Subjective Morality page 8

320 posts

Flag Post

Omega, I never said any such thing, rather I showed that the brain develops subjective morality as a result of individual experiences and memories, and how the two feed off of one another in the associative memory system to create a unique point of view and unique set of values for each individual.

As to why we need to have laws to govern societies rather than let everyone run around doing whatever they please, surely that is a discussion for another thread?

 
Flag Post

oh ok, well disregard the part about brain and mind then. i still don’t see how stating how individual morality develops proves that adheres to truth relativism.

but it would appear to me that how we govern ourselves with, in this sense, objective rules despite disgreeances, is very relevant to a discussion about relative morality.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

oh ok, well disregard the part about brain and mind then. i still don’t see how stating how individual morality develops proves that adheres to truth relativism.

Are you just stringing words together now?

Showing how individual morality develops according to each individual’s experiences, shuts down the argument MyTie was making that the brain somehow accesses morals from a universal overmind. Even if it did, the lens of individual experiences still makes the resultant morals unique to every individual, and hence subjective.

The only way to change that would be to give every individual the same mindset, the same memories and the same experiences. Only by making every mind a permanent clone of every other mind could you give them all identical morality.

but it would appear to me that how we govern ourselves with, in this sense, objective rules despite disgreeances, is very relevant to a discussion about relative morality.

It’s up to the leadership of different countries to assign rules for behavior that have the fewest negative impacts and greatest positive impacts on the people which they rule. Different countries have different rules precisely because the people who make up their leaderships, have different moral stances to one another, to begin with.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:whatever you like, MyTie. but this is the Serious Discussion forum, and part of the definition of discussion is that people share arguments. a blanket non-reason for bigotry is not an argument. if that’s all you have to contribute, you might as well not.

I think my contributions are worthwhile. I’ll take my own council on the matter. If you disagree, I suggest you skip reading my posts from here on out.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I think my contributions are worthwhile.

Of course you do, why wouldn’t you?

If you disagree, I suggest you skip reading my posts from here on out.

Well I see you still don’t get why people debate/discuss things.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:Well I see you still don’t get why people debate/discuss things.

I was under the impression it was to present differing ideas and opinions, under the direction of facts and data, to gain a better understanding of the people around you. This dude just wants to tell me to “shut up”, because he doesn’t like what I post, and isn’t productive toward my impression of what debate/discussion is. That person, and people who want to discuss in that manner, are welcome to skip over my posts. There are others here who I will debate/discuss with happily.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

I was under the impression it was to present differing ideas and opinions, under the direction of facts and data, to gain a better understanding of the people around you.

Present company excluded, of course.

This dude just wants to tell me to “shut up”, because he doesn’t like what I post, and isn’t productive toward my impression of what debate/discussion is.

Except that’s not the reason why he said that, nor is it really what he said.


I still honestly don’t get why you’re so defensive.

 
Flag Post
Showing how individual morality develops according to each individual’s experiences, shuts down the argument MyTie was making that the brain somehow accesses morals from a universal overmind

oh, i’m sorry. i hadn’t noticed that context to it. i thought you were proving moral relativism. isn’t that what the debate was?

It’s up to the leadership of different countries to assign rules for behavior that have the fewest negative impacts and greatest positive impacts on the people which they rule.

right. that assumes there is an objective morality that is better in effect than for instance anomie.

lets assume that these “rules for behavior” indeed do “have the fewest negative and greatest positive impacts”. that right there proves morality to be objective, right there. the very premise necessitates it. not God given, but certainly not relative – not if your definition of relative is that each different moral perception is equally moral.
because the morality that concurs with these “rules for behavior”, by the assumption of the premise, “have the fewest negative and greatest positive impacts”, thus are better.

now we don’t actually know for a fact, of course, that these “rules for behavior” (especially the policy about the consequences to any violation of said rules) actually are ideal and there wouldn’t be an even better way. but that would be moral agnosticism, i guess.
still the implication is clear enough: there is an unknowable, unwritten, universal ideal set of morals (at least, for each context), that we can and do only try to approach by consensus of our individual, limited perceptions.


MyTie: i didn’t intend to command you to shut up. that’s not how i meant it. all i intended was to tell you to supply an argument rather than just repeat a bigoted claim in response to arguments and in contrast with the rest of the content of even your own post.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:all i intended was to tell you to supply an argument rather than just repeat a bigoted claim

Oh, I see. This makes perfect sense to me now. How wrong I had it. Let’s use it back on you.

Omega, please reference what it was I said that was bigoted, and back up in what ways it is bigoted, or shut up.

Oh this form of “discussion/debate” is so thought evoking! Thanks tenco and Omega, for insisting on such an enlightened approach.

 
Flag Post

you said that homosexuality is immoral. now technically bigoted would imply intolerance, i guess, which is not shown just by calling it immoral; but certainly with calling something immoral some level of opposition to it would be implied.
and since you would probably consider yourself straight, this would mean opposition to an outgroup, which at least comes very close to bigotry.

does that satisfy?

but i apologise if my phrasing makes you feel offended. i tend to express myself more strongly than i feel or conceptually intend to convey.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

right. that assumes there is an objective morality that is better in effect than for instance anomie.

Nope. That says that different groups of individuals have different ideas about what is ‘best for the people of their country’. The moral codes produced by groups of minds are no different than the moral cod3es of individual minds, in their subjectivity.

That is why nation-states have such wildly differing approaches to similar circumstances, in their nation’s laws. It’s just a macro-scale version of the same base subjectivity.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

you said that homosexuality is immoral. now technically bigoted would imply intolerance, i guess, which is not shown just by calling it immoral; but certainly with calling something immoral some level of opposition to it would be implied.
and since you would probably consider yourself straight, this would mean opposition to an outgroup, which at least comes very close to bigotry.

does that satisfy?

but i apologise if my phrasing makes you feel offended. i tend to express myself more strongly than i feel or conceptually intend to convey.

It’s not bigoted to say that. It doesn’t imply anything.

 
Flag Post

MyTie,

Quite fair, and given the reply I certainly wouldn’t consider the issue too pressing. So, why? Perhaps you would be happier. I cringe a little at that, as it feels like a bit of a gambit. The most immediate examples to relate myself personally to your situation would be as follows.

One, many things prohibited within the bible I have found quite enriching. Off handedly, let’s go with drinking and premarital sex. Certainly there is a tawdry aspect of immediate self gratification, which I feel is legitimate, albeit perhaps superficial. But, there are deeper realms, poetry of the spirit and the moment that I feel truly blessed by and would sincerely pity others for never having experienced. That said, such things come with some risk, and I wouldn’t deny that there is certainly an element of potential harm that has ruined many lives. Maybe it would be good for you, maybe it would not, but I believe in the good times I have had and would wish them possible for those who would consider it prohibited.

Two, I feel the degree of selflessness taught (although generally harmless) can be self destructive. I’m something of an elitist, I don’t believe all people are of equal value and I don’t believe what taxes one person to enrich another is always good. There are people who are little more then parasites, or integrally dishonest and manipulative, or merely petty. I don’t like to see a man who refuses to work fed, or a con given a loan, or forgiving general shits for their misdeeds. I feel it is better for the good to have their resources and the freedom that entails then to squander them upon lesser men.

Lastly, there is an existential crisis that underpins everything. We can approach things pragmatically, looking upon both sides of possibility, as you did quite well; but ultimately, you feel it, or you don’t. That is no small thing, it is truly a massive change in perspective that underpins everything. There is perhaps a desperation in atheism, but it is one I find some delight in. Either we are it alone, or there is a system of caring watchers and rules underpinning everything. I value such a shift because I find it hard, and real, a crucible of the spirit. I have a hard time putting the feelings and associations with it into words, but return once again to the idea of the existential crisis and whether our questions have answers or not. But, I find it important.

Regardless, we have different creeds and our aims may not always meet. But for the most part it seems pretty reconcilable, and although in some ways I find the basis of your views a little shocking, I am mollified by how they form in action. But, I have some exploratory questions if you do not mind.

Considering that you find the bible a moral absolute, how seriously do you take your own personally study into it’s message and meanings? The bible has been beholden as a moral absolute in many varying cultures, times, places, often times with very different results – how do you compare your values to that of those periods? -Why do you think they are different? -Why are you right? The bible was not written originally in english, what are your feelings regarding it’s translation and the potential impact such a process can have? -Have you read multiple english versions? -Non english versions? -Do you believe the translation process to be divinely inspired/assisted?

Those are probably more then enough for now. Thank you :) This is fun.

 
Flag Post

I take the study of the Bible very seriously. Not only do I study it, but I am a preacher.

I try to take the Bible as literally as possible. If the Bible is very good at designating a target for its commands. Modern atheists are very good at ignoring these designations. If the Bible told a Jewish nation 4 thousand years ago to go obliterate their hostile enemy, then atheists today will question if I also want to go kill my enemies, and take it as a conflicting view with other parts of the Bible. If the Bible is making an allegory, or illustration, such as Jesus with the fig tree, it is pretty clear that is what is going on. People of various religions have taken parts of the Bible, while ignoring others, and adding on supplimentary texts, or taking away, or adding other people’s opinions, for years. That’s why history has come to such various conclusions about religion. I try to ignore all of that, and just take the text at its meaning.

The Bible is written in Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic. We still have renditions of these texts in their original writing. When I select a Bible to read, I attempt to find one that adheres to the original texts as closely as possible. If there is any conflict as to the meaning, I always refer to the word and historical meaning used in it root language. There is no indication that just because someone is attempting to translate the original texts, that they have the hand of God at their back. In fact, that is proven not to be the case, as different versions have been arrived at, and there is only one truth. I do hold, as is written, that the original writings are divinely inspired.

 
Flag Post

I present valid points, emigrate to a new country, and come back almost a week later to read “ha, ad hominem, all points rejected”? Ignore the last paragraph, if you will, and actually reply.

 
Flag Post

I went back and tried to remember what we were arguing about back then. It seems like you want to say that homosexuality isn’t an action, or something. I think I was pretty clear in what I was saying I consider to be wrong. You disagree with that, or maybe you think I’ve used the wrong nomenclature. Either way, we disagree. What is it you want me to address? What is there left to say? We have a difference in opinion derived from a fundamental difference in our views on life. Consider what this dude said:

Originally posted by Ungeziefer:Regardless, we have different creeds and our aims may not always meet. But for the most part it seems pretty reconcilable, and although in some ways I find the basis of your views a little shocking, I am mollified by how they form in action.
That’s some quality posting right there. Take notes.

 
Flag Post

I find it pretty insulting I must admit to your sensitive nature and change my posting style for that. I can understand if you don’t very much like conversing with me if I actually had personally attacked you, but I didn’t. I’m not going to sweet-talk you. On the other hand, I still want you to know I’m not trying to offend you. I’m conveying my message, but in no way wishing to degrade your own opinion.

I must say that I’m still not convinced you can have the “opinion” something is objective. That is still inherently contradictive. And still not something you’ve addressed. My argument, therefore, is that “objective morals” is not something you, specifically, can have. Not if others don’t also have these objective morals (which would be the case if they actually were objective). I’m thinking the fundamental difference you talk about here is our definition of “objective”. In fact, I can refer back to the article you posted. The author actually very well described the objectivity of morality in issues. In short, you can objectively define whether or not a moral issue is at hand, but you can’t objectively define whether that issue is “good” or “bad”.

But that’s not what you argue. You argue some issues are inherently good or bad. No critic should objectively be able to deny that. But then you also admit you can’t prove it. So, you imply it’s wishful thinking. You want morals to be objective, and you want those morals to be the same as yours. This is getting very close to the subjectivity of morality, namely that everyone thinks their morals are the best, hoping others take them on as well.

But perhaps I’m still unclear on some parts of your argumentation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by OmegaDoom:

right. that assumes there is an objective morality that is better in effect than for instance anomie.

Nope. That says that different groups of individuals have different ideas about what is ‘best for the people of their country’. The moral codes produced by groups of minds are no different than the moral cod3es of individual minds, in their subjectivity.

That is why nation-states have such wildly differing approaches to similar circumstances, in their nation’s laws. It’s just a macro-scale version of the same base subjectivity.

then by what merit is this more-or-less democratic policy making a good idea? so far you have only said that it is the duty, of the leadership of different countries. why is it? what’s the merit here?

 
Flag Post

We seem to be getting vexed here on the nature of objective morality. I don’t think it is necessary for objective morality to be universally agreed upon as true, to be beyond contention. Merely that the holder of an objective moral system has certain absolutes with supersedes the opinions and views of others as a moral vector. We’ve focused a lot on religious absolutism as an objective morality, but it is not the only one. Kantian philosophy was an objective morality.

I see things as merely things I like, and don’t like. I don’t believe in “do no harm” or “Love. Love under will.” or any solid strictures which transcend my opinions, or those of others, as universal moral imperatives. It is not about universal agreement, but universal standards which are applied against all moral vectors as to what defines right or wrong.

 
Flag Post

Brahmanism: This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.: Mahabharata 5:1517

Christianity: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.: Jesus Christ, Matthew 7:12

Islam: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother what which he desires for himself. Sunnah

Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.: Udana Varga 5:18

Judaism: What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.: Talmud, Shabbat 31:a

Confucianism: Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.: Analects 15:23

Taoism: Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.: T’ai Shag Kan Ying P’ien

Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good: for itself. : Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5

 
Flag Post

Merely that the holder of an objective moral system has certain absolutes with supersedes the opinions and views of others as a moral vector.

I don’t understand. The same happens under subjective morality, but they don’t make up a new definition of “objectivity”. With subjective morality, you don’t accept another moral belief different from yours. It is purely semantics to say “it’s an absolute” or “the other cannot possibly be right under your system”. I’d like objectivity to keep its meaning and not to get lost in subjectivity.

I refuse to admit people can hold an objective moral system, as that undermines the very meaning of objectivity.

 
Flag Post

Consider it a matter of perception. Which, I admit harkens back to subjectivity. But what we are defining is the position held by the viewer. Subjectivists hold that each opinion is equally meaningless, all on level footing; that really there is no truth, no right or wrong answer. Objectivists believe that the moral strata they’re on is more proper, more true. This can derive from religion, or strict utilitarianism, and so on. Objective moral systems believe in a constant, unviersal right or wrong.

I agree that objective moral systems express a view, one that falls under the realm of subjective moral systems. But that is the parlance. It is used more to define ones relationship to truth, then the accuracy of their beliefs.

 
Flag Post

Ung, unless you can show that whichever objective system you sponsor is entirely objective and impartial, equally applicable to all situations, then you will not convince anyone here that an objective moral system is in place, and that our own perceptions of the situation are incorrect.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Darkruler2005:

I find it pretty insulting I must admit to your sensitive nature and change my posting style for that. I can understand if you don’t very much like conversing with me if I actually had personally attacked you, but I didn’t. I’m not going to sweet-talk you. On the other hand, I still want you to know I’m not trying to offend you. I’m conveying my message, but in no way wishing to degrade your own opinion.

I must say that I’m still not convinced you can have the “opinion” something is objective. That is still inherently contradictive. And still not something you’ve addressed. My argument, therefore, is that “objective morals” is not something you, specifically, can have. Not if others don’t also have these objective morals (which would be the case if they actually were objective). I’m thinking the fundamental difference you talk about here is our definition of “objective”. In fact, I can refer back to the article you posted. The author actually very well described the objectivity of morality in issues. In short, you can objectively define whether or not a moral issue is at hand, but you can’t objectively define whether that issue is “good” or “bad”.

But that’s not what you argue. You argue some issues are inherently good or bad. No critic should objectively be able to deny that. But then you also admit you can’t prove it. So, you imply it’s wishful thinking. You want morals to be objective, and you want those morals to be the same as yours. This is getting very close to the subjectivity of morality, namely that everyone thinks their morals are the best, hoping others take them on as well.

But perhaps I’m still unclear on some parts of your argumentation.

Just because someone is of the opinion that something is objective, doesn’t mean it is objective. That person can be wrong. On the other hand, just because people can have opinions on the objectivity of something, doesn’t mean it is subjective. Morality is either objective, or not. Either God has created morality along with everything else He created, and it simply is, and it is irrelevant of your opinion, or there is no God and it’s all just senses and opinions. There is no other way to cut it, and there is no proof of any of it, either way. WHAT ELSE DO YOU WANT? The discussion can go no further, besides us telling the other one that they are wrong, and I don’t particularly want to hear any more of that garbage.

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Ung, unless you can show that whichever objective system you sponsor is entirely objective and impartial, equally applicable to all situations, then you will not convince anyone here that an objective moral system is in place, and that our own perceptions of the situation are incorrect.

vikaTae is the decider of what everyone here will or will not be convinced of. Someone put a crown on her head and set her up on a throne.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

vikaTae is the decider of what everyone here will or will not be convinced of. Someone put a crown on her head and set her up on a throne.

You know, you’re really the one instigating that, when she never even implied anything like it.

Originally posted by MyTie:
Either God has created morality along with everything else He created, and it simply is, and it is irrelevant of your opinion, or there is no God and it’s all just senses and opinions.

Or he either just exists and didn’t really interfere at all, or he does exist and he just made us, and then we made morality ourselves.

You see my point here?

There is no other way to cut it,

Then what did I just do?

and there is no proof of any of it, either way.

Then why say that one is true and the other is not?

and I don’t particularly want to hear any more of that garbage.

You mean the stuff you said a second ago, or what Dark’s saying?

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Ung, unless you can show that whichever objective system you sponsor is entirely objective and impartial, equally applicable to all situations, then you will not convince anyone here that an objective moral system is in place, and that our own perceptions of the situation are incorrect.

vikaTae is the decider of what everyone here will or will not be convinced of. Someone put a crown on her head and set her up on a throne.