Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 14:54:12 GMT
I’ve seen a lot of discussion on this board relating to subjective vs. objective morality. I thought the above term might be a better way to describe ethics. As language-using animals, we are able to continue to learn and grow throughout our lives. This agency is strengthened or weakened to the extent we can or cannot resist temptations and distractions from this growth (or to "forget" what we have learned.) However, it also requires interacting with and supporting others who accept the constant need to learn and grow. Interactions ranging from those on this board and family members (individually or collectively) to those with our political, educational and economic systems as well as what we can learn through the media (“media” meant in the broadest sense) all have power to support or undermine this agency and dialogue. Of course, our vulnerability to being undermined depends on our level of development. An experience, such as a piercing or surgery, would be more traumatizing or dangerous to a child than to an adult (undermining the sense of control over one’s body.) Also, sexuality and the possible dangers from it can harm one’s growing agency as well as one’s body. A sexual relationship with an adult is especially risky, as it distracts/redirects a youth’s energy and attention away from developmental work, work that the older partner may either forget or doesn’t care (or may want to halt) that the younger one needs. A book published in 2015, The Play of Political Culture, Emotion and Identity, shows how this undermining has been encouraged since at least the 1960’s, since “‘psychological man’ of the new ‘post-faith’ era had replaced the religious worship of gods with the ‘worship of the self,’ driven on by an illusive desire for freedom” (Scialabba, 2007.) In other words, Neoliberalism has taken the role of agency/dialogue-killing which was once the domain of religion. An interesting section of the book discusses how this logic is being used to undermine gains for women in the form of “postfeminism,” with its [Scholary citations omitted] Neoliberalism, The dominant system of our time, diverts us from both supportive relationships and the social influence the corporatist upper class exerts, placing blame for every difficulty we experience onto the victim and/or a scapegoat. More sophisticated neoliberal approaches attack systems, such as civil rights legislation, that had been set up to restrain capitalist abuses (in some ways, even the concept of “abuse” unless it refers to restraint on those in power.) One book that came out recently and seems to have found a new "piece of the puzzle" involved in tracking the spread of neoliberalism, is historian Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in Chains: www.jacobinmag.com/2017/06/democracy-in-chains-review-nancy-maclean-james-buchanan. As with religion, though, there are those who can see beyond the roles the dominant culture forces us into, those whose desire for growth and dialogue lead them to refine their ability to resist all the techniques our cultural leaders develop, and to posit alternative systems. When they find others with the same desire, they create all the progress that humanity can achieve. I think that the term “intersubjective” best encapsulates the ethics of such dialogue, emphasizing how it benefits us all to seek to widen discourse to everyone who demonstrates and acts on this desire – even and especially with whom the right wing would call “the least of our brothers” – and to protect them from those who would stunt or stifle it (or would appropriate its forms.) I believe such an ethics would help more of us to redirect our energies toward solving the problems facing us now – the depression that has become epidemic, the hatred that is increasingly dominating the media in the form of right-wing talk and “news” shows and feeds, and the endless wars we seem locked into and the global warming crisis that ultimately threaten the human race.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 14:56:20 GMT
How would you define "intersubjectivity"?
(It's an important thing to do if you're going to argue that ethics is intersubjective rather than subjective or objective.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2017 15:10:14 GMT
How would you define "intersubjectivity"? (It's an important thing to do if you're going to argue that ethics is intersubjective rather than subjective or objective.) Fair enough - I would define it as the belief that morality is a matter of how sentient (language-using) beings interact rather than one of an individual’s feelings (subjectivity) or of God(s) laws.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 1, 2017 15:12:23 GMT
How would you define "intersubjectivity"? (It's an important thing to do if you're going to argue that ethics is intersubjective rather than subjective or objective.) Fair enough - I would define it as the belief that morality is a matter of how sentient (language-using) beings interact rather than one of an individual’s feelings (subjectivity) or of God(s) laws. One way that sentient beings interact is by murdering each other. How do we get from that to whether it's morally good or bad to murder each other?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 5, 2017 21:05:23 GMT
Fair enough - I would define it as the belief that morality is a matter of how sentient (language-using) beings interact rather than one of an individual’s feelings (subjectivity) or of God(s) laws. One way that sentient beings interact is by murdering each other. How do we get from that to whether it's morally good or bad to murder each other? Since the OP discusses the primacy of dialogue inherent in intersubjectivity, suggesting that the idea can’t help answer “…whether it is morally good or bad to murder each other” - at least as well as objectivity or subjectivity can - seems a bit disingenuous. “Objective” morality (having religion as its source) has always been able to get around its own laws against murder by obscuring peoples’ ideas of “murder” and “human” – War and other forms of killing have been acceptable for most creeds. A 2012 book, The Creation of Inequality uses anthropology and archeology to trace how religion has been used to divide people, making it a duty to kill “the other” for the benefit of an elite. The book also has some evidence that “elite” had meant light-skinned and male even in ancient Egypt. As to the first, passages reveal ethnic stereotyping of the people of Nubia to sensitize the populace to the difference of skin tones between the ruling family and “outsiders,” and used these stereotypes to depict prisoners of war (p. 417); and the next chapter covers how very few women had been pharaohs and describes the need for one of them to depict herself and daughter as male - and this pharaoh’s subsequent erasure from their cultural memory. Of course, the Bible carried both these traditions down through history, the first in the story of Ham; the second – where do I start? - With punishing Eve more harshly than Adam, with not “suffer[ing] a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,” with telling wives to obey their husbands…) Now, even so-called “modern” societies thus have many religious leaders who use these and other biblical passages to cultivate these same hatreds (as well as others, such as those against any alternative to cisgendered heterosexuality.) As for “subjective” morality, as the OP says, Agency: “...is strengthened or weakened to the extent we can or cannot resist temptations and distractions from [learning and growing] (or to "forget" what we have learned.) However, it also requires interacting with and supporting others who accept the constant need to learn and grow.”
It further shows how such interaction has been undermined by subjective morality, referencing the book, The Play of Political Culture, Emotion and Identity. To repeat the most relevant passage:
“‘Psychological man’ of the new ‘post-faith’ era had replaced the religious worship of gods with the ‘worship of the self,’ driven on by an illusive desire for freedom” (Scialabba, 2007.) In other words, Neoliberalism has taken the role of agency/dialogue-killing which was once the domain of religion.”
My concept of intersubjectivity does need more fleshing out - A recent post by Karl Askel, in another thread proposing that where there is no relevance where there is no context, and no context without different people with whom to converse, points in the direction I would like to go:
The bottom line of my approach is that we all have something to contribute – every authentic point of view adding to our conversation adds meaning to sentience and society, and extinguishing any voice (or emerging* voice) would subtract – this should make a reasonable foundation to arguments against murder. I will have more to say about this as I develop the idea, and authentic suggestions are welcome
* One thing I want to emphasize is that some inputs are harmful to earlier stages of development, but that is something else I need to work on.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 5, 2017 21:12:29 GMT
One way that sentient beings interact is by murdering each other. How do we get from that to whether it's morally good or bad to murder each other? Since the OP discusses the primacy of dialogue inherent in intersubjectivity, suggesting that the idea can’t help answer “…whether it is morally good or bad to murder each other” - at least as well as objectivity or subjectivity can - seems a bit disingenuous. “Objective” morality (having religion as its source) has always been able to get around its own laws against murder by obscuring peoples’ ideas of “murder” and “human” – War and other forms of killing have been acceptable for most creeds. A 2012 book, The Creation of Inequality uses anthropology and archeology to trace how religion has been used to divide people, making it a duty to kill “the other” for the benefit of an elite. The book also has some evidence that “elite” had meant light-skinned and male even in ancient Egypt. As to the first, passages reveal ethnic stereotyping of the people of Nubia to sensitize the populace to the difference of skin tones between the ruling family and “outsiders,” and used these stereotypes to depict prisoners of war (p. 417); and the next chapter covers how very few women had been pharaohs and describes the need for one of them to depict herself and daughter as male - and this pharaoh’s subsequent erasure from their cultural memory. Of course, the Bible carried both these traditions down through history, the first in the story of Ham; the second – where do I start? - With punishing Eve more harshly than Adam, with not “suffer[ing] a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,” with telling wives to obey their husbands…) Now, even so-called “modern” societies thus have many religious leaders who use these and other biblical passages to cultivate these same hatreds (as well as others, such as those against any alternative to cisgendered heterosexuality.) As for “subjective” morality, as the OP says: “ gency is strengthened or weakened to the extent we can or cannot resist temptations and distractions from [learning and growing] (or to "forget" what we have learned.) However, it also requires interacting with and supporting others who accept the constant need to learn and grow.”
It further shows how such interaction has been undermined by subjective morality, referencing the book, The Play of Political Culture, Emotion and Identity. To repeat the most relevant passage:
“‘sychological man’ of the new ‘post-faith’ era had replaced the religious worship of gods with the ‘worship of the self,’ driven on by an illusive desire for freedom” (Scialabba, 2007.) In other words, Neoliberalism has taken the role of agency/dialogue-killing which was once the domain of religion.”
My concept of intersubjectivity does need more fleshing out - A recent post by Karl Askel, in another thread proposing that where there is no relevance where there is no context, and no context without different people with whom to converse, points in the direction I would like to go:
The bottom line of my approach is that we all have something to contribute – every authentic point of view adding to our conversation adds meaning to sentience and society, and extinguishing any voice (or emerging* voice) would subtract – this should make a reasonable foundation to arguments against murder. I will have more to say about this as I develop the idea, and authentic suggestions are welcome
* One thing I want to emphasize is that some inputs are harmful to earlier stages of development, but that is something else I need to work on.
That was a lot of typing for not really answering the question I'm asking you. You defined intersubjective morality this way: "I would define it as the belief that morality is a matter of how sentient (language-using) beings interact" I noted that a way that sentient/language-using beings interact is by murdering each other. So I asked you to explain how we get from this to moral proscriptions of murder. The reason I'm asking you this is because I don't think that "intersubjectivity" talk really does anything. In my opinion, "intersubjectivity" talk is more or less useless, and it's only forwarded by people who aren't comfortable with the fact that this stuff isn't subjective (for various reasons). But "intersubjectivity" talk is incredibly vague (and you're certainly not helping make it any less vague). So I'm giving you an opportunity to support that it refers to anything significant and that it can do the work that you want it to do, where subjectivity can't do that work. But you need to actually be able to support that. So your task is to explain the process of how we get from the simple fact that sentient/language-using beings interact to moral prescriptions and proscriptions where the moral prescriptions/proscriptions amount to something other than subjective feelings (which I'm focusing on because I'm a subjectivist).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2017 12:20:55 GMT
Since the OP discusses the primacy of dialogue inherent in intersubjectivity, suggesting that the idea can’t help answer “…whether it is morally good or bad to murder each other” - at least as well as objectivity or subjectivity can - seems a bit disingenuous. “Objective” morality (having religion as its source) has always been able to get around its own laws against murder by obscuring peoples’ ideas of “murder” and “human” – War and other forms of killing have been acceptable for most creeds. A 2012 book, The Creation of Inequality uses anthropology and archeology to trace how religion has been used to divide people, making it a duty to kill “the other” for the benefit of an elite. The book also has some evidence that “elite” had meant light-skinned and male even in ancient Egypt. As to the first, passages reveal ethnic stereotyping of the people of Nubia to sensitize the populace to the difference of skin tones between the ruling family and “outsiders,” and used these stereotypes to depict prisoners of war (p. 417); and the next chapter covers how very few women had been pharaohs and describes the need for one of them to depict herself and daughter as male - and this pharaoh’s subsequent erasure from their cultural memory. Of course, the Bible carried both these traditions down through history, the first in the story of Ham; the second – where do I start? - With punishing Eve more harshly than Adam, with not “suffer[ing] a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man,” with telling wives to obey their husbands…) Now, even so-called “modern” societies thus have many religious leaders who use these and other biblical passages to cultivate these same hatreds (as well as others, such as those against any alternative to cisgendered heterosexuality.) As for “subjective” morality, as the OP says: “ gency is strengthened or weakened to the extent we can or cannot resist temptations and distractions from [learning and growing] (or to "forget" what we have learned.) However, it also requires interacting with and supporting others who accept the constant need to learn and grow.”
It further shows how such interaction has been undermined by subjective morality, referencing the book, The Play of Political Culture, Emotion and Identity. To repeat the most relevant passage:
“‘sychological man’ of the new ‘post-faith’ era had replaced the religious worship of gods with the ‘worship of the self,’ driven on by an illusive desire for freedom” (Scialabba, 2007.) In other words, Neoliberalism has taken the role of agency/dialogue-killing which was once the domain of religion.”
My concept of intersubjectivity does need more fleshing out - A recent post by Karl Askel, in another thread proposing that where there is no relevance where there is no context, and no context without different people with whom to converse, points in the direction I would like to go:
The bottom line of my approach is that we all have something to contribute – every authentic point of view adding to our conversation adds meaning to sentience and society, and extinguishing any voice (or emerging* voice) would subtract – this should make a reasonable foundation to arguments against murder. I will have more to say about this as I develop the idea, and authentic suggestions are welcome
* One thing I want to emphasize is that some inputs are harmful to earlier stages of development, but that is something else I need to work on.
That was a lot of typing for not really answering the question I'm asking you. You defined intersubjective morality this way: "I would define it as the belief that morality is a matter of how sentient (language-using) beings interact" I noted that a way that sentient/language-using beings interact is by murdering each other. So I asked you to explain how we get from this to moral proscriptions of murder. The reason I'm asking you this is because I don't think that "intersubjectivity" talk really does anything. In my opinion, "intersubjectivity" talk is more or less useless, and it's only forwarded by people who aren't comfortable with the fact that this stuff isn't subjective (for various reasons). But "intersubjectivity" talk is incredibly vague (and you're certainly not helping make it any less vague). So I'm giving you an opportunity to support that it refers to anything significant and that it can do the work that you want it to do, where subjectivity can't do that work. But you need to actually be able to support that. So your task is to explain the process of how we get from the simple fact that sentient/language-using beings interact to moral prescriptions and proscriptions where the moral prescriptions/proscriptions amount to something other than subjective feelings (which I'm focusing on because I'm a subjectivist). It isn’t my job to connect every dot for you – if you read my OP and most recent response, you might figure it out. If not, there is little I can do for you but wish you well in your journey – We’ll have to agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by Terrapin Station on Aug 7, 2017 12:23:51 GMT
It isn’t my job to connect every dot for you That's certainly your job if you want to present any sort of theory, including in an academic context, something you might publish in a journal, etc., that anyone takes seriously, or that anyone who doesn't already agree with you might find persuasive. Maybe you don't care about that, but then I'm not sure what you're doing or why you'd be spending so much time and energy typing so much. If it's solely for your own entertainment, though, okay.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2017 20:51:21 GMT
Captainbryce’s thread on subjective vs. objective morality led me to reexamine my own thread on the topic. Intersubjective morality is not mentioned in that one, so I thought I would continue in this one. Moreover, the tone of the former, from the OP forward, has been inspired by anger (albeit justified) at a Christian trying to impose “objective” morality on the author. Such a tone, however, tends to impair productive dialogue. Intersubjectivity, like subjectivity, recognizes how contingent our knowledge is on our own point of view. It also recognizes that there are other factors - including other subjectivities possessing sentience at greater or lesser development than our own. To bring this idea to the most universal level, imagine how boring absolute chaos would be to even the most primitive consciousness. Rather than the omnipotent and omniscient God of objective morality, intersubjectivity posits only such a primitive consciousness at the base of its metaphysics (For any coherent philosophical theory, consciousness as such would need to be considered as basic as substance, even if the former have such an ambivalence toward the latter.) Any system that formed from this primordial universe could have brought such consciousness a great deal of pleasure. Imagine, however, the trauma which could have occurred when that system broke down, leaving consciousness with nothing to experience but loneliness in addition to its previous boredom. Intersubjective morality would thus hold love and fascination as the universal positives to counter the afore-named negatives. Such a philosophy would therefore promote behaviors, such as growth and dialogue, which lead to these positives and discourage behaviors, such as sloth and cruelty, which would result in these negatives. I would therefore call the society which holds such a philosophy a “Growers” society. Elaborating a bit on the positive behaviors, minds develop by interactivity with subjectivities which differ (at least in content, if not in form) from their own. In early stages, the subjectivities would be those of parents, siblings and perhaps animal companions (in the last case, having the duty to feed them would help build empathy and responsibility.) As we mature, our ability to process differences increases, and we continue to grow in proportion to greater divergences in subjectivities with whom we interact. To offer such a perspective on recent board discussions, I noticed in another thread that someone compared what amounts to shunning based on gender with allowing those whose religion teaches them this xenophobic practice to raise children in this religious tradition . Such comparison ignores the complexities of intersubjectivity. While Growers would disapprove of the stagnation that raising a child in a religion which encourages such divisions will socially (and therefore intellectually) inflict on a child, they would recognize that religion is too deeply embedded in most psyches to simply deny parents the right to teach their children these beliefs. As Faustus5 implied elsewhere, though, many people are able to overcome this hindrance with some exposure to ideas outside the home. Other threads discuss birth control and abortion - perhaps the most contentious religious subject of our time (and one about which I have to contend with my own biases.) Bringing new sentience into the world, according to the standards that the aforementioned positives imply, would be one of a Growers society’s highest ideals, whether the child is born to it or outside it. However, as with the above issue, we must balance our love of potential with that of the actual. I discussed sexuality and agency in my OP, so I’ll just quote the most relevant part, which says that our agency’s vulnerability to A Growers society would therefore protect children from this danger. I believe psychologists know when the best time would be to let teens experiment with each other, and never having been a parent I will leave this judgment up to them. Growers would cherish fertility, however, as a source of emerging voices to add to society and would consider assisting in the care and safety of parents (and would-be parents) and children as an honor. Raising strong children to fully develop their potentials and bring out the best in those around them should likewise be seen as an enormous achievement, and Growers would use all the most current relevant scientific knowledge and technology toward that end. In a later post to this thread I discussed attempts, since at least ancient Egypt, to impose “objective” morality to benefit an elite (i.e., light-skinned, male, heterosexual.) Such benefits have given these voices precedence to this day. A Grower’s society would want to overcome the inequalities that remain from this history. Such transcendence would require some correction in opportunities and responsibilities of those qualified to be parents. I have written on these qualifications in my “Conversation and Growth” thread on 9/23, so I’ll only quote the most relevant part: I do want to correct an earlier idea that I had recorded a little further down in this quoted post. Ending a life that has already been conceived would be contrary to the ideals I have named. Given the knowledge, technology and care I have described that a Growers society would put toward assisting parent and child, the immanent voice would be of primary concern - only to be ended if it threatens the mother’s life. If the biological parent have not demonstrated readiness to partner in caring for and raising the child, they can, if they want, take a test (perhaps at half-year intervals) until they can demonstrate this readiness. There are many issues, of course, that would need to be addressed in this system, but I hope I have outlined a way for a society to increase the overall amount of love and fascination in the world.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 13:22:31 GMT
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 16:57:41 GMT
'Do unto others...' is in actuality a rule based on both subjective and objective perspectives.
Religious perspectives aside I don't think a completely objective morality does exist (nor needs to), for the social concept of a particular morality is built upon the subjective experiences and considerations. of the individuals in that society. I'm not sure of a reason, religious perspectives aside, that morality is required to be perceived as 100% objective, it has little bearing on whether a morality is empathetic or not.
Even altruistic 'self' sacrificing acts are ultimately subjective, "I couldn't live with myself if I had not done something to prevent X..."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2018 22:49:52 GMT
Intersubjective morality is the perspective from which I usually argue antinatalism. If I wouldn't want to be put at risk of severe harm for a 'benefit' that exists only in the mind of the person imposing the risk, then I shouldn't do it to someone else, or support anyone's right to do it to someone else. It isn't 'objective', in the sense that the moral code exists outside of minds, but it is based on the fact that all sentient beings are harmable, and beings which do not exist can be neither harmed nor deprived.
In the context of neoliberalism, I agree with your perspective. 'Scrounger' bashing rhetoric (based on the just world theory) that is seen in the likes of the Daily Mail, or which is one of the core tenets of the Republican Party is used to divert blame and hatred away from the privileged elites who use their power to cause exploitation and oppression in order to serve their avarice and instead use the petty resentments and prejudices of ordinary people to divide and conquer.
But ultimately, the end game has to be the awakening that we do not live in a just universe and that the imposition of suffering is an unavoidable consequence of the game that we're playing, and the realisation that your benefit is not an ethical justification for someone else's burden, when that other person is (or will be) the exact equivalent of yourself, but just with different numbers on their lottery ticket.
|
|
|
Post by mslo79 on Jun 26, 2018 3:24:15 GMT
the following pretty much sums things up...
-Objective morality comes from God (i.e. The Holy Trinity(Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit) and that's unchangeable.
-Subjective morality comes from people who often put God aside and make things up as they go along.
the world tends to be more of the subjective morality (just look at the moral decline of the USA over the last 50 years or so and it's accelerating basically), but objective morality comes from the Catholic church as it's the moral guide of the world since it's the church Jesus Christ started. but many ignore it, and as the saying goes... 'you reap what you sow'.
Human's are not animals. we are made in His image. humans are unique from everything else.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jun 26, 2018 3:30:19 GMT
the following pretty much sums things up... -Objective morality comes from God (i.e. The Holy Trinity(Father/Son(Jesus Christ)/Holy Spirit) and that's unchangeable. -Subjective morality comes from people who often put God aside and make things up as they go along. the world tends to be more of the subjective morality (just look at the moral decline of the USA over the last 50 years or so and it's accelerating basically), but objective morality comes from the Catholic church as it's the moral guide of the world since it's the church Jesus Christ started. but many ignore it, and as the saying goes... 'you reap what you sow'. Human's are not animals. we are made in His image. humans are unique from everything else. "Human's are not animals."
Whether or not you believe in a "higher power" is rather moot to how taxonomy works, if were going by linnean classification, we are technically still animals. That's the best taxinomic classification for humans, unless you wanna argue were somehow plants or fungi.
"humans are unique from everything else."
You do realize were incredibly similar to chimps right? I think we share about 95% of our DNA with them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2018 21:07:05 GMT
I think now would be a good time to describe what I believe is the most likely process of intersubjective moral development. As I wrote earlier, I would therefore posit a feedback loop between established laws and revised ones based on the standard - That which facilitates self-conscious dialogue and growth therefrom. I elaborate above on what constitutes the facilitation of such growth: I found a passage on the early work of moral and political philosopher John Rawls that seems to fit here: - David Reidy I also mentioned above that some exchanges can harm emerging voices at earlier stages of development. I think the standard I provide in this thread is the key to deciding which exchanges should be avoided/prevented at which stages – those who have attained higher levels of empathy, emotional management and critical thinking can be deemed ready to take part in more sophisticated interactions. 7/17/20 edit: I thought this scene from Vivre sa vie would work well as an illustration of the above principle:
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 16, 2018 21:38:31 GMT
Wouldn't it be easier to just assume there is no objective morality.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 17, 2018 0:22:08 GMT
Wouldn't it be easier to just assume there is no objective morality. Not if you believe that it comes from 'God'!
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 17, 2018 3:08:27 GMT
Wouldn't it be easier to just assume there is no objective morality. Not if you believe that it comes from 'God'! I don;t believe objective morality comes from God except from the aspect of it being a part of his creation if it exists at all. Even then, it's tantamount to instinct and wholly separate from the guidelines provided in Scripture since that is instruction...i.e. learned morality.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Jul 17, 2018 3:16:31 GMT
Not if you believe that it comes from 'God'! I don;t believe objective morality comes from God except from the aspect of it being a part of his creation if it exists at all. Even then, it's tantamount to instinct and wholly separate from the guidelines provided in Scripture since that is instruction...i.e. learned morality. Huh? If it is part of his creation? Instinct? Learned morality? Nothing of this makes any sense whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jul 17, 2018 3:41:14 GMT
I don;t believe objective morality comes from God except from the aspect of it being a part of his creation if it exists at all. Even then, it's tantamount to instinct and wholly separate from the guidelines provided in Scripture since that is instruction...i.e. learned morality. Huh? If it is part of his creation? Instinct? Learned morality? Nothing of this makes any sense whatsoever. It doesn't surprise in the slightest that this doesn't make sense to you.
|
|