Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I really don't see Chrsitians doing the same on this forum when atheists ask theological questions. Why is that? What have I said on this thread to deserve such treatment?
Get a dictionary. Look up each word. All three of them. Then get back to me.
Get back to us when you figure out that a concept entail far more than the sum total of the dictonary meanings of the individual words comprising the concept's name or title.
Your suggestion makes about as much sense as claiming that the dictionary definitions of "supply", "side" and "economics" describe Supply-Side Economics -- which, of course, they don't at all.
If Morality does NOT encompass an objective set of standards . . . then the concept itself is meaningless. Whether or not we flawed creatures can discern or ever agree on what they are is a separate problem. But if the concept is to have any relevance or value it must be real . . . not capricious.
07-16-2011, 01:48 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
If Morality does NOT encompass an objective set of standards . . . then the concept itself is meaningless. Whether or not we flawed creatures can discern or ever agree on what they are is a separate problem. But if the concept is to have any relevance or value it must be real . . . not capricious.
Then the OP's phrase 'Objective Moral Values' is redundant and superfluous.
I do not know how you can say morality, in an 'objective set of standards' sense, exist, if it is only in the conscious mind of humans or is somehow unavailable to the human mind. If not where in the external world does this 'objective set of standards' exist? If we can not, epistemologically, say where they are or what they entail then you can not say that they exist.
The reason this whole question arises is because humans have a 'sense' that certain actions are objectively wrong or right - but a persons sense is not objective in and of itself. So, how do you come to the conclusion that they exist. You are going to have to either invoke some divine special revelation (another epistemological nightmare) or some metaphysical explanation (also an epistemological nightmare but maybe logical) or you are going to have to, scientifically, establish some subconscious standards of human neurology and brain structure to account for why humans should or should not act in certain ways.
If Morality does NOT encompass an objective set of standards . . . then the concept itself is meaningless.
No, it is not meaningless. If a society can agree on what is right and what is wrong because they share a set of values, that morality (although not objective) can govern the behaviors of all the members of that society and serve as the basis for the development of their conscience, their moral disgust, their righteous indignation, and their sense of awe and elevation when contemplating a particularly noble act.
No, it is not meaningless. If a society can agree on what is right and what is wrong because they share a set of values, that morality (although not objective) can govern the behaviors of all the members of that society and serve as the basis for the development of their conscience, their moral disgust, their righteous indignation, and their sense of awe and elevation when contemplating a particularly noble act.
That is their ethos. No morality involved. Conflating subjective ideas with concepts that are absolute (or do not exist) is counterproductive, Hueff. If we are truly a cosmic accident . . . then NOTHING we do or do not do can be good or bad in this universe. Whether we seek to prosper and be altruistic or destroy each other and annihilate the species is completely irrelevant . . . since there is no reason for us to be here in the first place.
If we are truly a cosmic accident . . . then NOTHING we do or do not do can be good or bad in this universe. Whether we seek to prosper and be altruistic or destroy each other and annihilate the species is completely irrelevant . . . since there is no reason for us to be here in the first place.
Exactly, at least not in an objective way! That is exactly what I believe, and that is why there is no objective morality. But, there are subjective moralities. People have been discussing subjective/relative moralities for centuries, so I reject the notion that a morality must be objective to be a morality at all.
Rules such as
* killing other people is not useful
* taking someone else's food against their will is not useful
Useful rules generally have a few useful exceptions, such as
* killing other people is not useful, except when they are threatening to imminently kill or cause bodily harm to you or another
You have conflated killing with murder. Killing and murder are not the same thing.
Murder is always morally wrong and that is objective, not subjective, whereas killing is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Voyageur
Naturally, we can all quibble on the precise nature of these useful rules -- which variations are more useful than others, as well as the usefulness of the various exceptions. I picked a few examples that are widely accepted as useful.
There are also rules which are not very useful, such as
* anyone who eats shellfish must immediately be stoned to death
* you must slit the throat of a virgin sheep at dawn three days after the summer solstice
Those would be wholly subjective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hueffenhardt
But, we cannot objectively identify which behaviors are good, because goodness is an evaluation that is based on one’s personal premises.
Yes, you can objectively identify good behaviors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TXRunner
Groups of animals seem to have a code of acceptable behavior they live by. Is their code objective or subjective?
That's a good question.
Some of you have probably noted that in dog/child attacks the children are always mauled in the face.
Who on this forum would like to know why?
Because dogs have a hierarchy in their social group. You are subordinate and report to the boss dog who is subordinate and reports to the leader of the pack.
When you step out of line, the boss dog will bite you on the nose to remind of your proper place in the hierarchy. It you do not get in line, then you become a nuisance, are uncooperative and you are destructive and harmful to the group, so they will rip your throat out and kill you.
If you have a dog and a small child in the home, your actions can lead the dog to believe that your child is subordinate and reports to your dog, and then your dog if necessary, will discipline your child by biting your child on the nose. Except your child doesn't exactly have a snout so the dog ends up ripping off half of your child's face.
Allowing your dog sit on the couch, sit on a chair or get onto the furniture is the same thing as telling your dog that your child is inferior and the dog has the right to discipline your child (which it will do if necessary by biting your child in the face in an attempt to bite the child's nose).
Most people would say that dogs act on instinct, but if that were true, then you would never be able to train a dog. Dogs can reason to some extent (which is why you can train them) but I wouldn't say that reasoning always applies to their social behavior. Surely some of their social behavior is based on limited reasoning while other behavior is based on instinct.
Subjectivity is almost entirely based on emotion and to some extent on knowledge (whether that knowledge is right/wrong, accurate/inaccurate, flawed/not flawed). Some emotions are based on instinct, like fear (fight or flight) so I guess it's to what extent an animals behavior is based on reasoning (as limited as it may be) or on instinct/emotion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidty223
True... if you don't have morals and limitations then you won't get along with people and probably will be punished. Such as raping a girl because you want to and since you don't have morals you'll think it's okay.
No, God says raping a woman is fun and potentially profitable. God says you can rape any woman you want any time you want as long as you marry her after you viciously rape and sodomize her.
If her daddy is rich, then you could potentially profit from your sodomizing activities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmidty223
Or killing someone, but if you had morals then you wouldn't since you would know it's wrong.
God says murder is wrong, but it is okay to kill people under special circumstances.
Easy to say, but impossible to do. Whatever you try to say is "good" is based on a value statement, and there is no way to objectively claim one value is better than another. The best you can do is judge the merit of a value on another value.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If they do not . . . then Morality doesn't exist
