|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 3:40:20 GMT
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. either you are just saying that the word right always means right and the word wrong always means wrong, which misses the point of the discussion, ;or you are saying that things that have been right have always been right which is demonstratably untrue. Or I am missing the point.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 3:41:38 GMT
SLAVERY! What is the weird obsession with it on this forum? I introduced it because it is the most easily accessible example of morality changing and therefore not being objective.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 30, 2023 4:59:56 GMT
Yes I do. See my first post in this thread, the one you replied to. either you are just saying that the word right always means right and the word wrong always means wrong, which misses the point of the discussion, ;or you are saying that things that have been right have always been right which is demonstratably untrue. Or I am missing the point. The question was, "What’s the purpose of morality if the definition of right and wrong can be changed?" My response was, "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." Now you're asking me if I realize that arguing about morality isn't the same as defining the words right and wrong while explaining that the definitions don't change. Yes, you're missing the point. That's why I directed you to my first post in this thread and why I'm quoting it in this post. I'm literally pointing at the point and you're literally asking me if I understand what I said. If you want to argue, find something you actually disagree with.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 30, 2023 9:29:50 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. Of what value is the fact that right, however each person defines it, is always defined the same and wrong, however each person defines it, is always defined the same?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 30, 2023 9:31:57 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. Murder is defined as wrongful killing, so by definition it is always wrong because the definition of wrong never changes. So essentially, murder has 'wrong' in the definition. Anyone using the term is essentially concurring that the term wrong always means the same thing. So how does that suggest objective morality?
|
|
|
Post by clusium on Mar 30, 2023 14:04:16 GMT
SLAVERY! What is the weird obsession with it on this forum? Guess posters on here have an unconscious wish to have their own servants....?
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Mar 30, 2023 15:32:15 GMT
SLAVERY! What is the weird obsession with it on this forum? Not so weird. Understandable, really. What with an NT verse like "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" the topic just can't help being an evergreen.
|
|
|
Post by permutojoe on Mar 30, 2023 15:45:23 GMT
there can be no objective morality.
Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem? What is “objective morality” anyway? Any why would it require God?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 30, 2023 16:27:01 GMT
there can be no objective morality.
Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem? What is “objective morality” anyway? Any why would it require God? Objective morality is defined as: 'the idea that right and wrong exist factually, without any importance of opinion.'
'Objectivity refers to the notion that something is factual, aka objective, and without bias and morality means a sense of something being right or wrong.'
Do you think there IS a right and wrong regardless of what someone's opinion about any specific actions/deeds might be or do you think it's always in context of something and based on reasons. It would seem that objective morality would not be based on reasons because reasons imply putting something in context, ie justifying why there should be right and wrong.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 19:01:57 GMT
either you are just saying that the word right always means right and the word wrong always means wrong, which misses the point of the discussion, ;or you are saying that things that have been right have always been right which is demonstratably untrue. Or I am missing the point. The question was, "What’s the purpose of morality if the definition of right and wrong can be changed?" My response was, "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." Now you're asking me if I realize that arguing about morality isn't the same as defining the words right and wrong while explaining that the definitions don't change. Yes, you're missing the point. That's why I directed you to my first post in this thread and why I'm quoting it in this post. I'm literally pointing at the point and you're literally asking me if I understand what I said. If you want to argue, find something you actually disagree with. Right, I dont see much value in arguing about the meaning of right and wrong as words in the English language, and I don't think it has to do with morality. Morality is the application, and it is subjective, as witness the changing morality of our societies, for example homosexuality used to be a crime.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 30, 2023 20:42:16 GMT
When you said murder is morally wrong you were giving an example of objective morality. Murder is defined as wrongful killing, so by definition it is always wrong because the definition of wrong never changes. So essentially, murder has 'wrong' in the definition. Anyone using the term is essentially concurring that the term wrong always means the same thing. So how does that suggest objective morality? Murder is defined as illegal killing, not necessarily wrong. Morality itself isn’t subjective or objective.
|
|
|
Post by Sarge on Mar 30, 2023 20:48:07 GMT
SLAVERY! What is the weird obsession with it on this forum? Not so weird. Understandable, really. What with an NT verse like "Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ" the topic just can't help being an evergreen. There are so many more relevant and interesting moral topics.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 30, 2023 20:56:32 GMT
Murder is defined as wrongful killing, so by definition it is always wrong because the definition of wrong never changes. So essentially, murder has 'wrong' in the definition. Anyone using the term is essentially concurring that the term wrong always means the same thing. So how does that suggest objective morality? Murder is defined as illegal killing, not necessarily wrong. Morality itself isn’t subjective or objective. Can we define murder as morally wrong in some cases?
At some sites, murder is defined EG: "murder specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility." link
When wouldn't murder as defined above be morally wrong? Maybe I misunderstood this comment:
"When you said murder is morally wrong you were giving an example of objective morality."
What did you mean by that?
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on Mar 30, 2023 20:58:56 GMT
SLAVERY! What is the weird obsession with it on this forum? Guess posters on here have an unconscious wish to have their own servants....? So does our cat.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 30, 2023 21:05:20 GMT
there can be no objective morality. Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem? Well first of all, the assertion is false. We can’t have objective reality WITH God. Morality is necessarily subjective (by definition). Because it requires thinking agents to apply principles of right and wrong, and judge good from bad. Without minds to apply these principles or make the judgments, morality doesn’t exist! And you cannot solve that by inserting a god. That wouldn’t make morality all of a sudden objective. Anyone who thinks that doesn’t understand what the word objective means. Objective means independent from a mind, which means that God is irrelevant. If you based morality on God’s laws and God’s, then that would still very much be subjective morality. It’s just subjective to God! But as long as there exists another thinking agent which can disagree with the God, then God’s cannot be objective. In order to show that morality was objective, you’d have to show that every single thinking agent is using the same principles and agree on what behaviors are moral.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 21:12:45 GMT
Murder is defined as wrongful killing, so by definition it is always wrong because the definition of wrong never changes. So essentially, murder has 'wrong' in the definition. Anyone using the term is essentially concurring that the term wrong always means the same thing. So how does that suggest objective morality? Murder is defined as illegal killing, not necessarily wrong. Morality itself isn’t subjective or objective. Murder is illegal, which makes it morally wrong by todays standards, unless you are French in which case murder as a crime of passion is not legally murder, and so therefore morally more permissible, meaning morality is subjective as well as not being black and white.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 21:26:58 GMT
there can be no objective morality. Can anyone explain why subjective morality would be a problem? Well first of all, the assertion is false. We can’t have objective reality WITH God. Morality is necessarily subjective (by definition). Because it requires thinking agents to apply principles of right and wrong, and judge good from bad. Without minds to apply these principles or make the judgments, morality doesn’t exist! And you cannot solve that by inserting a god. That wouldn’t make morality all of a sudden objective. Anyone who thinks that doesn’t understand what the word objective means. Objective means independent from a mind, which means that God is irrelevant. If you based morality on God’s laws and God’s, then that would still very much be subjective morality. It’s just subjective to God! But as long as there exists another thinking agent which can disagree with the God, then God’s cannot be objective. In order to show that morality was objective, you’d have to show that every single thinking agent is using the same principles and agree on what behaviors are moral. Morality from god would be objective, the definition of objective morality is that is it universal and not up for interpretation, so a full set of immutable rules from a God would count as objective morality, of course there have never been a full set of immutable rules laid out by a God so while there could be an objective morality there is not one. EDIT: It turns out your definition can apply too, seems there are multiple definitions, which of course makes morality subjective because God IS mind.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 30, 2023 21:59:49 GMT
Murder is defined as illegal killing, not necessarily wrong. Morality itself isn’t subjective or objective. Can we define murder as morally wrong in some cases?
At some sites, murder is defined EG: "murder specifically implies stealth and motive and premeditation and therefore full moral responsibility." linkWhen wouldn't murder as defined above be morally wrong? Maybe I misunderstood this comment:
"When you said murder is morally wrong you were giving an example of objective morality."
What did you mean by that?
Murder doesn't always imply stealth and it isn't always morally wrong to kill. "Kill or be killed" bolsters this point, so does the declaration that killing in war is not morally wrong. To say that anything is necessarily and without exception morally right or wrong is to argue for objective morality.
|
|
Shiloh
New Member
@shiloh
Posts: 37
Likes: 8
|
Post by Shiloh on Mar 30, 2023 22:01:41 GMT
Murder is defined as illegal killing, not necessarily wrong. Morality itself isn’t subjective or objective. Murder is illegal, which makes it morally wrong by todays standards, unless you are French in which case murder as a crime of passion is not legally murder, and so therefore morally more permissible, meaning morality is subjective as well as not being black and white. Do you think murder was morally right before it was illegal? The law doesn't dictate morality, but it should reflect it.
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Mar 30, 2023 22:18:21 GMT
Murder is illegal, which makes it morally wrong by todays standards, unless you are French in which case murder as a crime of passion is not legally murder, and so therefore morally more permissible, meaning morality is subjective as well as not being black and white. Do you think murder was morally right before it was illegal? The law doesn't dictate morality, but it should reflect it. society divides actions into two groups, legal and illegal, those that are illegal are subjectively immoral in the society in question. I challenge you to find a society in which murder is legal. In any case murder is a legal definition, which makes it immoral according to societies standards, the point is not whether murder is moral or not, it is that the definition of murder changes, showing that it's application is subjective and therefore the morality around it is subjective. Can you define objective morality for me please?
|
|