Subjective Morality page 3

320 posts

Flag Post

Its not a lie to accept that different people have different moral viewpoints, MyTie. You’re lying to yourself if you honestly believe otherwise.

It’s why we have laws, which lay down the final say on what we can and cannot do, regardless of what our morals say.

 
Flag Post

MyTie, let’s get on the same line first. I am using science to get evidence and claims across. Proven by science with objective measurements allows it to be objectively claimed to be true. “Disproven” by science is a bit confusing, as that is not exactly what science does. Science checks for the positive claim, not the negative one, because it’s pretty damn hard to prove a negative. Something which isn’t proven by science can be seen in any light from a personal viewpoint. For example, it isn’t proven that certain paintings are objectively beautiful, because “beautiful” is a label and it is applied by people to things they specifically like. It is scientifically proven not everyone agrees on it. It is not scientifically proven this label has any objective measurements. We can’t point at something and say “this physical thing we’re holding right now is beauty”. The same can be said about morality, really. What’s “right”? What’s “wrong”? They’re labels. I can’t point at something and say “this thing you see right here is right”, because it is something an individual applies to a specific situation. It is open for subjectivity.

But that doesn’t mean there’s no agreement within a majority of people. The majority of people accepts that kids need a good life without harassment or abuse. If someone breaks that promise, the majority of people will condemn that person. So will you. So will I. So will probably everyone in this thread. But, somehow, you need to apply “objectivity” to that viewpoint in morality to soothe your thoughts .. about the person, perhaps? What is your goal, exactly? You’re applying wishful thinking in the sense you hope the guy doesn’t actually have that viewpoint he wanted to do that? You invoke a God to tell you that you’re right and he’s wrong? It really and simply seems a soothing of thoughts, a force behind yourself to say that you’re correct and those who disagree are incorrect. That’s really not how it should work.

 
Flag Post

DR
You’re correct to be incorrect.
I’ll share with you (even if you won’t agree with it, well I’m about 99.99% sure about it, just read it to better understand my standpoint, please) a very important “commentary” that sheds a huge light on why I insist on “forcibly having” (I’ll explain) objective morals.
Here it goes:
What exactly was/did the first sin?
The one of “knowledge of good and evil”.
What it did, was to CONFUSE the PREVIOUSLY objective (one-opinion-only) moral into newly probable subjective (HUMAN) one.
BEFORE, there was only one way of judging actions – if it was according to what was commanded by G-d, it was “good”, otherwise it was “bad”.
NO subjective HUMAN opinion was involved.
All that Adam and Eve saw in everything, was either G-dly, thus GOOD, or not exactly, thus EVIL.
Even more so, for THEM, evil was an EXTRANEOUS force, a “snake” (even if also a literal one).
The HUMAN was pure GOOD.
And then, they sinned.
The result was devastating for their NATUREEVIL was intermixed with their innate GOOD, and it formed a NEW attitude: OPINION.
From then on, humans had PERSONAL opinions on stuff, and THOSE could (and did) differ from the objective G-dly ones.
This is (for example) how Cain could kill his brother – cause it was HIS opinion that he could/should.
He simply ignored the objective definition of “don’t murder” – and changed it into his own “what I consider pleasing myself”, which in his case was murderous revenge out of jealousy.
Yes, we do use subjective (personal) morals ever since.
But our goal is to remind ourselves, that we can’t achieve our true fulfillment (the one we were CREATED for) without acknowledging that there are objective morals, and we should shape our subjective ones to fit those as close as we can.
By doing so, we’re removing the effect of the sin of Adam and Eve, which enabled the subjective morals to exist to begin with.

And now trolling ensues, right?

 
Flag Post

are we talking about relative morality or subjective morality? big difference.

my money is on absolute, subjective morality.

the OP seems to be a case for absolute morality; not for objective morality.

 
Flag Post

OD
Objective and absolute practically mean the same – something totally independent of human opinions.

 
Flag Post

Somebody,

1. There is no natural law stopping us from doing something you consider to be wrong (and claim to be objectively wrong). The only way to apply the label of “wrong” upon a deed is by having someone say it. If some say it’s wrong, but others say it’s right, there is no objective force telling us who is correct.
2. Yes, we both know you operate from a religious belief which has no basis in objective reality. It is exactly that which I have to reject as grounds to claim there is an objective morality. If you can’t prove to me this objective morality exists, I can only reject the claim.

 
Flag Post

DR
And if it’s the Creator, Who says it?
It would be still “subjective” in a funny way – but this would make that “opinion” leave the HUMAN origin.
Thus – objective.
And also absolute, cause our Creator is by definition the most knowledgable one about our nature, so His opinion is absolute regarding our capabilities.
All this – after we accept the fact of us being created.
Otherwise, it’s moot and vague.
Oh, and you can reject anything.
I actually explained to you, WHY you can and do so.
You’re still free to reject it, but it won’t ruin my point.
Our negative choices are no disproof of our ability to choose freely.
Quite the contrary.

 
Flag Post

It boils down to the existence of God. If God doesn’t exist, and morals are subjective, I’m wrong. None of this can be proven, nor disproven.

I know what subjective morals are. I know what objective morals are. I know what it is that you all think that morals are subjective. I’m really conveying two things:

1) Why I believe in objective morals. (God)
2) Why I find subjective morals to be heinous, so heinous in fact, that I find it disgusting to even consider them. That philosophy places the morals of pederasts and murderers at the same legitimate value as the morals of philanthropists and saints. To not put stock in opinions, is to not place importance on right and wrong.

Point number 2 places extreme importance on teaching point number 1. To me, teaching people about God isn’t done just because it’s commanded, but because I don’t want people to live with subjective morality. This is important enough to me to die for. I base my entire life on this point. To tell me to just accept something I find disgusting, and unfathomably terrible, which runs counter to everything I believe and hold to be objectively true, is to tell me to stop being me.

 
Flag Post

And if it’s the Creator, Who says it?
It would be still “subjective” in a funny way – but this would make that “opinion” leave the HUMAN origin.
Thus – objective.

It is debatable. If some group of aliens much stronger than we subdue us and place laws for us, then those laws aren’t really objective (= we don’t agree with them), but merely the opinion of that race. Same as you said for God, yet you still call it objective merely because it isn’t “of human origin”. No, there’s a deeper thought.

You’re still free to reject it, but it won’t ruin my point.
Our negative choices are no disproof of our ability to choose freely.

Nothing’s objective if we can freely choose to call it objective or not. That destroys the whole purpose of objectivity.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

Nothing’s objective if we can freely choose to call it objective or not. That destroys the whole purpose of objectivity.

Math is not objective. Facts are not objective. Objectivity is not objective.

You’re free to say that anything is not objective. There is no force of nature stopping me from saying that. But, me having an opinion on a measurable fact doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Math is not objective. Facts are not objective. Objectivity is not objective.

lolno.

You’re free to say that anything is not objective.

Yes, you are free to do that. It doesn’t mean your claim is correct, but you could say it.

There is no force of nature stopping me from saying that. But, me having an opinion on a measurable fact doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

Wait, what are you referring to here?

Originally posted by MyTie:
2) Why I find subjective morals to be heinous, so heinous in fact, that I find it disgusting to even consider them. That philosophy places the morals of pederasts and murderers at the same legitimate value as the morals of philanthropists and saints.

Sort of, they’re putting it on the same objective value (in other words none), however the subjective value is greatly different.

To not put stock in opinions, is to not place importance on right and wrong.

So because I don’t really think that red is that great a color, also means that I think murder is okay?

Point number 2 places extreme importance on teaching point number 1. To me, teaching people about God isn’t done just because it’s commanded, but because I don’t want people to live with subjective morality.

Okay, so you want to force your opinion on others, just because you don’t like how some people think.

This is important enough to me to die for. I base my entire life on this point.

Is it just me or does that seem like you’re obsessing over this a little too much?

To tell me to just accept something I find disgusting, and unfathomably terrible, which runs counter to everything I believe and hold to be objectively true, is to tell me to stop being me.

Well good thing no-one (other than those you make up and refer to) here is saying that.

 
Flag Post

It boils down to the existence of God. If God doesn’t exist, and morals are subjective, I’m wrong. None of this can be proven, nor disproven.

But you say this out of triumph, as if this somehow makes your stance equally valid. That is not the case.

Point number 2 places extreme importance on teaching point number 1. To me, teaching people about God isn’t done just because it’s commanded, but because I don’t want people to live with subjective morality. This is important enough to me to die for. I base my entire life on this point. To tell me to just accept something I find disgusting, and unfathomably terrible, which runs counter to everything I believe and hold to be objectively true, is to tell me to stop being me.

You’re asking us to teach children fairytales. So, let me ask you again (from a while ago), is it better to conceal the truth in the hopes it leads to a better world (we don’t know if it does, you’re just claiming it) than to search for knowledge and making sure there are other ways to help people learn about morality.

You’re free to say that anything is not objective. There is no force of nature stopping me from saying that. But, me having an opinion on a measurable fact doesn’t make it any less of a fact.

Okay, I’m thinking you knew what I was saying, but just to be sure I’ll clarify, because you’re right that I forgot to put in a few words that I say every time, and that apply here any way:

If critics can rationally and logically deny the objectivity of an issue, the whole purpose of calling it objective is destroyed. A critic cannot rationally deny the objectivity of the existence of dogs. A critic cannot logically deny homosexuality exists. A critic can rationally and logically deny the objectivity of morals, and therefore it is silly to call it that. There is no sense in saying “well, we religiously believe it is objective”. It’s an inherent contradiction.

 
Flag Post

Not to mention that we can demonstrate the difference in morality in a physical sense, by using fMRI scans on subjects whilst they consider their moral stances and note the same patterns of brain activation when they come to very different moral conclusions about a set of example subjects.

If the brain activation areas are the same, then their morality is equall valid to each individual’s way of thinking – their brains are wired that way. You could even say they were created that way, if you wish to add a god angle into it.

Either way it gives us objective proof of the inherent subjectivity of moral stances.

 
Flag Post

drink more, worry about morality less

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

OD
Objective and absolute practically mean the same – something totally independent of human opinions.

not really. although i guess the way those words are used is essentially arbitrary, cause i feel like it would work equally well in reverse, but relative morality usually means a view of the word “morality” as meaning “that which is good in the eye of the beholder”, whereas objective morality would imply a view of morality that is not relative. this distinction is semantic.

subjective morality however usually just means that what is good or bad can be different in different contexts. whereas objective morality would mean a morality that is always the same regardless of context, rather than regardless of the beholder.

objective morality: murder is wrong, in every situation.
absolute morality: murder is wrong, and if you disagree, you’re wrong.
relative morality: murder is wrong, to me. if you disagree, then you are also correct.
subjective morality: murder is wrong in most cases.

you can combine either of the middle two with either of the outer two.

 
Flag Post

Murder is probably not the best example to use, as murder is an unlawful killing. There are plenty of examples of lawful killings, which are basically the same thing.

If you expand it to “take a human life”, there are many instances where it may be moral to end a life.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
In the absence of reason, one should turn to faith alone. Even God was fathomed out of the abysmal void.

Incorrect. If there is no way of applying reasoning to the issue, then the logical response is to dismiss it, as there is no possible reference point.

Put the issue to one side, and concentrate on issues that you do have a frame of reference for.

I didn’t mean faith in constructing a hypothetical model in point; I intended to show that, when there are mutliple theories in harmonious coincidence with evidence, but no currently plausible way to absolutely determine which ones are right or wrong, one is automatically required to place faith in one or even all of them as being valid/correct.

For example, with scientific investigations, there are already numerous theories purporting to explain away the mindboggling darkness around the primeval atom and the origins of the material universe. None of them have been thoroughly tested to the effect of absolute empirical verification/falsification and all of them are adequately aligned with any and all currently available experimental outcomes to warrant technical qualification as of the immediate state. We don’t know which of them, if any, are actually right, but yet scientists trust in their own versions of the story in the hopes of some insights that others most certainly omitted from consideration despite the lack of proof radiating from their spectroscopes like some contorted manifestation of blackbody phenomena

I wasn’t talkign about the lack of reasoning in making conjectures; I was referring to the emergent steps subsequent to that analysis in ascertaining the hypothetical values of those models before sufficient evidence has formally accumulated for such a determination.

I should really try to be more specific with my explication and whatnot

 
Flag Post

MyTie,

Firstly I’d like to call upon you to address my last responses. But can’t force your hand in the matter. Moving along,

However, I cannot accept that it is not objectively right or wrong to rape and murder a 3 year old, or why what is valid to the majority even matters.

It doesn’t matter. Except for the fact you keep forming questions which hang upon majority view point. If majority X think Y then what will society do? It will do Y MyTie, I know this, you know this. You’re bait and switching. Whether Y is raping boys, or puppy snuff, or helping old ladies across the street, it’s going to happen. No one here has endorsed majority opinion as subjective moral absolutism. Most have specifically and repeatedly condemned that approach. You, however, refuse to acknowledge that and continue to rehash the same inquiry again, and again, to your repeated outrage. It’s ridiculous. You’re either not paying attention to the answers you are getting, or you’re being simply dishonest.

No one is defending moral majority actions as inherently legitimate. They are however, the norm, by default, by definition. If you continue to ask the same question, you’re going to get the same answer.

I prefer my way of viewing morality over yours, right or wrong.

Yes! Of course you do! That is the whole point. You like your moral systems, other people like other moral systems. Except that you claim yours are inherently better because God said so.

If I had never existed, it would still be an invalid opinion on morals that it is a good thing to murder a toddler.

Unless they’re Babylonian right? Psalm 137 ends with the glorious exultation of smashing children against rocks in the name of the Lord. So, when is it precisely okay to murder toddlers? I mean, there’s all sorts of infants that are savagely murdered throughout the course of the Bible. Some cultures get purged in it’s entirety, multiple times, which is pretty harsh. But that psalm paints a nice little picture.

 
Flag Post

simeng
Um, in the words of DR: “but who needs absolute empirical verification”?
Though I MYSELF totally agree with YOU, that science relies on TRUST/BELIEF as much as any religion – and to deny it, is simply stupid.
But it all boils down to the KNOWLEDGE STANDARDS we impose on ourselves and our sources.
If we’re OK with “more probable, yet not absolute” – we can claim that science is sufficient even without any trusting involved.
Except – I find the latter claim pretty much HYPOCRITICAL
Well, at least for those “aggressive atheists” who say that science KNOWS stuff beyond our empirical reach.

OD
Oh, thanks.
I finally got a normal classification of terms that confused me before.
Well, my stance is:
Murder, as an act of killing not based on (Divine, important correction) LAWS, is wrong, cause…
OM: It’s divinely illegal, so to speak. But even if we just use “illegal”, it still applies to all cases in that “legal system”.
AM: It’s explicitly forbidden by the Creator, Whose opinion is dominant in all cases.
RM: The result of Adam’s sin, like explained yesterday. It switched AM into RM, enabling the latter.
SM: If we define murder as illegal killing, no SM can even exist. Depends on acceptance of AM for that.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

MyTie,

Firstly I’d like to call upon you to address my last responses. But can’t force your hand in the matter. Moving along,

However, I cannot accept that it is not objectively right or wrong to rape and murder a 3 year old, or why what is valid to the majority even matters.

It doesn’t matter. Except for the fact you keep forming questions which hang upon majority view point. If majority X think Y then what will society do? It will do Y MyTie, I know this, you know this. You’re bait and switching. Whether Y is raping boys, or puppy snuff, or helping old ladies across the street, it’s going to happen. No one here has endorsed majority opinion as subjective moral absolutism. Most have specifically and repeatedly condemned that approach. You, however, refuse to acknowledge that and continue to rehash the same inquiry again, and again, to your repeated outrage. It’s ridiculous. You’re either not paying attention to the answers you are getting, or you’re being simply dishonest.

No one is defending moral majority actions as inherently legitimate. They are however, the norm, by default, by definition. If you continue to ask the same question, you’re going to get the same answer.

I prefer my way of viewing morality over yours, right or wrong.

Yes! Of course you do! That is the whole point. You like your moral systems, other people like other moral systems. Except that you claim yours are inherently better because God said so.

If I had never existed, it would still be an invalid opinion on morals that it is a good thing to murder a toddler.

Unless they’re Babylonian right? Psalm 137 ends with the glorious exultation of smashing children against rocks in the name of the Lord. So, when is it precisely okay to murder toddlers? I mean, there’s all sorts of infants that are savagely murdered throughout the course of the Bible. Some cultures get purged in it’s entirety, multiple times, which is pretty harsh. But that psalm paints a nice little picture.

My contention isn’t what people WILL do, but what makes those actions right or wrong.

@your first post – Ok. Thanks for your input. We disagree. Is there something here that you need me to comment on that I haven’t already made clear?

 
Flag Post

I don’t see how morals can be objective…especially if they are taking from the bible, because the morals in the bible change according to God. If anything, if you are religious you’d have to say that morals are based on Gods own subjective Will. He changes them when He sees fit.

But lets get down to details about Gods morals.
God is perfect morally…so anything that he condones, commands or condems must be in line with His morality.
So how about slavery?

Leviticus 25:44-46 shows that slavery appears to be condoned.
Deuteronomy 15:12-15; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1 these neccesarilly dont condone slavery, but neither do they condem slavery.
Exodus 21:2-6 this is a strange one, for it apparently says that a slave male may go free, but his children and wife must stay as property of the slaveowner.
Exodus 21:7-11 and this shows that women slaves are to be given less rights than the males slaves and are allowed to be either married to the owner or the owner can marry the girl slave off to his sons.

So what does this say about Gods ‘Objective’ morals? How are we able to defy these ‘Objective’ morals?
Quite simply, I think morals don’t come from a ‘higher source’ nor are objective. Morals change with society because they are subjective.

 
Flag Post

FWW
Slavery.
1. Was a normal thing in those days by all neighbors – so it had to be dealt with.
2. The “Jewish slave” is more of a forcibly-paid worker, who was “hired” for a FEW years, while his “master” simply paid the guy’s debt.
The only way a Jew was to become a slave, was through stealing and not being able to repay.
NOBODY was sold the way YOU think of “slave markets”.
3. There were many loopholes that demanded the release of even “normal” slaves.
Even as minor as hitting one’s tooth out.
4. Even the “normal” slave was to be treated HUMANELY, not like slaves were treated by OTHERS.
CONCLUSION:
It was a historical fact of those times – so it couldn’t be just disregarded or ruled out.
But it was shaped into a much (and I do mean MUCH) more humane attitude compared to the rest of the world.
You ARE looking at historical conditions of 3000 years ago AS IF it happens now.
You do forget, that such a “democratic” country as USA, had ACTUAL slavery till quite recently – and they definitely treated their slaves like SHIT.
Totally unlike what is prescribed by Biblical laws.

Please, use a less-historically-bound example of morals, would you?

 
Flag Post

Flabby, there’s also an absolutely charming passage in there, that says the male of the household is obliged to offer his daughters as sex toys to a stranger if he invites him into his house. It’s considered ‘good manners’ or such bullcrap.


EDIT:

Originally posted by somebody613:

Please, use a less-historically-bound example of morals, would you?

If morals are objective, then they are unchanging. The morals of 3,000 years ago, must still apply now.

 
Flag Post

VT
Nope.
The CONDITIONS changed, so what once was APPLICABLE historically – now ISN’T.

As of Lot’s daughters.
You give it a wrong impression ON PURPOSE.
There is no LAW to behave like that.
That was a single EVENT that simply happened and was described.
And WHERE does the “good manners” shit comes from, huh?
I’ve read quite the contrary commentaries – that what happened later on, was a direct result of Lot’s attitude: he had incestuous thoughts himself, so he was PUNISHED by making them REAL.
But his daughters thought the world was destroyed for real, so they didn’t mean it the wrong way, thus for them it was a right reaction, but NOT for Lot.
Repeating – just a single event, NOT a LAW.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by somebody613:

Please, use a less-historically-bound example of morals, would you?


If morals are objective, then they are unchanging. The morals of 3,000 years ago, must still apply now.

Exactly Somebody. If morals come from God and are objective then they should always be valid morals…then why can they change? Unless God has subjective morals himself?