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.
In my discussions about religion, the interesting subject of Objective Morality was discussed. Objective Morality is morality without human Consciousness, or belonging to the action or object, independent of consciousness.
Morality without human consciousness is a paradox to me.
The word moral is subjective, it's definition belongs to the one doing the thinking not the action or object.
In any discussion, words have meaning and understanding in the Human Consciousness Sphere IF humanity can agree to that meaning.
(Human Consciousness Sphere- State of referenced information processes, the state of knowledge within the knowledge of a group or society.)
My question is:
Why would anyone want to discuss Objective Morality?
Is it to discuss the fact that morality is subjective?
Why would objective morality have value if the very concept of morality is based on human consciousness?
In my discussions about religion, the interesting subject of Objective Morality was discussed. Objective Morality is morality without human Consciousness, or belonging to the action or object, independent of consciousness.
Morality without human consciousness is a paradox to me.
In a way, it is. Morality (if not God- given) exist only in our own heads. Without human consciousness it does not actually exist.
Quote:
The word moral is subjective, it's definition belongs to the one doing the thinking not the action or object.
In any discussion, words have meaning and understanding in the Human Consciousness Sphere IF humanity can agree to that meaning.
(Human Consciousness Sphere- State of referenced information processes, the state of knowledge within the knowledge of a group or society.)
My question is:
Why would anyone want to discuss Objective Morality?
Is it to discuss the fact that morality is subjective?
The only reason we find ourselves discussing morality here (although it is a perfectly valid philosophical area of debate) is because some put the argument for an absolute morality with fixed rules and commands which it is supposed are implanted by God in our consciousnesses and consciences. Therefore not only does it underpin the 'everybody knows it's wrong' moral codes (which remarkably often seem to coincide with those of right wing theists) with divine authority, thus supposedly putting and end to any discussion, but it is seen as evidence for the existence of God.
You can see why it can be a area of lively debate.
Quote:
Why would objective morality have value if the very concept of morality is based on human consciousness?
That would depend on whether one believes in God or not. If even a deist-god implanted moral sense (quote from Romans would normally come up here), then morality has the value of being a fixed code, with divine authority, not up for discussion.
If one doesn't believe in God, then morality is something we invented like art, music and language and, like those subjects, morality and its Teeth, the Law has rules which are agreed by consensus, based on instincts which we can't always explain and which often vary from country to culture (and often from religion to religion).
Thus, human morality is subjective. it exists only because we and our minds exist. We all have an idea what we want but don't always agree on the best way to get it. While that can be a headache it is also an advantage, as it is flexible. relative morality (as opposed to a god- given absolute morality) can adapt to changing needs and conditions.
The attempt to resist change and turn the clock back not only has never worked, but is unhelpful. relative morality had enough people asking questions without the absolutists claiming that it goes against some divinely given code of conduct.
And that is why not only is human relative morality valid in its own terms - just as art and music is valid - though purely our own invention - but a god - given morality is invalid as it is no more than a string of conflicting orders handed down by an invisible dictator. It is no more than the wishes of that entity - an entity which does not always observe his own rules and whose servants, operating under that fixed moral code, sometime seems to take their moral compass dangerously near some unpleasantly magnetic lodestones.
If of course, there isn't a god or a divine code, then those who claim to have authority to declare what's right or wrong for the rest of us have no more credibility than Goebbels after Hitler shot himself.
In a way, it is. Morality (if not God- given) exist only in our own heads. Without human consciousness it does not actually exist..
There is no evidence of God other than what is a subjective reality to those indoctrinated into religion. People who argue that there is a GOD are basically trying to prove that their subjective reality is objective reality. It cannot be done hence the definitions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
The only reason we find ourselves discussing morality here (although it is a perfectly valid philosophical area of debate) is because some put the argument for an absolute morality with fixed rules and commands which it is supposed are implanted by God in our consciousnesses and consciences. Therefore not only does it underpin the 'everybody knows it's wrong' moral codes (which remarkably often seem to coincide with those of right wing theists) with divine authority, thus supposedly putting and end to any discussion, but it is seen as evidence for the existence of God.
I see now why I did not understand the argument and why it was a paradox to me, and you have reassured me that my hypothesis is repeatable and testable because you have drawn the same conclusion it seems. When I was young my parents were religious and felt that I should ask GOD for guidance, and I did what they said only I wanted concrete proof of his existence as the subjective reality of religion depicts. Subjective and elitist, religion divides I found.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
You can see why it can be a area of lively debate.
That would depend on whether one believes in God or not. If even a deist-god implanted moral sense (quote from Romans would normally come up here), then morality has the value of being a fixed code, with divine authority, not up for discussion.
If one doesn't believe in God, then morality is something we invented like art, music and language and, like those subjects, morality and its Teeth, the Law has rules which are agreed by consensus, based on instincts which we can't always explain and which often vary from country to culture (and often from religion to religion).
That is why morality must be flexible and up for discussion. We must engage in lively debate to keep laws and memes in our world society that benefit us all instead of a select few. That means we must worry about the unintended consequences of allowing unreferenced and uneducated decisions based on a bronze age book, and based on subjective elitist religious memes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
Thus, human morality is subjective. it exists only because we and our minds exist. We all have an idea what we want but don't always agree on the best way to get it. While that can be a headache it is also an advantage, as it is flexible. relative morality (as opposed to a god- given absolute morality) can adapt to changing needs and conditions.
The attempt to resist change and turn the clock back not only has never worked, but is unhelpful. relative morality had enough people asking questions without the absolutists claiming that it goes against some divinely given code of conduct.
I agree. 100%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AREQUIPA
And that is why not only is human relative morality valid in its own terms - just as art and music is valid - though purely our own invention - but a god - given morality is invalid as it is no more than a string of conflicting orders handed down by an invisible dictator. It is no more than the wishes of that entity - an entity which does not always observe his own rules and whose servants, operating under that fixed moral code, sometime seems to take their moral compass dangerously near some unpleasantly magnetic lodestones.
If of course, there isn't a god or a divine code, then those who claim to have authority to declare what's right or wrong for the rest of us have no more credibility than Goebbels after Hitler shot himself.
I think that the metaphor of GOD is an intent at making the subjective morality of a group of people (Believing in their own creation, for perception is reality) into a paradoxical and impossible objective morality. What bewilders me is that almost no one questions the hands that supposedly wrote down gods words. Why cant I argue that because religion is written by the hand of man, in text, scroll and other medium, then that is proof of it being subjective. The fact that I wrote that statement makes me cringe since it just seems so obvious to me.
In a way, it is. Morality (if not God- given) exist only in our own heads. Without human consciousness it does not actually exist.
The only reason we find ourselves discussing morality here (although it is a perfectly valid philosophical area of debate) is because some put the argument for an absolute morality with fixed rules and commands which it is supposed are implanted by God in our consciousnesses and consciences. Therefore not only does it underpin the 'everybody knows it's wrong' moral codes (which remarkably often seem to coincide with those of right wing theists) with divine authority, thus supposedly putting and end to any discussion, but it is seen as evidence for the existence of God.
You can see why it can be a area of lively debate.
That would depend on whether one believes in God or not. If even a deist-god implanted moral sense (quote from Romans would normally come up here), then morality has the value of being a fixed code, with divine authority, not up for discussion.
This is the major misunderstanding of a God-based morality. It is NOT a fixed code. It is a fixed BASIS for evaluating human action and attitudes. That BASIS is our purpose for existing in the first place. THAT must be determined so that everything of a moral concern can be evaluated against its impact on our purpose. That which is constructive to our purpose is Good and moral. That which is destructive to our purpose is Evil and immoral. The need to evaluate means the answers are NOT fixed and that Arequipa is correct . . . consciousness is essential.
Quote:
If one doesn't believe in God, then morality is something we invented like art, music and language and, like those subjects, morality and its Teeth, the Law has rules which are agreed by consensus, based on instincts which we can't always explain and which often vary from country to culture (and often from religion to religion).
Thus, human morality is subjective. it exists only because we and our minds exist. We all have an idea what we want but don't always agree on the best way to get it. While that can be a headache it is also an advantage, as it is flexible. relative morality (as opposed to a god- given absolute morality) can adapt to changing needs and conditions.
Again the absoluteness is not in a fixed code and our subjectivity (consciousness) IS unavoidable (being at the heart of what consciousness IS). Of course if we do not believe in God . . . we do not believe there is a purpose for our existence against which to evaluate morality. That is why I argue that there is no morality without God and a purpose for human existence. All else is human vanity and hubris.
Last edited by MysticPhD; 04-03-2012 at 06:00 PM..
Again the absoluteness is not in a fixed code and our subjectivity (consciousness) IS unavoidable (being at the heart of what consciousness IS). Of course if we do not believe in God . . . we do not believe there is a purpose for our existence against which to evaluate morality. That is why I argue that there is no morality without God and a purpose for human existence. All else is human vanity and hubris.
There is morality without GOD. Morality can be based on social references and social discussion involving everyone, it can have all the lessons of all the worlds cultures without the divisive nature of religion's influence contests. We can all agree on how to live, we all want peace and the decisions we make affect everyone. Purpose was not given by some divine entity, it is chosen by the subject.
There is morality without GOD. Morality can be based on social references and social discussion involving everyone, it can have all the lessons of all the worlds cultures without the divisive nature of religion's influence contests. We can all agree on how to live, we all want peace and the decisions we make affect everyone. Purpose was not given by some divine entity, it is chosen by the subject.
It is not an either/or proposition . . . it is both. We have the problem of discerning the human purpose . . . THEN agreeing about it, and THEN evaluating morality against it. If as you believe, there is no human purpose . . . then it is a whimsy and fruitless enterprise of vain and foolish "accidents" . . . pretending it matters what they do or do not do.
In my discussions about religion, the interesting subject of Objective Morality was discussed. Objective Morality is morality without human Consciousness, or belonging to the action or object, independent of consciousness.
Morality without human consciousness is a paradox to me.
The word moral is subjective, it's definition belongs to the one doing the thinking not the action or object.
In any discussion, words have meaning and understanding in the Human Consciousness Sphere IF humanity can agree to that meaning.
(Human Consciousness Sphere- State of referenced information processes, the state of knowledge within the knowledge of a group or society.)
My question is:
Why would anyone want to discuss Objective Morality?
Is it to discuss the fact that morality is subjective?
Why would objective morality have value if the very concept of morality is based on human consciousness?
Hi !
my boss says I aint worth talkin to and so im going to try an lern a few things
here. Why dont you put an ad in the newspaper fur sombody that can walk on water or somethin?
then you could have a new comitee leader to start the ball rollin with the new religion. thats all your talkin about. Replacing a religion ,ike my boss threatin to replace me all the time.
the new commitee idea
no steelin
no meeny stuff
no thinkin you got somthin like you know what, thats not yurs.
no smakin people out unless there askin pretty good
no hurtin little critter
no messen up the air and water...sky too....thats why to make sure and don't furget now, the add in the newspaper fur the new committee leader can't have nothin to do with crackin the moon in half.
It is not an either/or proposition . . . it is both. We have the problem of discerning the human purpose . . . THEN agreeing about it, and THEN evaluating morality against it. If as you believe, there is no human purpose . . . then it is a whimsy and fruitless enterprise of vain and foolish "accidents" . . . pretending it matters what they do or do not do.
Code or Basis is essentially the same message. It postulates some God (or 'god') -given purpose for us. I do not believe there is one and would rather prefer it that way.
Evolution has a purpose for us, but fortunately we can think and decide a different way of doing things. I can accept that there is no other divine plan and decided a long time ago that not having some 'purpose' imposed on us was a plus. So your suggestion that it is all vain and fruitless is true in a way, but I like it that way - it means that the purposes I devise for my life are the only valid and meaningful ones there are. That suits me fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by penlope
Hi !
my boss says I aint worth talkin to and so im going to try an lern a few things
here. Why dont you put an ad in the newspaper fur sombody that can walk on water or somethin?
then you could have a new comitee leader to start the ball rollin with the new religion. thats all your talkin about. Replacing a religion ,ike my boss threatin to replace me all the time.
the new commitee idea
no steelin
no meeny stuff
no thinkin you got somthin like you know what, thats not yurs.
no smakin people out unless there askin pretty good
no hurtin little critter
no messen up the air and water...sky too....thats why to make sure and don't furget now, the add in the newspaper fur the new committee leader can't have nothin to do with crackin the moon in half.
That sounds like a pretty good suggestion for a moral code. Perhaps the 'religion' element can be some lively singing and a good barby afterwards.
human purpose is not found from the priest's invisible experiences... it is found in an area deep within our hearts; so with this we know that we can discern God's purpose as much as we can discern our own. Mystic, if you read your post again, you shall see that the problem remains even with religion. If God is just an accident/characteristic of reality, from where can such a being attain any purpose to give?
Of course it can. Morality is nothing more and nothing less than a social contract governing behavior of individuals within a group. Morality can be imposed by religion, which isn't the same as "god", or it can be formed by collective agreement.
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.
