Subjective Morality page 10

320 posts

Flag Post

Regardless, your deity only exists within those who believe in the same system of belief as you. To those of us outside your system of belief, your high handed “these are the correct morals,obey them or else” doesn’t wash. You can scream it till you turn blue in the face, doesn’t make it any less a fib.

Your morality is wholly limited to your own group, it does not affect the morality of any other group. We continue as we are, and you continue as you are. Everyone’s happy. Everyone follows their own moral system.

 
Flag Post

AND THERE WE HAVE IT!!!!!

Like I’ve said, vika, over and over. The question of subjective morality vs objective morality boils down to “Is God?”. You summarized your viewpoint when you called it a “fib”. I summarized mine when I said “God is”. If God is, then I have an accurate measure of morality. If God is not, then my viewpoint is subjective.

on a side note
Interestingly, according to you, each subjective opinion is as equal as the next. Therefore, you must recognize, that EVEN IF I’M INCORRECT, and there is no God, I am as right as you are, according to you. My viewpoint is equally acceptable as yours, according to you. You cannot condemn my viewpoint, or it makes you a hypocrite. I can condemn yours, without being hypocritical, as I’ve never claimed that morality is equal.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:


Interestingly, according to you, each subjective opinion is as equal as the next. Therefore, you must recognize, that EVEN IF I’M INCORRECT, and there is no God, I am as right as you are, according to you. My viewpoint is equally acceptable as yours, according to you.

That wouold be correct, yes, and is what I have been arguing all along. The only reason mine seems any better to me is because it is mine! Presented to a third party, neither of our stances have any more weight than each other.

You cannot condemn my viewpoint, or it makes you a hypocrite. I can condemn yours, without being hypocritical, as I’ve never claimed that morality is equal.

Not correct. I can comdemn yours because I find it vile. You can condemn mine because you find it ungodly, or whatever. Our opinions are entirely subjective. Neither of us has absolute control on how the other thinks – which is the best way of things in my view. Probably the worst way of things in your view, if I read your nature right.

 
Flag Post

I hesitated to even post that ON A SIDE NOTE part, because I thought you would address it only, and not the point of my post. I’ll just ask this flat out, with nothing else. Can we agree on this:

Everything you say is true if the God I believe in does not exist. Everything I say is true if the God I believe in does exist. This topic hinges on the existence or lack of existence of God.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Everything you say is true if the God I believe in does not exist. Everything I say is true if the God I believe in does exist. This topic hinges on the existence or lack of existence of God.

We can’t, no. I’m not atheist or agnostic, MyTie. I’m a theist. I said it before, I accept that your god exists. with what I understand about interpersonal-networking and the layout of the human brain, it would be hypocritical of me to say he does not exist, when all the evidence tells me he does.

What it hinges on, is the level of influence your god has. You believe he created the universe, whereas I believe he is a logical end-result of a large number of interconnected minds believing in the pervasiveness of His will. A gestalt being if you will.

So that, the level of influence of that (or any) god, is where things hinge.

 
Flag Post

If the God of the Bible exists, then morality is objective.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I’m the God of the Bible exists, then morality is objective.

You’re the god now, are you? Uhhuh…

Seriously, even if that god exists in the way that you claim it does, morality is still not objective. There is that god’s subjective opinjion which it expects all of its followers to share, and then there are other moralities which people who do not follow it, and do not wish heaven, use. Even in those circumstances, your morality is only ‘right’ if you actually want those ‘rewards’.

It is still subjective in that if you don’t wish those ‘rewards’ you may still live as you see fit. Helping people, bringing joy, and having nothing whatsoever to do with your god and his bigotry.

 
Flag Post

Imagine if I framed an argument as you do. I’m going to show you an example of what that would look like, vika. I don’t honestly believe it. It’s just an EXAMPLE:

If you don’t believe in God, then you are just going on whatever your Godless opinion is. It’s evil and selfish and you’re going to go to hell for not believing it. But, by all means, go head and follow your opinions and have sex with whoever you want like there are no consequences for your heathen actions.

Ok, so that’s an example of how I could frame my arguments, but make them devoid of all sense and courtesy. Do you see how they are irritatingly self unaware? As if, the person who formed that argument can’t hear how ignorant and pushy their argument sounds. That’s how you sound. “My god and his bigotry”. Lol. The very definition of bigotry is to not tolerate others based on their beliefs. YOU DO NOT tolerate my beliefs. The fact that you are so oblivious to your own tone and condemning subjectivity with subjectivity is confounding to me. I don’t know how to make your argument’s flaws any more obvious than you do.

I really want to get along with people around here. My argument was

If the God of the Bible exists, then morality is objective.
Your reply was
having nothing whatsoever to do with your god and his bigotry.
Certainly you CAN make that choice, and I’d encourage you to do so, if that is your desire. However, by framing your argument like that, it’s abundantly clear that you want to dominate the discussion with your own form of intolerant pushy bigotry, blended with a touch of victimization with the homosexual twist.

Either try to stick to the subject at hand, and have an ounce of respect for other’s arguments, or for the sake of my sanity I’ll just ignore your posts.

 
Flag Post

You are the one who sees homosexuls are the ultimate evil, sinners to be ‘saved’ from their biology. You are the one who keeps harping on that this is the will of god, and that god absolutelydoes exist, fuck any lack of proof of the omnipotence.

Am I intolerant for hating your complete lack of tolerance? Perhaps, but you are intolerant of other’s views all the same. Intolerant of their right to live THEIR lives as THEY see fit, without you cramming your sanctimonious sense of morality down their throats.

If someone believed that god had spoken to them,. and commanded them to walk into your church, mid sermon, point a gun at your head and blow your brains all over the wall, wouldn’t you agree that was the moral and just action to take? Since god told them to do this, and god’s morality is absolute?

They have no more evidence that god truly speaks to them, than you do. But they act in it as the absolute and only righteous path to take, just as you do. Everyone else is wrong, absolutely. Only you are right.

Either try to stick to the subject at hand, and have an ounce of respect for other’s arguments, or for the sake of my sanity I’ll just ignore your posts.

Pot, meet kettle.

You haven’t had respect for another poster or their arguments since you got here. Why should you? After all, you are a direct mouthpiece to the only real source of authority on the planet. What do all these other little insects know? They are all wrong. Only MyTie, God’s divine avatar on Earth, is right. Always right.

 
Flag Post

I guess ignoring you is what you want. Brilliant.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I guess ignoring you is what you want. Brilliant.

At least it means you stop making strawmen out of my posts. AND I can keep showing others what a self-important, jumped up tub of shit your argument of divine morality always turns out to be, without you sticking your craw in. On the downside, I don’t have your input any more to show how truly rediculous your ‘one true morality’ way of thinking is.

 
Flag Post

lol

 
Flag Post

But it is used to describe their opinion; and that is of a higher absolute morality system.

That is true, but my reply will just be that their moral system is in no way inherently more valuable, only subjectively so, otherwise everyone should just record their morals and claim it as objective.

There is no innate value to anything, it is only ascribed relative to the approval of the viewer.

I think that’s what I’ve been saying, though.

But there is no logical conclusion to moral valuation. It is all arbitrary. Give me a moral vector, any moral vector, and show me how it is definitively, rationally, logically ‘good’. To value logic, to value rationale, is an arbritary moral vector. You make a statement about capturing truth, who is to say truth is valuable?

I truly think you misunderstand. I’ve said that if a rational person cannot logically disagree, it is objectively true, like the existence of dogs, or my being a human. But a rational person can logically disagree with morals. That is why something cannot ever be “definitively, rationally, logically good”, and that’s the point I’ve been making all along. At the same time, every person values their own opinion more, because otherwise you should logically hold random opinions all the time.

I would suggest that you hold some labels as universal moral constants, which ascribe value universally as a standard for the ‘good’ of others people opinion

I don’t, because I think that’s a silly proposition. I agree that I want people to think like me in the moral section, but I don’t suggest their values are inherently worse than mine. “Killing is wrong” has an entirely subjective answer. Someone can use it in his objective moral system, but it doesn’t make it inherently more valuable than another’s “killing is right”, even if right in all cases (you can understand that killing in self-defense, for example, is morally right to many).

If you truly believe there is no innate value then one must also let go with the rational justification of views.

I’m not sure if that’s semantics. I’m not trying to rationally justify my view, I’m saying it’s my view. I’ve got my morals, MyTie has his own. That one of us claims an objective moral system has two, or let’s even say three, layers. One is that his moral system is documented, which is true. Mine isn’t documented, because it would take too much time for relatively little gain. MyTie simply follows a large amount of people in their morals and that is easily documented. The second layer is that your moral system applies to everyone. I already reject this layer (and I certainly reject the next one). My morals don’t apply to everyone. Yes, I wish that everyone would follow my morals, and I tell people they are wrong in my views, but they shouldn’t have to follow my rules just because I say my system is objective. This somewhat flows over to the third layer, namely that everyone should be punished based on the objective system. This is getting ridiculous. An objective system (one which is documented) shouldn’t apply to everyone just because one claims it is, and then punishing people for not following them is insane. An objective moral system invoking God certainly claims this.

IF you are right, then on what grounds? Does this hold true for everyone? What is the value of proof? I feel you are trying to justify an objective veneration of pattern repetition of observation= into the scope of subjectivity. I feel such a thing is not tenable. Something is true, or nothing is. What is the value of proof?

Now you are suggesting the concept of “objective” or “truth” (or maybe even “proof”) can have different meanings to different people, and that someone could claim he’s telling the truth and has “proof” for it even though scientifically he hasn’t. Someone can’t have the “opinion” that he has proof for having objective morals, that’s absolutely ridiculous. Our communication would reduce into nothingness.

The “value of proof” doesn’t really matter. If there is no value in proof, everything is subjective. If there is, then we can prove objectivity, and no moral system other than being documented has proven to be “objective” on the layers I described above.

 
Flag Post

My Tie,

Based on what the diety said. He ensured His words were written down as He wanted. He is morality. Since He is morality, that is the measure to use. All other measures are wrong, as there is only one God. It doesn’t matter how I understand God. God doesn’t change. He is how He is, and my opinions will never change Him.

Ooh, I am glad you used the word Measure MyTie. It keyed a good reference example I had forgotten about. This stuff is as old as man. Anywho, in the golden age of Greece there were two primary intellectual circles which had competing interpretations and methodologies. (I’ll be guilty of overgeneralizing here a little, but) there were the philosophers, who were objectivists (sort of, mostly). Plato famously wrote “God is the measure of all things”. But then, there were the Sophists, who were subjectivists. Protagoras of the Sophists said “Man is the measure of all things.”

Aside from that, and responding to your post, I’ve got a question for you. Would you say you have a perfect understanding of the will of God?

My viewpoint is equally acceptable as yours, according to you. You cannot condemn my viewpoint, or it makes you a hypocrite. I can condemn yours, without being hypocritical, as I’ve never claimed that morality is equal.

I wouldn’t say subjectivity denies the ability to condemn differences. We’ve talked about that before earlier in the thread. I may not be able to say “You’re wrong to do such and such” in the strictest sense, but I can say “I do not like such and such.” there is nothing that obligates approval.

Dark,

I truly think you misunderstand. I’ve said that if a rational person cannot logically disagree, it is objectively true, like the existence of dogs, or my being a human. But a rational person can logically disagree with morals. That is why something cannot ever be “definitively, rationally, logically good”, and that’s the point I’ve been making all along. At the same time, every person values their own opinion more, because otherwise you should logically hold random opinions all the time.

Oops. Well it took some meandering but seems we’re at the same place now.

Now you are suggesting the concept of “objective” or “truth” (or maybe even “proof”) can have different meanings to different people, and that someone could claim he’s telling the truth and has “proof” for it even though scientifically he hasn’t. Someone can’t have the “opinion” that he has proof for having objective morals, that’s absolutely ridiculous. Our communication would reduce into nothingness.

I wasn’t trying to suggest a different meaning so much as a different value. The scientific method is good at predicting patterns, based upon mass observations – but for that to be ‘good’ requires a further moral valuation. “Someone can’t have the “opinion” that he has proof for having objective morals, that’s absolutely ridiculous.” To respond directly to that, I would say maybe he has no interest in ‘proof’ at all, as more my point. To value truth, proof, the scientific method, pattern, mass observation – the whole big set that comes hand in hand, is not a moral good inherently. I agree that such approaches lead to communication break down, – but maybe that is the idea right? This is a reiteration of the Tower Of Babel story. Man got clever with his ability and tried to reach the heavens, God punished them for hubris and sundered language. It’s about the interaction of value systems and the consequences thereof.

The “value of proof” doesn’t really matter. If there is no value in proof, everything is subjective. If there is, then we can prove objectivity, and no moral system other than being documented has proven to be “objective” on the layers I described above.

You seem to infer this hinging on an objective value to proof, which then justifies an objective morality system. But you are already including Proof as a hard Value of the Master Objective Morality System. What is Proof is not moral? What if Proof has no place in the Absolute Values?

In fact we’re coming upon something very pertinent to many types of religion, including pretty wide swathes of contemporary Christianity. What is the value of proof? One can reject proof, and attain Faith. Faith as a more important moral vector then Proof has a long history. They have no interest in proving, in scientifically documenting, because they ‘have faith’ and it is more important to have ‘faith’ then proof. The lack of proof is no obstacle to their morality – maybe to others, but to them it is a lesser article. The acquisition of knowledge was the first sin after all.
 
Flag Post

Okay, it seems we have only one issue to discuss. If “faith” is enough for a person to individually “show” (read: prove) something, then that shows there is complete subjectivity involved (by definition). In which case their claim to objectivity of morals is no more meaningful than my subjectivity of morals, and it pretty much falls down to subjectivity any way. I understand we’re still talking about different layers. I agree that documented morals are objectively defined. I agree that some people judge others based on their own moral systems (“objective” = apply it to others). I even agree that some moral systems punish those who don’t necessarily wish to be in that moral system (the law versus criminals). I guess I disagree a religious moral system has or should have the power to punish those who are not in their moral system. The easiest example would be homosexuals. They are not part of Christianity, so they should not be “prosecuted” by Christians for being “evil” in their moral system.

I suppose this solves our discussion?

 
Flag Post

If “faith” is enough for a person to individually “show” (read: prove) something, then that shows there is complete subjectivity involved (by definition). In which case their claim to objectivity of morals is no more meaningful than my subjectivity of morals, and it pretty much falls down to subjectivity any way.

Well now we start to get tangled in logical circles. Going to a default kind of Christianity, one has to have faith in the right thing, for example. I suppose I have to condition my previous posts statements a little. Faith alone is no good, faith alone includes heathenism, idolatry, devil worship – all the nasty stuff. So, Faith has to be in the Right thing. What determines the Right Thing? Well, the Right Thing says it is. Kind of a loop. But then we can start re contextualizing. Faith is not the primary Good-Virtue, as we can demonstrate it being maligned. Really, it is Obedience. Faith sounds less subordinate, Faith sounds more universal. But any departure from the specific authority is also a departure from it’s Goodness. It is all about Obedience, mostly Obedience to Tradition in that you are adopting a predefined system.

I am not trying to show any specific superiority or anything here over subjectivity. Just the departure of valuation and interpretation. Personally I really enjoy just opening things up like that. I find it terrifying to consider that the central valuation of the religious value system is Obedience. Although really, look at Islam. Submission. At least they’re upfront about it.

I guess I disagree a religious moral system has or should have the power to punish those who are not in their moral system.

Oh I super agree with you. I am not trying to suggest we should let them.

I suppose this solves our discussion?

Mostly. I’d be happy to play ‘dissect the value’ on about any topic. Good talk Dark, you’re always a pleasure.

 
Flag Post

Just a single thought – not gonna get involved too much again.
So:
From my standpoint, “objective morality” is something, that is BINDING even on those, who are considered (by anyone, regardless) to be “not in that moral system”.
The “objectivity” of that moral system, is what makes it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to “be outside of it”, regardless of ANYTHING.
End of point.

 
Flag Post

Ungeziefer,
It’s “MyTie” not “My Tie”, if you please.

I would say that I do not understand the will of God perfectly, but I do possess a perfect depiction of it. I have a Bible, which is the inspired will of God. That means, it is His infinite wisdom, he chose that as His means of relaying His will. Any argument that the original texts aren’t accurate, when a perfectly omnipresent God chose those texts, is a moot point. However, I do not completely understand all aspects of His will, and I probably never will. I try to gain more and more understanding each day, though. Imagine it like math. There is a perfect depiction of it, that humanity has access to, but we are constantly attempting to understand it further.

Dark,
Just because something isn’t proven, doesn’t prove it is subjective. We have to be subjective about the objectivity of the topic, but that doesn’t mean the topic itself is subjective.

 
Flag Post

The “objectivity” of that moral system, is what makes it IMPOSSIBLE for anyone to “be outside of it”, regardless of ANYTHING.

I’ve talked about several layers regarding the objectivity of a moral system:

1. Documentation: If it isn’t documented, it can’t be considered objective, as anyone can make up the rules and interpret whatever one says about it.
2. Judgment: If you judge others with your own moral system, regardless of their being in another, you consider it to be more objective.
3. Punishment: If you punish people according to your own moral system, regardless of their rejection of yours, it is more objective.

I think it’s important to know which layer we refer to.

Just because something isn’t proven, doesn’t prove it is subjective.

Science searches for objectivity. If there isn’t enough evidence for objectivity of an issue, such claims are rejected. This doesn’t necessarily prove subjectivity, it just makes it more likely than objectivity. You continue to pretend it’s your triumph here.

We have to be subjective about the objectivity of the topic, but that doesn’t mean the topic itself is subjective.

Read my description of layers and I hope you can tell me which of the three are applicable.

 
Flag Post

MyTie,

I would say that I do not understand the will of God perfectly, but I do possess a perfect depiction of it. I have a Bible, which is the inspired will of God. That means, it is His infinite wisdom, he chose that as His means of relaying His will. Any argument that the original texts aren’t accurate, when a perfectly omnipresent God chose those texts, is a moot point. However, I do not completely understand all aspects of His will, and I probably never will. I try to gain more and more understanding each day, though. Imagine it like math. There is a perfect depiction of it, that humanity has access to, but we are constantly attempting to understand it further.

Speaking before we talked about the Bible as a translated work, with many intermediaries between the genesis of the work and any given copy you hold in your hand. You suggest that there is a perfect form of understanding, but that we are still trying to access it – how do you feel that your influences your application/approach to objective morality? – or in general?

 
Flag Post

I believe, but cannot prove, that there IS an absolute right and wrong.

I also believe we humans are pretty lousy at telling the difference.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by fractalman:

I believe, but cannot prove, that there IS an absolute right and wrong.

I also believe we humans are pretty lousy at telling the difference.

This is actually a reason of mine for supporting Objective Morality that I should have mentioned earlier.
Their is no way to prove a set moral code, but certain actions are good and bad for society as a whole (i.e murder). Their may be times even something like murder would seem acceptable, but by for instance saying its acceptable to murder evil people would let more people make judgements about who is or isn’t evil, and not everyone would judge well..
An example of this is killing Cop Killers, which on the surface doesn’t seem that bad, but when its open season it can lead to Police Brutality against any perp the police felt was too much hassle.

 
Flag Post

DR
1. Definitely SOME definitions must be outlined clearly.
Yet, the ignorance of those “uninvolved” isn’t precluding the objectivity of that specific rule code.
(If one is ignorant of traffic lights, one is still liable for going on the red light. This is objective, though the wrong/right light being RED/GREEN – isn’t.)
Which means, that murder is objectively BAD, but it subjectively depends on which ACTION should be CONSIDERED murder.
2. Too ambiguous, especially when concerning definitions of actions.
Even “murder” has too many “synonymous” actions, that can be interpreted both ways.
Like: self-defense, war kills, treason accusations and many more.
Technically, these are still murders (cause no actual trial and conviction according to a GENERAL rule-code took place), but in some situations and/or for some people, it isn’t considered murder.
Which makes what I called before “the subjectivity of the objectivity”, aka applying strict objective definitions still subjectively depends on those who are applying them.
3. Um, I might have confused the last two – so probably nothing to add.
Judgment and punishment are two parts of the same action – conviction, so kinda…

 
Flag Post

Yeah I should say I don’t support a 100% Objective Morality (Beyond basically the Golden Rule), but I believe their are things are right and wrong in almost every circumstance.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

MyTie,

I would say that I do not understand the will of God perfectly, but I do possess a perfect depiction of it. I have a Bible, which is the inspired will of God. That means, it is His infinite wisdom, he chose that as His means of relaying His will. Any argument that the original texts aren’t accurate, when a perfectly omnipresent God chose those texts, is a moot point. However, I do not completely understand all aspects of His will, and I probably never will. I try to gain more and more understanding each day, though. Imagine it like math. There is a perfect depiction of it, that humanity has access to, but we are constantly attempting to understand it further.

Speaking before we talked about the Bible as a translated work, with many intermediaries between the genesis of the work and any given copy you hold in your hand. You suggest that there is a perfect form of understanding, but that we are still trying to access it – how do you feel that your influences your application/approach to objective morality? – or in general?

Clarification: We have original texts. We are not trying to find the “genesis” more accurately. We have good solid representations of those words. I’m saying that I am personally trying to apply the perspective to me life more accurately.