Subjective Morality page 12

320 posts

Flag Post

So, the recipients are proven to exist – but the Giver must be rejected.

I don’t even get where this statement comes from. I’ll try my statement again:

There are laws created by people proven to exist. At the same time, a proven force protects these laws in the sense that if you break them you get punished. God isn’t proven to exist, so the rules are more likely to be made up by people (which are proven to exist). But these people are in some type of religion, one which not everyone is a part of. You’re able to live in another country to avoid certain laws, but according to your logic you can’t “escape” certain rules of certain religions. This implies an objectivity, but it is merely a claim. One that you can’t back up with power. Your religion cannot enforce your rules if not followed, not as much as a country can with the police.

Like, why current citizens must abide to the current country laws that were written centuries ago?

They don’t have to. They can leave the country. Search a country where the rules aren’t enforced, or where they fit your moral schemes.

Also, “religion” isn’t the one that punishes (well, you obviously think of Inquisition, but it’s a very wrong example) – G-d is.
So, being unreachable by “religious powers”, is no security against Divine retribution.

When was the last time anyone was punished by God? We can’t observe.

But anyways, I highly dislike how you always turn the topic towards punishment, disregarding benefits of actually abiding.
Well, in out current POLITICAL world, no REWARD is given for being a GOOD man, only punishment for being a BAD one.
Which is why people tend to extend such attitude to religion as well – and end up hating the “biggest punisher ever, Mr. Almighty”.
While totally disregarding numerous BENEFITS that He promises for obeying…

No benefits of being a good man? Are you crazy? You have loads of privileges for being part of a country, and you’ll only forfeit them if you’re a bad person. These privileges are not default, they are part of your acceptance of being a citizen and acknowledging the rules of the country.

On the other hand, the benefits of religion are only claimed to exist. We don’t know until we die (and perhaps not even then), so it’s merely a religious belief. Plus the fact that there are various religions and we don’t know which one is right (if they contradict).

 
Flag Post

DR
Be more specific next time, cause I read:
“There are laws created by people proven to exist.”
as if regarding the Bible.
Also, according to my logic, you can’t escape HUMANITY-scaled rules/laws.
Such as those “Seven Noahide Laws” that are ASSUMED (by the Jewish religion) to be binding on EVERYONE.
Now, I see ZERO difference between these laws (even if you keep to them being human-made) and the traffic lights laws.
(Or any other universal and even non-universal laws.)
Explanation:
In all these cases, SOME people chose to enforce these laws long ago, and those living today are automatically accepting them.
Also, there are (criminal) laws, that leaving the country of the action, WON’T help the criminal, cause it extends beyond that country’s borders.
And anyways, like I said, you can leave a country, but you can’t leave the world.
So by the very same logic (while in Rome, act like a Roman, hehehe) – while one is living in this world, one has to abide by the “constitution” of its Creator, the same way a citizen abides by the laws made by that countries founders.
SAME logic, 100%.
Except for the “police” detail – physical humans have to rely on actually capturing criminals, while G-d can punish him whenever He wants, even decades later.
(This is why we can’t track the punishment, but if one doesn’t repent, it will catch on some day.)
Btw, everyone seems to ignore (kinda), that except for the aforementioned Noahide Laws, I don’t know of ANY GLOBAL moral code, that would NOT consist of “citizens” and “foreigners” (like it does in Christianity).
Do you?
Please, tell me, in details and with links.

As of “being a good man”.
Wrong.
You are describing “being a neutral man” who doesn’t “sin” against the law.
But he also doesn’t DO anything positive, cause the law doesn’t encourage him to do ANYTHING to help the other human (unless you’d call paying taxes as such, but it’s ridiculous).
Simply said, where in the whole constitution and its subparts, is a simple enforcement to give charity?
Love your neighbor and help him carry his bag home, cause he’s simply old?
Love your kids and give them proper HOME education (not just the FORMAL school one) – to grow up as good humans?
Respect your parents and appreciate what they did and do to you?
Countless other “extraneous to law” things that normal people still DO – just NOT because of the formal “secular” law?
Aha…

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

Well actually (I’m nitpicking here) that would be a more “strict” red-green colorblindness, as most normal (or normal as colorblindness goes) people with that type of colorblindness can tell the difference between the light green and the bright red of the lights, it’s just when the green gets darker, even brown that it gets harder. Though, for the sake of argument, if someone couldn’t tell the difference between them (though it would probably be very rare, and they would probably also have a few other colors mixed up, like the yellow light) then your example would still hold true, if a little less possible, or common.

Even a single genuine example of a person with protanope blindness, being unable to determine which color is which, defeats somebody’s argument. It is not a case of misinformation, but rather a case of the information being delivered being not enough to work with. Your choice then becomes 50/50 pot luck.

You then have a case where what was considered to be objective information, is not objective after all.

 
Flag Post

Yes, keep ignoring the forest, you’re good at it.

 
Flag Post

Now, I see ZERO difference between these laws (even if you keep to them being human-made) and the traffic lights laws.

You’ve said it yourself, the punishment factor is different. And that’s pretty significant.

Except for the “police” detail – physical humans have to rely on actually capturing criminals, while G-d can punish him whenever He wants, even decades later.

Yet we have all the proof we need/want for punishment if you do not follow a country’s laws. We have zero proof for God’s punishment. So, how do we know those are the rules for real? For all we know, a person or group made them up and then used “God” to create fear in people in order to make people follow those rules. This can be very dangerous.

Btw, everyone seems to ignore (kinda), that except for the aforementioned Noahide Laws, I don’t know of ANY GLOBAL moral code, that would NOT consist of “citizens” and “foreigners” (like it does in Christianity).

We can make one up, don’t worry.

You are describing “being a neutral man” who doesn’t “sin” against the law.

True, but you can’t really quantify “doing good”. I mean, how many old ladies do I need to help cross the street per month? Wouldn’t this just trigger people to cause a stampede over the old lady trying to be the first to help her cross? And is it really a good idea to force people to do good instead of taking off the mask of friendliness to see which people are best suitable as friends? Is being a good man not a reward in itself?

 
Flag Post

DR
Um, I’d say there’s plenty of GOOD to be done yet in the world, kinda obvious.
And I’m IMPLYING: being good to others cause we HAVE to, not cause/when we FEEL so.
Why?
Simple: what if we NEVER feel “friendly” enough to do a single helpful deed in our entire life?
And what if EVERYONE feels this way?
According to the secular law – no big deal, all peachy (since nobody is breaking the law either).
But I’d rather not live in such a SELFISH society…
Would YOU?

 
Flag Post

But I’d rather not live in such a SELFISH society…
Would YOU?

The thing is that we don’t, and many kind people are atheists, or even theists in a religion that doesn’t specifically require them to do good, or simply theists like myself who don’t believe that doing good is a requirement, but merely an acknowledgement of what you stand for. I don’t do good because I “must”, I do good because it feels good.

 
Flag Post

I really don’t get much of an effect at all from “doing good”. When I do, I generally do it out of the desire to strengthen the position of people/places/things I like and respect.

Hopefully this is more meaningful to the recipient as it is a personal acknowledgement to their character, then a blanket statement of do X by God.

 
Flag Post

DR
Read Ung’s post.
He specifically mentions “people I like/respect”.
This IS selfish – cause it doesn’t mean “people that NEED help”, but rather “people that I chose to help”.
Which is why there is still hunger and wars in the world – cause people CHOOSE whom to help.
Maybe I said it a bit vague – I mean that the FACT of helping (or not) becomes a personal choice, even if the would-be recipient is in obvious dire need.
I never said people can’t help “just from being good-hearted”.
But this is not obligatory enough to make it a HABIT, not a WHIM.
I doubt you’ll get my point, though…

 
Flag Post

People all have their basic needs. Some people barely have money. They are forced to work long hours and come home tired. It is horrifying to ask both lazy tax-avoiding roll-out-the-investment-money that have all the time in the world and the former to meet a certain quota of helping people. One of these will meet the quota by hiring others to do as such, the other won’t meet the quota. You are imposing morals on a planet from a certain point of view without even considering the consequences of possibilities. You ask people in an utopia to help continue that utopia, but we do not live in an utopia. And furthermore, the reward is still not verifiable.

 
Flag Post

DR
Who ever spoke of specific quotas?
You can give a dime daily, or a hundred dollars monthly – yet, the former would AFFECT you much more.
Also, according to the secular law, there is NO obligation to help anyone AT ALL (or am I miraculously wrong in this case?).
This is exactly the point – no one is forcing you to help AT ALL.
The ONLY arbiter that triggers when you see a man-in-need, is your personal feeling of pity, which by most people is very selective aka rarely resulting in anything.
But this becomes a demand that does NOT depend on your FEELING – you are obligated to give (even a dime, again, nobody is forcing you on the AMOUNT, just the ACTION) regardless.
Of course, you should NOT give to obvious slackers or drug addicts etc.
But these are typically easy to see through, while I’m speaking about true unfortunate people.
Anyways, too difficult for you to grasp, I guess, isn’t it? :D
See ya.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

Anyways, too difficult for you to grasp, I guess, isn’t it? :D

S’funny, I was just thinking the very same thing about your understanding of other viewpoints.

Of course, you should NOT give to obvious slackers or drug addicts etc.

An ‘obvious slacker’ is a very subjective viewpoint. You could see an ‘obvious slacker’ when in reality it is someone in a great deal of pain, just trying to rest up before moving on.

Some drug addicts are people in real need. Tarring all with the same brush is a very bad idea.

But of course:

Anyways, too difficult for you to grasp, I guess, isn’t it? :D

 
Flag Post

Also, according to the secular law, there is NO obligation to help anyone AT ALL (or am I miraculously wrong in this case?).

Firstly, the term “secular law” I take issue with. It implies some sort of absolute transcultural atheist orthodoxy of culture; which there is not. That said, virtually all first world nations put your tax dollars towards helping various people. It bothers me, but eh.

Anyways, too difficult for you to grasp, I guess, isn’t it? :D

Don’t be a smug shit. Try to converse politely or not at all. I mean it’s Dark, he’s a standup guy.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Ungeziefer:

Virtually all first world nations put your tax dollars towards helping various people.

Why does it bother you, please Ung?

 
Flag Post

Still, the “pension-taxes” don’t affect YOUR attitude towards people, only USE your money.
You have no SAY in that.
Whereas I’m talking about a conscious act of sharing with those in obvious need (and btw, not only money, but time, advice AND simple smile too).
Anyways, I’m dropping this issue, heh.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

(and btw, not only money, but time, advice AND simple smile too).

Smiling is fun. I’ve often gotten a giggle out of that. Smile at random strangers when out shopping. Some smile back, whilst many have absolutely no clue how to react.

 
Flag Post

You can give a dime daily, or a hundred dollars monthly – yet, the former would AFFECT you much more.

What exactly do I need to do to be “rewarded” or, worse, not punished? If there are no clear rules on this (“be good” is not clear), then how can we be expected to know what to do? And is it easier for a rich guy with no job to get into heaven than a poor guy with barely time to help others? How do we calculate the significance of the aid we’re giving?

Being vague only serves to cause confusion and that isn’t something you’d want to do with the promise of heaven or the fear of hell for eternity.

 
Flag Post

DR
You seem to think TOO MUCH about reward/punishment.
I’m rather talking about “increasing people’s overall morality” aka the global benefit for the entire humanity, not what one personally gets from it.
Actually, that’s what “Biblical morality” IS all about – raising our global benefits, not personal (even if through it, temporarily).
Yes, personal benefits also take place (they also do in certain secular-based activities, e.g. “feeling good”), but they are NOT the GOAL.
The goal is the perfect society, where everyone cares more for one’s neighbor, rather than for oneself.
This does NOT mean “giving away your whole money”, FAR from it, but it does mean “share with anyone, whenever applicable” – or in the Biblical words: “love your neighbor like yourself”.
A well-known, yet largely ignored (even by “religious” people of all creeds) dictum.
Believe me, our entire society would benefit vastly from such an attitude (which also would reduce those “slackers”, cause they would get affected too), if it was globally accepted.
I’ll repeat: the true goal is the actual perfect society, not anyone being punished or rewarded.

 
Flag Post

All right, but that can be done without invoking a god, and without arguing about some form of objectivity. You merely need morality classes.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by somebody613:

I’ll repeat: the true goal is the actual perfect society, not anyone being punished or rewarded.

Perfection is entirely within the view of the beholder.

In other words, you will never get a perfect society, even under controlled conditions, because everyone’s view of perfection is different.

Perfection is entirely subjective.

 
Flag Post

Whatever.
If you can accept e.g. a serial killer’s “view on perfect world” as plausible, the talk is over.

DR
And the SOURCE for those morals?
Ye, going in circles of “who made the modern morals”…

 
Flag Post

Vika,

Why does it bother you, please Ung?

Well there are a few layers. The first is what I see as a general misappropriation of resources. I feel the money is not always spent wisely, or in a relatively objectively beneficial manner. Then, I tend to be a bit picky about my causes, and on a personal level I get very irked about where the money ends up, and where it does not. To summarize it quickly, I would rather reward success and capability, then mollify failure and poor decisions. Far too much of my tax dollars go to coddling the weak and lazy.

Lastly, there are some debateably charitable causes that my tax dollars go to that I find downright offensive, and want no part in supporting. Such as special funds set aside for select races, along with special schools, jobs, services, health care, education, ect.

Ultimately, there is always going to be some disconnect between what the government as a majority representative agent chooses to fund, and what I would like. That’s fine, but I would certainly like to see a general curtailing, more opt in/opt out choice, and in some instances would all but demand it. It’s entirely non negotiable, I can either become a criminal or remain party to fostering values/cultures I have anywhere from indifference to antipathy towards. That I am being held under the threat of force to surrender my resources to mismanagement and populist idealism makes me grumpy.

Somebody,

Still, the “pension-taxes” don’t affect YOUR attitude towards people, only USE your money.
You have no SAY in that.
Whereas I’m talking about a conscious act of sharing with those in obvious need (and btw, not only money, but time, advice AND simple smile too).
Anyways, I’m dropping this issue, heh.

Hehe, more or less a summary of the above. I don’t like sharing with people in obvious need. People in obvious need made a series of poor decisions, they are now reaping the consequences thereof. I feel no pity for them. Hopefully they will become more capable individuals from the experience. I get by, I expect that much from everyone, if they can’t manage it, then it is no concern of mine.

I keep care of my own, when and if I so choose. Really I can’t imagine even really giving. Anyone of character would recognize the obligation of debt and work towards repayment (or it is of a trifling scale). That’s not a a gift, that’s a loan.

The goal is the perfect society, where everyone cares more for one’s neighbor, rather than for oneself.

Sounds like self loathing as expressed through dissolution of personal agency and value. I like myself, hell, I love myself. My neighbours? Meh. Why would I deny my identity equal value as to that of a total stranger? Why is it de facto better for other people to have things then myself? I see myself beholden not to deny my valuations through charity and chastise my self love by the blind worship of the abstract other but rather strengthen my value system through the empowerment of those specific principles I already identify with.

Your perfect society sounds a lot like strangers taking my stuff and wasting my time. No interest in that, thank you very much.

 
Flag Post

Ungeziefer

Ung, thank you for clarifying your position in more detail.

I agree there is a funnelling of resources towards elitist pursuits that have no business drawing off the general public treasury. (I myself get irked when billions go overseas, in order to promote the national image when there are so many problems at home to deal with. But then that’s also hypocritical, because I’m funnelling resources myself, for things other than basic needs of the populace – like research grants.

Lastly, there are some debateably charitable causes that my tax dollars go to that I find downright offensive, and want no part in supporting. Such as special funds set aside for select races, along with special schools, jobs, services, health care, education, ect.

I presume you mean special education and special health care, not general education and general health care.

As you know, I am living in a country with socialistic national health care for everyone, and I find the rewards more than outweigh the cons of being taxed specifically to upkeep the NHS. Yes, improvements are always needed in service quality and ability, but isn’t that what people like me are here for? The general spending is perfectly fine, and a good cause.

Special education is a minefield. Sometimes it’s for people with mental health problems who really need it. Sometimes it’s for people with physical and not mental health problems where it is just easier to bundle them off with the mentally challenged – that is very, very wrong. Sometimes it goes to support people who are unteachable and extremely disruptive – those who have been expelled from multiple schools for behavior. I do find umbridge in paying for prison-schools to try to teach this subset of the population. They’re simply not interested in learning and it is usually a waste of money.

It’s a failure of the liberal system, where they’re not treating the problem cases on a case-by-case basis as they should, and are instead lumping all the ‘difficult’ cases in together. There is no easy answer there, but the current funding model is very clearly broken.

People in obvious need made a series of poor decisions, they are now reaping the consequences thereof. I feel no pity for them. Hopefully they will become more capable individuals from the experience. I get by, I expect that much from everyone, if they can’t manage it, then it is no concern of mine.

A limited and incorrect view. You know where i’m going with this; I’m going to brring up the subset of that population that I see on a daily basis: The physically disabled. Many are in obvious need, but not through ‘a series of poor decisions’ but through factors entirely beyond their control.

Having your arm chewed off by an industrial crusher in a fluke accident is not the result of a poor decision on your part, it is likely a poor decision by maintenance, or someone else fooling around with the controls. So you should not suffer alone. Use resources to bring your capability back as close to full as possible, so that you then have a fair chance.

The same with a wheelchair user with spinea bifida for example. They cannot walk because their spine never grew all the way down to their hips and is trying to poke its way out of the middle of their back. They did not arrive in this situation because of any decision they made. So why punish them for it? Deal with the bent spine any way we can (usually by implanted titanium rods) and get them walking again with admittedly expensive rewalk systems. If others don’t see the chair first before the person (because the chair is gone) then that person has a fairer shot at life.

In short, to tar all in need as ’it’s their fault, let them deal with it’, is simply monsterous. Either that or you really didn’t think all the permetations through before speaking.


Somebody

Originally posted by somebody613:

Whatever.
If you can accept e.g. a serial killer’s “view on perfect world” as plausible, the talk is over.

The very fact that it is that individual’s view of perfection, makes my point for me. So long as you can recognise that fact, then the talk does not need to continue any further.

 
Flag Post

And the SOURCE for those morals?
Ye, going in circles of “who made the modern morals”…

Oh, but that’s pretty easy to answer. Humans. Humans “made” morals. Each individual has his/her own morals, and subscribes to certain, more global morals as well, at times. Morality simply is what you individually, or as a group, think of certain decisions. There is no need to aim for superiority by claiming the concept as your own.

Why is the source important? Isn’t it more important to move to a society which you feel most comfortable with? Isn’t it a bad thing if a society should bend to an individual’s wishes?

 
Flag Post

DR
Who made the bread you eat?
Was it those workers who grew it, reaped it, baked it?
Or was it rather the nature that ENABLED you eating that bread to begin with?
You seem to insist that bread was made entirely due to the human efforts alone.
Anyways, I’m resigning again, too bored from all this. :D