Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by onecae on February 23, 2012 at 6:25pm

Most everyone here is saying that god does not exist.  So, even though it might be important to keep saying it - it's already a part of the argument.

People have created or discovered at least two categories of morality: Objective morality and Relative morality.  I argue that both exist and both are useful, and neither need the commonly understood idea of "god" to be valid. 

I think objective morality exists because  at least one "subjective other" exists independently of me and yet influences the manner in which I experience value. And I believe relative morality exists because I personally experience values that are independent of the existence of other.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on February 23, 2012 at 7:24pm

Objective morality as commonly understood has to do with an independent (of man) standard of morality which is thus objective. Relative morality as commonly understood might be characterized as "It's what people think is right or wrong here and now in this time." Objective morality (if it existed) would be true at all times and across all cultures (even cultures who are unaware of it or disagree with it). Subjective moralities are bound to particular belief systems.

If you believe it's objectively true that eating cows is morally wrong, as Hindus believe, you believe that non-Hindus who eat cows are wrong even if they don't see it that way, because if you think something is objectively wrong, you believe it's really wrong not just for those of your ilk, but for anyone.

About the only way most ethicists can imagine an actual objective reality would be if it is propounded by a God with the godly power of "Because I say so." You're right, most of us here aren't buying into that one.

Using oddball definitions like yours just muddies the waters. Reasoned and understandable dialog depends on all involved in the discussion understanding the terms the same way. Otherwise, they might as well speak different languages.

My view on morality is that there is nothing objective about it and introducing a "subjective other" (whatever that means) doesn't change anything.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by onecae on February 28, 2012 at 1:26pm

The waters were already muddied before I said anything. Nonetheless, your rules make sense –I'll abide by them, provided you also abide by them.

Morality pertains to defining right and wrong behavior.

If moral objectivism is defined as human value existing independently of humans, I can only agree with you that moral objectivism is impossible. Human value can't exist unless in some way humans exist. That's why I am letting you know that there is an other kind of definition – something else can be understood here besides nonsense.

Subjective other:

Subjective: existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought.

Other: different or distinct from the one mentioned or implied: in some other city; Some other design may be better.

As example: Is your rule about reasoned discussion and odd-ball terms muddying waters, relative?  I agreed to it on a provisional basis.  If there is violation of the rule, won't there be objective consequences that neither of us control? Won't the waters be muddied even if we hope and believe they won't be?

As another example: If you betray your friends, they will cease being your friends. That seems true and makes useful, objective sense.  It won't matter what I believe – the truth of the consequences of betrayal is independent of my opinion about it. That independence is what makes it objective.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on February 28, 2012 at 1:48pm

"Morality pertains to defining right and wrong behavior." No, it would be more accurate to define morality in terms of right and wrong behavior themselves, not on defining right and wrong behavior.

Morals are prescribed. In being moral, the only question is how best to conform to the prescription.

An ethical person has a more difficult job, which is that of looking at possible choices in their context and making a decision based on those considerations as well as the consequences of his action.

The moral Christian will obey his father even if what his father tells him to do is something that may cause pain and/or harm to others. He may oppose abortion based on Thou Shalt Not Kill by viewing the death of the foetus as a kind of murder whereas the death of the mother in childbirth is natural and God's Will.

Both of those would be analyzed in a totally different way by an ethical person than by a moral person.

Everything is objective in some sense much in the way that "Everything exists once properly categorized" (e.g., unicorns exist as mythical beings).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by onecae on March 16, 2012 at 8:18pm

"Morals are prescribed. In being moral, the only question is how best to conform to the prescription."

The other side to that is how best to write the prescription.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Israel on October 6, 2012 at 5:51pm

Hey I just wanted to put my input in. Some people might read your post and think that, that's what Christians think. I'm a Christian so I'm typing this for people out there and yourself. I think you missed some Christian values while posting about a moral Christian. Anyways...A moral Christian is obligated to obey God first and he/she in obedience to God first, would disobey his/her father in committing sin. When it comes to authority, God is always at the top. So no I think you got it wrong. For the next one about abortion vs a mom dying during childbirth... big difference. One is murder and the other is ideally sacrifice. Think about this... say someone pulled a gun out on "Bob" and was about to shoot you... Bob's mom out of love for him, pushes him away but she get's killed in the process. Mom dies because he loved his son that much. She was willing to risk her own life for him. This is God's will yeah, acts of love...and a mom giving child birth willing to risk her life for her child, that's God's will, acts of love. To be willing to lay down our life for another person, in love for that person, is a showing of love. In that context that I gave... that's God's will. Any other context you make up.... I'm not talking about that. I'm talking the context I'm giving which is in Christian Faith and which is something you were talking about. So yeah there's some Christian values you missed. The values are: God's authority and Love. A mom sacrificing herself in childbirth out of love for her child would be ideal in my opinion which is rooted from God's will. Thanks for reading.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Israel on October 6, 2012 at 9:01pm

So I was even more curious about the little dilemma you think was there and I looked through a Christian site on the topic and sure enough I found 2 great verses that show what I mean about obeying parents... you don't ALWAYS have to obey them...  Ezekiel 20:18-19

¹⁸ “But I said to their children in the wilderness, ‘Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols. ¹⁹ I am the Lord your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them;

So you see... it all goes back to obeying God. The reason why were to honor our father and mother and in other verses it says to clearly obey them... is in obedience to God. In the verses I pointed out above.. it's clear that obeying those fathers as defined in verse 18. Then in 19, God speaks and say "I am the Lord your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them;"

Another nice verse says this...Acts 5:29 ²⁹ But Peter and the other apostles answered and said: “We ought to obey God rather than men.

Father and mother are just mankind.... we ought to obey God rather than men. Again it all goes back to obeying God.... the reason why honor your father and mother exist in the first place is because of obedience in God, ya know the God of Love, Truth, Justice and everything that's good. So yeah, hope that helped.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on October 7, 2012 at 12:09am

¹⁸ “But I said to their children in the wilderness, ‘Do not walk in the statutes of your fathers, nor observe their judgments, nor defile yourselves with their idols. ¹⁹ I am the Lord your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them;

So you see... it all goes back to obeying God. The reason why were to honor our father and mother and in other verses it says to clearly obey them... is in obedience to God. In the verses I pointed out above.. it's clear that obeying those fathers as defined in verse 18. Then in 19, God speaks and say "I am theLord your God: Walk in My statutes, keep My judgments, and do them;"

It seems whatever you want to do, obey your parents or not, you can find a Bible passage that explicitly or, by interpretation, allows you to justify doing anything you want. Strangely, either way you're obeying God, aren't you?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Israel on October 12, 2012 at 10:40am

Short answer to your post is..... context

Long answer to your post... is no of course its not anything I want to do, it's just a matter of how its done... its like violence... some people out there might think "cauing pain" is always wrong... nomatter what... but I think its clear that it can sometimes be wrong and sometimes be ok. I dont have to tell you how causing pain can be wrong. I think we can all imagine some examples of that easily. But how can it be good? Self-defense, Surgery, Child-birth, ... or how about a life and death situation where say... you went mountain climbing and a boulder fell on your arm and you couldnt get out... your best choice of survival would be to cut off your arm... causing a lot of pain. Would that be evil? How about Self-defence? Surgery? Child-birth? Are they evil because pain is being caused? Of course not... like-wise in obeying parents, context, the reason why is what really matters. As far as I understand that's I think at the moment.

Permalink Reply by onecae on October 11, 2012 at 8:53pm

Those who do not know how to live must make a merit of dying.
-George Bernard Shaw

Living for someone takes a different kind of understanding than dying for someone.  I mean, once you've decided to be here living, it becomes personal, full of purpose, meaning, conflict and guts.  But you can die for almost any reason and the living will evaluate it in some positive manner, even though as far we can prove, it makes no difference to the dead.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on October 7, 2012 at 2:10pm

@Lucas - I see nothing wrong with your English, you should hear my Brazilian Portuguese!

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lucas M. Tavares on October 8, 2012 at 8:27am

Thanks!

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• Next ›
• Page