussion of the ethics of action, the application of morality decides if a deed is right or wrong, and that could be either subjective or objective. although I do not agree that there is such a thing as objective morality. When you said murder is morally wrong you were giving an example of objective morality.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 28, 2023 1:54:39 GMT
The chair may not be right or wrong, it's application could be. Morality is not moral or immoral, it is the discussion of the ethics of action, the application of morality decides if a deed is right or wrong, and that could be either subjective or objective. although I do not agree that there is such a thing as objective morality. When you said murder is morally wrong you were giving an example of objective morality. Except that this is not the case, murder is the word we give to an illegal killing, and sometimes people are allowed to go free after murder, take France's crimes of passion for example. The definition of murder changes too, as well as the degree, so it therefore must not be objective.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 28, 2023 2:01:45 GMT
When you said murder is morally wrong you were giving an example of objective morality. Except that this is not the case, murder is the word we give to an illegal killing, and sometimes people are allowed to go free after murder, take France's crimes of passion for example. The definition of murder changes too, as well as the degree, so it therefore must not be objective. The application of a thing isn’t the thing itself. The definitions of right and wrong never change.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 28, 2023 2:12:18 GMT
Except that this is not the case, murder is the word we give to an illegal killing, and sometimes people are allowed to go free after murder, take France's crimes of passion for example. The definition of murder changes too, as well as the degree, so it therefore must not be objective. The application of a thing isn’t the thing itself. The definitions of right and wrong never change. Explain how slavery used to be morally correct, and is now morally wrong.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 28, 2023 2:31:11 GMT
The application of a thing isn’t the thing itself. The definitions of right and wrong never change. Explain how slavery used to be morally correct, and is now morally wrong. I’m not saying slavery was ever morally correct. When we declare something to be right or wrong, we aren’t changing the definitions of right and wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 28, 2023 3:21:48 GMT
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'?
Some people think that because we have abortion on demand things are just as bad as when infants were slaughtered in ancient wars. It is a very different process with very different attitudes. I hope that most abortions are quite early and possibly before the soul is embodied, call me a dreamer. I would count that far less brutal, yes. I do not see much need for abortions with modern birth control methods and I am skeptical of high abortion counts. Then too some might argue that life does begin at conception and even regular birth control pills that cause the lining of the uterus to reject eggs, might also cause it to reject the product of conception. Scary stuff.
Discounting the Pax Romana, I would say that war was more a way of life in the past. There have been more than two world wars. When Babylon conquered Sumeria, when Assyria conquered Babylon, when Persia conquered Assyria, When Greece conquered Persia, when Rome conquered Greece, it was almost like the "whole world" was involved because it was the whole "known" world of the time, not counting Egypt of course. The aggressor was always the developing group on the fringes of the known world. They were newly and barely civilized, thus warlike.
Ethnic and language differences within the Roman Empire made sustaining it impractical, perhaps ironically as the world became more civilized it became less unified, but at least there were no "world" wars till WWI and WWII.
Although we still have military "lifers" (people whose only occupation will ever be the military), I think the movement is away from that.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 28, 2023 3:43:41 GMT
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 There is no objective morality per se. We have laws that we are supposed to abide by in society, but those are not morality. In Judaism the Levitical laws were not about morality, but about living a righteous life, but I think some Christians confuse laws and morals.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 29, 2023 19:34:00 GMT
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 There is no objective morality per se. We have laws that we are supposed to abide by in society, but those are not morality. In Judaism the Levitical laws were not about morality, but about living a righteous life, but I think some Christians confuse laws and morals. Oh right, yeah sorry I mean that If there is an objective morality, as I said before the evidence is really clear that morality changes meaning it cannot be objective.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 29, 2023 19:37:43 GMT
Explain how slavery used to be morally correct, and is now morally wrong. I’m not saying slavery was ever morally correct. When we declare something to be right or wrong, we aren’t changing the definitions of right and wrong. Slavery was morally correct, it was accepted and it was part of the Christian morality in the west (as well as being justified by other moralities in other parts of the world) and yet that has changed now so clearly the morality around slavery is subjective. Hey you realise that arguing about objective morality is not the same as defining the words right and wrong yeah? Like the meaning of right and wrong have not changed, however what we view as right and wrong certainly has, tolerance of homosexuality for example.
|
|
|
Post by paulslaugh on Mar 29, 2023 22:07:27 GMT
I’m not saying slavery was ever morally correct. When we declare something to be right or wrong, we aren’t changing the definitions of right and wrong. Slavery was morally correct, it was accepted and it was part of the Christian morality in the west (as well as being justified by other moralities in other parts of the world) and yet that has changed now so clearly the morality around slavery is subjective. Hey you realise that arguing about objective morality is not the same as defining the words right and wrong yeah? Like the meaning of right and wrong have not changed, however what we view as right and wrong certainly has, tolerance of homosexuality for example. It was also not moral for a Christian to enslave another Christian. The best way to determine if a society actually thinks something is moral or not is to read what they said about it. At least in Judaism, even the slaves had certain rights, in other words it was huge a sin against God to be cruel to one’s slave. Modern capitalism was about pure ownership and how much money could be made off the slave before he or she died. Also, the edict against owning Christians meant some slave holders forbade their slaves from becoming Christians and came up idea they were not fully human, and didn’t suffer like other people. There is no way modern slavery can be justified as being moral at the time. This was not culture, it was capitalism.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 29, 2023 22:13:05 GMT
So you disagree that we are just as bad if not worse than this 'brutal past'?
Some people think that because we have abortion on demand things are just as bad as when infants were slaughtered in ancient wars. It is a very different process with very different attitudes. I hope that most abortions are quite early and possibly before the soul is embodied, call me a dreamer. I would count that far less brutal, yes. I do not see much need for abortions with modern birth control methods and I am skeptical of high abortion counts. Then too some might argue that life does begin at conception and even regular birth control pills that cause the lining of the uterus to reject eggs, might also cause it to reject the product of conception. Scary stuff.
Discounting the Pax Romana, I would say that war was more a way of life in the past. There have been more than two world wars. When Babylon conquered Sumeria, when Assyria conquered Babylon, when Persia conquered Assyria, When Greece conquered Persia, when Rome conquered Greece, it was almost like the "whole world" was involved because it was the whole "known" world of the time, not counting Egypt of course. The aggressor was always the developing group on the fringes of the known world. They were newly and barely civilized, thus warlike.
Ethnic and language differences within the Roman Empire made sustaining it impractical, perhaps ironically as the world became more civilized it became less unified, but at least there were no "world" wars till WWI and WWII.
Although we still have military "lifers" (people whose only occupation will ever be the military), I think the movement is away from that.
A couple of interesting points, I dont buy into your ideas around abortion, and given god aborts so many children it's not really a thing you can call more or less brutal as the world has changed. While a WORLD war is something new, the world as a whole has been at war since day one and continues to do so. I dont feel that there is a case to be made that the past was in any way more or less brutal, just differently brutal.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 29, 2023 22:17:36 GMT
Some people think that because we have abortion on demand things are just as bad as when infants were slaughtered in ancient wars. It is a very different process with very different attitudes. I hope that most abortions are quite early and possibly before the soul is embodied, call me a dreamer. I would count that far less brutal, yes. I do not see much need for abortions with modern birth control methods and I am skeptical of high abortion counts. Then too some might argue that life does begin at conception and even regular birth control pills that cause the lining of the uterus to reject eggs, might also cause it to reject the product of conception. Scary stuff.
Discounting the Pax Romana, I would say that war was more a way of life in the past. There have been more than two world wars. When Babylon conquered Sumeria, when Assyria conquered Babylon, when Persia conquered Assyria, When Greece conquered Persia, when Rome conquered Greece, it was almost like the "whole world" was involved because it was the whole "known" world of the time, not counting Egypt of course. The aggressor was always the developing group on the fringes of the known world. They were newly and barely civilized, thus warlike.
Ethnic and language differences within the Roman Empire made sustaining it impractical, perhaps ironically as the world became more civilized it became less unified, but at least there were no "world" wars till WWI and WWII.
Although we still have military "lifers" (people whose only occupation will ever be the military), I think the movement is away from that.
A couple of interesting points, I dont buy into your ideas around abortion, and given god aborts so many children it's not really a thing you can call more or less brutal as the world has changed. While a WORLD war is something new, the world as a whole has been at war since day one and continues to do so. I dont feel that there is a case to be made that the past was in any way more or less brutal, just differently brutal.
Neither of us was there, nor was television.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 29, 2023 22:24:14 GMT
A couple of interesting points, I dont buy into your ideas around abortion, and given god aborts so many children it's not really a thing you can call more or less brutal as the world has changed. While a WORLD war is something new, the world as a whole has been at war since day one and continues to do so. I dont feel that there is a case to be made that the past was in any way more or less brutal, just differently brutal.
Neither of us was there, nor was television.
Fantastic, such a relevant point, you really have a handle on this.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 30, 2023 2:31:04 GMT
I’m not saying slavery was ever morally correct. When we declare something to be right or wrong, we aren’t changing the definitions of right and wrong. Slavery was morally correct, it was accepted and it was part of the Christian morality in the west (as well as being justified by other moralities in other parts of the world) and yet that has changed now so clearly the morality around slavery is subjective. Hey you realise that arguing about objective morality is not the same as defining the words right and wrong yeah? Like the meaning of right and wrong have not changed, however what we view as right and wrong certainly has, tolerance of homosexuality for example. Yes I do. See my first post in this thread, the one you replied to.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 30, 2023 3:27:51 GMT
SLAVERY!
What is the weird obsession with it on this forum?
|
|