# Objective Morality



## Moonbat (May 25, 2012)

JD's video link on the free will thread lead to another set of youtube video debates, I have watched many over the past few months and alot of them contain William Lane Craig. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqaHXKLRKzg&feature=related

The above link, 'the God debate II Harris vs Craig, was purely about subjective morality. Craig argues that it can only come from God, but I don't know if there is such a thing as truly subjective morality.

In the vids they both use the phrase Subjective Morality independantly from human opinion, can anything as intagible as good/evil ever be independant from human opinion and could we ever know of it if it was?

So to summarise, is there such a thing as subjective morality?


----------



## hopewrites (May 25, 2012)

I couldn't think so. But that might be because of my understanding of "morality" 

If morality is the act of having morals. And morals are the set of inner guidelines and rules for being one's self. How can one view these things unbiasedly? One will always have more information about how one came to adopt or discover said morals than any outside entity, thereby biasing one to favor the views, conclusions, opinions, and standards that manifest said morals.


Even if one can keep one's ego from telling one is right.


----------



## HareBrain (May 25, 2012)

Moonbat, you've used objective in the thread title but subjective several times in the text. I think you mean objective throughout.

To answer the question, you can't have a truly objective morality except one handed down by a power who is beyond moral judgement. (Which can only mean God.)

The closest you can get, I think, is to arrive at a morality that seeks to generate the greatest benefit for the greatest number of people. But then you run into problems such as defining "benefit" (some would argue that eliminating certain minorities would benefit everyone else, or that forcibly "curing" gay people would benefit gay people themselves) and how to balance large benefits for small numbers against small benefits for large numbers.

You then have variants of the "golden rule": treat others as you would wish to be treated, or treat others as _they _would wish to be treated, or love thy neighbour as thyself, etc. These are worthy ethics to aim for, but it's probably beyond the powers of any person to apply them to everyone he encounters, so a large degree of subjectivity enters in the choice of who to apply it to. And so on.


----------



## j d worthington (May 25, 2012)

HareBrain said:


> To answer the question, you can't have a truly objective morality except one handed down by a power who is beyond moral judgement. (Which can only mean God.)


 
Even then, you're still dealing with a subjective morality; it is just that it is an individual god (no particular deity really gets favor in the question of which one, though some are obviously even less likely than others) rather than another which comes up with the rules. And so far, _none_ of the gods posited have "come up with" a set of morals worth a hill of beans, at least not in their totality (and frequently in the majority of the rules set forth).

The closest one can truly come, I think, is that set of rules of behavior which ultimately benefits the survival of a species... but this can have very far-reaching implications, for we are simply too short-sighted to know, for instance, whether eliminating a particular type of pest will be beneficial or otherwise, in the long run. We are very far indeed from understanding all the complexities of how our local (Terran) ecosystem works, and the delicate balance which needs to be maintained not only for the sake of other species, but for our own survival as well... and this isn't even acknowledging, let alone touching on, what applies when it comes to all the myriad forms of life which are almost certainly out there in the bigger picture....

No, objective morality (as such) is a myth. What we can have are what Lovecraft called "proximate values", but even these are likely to be subject to extreme variability even within individual, let alone general, cases....

As for WLC... I'm afraid all his arguments have been thoroughly dismantled numerous times already; most of them aren't even new, and have been taken apart for centuries; in the case of the question of evil, that one has been exploded (save for apologetics and "logic" that would make a pretzel look straight in comparison -- i.e., excusing or special pleading) since at least the time of Epicurus.....

One thing, though: this is a debate which it is almost impossible to have without getting into theological arguments, and that is beyond the limits allowed at Chrons, so tread warily....


----------



## HareBrain (May 26, 2012)

j. d. worthington said:


> Even then, you're still dealing with a subjective morality; it is just that it is an individual god (no particular deity really gets favor in the question of which one, though some are obviously even less likely than others) rather than another which comes up with the rules. And so far, _none_ of the gods posited have "come up with" a set of morals worth a hill of beans, at least not in their totality (and frequently in the majority of the rules set forth).


 
I used "God" with a capital G, and hypothetically. If an entity creates and transcends reality itself, the subjective/objective distinction disappears, no? (This is a purely philosophical point.)

As for the argument that no god has come up with a set of morals worth a hill of beans, of course they haven't. No god has ever come up with any morals at all, in my view.


----------



## anivid (May 26, 2012)

Well, within Philosophy « morality » usually refers to a society’s customs and practises i.e. something you share with a group of people - where the standards, you might have for yourself, are referred to as « ethics », hence leaving out the subjective morality.


----------



## Moonbat (May 26, 2012)

HB you are right, I'm completely stupid to have written subjective in the text when I meant objective the whole way through 

So if, as Anvid states, Morality is regarded as a society's customs and practices then we will never have an objective moral standard. Even if we meet an advanced race that have their own set of morals they will only be relevant to their society.

Would it follow then, that any immoral behaviour I see in a society other than my own (let's say the Taliban's subjugation of women) if only immoral from my viewpoint and if I were a Taliban I would think it was right, and no amount of postulating by me (as a westerner) could ever prove that it was wrong?


----------



## anivid (May 26, 2012)

Actually: YES - Morality can vary from religion to religion - and also from what we call the Western Societies to other conglomerates.
But usually, as you're saying, we judge others from our own standings, which will further a cultural imperialism, but not exactly the inter-religious/national understandings - world peace


----------



## Parson (May 26, 2012)

j. d. worthington said:


> Even then, you're still dealing with a subjective morality; it is just that it is an individual god (no particular deity really gets favor in the question of which one, though some are obviously even less likely than others) rather than another which comes up with the rules. And so far, _none_ of the gods posited have "come up with" a set of morals worth a hill of beans, at least not in their totality (and frequently in the majority of the rules set forth).
> 
> The closest one can truly come, I think, is that set of rules of behavior which ultimately benefits the survival of a species... but this can have very far-reaching implications, for we are simply too short-sighted to know, for instance, whether eliminating a particular type of pest will be beneficial or otherwise, in the long run. We are very far indeed from understanding all the complexities of how our local (Terran) ecosystem works, and the delicate balance which needs to be maintained not only for the sake of other species, but for our own survival as well... and this isn't even acknowledging, let alone touching on, what applies when it comes to all the myriad forms of life which are almost certainly out there in the bigger picture....
> 
> No, objective morality (as such) is a myth. What we can have are what Lovecraft called "proximate values", but even these are likely to be subject to extreme variability even within individual, let alone general, cases....



I'm not sure we can even judge this far: _ And so far, none of the gods posited have "come up with" a set  of morals worth a hill of beans, at least not in their totality (and  frequently in the majority of the rules set forth)._

We can only judge morality in the view of what *we hold as moral*. As you have eloquently said:  we are simply too short-sighted to know, It could well be that the morals we dismiss are the morals we need in the long run. As in so much of life we act on faith. We either believe or we do not believe that we are acting in accordance with what is better or worse for (depending on your frame of reference) yourself, others, the world, or what you believe to be objective morality. 

In our world trust is impossible to dismiss. We either trust that people have done the research or we do not. We either trust that the road department completed the road over the next hill, or we do not. We either trust that the judge is fair, or we do not. ad infinitim.


----------



## j d worthington (May 26, 2012)

True enough, and I should have specified what is implicit in my statement: that, from the (general) human perspective, my statement applies. However, once you remove the idea of an objective moral standard (something which is unvarying, unchanging, and applies in all circumstances; does not rely on any -- human or supernatural -- prejudices, biases, etc.) then all you have is the proximate values mentioned. Of course, this leaves an immense field (as others have noted, even within the varying religions, morality differs very widely indeed), but the general view would still tend to be that which promotes our welfare rather than our detriment being more morally acceptable. And, of course, the fact of the matter is, that this is an inevitable outcome of evolutionary survival. If it were not the case, and those things which worked toward our detriment were considered morally superior (I'll have to to into this more later on, when I have a bit more time), then it would prove contra-survival, and we wouldn't be around to have a morality at all....


----------



## hopewrites (May 26, 2012)

Moonbat said:


> HB you are right, I'm completely stupid to have written subjective in the text when I meant objective the whole way through
> 
> So if, as Anvid states, Morality is regarded as a society's customs and practices then we will never have an objective moral standard. Even if we meet an advanced race that have their own set of morals they will only be relevant to their society.
> 
> Would it follow then, that any immoral behaviour I see in a society other than my own (let's say the Taliban's subjugation of women) if only immoral from my viewpoint and if I were a Taliban I would think it was right, and no amount of postulating by me (as a westerner) could ever prove that it was wrong?



if one can view another's morals without applying one's own, would that suit the idea of objective morality? or would one have to accept that the other's morals were as right as one's own, even if they are juxtaposed?

in ether case it is something that I do when encountering others, as it seems to be the only way to actually get to know another person. having found that not everyone can accept all my various ethos, I usually present the version of myself that they will find least unacceptable without outright lying.


----------



## j d worthington (May 26, 2012)

Parson said:


> I'm not sure we can even judge this far: _ And so far, none of the gods posited have "come up with" a set  of morals worth a hill of beans, at least not in their totality (and  frequently in the majority of the rules set forth)._
> 
> We can only judge morality in the view of what *we hold as moral*. As you have eloquently said:  we are simply too short-sighted to know, It could well be that the morals we dismiss are the morals we need in the long run. As in so much of life we act on faith. We either believe or we do not believe that we are acting in accordance with what is better or worse for (depending on your frame of reference) yourself, others, the world, or what you believe to be objective morality.
> 
> In our world trust is impossible to dismiss. We either trust that people have done the research or we do not. We either trust that the road department completed the road over the next hill, or we do not. We either trust that the judge is fair, or we do not. ad infinitim.


 
I didn't have a chance to address the entirety of this earlier, only one small point. However, here are a couple of things to consider:

1) While we "trust" in most cases, it is possible to check and find out if these things have been done. It may cost effort, time, etc., but it is something which can be done. And when it comes to the research, especially on scientific matters, there is the peer review process as well, which is geared to tear apart anything based on faulty reasoning or reasearch, let alone nonexistent research. This is why, even though faulty articles are published now and again (especially in the popular science media; less often in the peer review journals), they very soon come under attack and are debunked. We saw this with the "studies" which pointed to how harmful vaccinations were; very quickly that doctor's entire structure was taken to pieces, the "research" was shown to be completely without foundation, and even the genuine motivation (a financial benefit) was unearthed. This is why all the furore about "cold fusion" was, at most, a "nine-days' wonder"... it was quickly scrutinized and proven to be, at best, a seriously flawed set of claims. And so forth.

So we can put a reasonable trust in these things; but it never hurts to remember that in science, nothing can be accepted as proven irrevocably; anything in science must be falsifiable, i.e., open to being revised or discarded based on further evidence which casts doubt on or explains in a more thorough fashion whatever model has been held up to that point. This is the great strength of science, as it allows for a constant expansion of knowledge, whereas "absolute certainty" by its very nature places limits on the ability, or even the tendency, to question further. And, whilst some things may indeed be wrong with the model we have (of whatever subject), as Asimov noted, "some things are wronger than others"; these we know flatly contradict all indications from reality, and are thus no longer worth even considering.

2) I don't wish to get into this too deeply, as it would entail going into the religious discussion area, but when one argues that a deity (especially the one most commonly referred to in western societies) had reasons which were superior and beyond our understanding for doing, commanding, or allowing things which we find repugnant and morally reprehensible (genocide, infanticide, etc., etc., etc.), this falls very much in the area of what I mentioned above: special pleading*. In_ no_ other area would we be willing to advance such a flimsy bit of reasoning. If it appears, by any normal standard, to be morally reprehensible, repugnant, and vile, the chances are that it is, without exception, morally reprehensible, repugnant, and vile, no matter from what corner it originates. Most of humanity has learned to recognize this in connection with our despicable treatment of other species, as well as members of other ethnic groups within our own. The actions in question may indeed have had their benefits, but they are nonetheless despicable because they were not necessary to our survival; merely to our momentary expediency or convenience.

And if we're dealing with any form of "supreme being" -- or even a superior being of the Graeco-Roman or other mythologies -- then, if a human mind can conceive of a better, more humane and ethical approach, there is absolutely no excuse for such a being as that posited to be held to any less high standard. It just doesn't hold water without, as noted, completely distorting our ability for rationality into mind-numbing examples of rationalization instead.

HB: I noted the capitalization and what it indicated; but, as I said, there is no reason for choosing any particular deity over any other (evidence for the actual existence of any being rather scarce on the ground); hence the entire concept of it being a single deity tends to indicate an unconscious acceptance of that which has predominated in Western culture for the past millennia and a half; whereas in truth there is as likely to be either a council or at least an enormous variety of possible deities involved (and in such a case, the powers and limitations are widely disparate indeed); hence any morality given by one would still be subjective, as it would be the personal preference of one deity over the others, nothing more. (And, as has been pointed out in numerous instances, even going by biblical accounts, there are indications of many more actual gods than the one generally referred to here in the West.)

The only "objective" morality which could truly be called that is something which is imposed on life by the structure of the universe itself; the very nature of reality. And that can be summed up rather quickly: "Keep your actions to those which truly benefit the survival of your (and perhaps other) species, or you will most certainly die. You may die anyway, but this gives you perhaps a ghost of a chance...."

*along with all the "pretzel-logic" apologetics this tends to entail.


----------



## Moonbat (May 27, 2012)

A typically interetsing a detailed post from JD.



> If it appears, by any normal standard, to be morally reprehensible, repugnant, and vile, the chances are that it is, without exception, morally reprehensible, repugnant, and vile, no matter from what corner it originates.


 
If I sustitute 'morally reprehensible, repugnant, and vile' for bad (which I think is simplifying things but should make sense to most of us) then I get 

If it appears to be bad, the chances are that it is bad, no matter from what corner it originates. 

Which would suggest that the appearance of badness can be objective, but there are things that would originate from one corner and seem bad from another.


----------



## j d worthington (May 27, 2012)

As I said, "by any normal standard", this alters things. I would have used the term "sane" rather than "normal", save that there are some areas where that term (or its cognate, "delusional") are being hotly debated at present. The problem is that, no matter how many people believe a thing (or believe in a thing), means absolutely nothing as concerns its truth value. (I use the word "truth" here in the sense of "based in reality", "factual", etc., rather than its much more slippery metaphysical sense, something which is used a great deal by apologists and unscrupulous debaters to attempt to cloud the issue.)

In other words, the majority of the time, the accepted norm is that killing is not something to be undertaken lightly; torture is something only to be undertaken when the need for information is great; rape is something which should be prevented or punished, etc. This is the general consensus of opinion, whether or not backed by a particular religious text (and this latter is not always the case, as such texts provide a surprisingly large number of contexts in which such actions are not only allowed or condoned, but actually praiseworthy). I would argue (as others have done) that we, as well as most other species, have reached such a consensus by process of evolutionary elimination: These opinions help promote social stability, compassion, empathy, etc.; all of which in turn helps promote the future of the species. Those things which promote the converse tend, on the other hand, toward social destabilization, strife, unrest, cruelty, oppression, and a detrimental state of affairs resulting in an unstable populace, generally with a much-reduced lifespan, and a higher mortality rate... hence a gradual tendency toward reduction of the species' viability.

Thus, within the context of the generally accepted norm, these things are bad, because they are bad for us as a whole.

Which leads to that huge can of worms involving war, executions, violent revolution, bigotry, etc. While we continue to have all these things with us, they are growing increasingly non-viable unless (as with war) we deliberately restrict ourselves to the use of lesser technologies than those at our disposal. With war, for instance, we use (generally speaking) "conventional" weaponry with a more-or-less limited capability for destroying life; whereas we possess weapons which could, without exaggeration, make this planet uninhabitable for nearly any form of life. For all our inherited aggressive tendencies, we also recognize that to use such weapons would be foolhardy in the extreme, so we restrict our use of them to very rare circumstances (aside from testing, which also has its deleterious effects, albeit these are so slow and gradual overall that it is taking us a longer time to get it through our often thick heads that this, too, has got to eventually go).

Executions are, unlike the view throughout the bulk of history, falling more and more out of favor, as people find this "solution" to problems not only repugnant but actually ineffective save in the very limited sense of making it impossible for a particular individual to continue their depredations. As a deterrent, it has never, historically, worked worth a damn; nor is there any reason to believe it ever will. It is also being increasingly seen as "legalized murder", no better ethically than the very crimes for which it is invoked, and saying something not particularly enviable about the society which continues to utilize it. And, as noted in the other thread, more and more we are realizing that the reasons for criminal behaviors quite often have to do with a malfunction in the mental and emotional makeup of the individual, and to execute them for something which is (speaking of the underlying cause rather than the action) often beyond their control, is itself as unjust as shooting a leper because of his disease. As we learn more about this aspect of things, treatment is (albeit incredibly slowly) becoming more a viable option than execution (and perhaps, eventually, even imprisonment); and this also eliminates the very grave risk of killing individuals who, though found guilty in a court of law, may in fact have been innocent of the crime (a not uncommon state of affairs, as we are increasingly learning). It is also a waste of human potential... a fact (to tie this in with sff) which has been argued by various writers over the past century or more, from Bertrand Russell to HPL ("The Shadow Out of Time") to Lester Dent (the Doc Savage stories) to Alfred Bester (*The Demolished Man*; *The Stars My Destination*), etc., etc., etc.

Bigotry is a much more difficult one to overcome entirely, as it is based in a very deeply-embedded instinct of wariness for that which is different... which itself is tied to the early survival of any species. We have the advantage, however, of having evolved to where this instinct is, at least in its primitive form of fear, hatred, etc., no longer necessary for our survival, whilst its sublimated form (caution) can take its place and function much more fruitfully by allowing us to investigate whether or not something (or someone) forms a threat and, if such proves not to be the case, adopting them instead into our arsenal of resources useful for our survival.

Each of these things has served a beneficial purpose for societies (and therefore humanity as a general thing) in the past, but they are becoming increasingly less satisfactory responses to circumstances, and more creative, humane, and ethical solutions are likely to be required as we go along.


----------



## hopewrites (May 27, 2012)

But we are beginning to see that the more covetously we guard human potential the more populous we become, and that is not necessarily a good thing.
We see in wildlife preserves that simply increasing the population of a species by way of reducing its mortality rate does not have beneficiary results for that species as a whole. Only when a population is kept in check by the hardship of finding appropriate food and avoiding dangers does it thrive and reach its potential.



The argument, then, that removing those incapable of reaching human potential is a detriment to the overall potentially of humans, does not make sence.


----------



## j d worthington (May 27, 2012)

hopewrites said:


> But we are beginning to see that the more covetously we guard human potential the more populous we become, and that is not necessarily a good thing.
> We see in wildlife preserves that simply increasing the population of a species by way of reducing its mortality rate does not have beneficiary results for that species as a whole. Only when a population is kept in check by the hardship of finding appropriate food and avoiding dangers does it thrive and reach its potential.
> 
> 
> ...


 
On the surface, I would say this is true. However, I would also argue that this is a limited view of the matter. True, we do need to find a way to reduce our population growth (at least until we actually do get our butts out there and start colonizing space... something we really do need to do to survive eventually, given such things as the supervolcanoes, mass extinction events, etc., which our little mudball is open to in this massive shooting gallery called the universe)... but the indiscriminate elimination of people in which we have so freely indulged has even more detrimental effects, both on the individuals and the societies involved (i.e., an increased callousness to the suffering and death of others, leading in turn to less effort being put into relieving such circumstances).

I was not saying they could not reach human potential... quite the reverse. They may presently be unable to realize that potential, but with proper treatment this may be no longer be the case. In fact, given some of the people who have committed criminal acts in the past, it is evident that at least a percentage have quite high minds in most other respects which, if harnessed, could be of immense benefit to their societies (and possibly the human race as a whole). There will always be those, of course, who are by genetic or other factors (neonatal injury; disease; brain trauma, etc.), are too mentally limited to benefit greatly, but these are also likely to be in the minority.

The difference between us and what you (rightly) describe as the norm for the biological kingdom is that we have developed aspects of the brain which allow us to project based on our knowledge of current circumstances, and therefore to not be so blindly bound to primitive instinct and "chance" (i.e., the massed effects of the natural world). We aren't restricted to the "tooth-and-claw", but have minds which allow us to plan ahead and take action to alter what would otherwise be the inevitable outcome. As a growing number of scientists are coming to feel, this is in fact putting us in a different relation to evolution altogether, where we are much, much less likely to alter physically (at least) due to the necessity to adapt to or environment; we alter our environment instead (not always wisely, but it's a learning process), and may in time alter ourselves to suit whatever needs a particular situation or set of situations may entail.

Incidentally, here is a video by Michio Kaku addressing part of what I speak of above:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkuCtIko798


----------



## Parson (May 28, 2012)

J.D. solid, solid, stuff. We might disagree about the cause of the progression, but we both clearly see a progression in all of its frustrating slowness.


----------



## hopewrites (May 28, 2012)

I can most certainly agree that rabbits never worry whether they are bringing up more offspring than they can support, nor do wolves debate about resource utilization, and that these concerns are utterly humanistic.
But who among humanity is willing to stand up and volunteer to be among the eliminated number? I am actually quite glad that few people take my view of things in this, for it is a very slippery slope when deciding whom amongst humanity is superfluous. With too few altruistic enough to volunteer, one would have to come up with a committee of persons whose morality was unquestionably objective to oversee the process.
Even in the wild, some of the strong are eliminated with the weak, but not often. Justice, too, is a humanistic concern. And one I find rather comical at times. Perhaps I am jaded from hearing day in and day out how 'unfair' life is, and wondering who's idea it was to give life a fairness value. For it seems to only have decreased quailty of life, rather than appropriately quantified it.


----------



## Peter Graham (May 28, 2012)

> Would it follow then, that any immoral behaviour I see in a society other than my own (let's say the Taliban's subjugation of women) if only immoral from my viewpoint and if I were a Taliban I would think it was right, and no amount of postulating by me (as a westerner) could ever prove that it was wrong?



Yes.  Because, from your perspective as a Taliban, you aren't subjugating women.  You are looking after them and doing your sacred duty by God.  It's for their own good.  Look at these western women with their casual fornication, inappropriate clothes, godlessness and alcohol.  They are disgusting.  Morally debased, immodest, drunken prostitutes who treat marriage as little more than an excuse for a party.  They ignore even their own apostate holy books and put themselves where God should be - at the centre of the world.  And are they happy?  If they were happy, would they have so many relationships?  Would they drink so much?  Would they take so many anti-depressants?  And so on.

Not that this means you shouldn't postulate.  I'm not a fan of cultural relativism, but if we leave aside subjective notions of "right" or "wrong" and understand that much touted concepts like "freedom" mean different things to different people, we might get somewhere.  You aren't wrong to pontificate about the awful treatment of women in some countries, but you would be wrong if you assumed that those countries are ergo wicked as a result.

Regards,

Peter


----------



## j d worthington (May 28, 2012)

Doug: Thank you. As you say, we may disagree (and argue) about these things, but that it is good to know that doesn't affect our friendship, or our abilities to generally come to a mutual understanding, if not agreement.

Peter... the problem to me, though, is that such repressive actions do tend to have negative results in the larger frame of reference. By essentially denying the same privileges to over half of the human race, these approaches cut back on the number of possible solutions to problems. Allowing the same "freedoms" does, of course, mean you'll have more of the things we find troublesome; but at the same time, it means you also have more people invested in changing things for the better, rather than concretizing the methods of the past. Following the latter approach, however appealing it may be to our love of traditional ways of life, does not tend to get us in a position to make positive changes for the future (and thus ensure our survival, which in turn allows us to continue increasing our advantages, etc.).

The larger our resource pool, the better the odds....


----------



## Peter Graham (May 28, 2012)

> By essentially denying the same privileges to over half of the human race, these approaches cut back on the number of possible solutions to problems.



I'm less sure.  For one thing, there's so many possible solutions to problems that measuring whether there are more or less in any given situation is probably impossible.  For another, repression doesn't necessarily mean a reduction of solutions, so much as a range of different solutions. 




> but at the same time, it means you also have more people invested in changing things for the better, rather than concretizing the methods of the past.



This presupposes that individuals with these "freedoms" have sufficient motivation to wish to make such changes.  It also doesn't help us if things change for the worse.  



> Following the latter approach, however appealing it may be to our love of traditional ways of life, does not tend to get us in a position to make positive changes for the future (and thus ensure our survival, which in turn allows us to continue increasing our advantages, etc.).



That said, one could argue from a purely pragmatic standpoint that many of the manifestations of change - massive overpopulation of the planet, enormous and still growing pressure on dwindling resources and the advent of technologies which could kill us all at the flick of a switch - have made our species _less_ sure of survival than at any time since the last Ice Age.  Change has made us more, not less, vulnerable.



> The larger our resource pool, the better the odds....



But the fewer the remaining resources, the worse the odds.......

Regards,

Peter


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 11, 2012)

Now that HB's cleared up that 'subjective' means 'objective' I can't resist putting my mouth into gear and stating that the simple answer must be no. We can't know. We're like fleas on a dog trying to understand the dog from within a forest of fur. Then there's something beyond the dog, and beyond.

A priest believes it's wrong to kill, a soldier that it's wrong to shoot an unarmed man. Lions think zebras belong on a plate, zebras think lions belong in a cage. Entirely subjective, in nature. Big galaxies swallow little ones: to he that has shall more be given, to him who has little, even that shall be taken away. 

But if we can lift our minds beyond nature, then nature is a room within a greater house. Call it 'spirit' the words don't matter. The house surrounds the infinite rooms (dimensions) that it contains and permeates, is not contained by them. And then, there's something beyond the house. Beyond 'spirit'. Holds it all together. Is that love? In the highest sense.

I'm with Parson: this world is not my home ...


----------



## Parson (Jun 11, 2012)

Welcome fellow sojourner.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 11, 2012)

Even in the broadest terms of "morality" we can't actually know what is moral and what is not. One might think it is immoral to leave a man who is drowning; and believe it moral to save them.

But this can have the far-sighted results J.D. spoke of earlier. What if that man were to later rise to power and become almost like a second Hitler? It would have probably been moral, then, to leave the single man to drown in order to avoid the bloodshed of hundreds, or thousands, or millions due to his hand years later. And the issue of "what provides the greatest benefit to the greatest amount of our people."

It is a great benefit to find and eradicate causes of diseases; such as malaria or bubonic plague. But is it truly moral to change the genetic code of mosquitoes so they no longer live long enough to develop the malaria parasite? Is it moral to destroy thousands of rats to prevent the spread of disease? Is it moral to make a species go extinct so another is no longer threatened by it?

It really all does come down to what has been taught to you, and not only by society, but by your loved ones. If we knew what true morality was, then we would never get into debates about subjects like Death with Dignity, abortion, genetic engineering, gay marriage, or war. Just to name a few.

And simply put...I don't think humans will ever learn what is truly moral. It's an idea; not something created by nature, and it can never have empirical evidence the way, say, quantum mechanics can have. And without empirical evidence, as an entire species, we will never agree on ANY subject, as a single outcome.


----------



## Parson (Jun 12, 2012)

Karn,

It seems to me that what you are saying is that the "ends justify the means." Usually this kind of thinking is used to justify what some what consider to be evil to achieve good outcomes. But you are saying that what is good is determined by what happens in the future. As the future is unknowable there can be no objective morality. 

I  would posit that there are things that are moral regardless of the outcomes. I base this statement on my belief that the definition of what's good and what's evil has been illustrated by the majority of thinkers through the ages. In your example of a man drowning, saving his life would be a moral choice. Letting him die would always be immoral. It is not dependent on whether his life turned evil. 

The areas of agreement among the separate philosophies is small but there are some nearly universal ones.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 12, 2012)

Parson said:


> Karn,
> 
> It seems to me that what you are saying is that the "ends justify the means." Usually this kind of thinking is used to justify what some what consider to be evil to achieve good outcomes. But you are saying that what is good is determined by what happens in the future. As the future is unknowable there can be no objective morality.
> 
> ...




Letting a man die is in general immoral, yes. And no, none can see the future. But say you did know that this particular man was planning to, and would succeed in, taking, say, fifty lives by blowing up a mall? Assuming you tried to alert authorities of such a plot but received no help, would you still save the man from death, knowing that if you did, far more lives would end? Sometimes there is no outcome on the side of pure good. Lesser of two evils would be the only moral choice.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 12, 2012)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> ... on the side of pure good...



And what is that?

Man has always looked upward, toward the 'light' for moral guidance, from the earliest sun worshippers there's been the awareness that some eternal, timeless power is constantly working to draw all lower nature toward the purity of it's own higher nature ...


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 12, 2012)

RJM Corbet said:


> And what is that?
> 
> Man has always looked upward, toward the 'light' for moral guidance, from the earliest sun worshippers there's been the awareness that some eternal, timeless power is constantly working to draw all lower nature toward the purity of it's own higher nature ...




Indeed, we can never truly know what the "pure good" is. But the closest I personally see it is to the benefit of others with no harm to anything else.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 12, 2012)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> Indeed, we can never truly know what the "pure good" is. But the closest I personally see it is to the benefit of others with no harm to anything else.



Comes back to 'love' then? In the highest sense ...


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 12, 2012)

Pretty much.


This isn't a theological debate, but a philosophical one. The problem with philosophy, as I've stated before, is the fact that there is no possible way to have tangible evidence to prove one philosophical idea or another. And hence, debates will always occur.


Despite all the same morals society in general seems to share, i.e., murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc., there are more personal, base morals that are the ones that differ, and these base morals can bring into question the so-called "absolutes" of the broader morals. Is it really so wrong to steal a loaf of bread if your family is starving?


It comes down to ends justifying the means when it comes to more personal morals. And I'm not talking about "sticking it to the man" when I question the morality of stealing that bread. What I'm bringing to mind is the possible death of innocents if that bread is not taken. And I know, I know, a lot of first world countries have programs to help out with their impoverished, like the Food Stamp program here in the United States. But what of third world countries, like many African countries where help from the better off countries don't arrive in time, if at all?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 12, 2012)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> ... i.e., murder is wrong, theft is wrong, etc ... But what of third world countries, like many African countries where help from the better off countries don't arrive in time, if at all?



I find it useful often to take an argument back to basics. Nearly all social _mores_, marriage customs etc, are originally designed to protect the 'tribe', and don't apply outside the tribe: ie: Apache steal from Apache = bad; Apache steal from Sioux = good. And so on, by extension. (Sorry, no offence meant to any Apache out there.)

But this is all 'nature'. All that exists, that we can in any way perceive or know, from grass to quasars, we can perceive only because it exists in 'time'. The circle of life. But it exists within a higher dimension, that turns the wheel of nature, and is not turned by it. And an even higher, beyond that.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm technically not even talking about from "outside the tribe," even. Tribe were made up of numerous families; what if you were a Sioux and stole from another Sioux to feed your family?


Speculation I know, but these are only meant to be hypothetical for sake of argument. Tribes share within their own? Not always, I'm sure.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 12, 2012)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> I'm technically not even talking about from "outside the tribe," even. Tribe were made up of numerous families; what if you were a Sioux and stole from another Sioux to feed your family? ...



No, that would be a deadly crime. The tribe comes above the individual, or the individual families that it consists of.

But would that happen in such a society? Tribal _mores_ would require families to support one another, for the survival of the tribe.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 12, 2012)

Yes, but-and I don't know if I actually posted this-but societal mores do tend to change with the times, especially under such large impacts as technological advancement that makes the necessity of hard gain in order to survive less and less likely.


And whether or not the laws of the ancient tribe would see it the way, is irrelevant. What I was talking about was, do YOU think it would have been moral or immoral to steal from one of your own for the sake of your own individual family? And especially in this day and age when we don't think under terms of "tribe," except in perhaps some remote areas of the underdeveloped world, but of "nation," where our affiliation towards one another is not actually knit at all?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 12, 2012)

Karn Maeshalanadae said:


> Yes, but-and I don't know if I actually posted this-but societal mores do tend to change with the times, especially under such large impacts as technological advancement that makes the necessity of hard gain in order to survive less and less likely.
> 
> 
> And whether or not the laws of the ancient tribe would see it the way, is irrelevant. What I was talking about was, do YOU think it would have been moral or immoral to steal from one of your own for the sake of your own individual family? And especially in this day and age when we don't think under terms of "tribe," except in perhaps some remote areas of the underdeveloped world, but of "nation," where our affiliation towards one another is not actually knit at all?



Quite. I was in danger of approaching the 'noble savage' myth. 

But Karn: do _I _think so? It's like, if you steal from a bank that can afford it, a 'victimless' crime, then it's ok? But if you steal my pay packet, whatever the reason, now I have to suffer?

Really I think that everyone has their own inner moral code. It's a personal code that isn't necessarily that of the society. It may allow theft but not, say, pushing old ladies over in the street to steal their handbags. As long as one is true to one's own code, one is still a moral person? It's those who seem to have no personal code whatsoever who are the truly scary ones ...

EDIT: whether it's to feed your family or to feed your heroin habit, the need is still there?


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 12, 2012)

The difference between the two is the fact that a heroin habit provides no true benefit to others (ignoring the fact that your dealer gets some cash) while stealing bread for one's family means they can eat and continue surviving.


I'm one for the death penalty, for example; others find it immoral, but even with life in prison there can be possibility of parole or escape; and say a prisoner who is guilty of murder and convicted-and I do mean truly guilty and not just found so-manages to get out of prison by way of sentence running its course, parole, or escape...and goes to kill again, and kills more than one. I would find it moral to make sure that one is unable to ever again perform his deadly actions.


And to another subject I had mentioned before in the thread: I am also in support of Death with Dignity, and others find it immoral. It's death, yes, but I do believe that when a mercy killing is TRULY a mercy killing, in order to spare the sufferer any unbearable, unrelenting pain, then to end their life I would think would be a moral act.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 12, 2012)

Mercy Killing: I'd do it for my dog, hope someone will do it for me, should need arise.

Death Penalty: Do it quickly, get it over with, not to punish, no need to torture just, as you say, throw out the rotten apple. Mistakes will be made, but ...

Drug Theft: A need is a need. Withdrawal is far more painful than hunger.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 12, 2012)

Drug withdrawal is more painful, yes, and it can indeed be deadly, but as I said, the difference between stealing the bread and a drug withdrawal is the fact that drug withdrawal only physically affects the druggie, and to steal to support a drug habit is NOT moral in my eyes. Yes, there is survival and self-preservation instinct, but that is not the same as morality.

And I had also listed that stealing the bread for your family would have to be your very last option for feeding them and keeping them alive. Back to the wall, ends justify the means, if the benefit to others outweighs the losses. It's a parrotry of what I had said earlier that you noticed-when the situation can not result in "pure good," then the lesser of two evils is the moral choice. And in the drug habit situation, stealing for a selfish, destructive need is not the lesser of two evils.

What would I think about if you yourself, and nobody else, were the one starving in the bread situation? It's that kind of situation that actually tends to baffle me. It's a selfish act, even if it is under self-preservation survival instinct, and selfishness is not moral in my eyes. It's a toss up in the air because I do acknowledge that taking the bread may result in the possibility of at least one other person suffering for its lack.


----------



## Parson (Jun 12, 2012)

If I understand you correctly Karn, you are saying that there is no objective morality, there is only the ends which justify. 

I believe that if we go down that road, then anarchy is the ultimate result. A belief in an ultimate good and evil has lead to a society in which it is possible for altruism.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 13, 2012)

It's not that I believe that there can't be an ultimate good or evil. It's just that too often there are situations when the ultimate, or pure good as I've said, just can't be reached.


And beyond that, I don't think humans will ever be able to reach the state of objective morality, so the best we can do is the least of evil.


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 13, 2012)

well personally I think its all objective, in a way. but that's because I hold morality to be different than what is being discussed here (as I stated before) what is being discussed here are social values, which will always be subjective as they are the agreed upon compromises from a collective of moralities.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 13, 2012)

Humans have free will, and we don't have the wisdom to do everything 100% right. Morals may say that causing the death under any reason is wrong. Theft under any reason is wrong. The seven deadly sins can go on and on and on. The problem is, the situations where sins can and will clash go on every day. If you don't thief, then the blood of people are on your hands. If you speak honestly, then another's life can be ruined forever, whether it was deserved or not. If you stay your hand, then the lives of many others may be lost, or you may lose your own.


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 13, 2012)

Again you are arguing from the point of guidelines set up by a community for that communities benefit and prosperity.
I'm talking about the impulses of the soul from which said guidelines were first brought about by discussions that found commonality amongst certain sentiments.

Some communities may hold it morally objectionable to question elders, agreeing that it is a sign of disrespect, and finding disrespect to be abhorrent amongst all parties. Boiled down to their smallest common denominators all morals agreed to by any community can be tied back to respect. Admonishments to cultivate it, and prohibitions against disrespectful actions.

What you call morals I call the social niceties by which people communicate respect or disrespect effectively.
What I call morals are the In-Born guidelines by which one knows how much respect one holds for oneself. ie: I would not respect myself if I were unfaithful to my chosen companion, I respect my self grater when I show compassion for other living things, By using intellectual thought processes in combination with empathic observances I chose to met other life forms with a degree of trust and respect that can be increased or decreased by our mutual reactions. ect.
These are morals. And from these things, when found to be in harmony with other community members, social guidelines for showing respect are built. The sentiments dont even have to be the same, only have the same goal. If you have an individual who is jealous of their chosen companions attentions, and an individual who holds sex to be a sacred act they only wish to perform with their chosen companion, these two individuals would agree to the same social guideline that one should not sleep around. Yet their morals are not the same. For one it is a covetous prohibition, for the other it is an imperative born of love.

I have sat in on many religious-based sermons, from a decent variety of sources, to feel comfortable stating that it is a difficult distinction that those who understand try to impart to those who dont. Why one keeps a law is, in some ways, more important than that one keeps it. 

Because the 'why' will always tell one where one is willing to compromise that law. The point for that person at which the law ends. What has sometimes been called 'A person's price'

Indecently, there is some small satisfaction in knowing one's price before one is bought.


----------



## Karn Maeshalanadae (Jun 13, 2012)

And it's pointed out that you are simply listing what your own morals are. Being unfaithful to a chosen companion? Even in that absolute morality you may be pushed to the point where it would be better to be unfaithful or break away from said companion. What if the companion were violent towards you? What if they were the first to be unfaithful?

And when you say unfaithful, to some it is considered immoral to be unfaithful to one's chosen companion even in the event of death. I say, in the event of death, you would not be hurting any other person if you moved on with your life and found love again.

And on the subject of compassion: great as compassion is, it is not always the best interest to show compassion towards another being. Especially if the one does not extend the courtesy.


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 13, 2012)

hence 'the price' 

I know my price in each of the personal morals I gave as examples.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 13, 2012)

Perhaps one can say then that there is always a _limited_ objective morality, but the object constantly recedes (and becomes more all encompassing). The concept of 'sin' becomes very personal, as in Karn's example of a starving man stealing a loaf of bread to feed his children from say, a big supermarket.

The law of the land will prosecute him as a shoplifter (in fact probably not in his case) because theft is theft, under the law. He has also broken the commandment 'Thou shalt not steal', which puts him on the receiving end from the church too.

But his own conscience does not condemn him.

So ... conscience ... that's a word?


----------



## Moonbat (Jun 13, 2012)

Thanks to RJM for resurrecting this thread 

having read through the more recent discussion I have some things to add, I agree with Karn that this is a philosophical discussion and therefore we may never agree on an answer. I personally do not think that there is an objective morality, I think there is no such thing as good or bad, there only is.

However, the example provided by Karn about stealing bread to feed a starving family lead me to the following thoughts:

If RJM is a baker, and Karn is a father of two starving children. 
Karn would say it was ok to steal the bread to feed his family, RJM would probably say it isn't ok. We (as an impartial observer - lets imagine we don't care about Karn's family or RJM's profit margins) might side with Karn more often than we would with RJM. But does it then follow that we would say RJM is being immoral by NOT giving his bread to the people who need it, the starving people?
Does it then also follow that any of us who has bought something other than food, warmth or shelter is being immoral by not giving that money to feed or shelter starving or homeless people? (within reason, I'm talking about a TV here, not a vacination for a child or a car to get to work)

The 'should we kill Hitler as a child' arguement is another interesting one. I would say no, even if we have Hitler captured in 1945 I would still say we shouldn't kill him as I don't believe in the death penalty, to kill him then after all the bloodshed would be tantamount to revenge and justice should never be about revenge but about punishment and rehabilitation.
But should we kill a young Hitlet (a mis-type there actually makes him sound cute) before he masterminds the slaughter of 11 million innocents? I would still say no, even if we were sure he was going to kill and we were taking 1 life to save 11000000 I think that morally it would be wrong, the decision to kill is Hitler's and if he has done it or if he hasn't I don't agree that it would be morally right to kill him prior to the crime, this goes for the drowning terrorist scenario too.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 13, 2012)

Thank you 

There was a discussion on the radio a night or two ago I was half listening to about the concept of 'original sin' and how various religions approach the issue, that man is born fallen.

I think it's true really.

We're born into the time/space dimension of nature that forces us to kill to live, even if we just eat carrots. The water we drink swarms with tiny living creatures. Every breath we take probably kills microscopic creatures in the air.

But to me the important thing is this room of nature from which we now perceive existence, and which includes the whole universe, is like a junior dimension that ends with death. Time ends, space ends. The door opens ...


----------



## Moonbat (Jun 13, 2012)

I have to restrain myself when you post things like this RJM, as I can't see what evidence you have for any of those conclusions.

If we kill when we drink or breathe then so do all animals, is the Elephant fallen, or the Duck? Do they have original sin? Will the door to a more senior dimension open for them upon their death?


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 13, 2012)

Well never mind, that's a new discussion.

But where's the objective morality if, like all other animals, we must take life to live?


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 13, 2012)

RJM Corbet said:


> Thank you
> 
> There was a discussion on the radio a night or two ago I was half listening to about the concept of 'original sin' and how various religions approach the issue, that man is born fallen.
> 
> ...


 
I have a problem equating killing to live with evil. Every day probably a million living cells of my body (microscopic creatures, yeah?) die. They scarifice themselves to maintain this quasi-permanent 'vibration' that I call my mind. Does that by itself make my existence evil even without taking into account other entities? 

Life and death are two sides to the same coin, you can't have one without the other - whenI die, one way or another something living will benefit by killing to live. In fact I'd go further and say that life can not progress without death - it's essential, in fact life's overall grows grander and richer with each 'iteration'. It's the grand (re)cycle of nature and life. 

Original sin, at least in my mind, is part of the attempt to explain why a good god allows bad things to happen to his/her people. (Especially when you've made it clear that your god is_ the_ ultimate good...)


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 13, 2012)

Venusian Broon said:


> ... why a good god allows bad things to happen to his/her people ...



And my answer to that (which _Moonbat_ won't like because there's no way of proving it) is that ultimate good is a higher good, not a material good, an in: What does it benefit a man to gain the whole world, but suffer the loss of his own soul?

Our experiences in this kindergarden dimension of nature are to prepare us to handle whatever it is we're going to encounter when we pass out through that door, after our short natural existence? Our dream experience give us some idea of what it's going to be like on 'the other side'.

The whole argument about animals is extensively dealt with in the _kaballah_ and other works of 'spiritual' physics ...


----------



## Parson (Jun 13, 2012)

Venusian Broon said:


> Original sin, at least in my mind, is part of the attempt to explain why a good god allows bad things to happen to his/her people. (Especially when you've made it clear that your god is_ the_ ultimate good...)



Interesting, but I would say the concept of original sin is more of an  explanation as to why humans will regularly choose to do what is forbidden or unhealthy. 

The explanation of why a good God (assuming he is all powerful) would allow evil is much more complex and doesn't really enter into the idea of original sin. 

(We are on a slippery slope here. It is very difficult, I'd actually say impossible, to posit Objective Morality without a god to set the agenda. Granted the God could be the ultimate in idolatry, self, but still a God.)


----------



## Venusian Broon (Jun 13, 2012)

Parson said:


> Interesting, but I would say the concept of original sin is more of an explanation as to why humans will regularly choose to do what is forbidden or unhealthy.
> 
> The explanation of why a good God (assuming he is all powerful) would allow evil is much more complex and doesn't really enter into the idea of original sin.


 
My reasoning is, if we focus on the Abhramic religions, that before the whole apple incident man was in the paradise of Eden and wanted for nothing; the lion laid down with the lamb, food plentiful, immortality etc...

After the fall of man he enters the world we see today, beset all the time with natural disasters, storms, plagues, wars and having to toil hard for his life and finally death. Why we have an imperfect world which could kill thousands in a day, or kill the worthy in terrible circumstances could be explained by the fact that we deserved it, being born in original sin*. 

I agree completely though that it's not in any way the full explanation. For example the existence of evil, sinful behaviour and temptation must also be tied into free will. What ever that is, if it really exists. 

And yes, why an all-knowing God put a serpent and a tree of knowledge of good and evil that we weren't to allowed to eat from in the first place in the garden of Eden....does my head in thinking about it.



Parson said:


> (We are on a slippery slope here. It is very difficult, I'd actually say impossible, to posit Objective Morality without a god to set the agenda. Granted the God could be the ultimate in idolatry, self, but still a God.)


 
In all honesty I think your probably correct. I was going to suggest that possibly there could be some abstracted 'rules' that dictate man's relationship with man** deep within our behaviour that represents a form of Objective morality and we are just far too imperfect, possessing minds of very limited ability, to get to them. But I think I'm clutching at straws. 

*I fully admit to not quite understanding our position now that JC has come along...
**As this is a SFF site, perhaps we should expand mankind out to 'sentient beings', athough again that opens up another a can of worms...


----------



## Parson (Jun 13, 2012)

*V. Broon* I'm not really sure how to respond to that last post. Everything I want to say falls under the heading of a "religious discussion" which seems to be forbidden here, and certainly off thread. 

(If you would like to talk "Original Sin" send me a pm and we will get to it.)

As to whether there's free will, we had a lengthy discussion about that some time back here. I'm too lazy to look for the thread, but if searched for a free will thread I'm sure you'd find it. If you're interested.


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 13, 2012)

I see that I didn't finish saying what I was thinking last night and left out a major point so I'll just elaborate it now, though no one has asked.

If we place morality on a strictly person* by person basis, if we also take into consideration that not all persons will want to mentally explore their morals to the extent where they become aware of their price but that some will, then I would say that those individuals who know their own price have objective morality.

If I know my price and knowingly place myself in a situation where I will be bought, then that can be said to be choosing evil. Because I'm willingly going against my own moral code. If I see the possibility of being bought and do my best to avoid it, then that can be said to be choosing good. Because I am attempting to preserve what I feel is right. If I find myself unexpectedly being bought and blame it on others, that can be said to be subjective morality, because I have not acknowledged that my morals do not apply universally, even to my self. If however, when unexpectedly bought, I own up to both situation and limitation, that can be said to be objective morality. Because I am able to look beyond the emotional wounds that come with having ones price paid and hold myself accountable for my moral standings and personal limitations in adhering to those standings.


*persons may be regarded as any sentient being, and as broad or narrow a definition as one chooses.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 13, 2012)

Your idea of a_ price_ is a deep one, and something I'll be remembering from now on, as I tread my own road.

But look: at the bottom of the pyramid is the mineral, inanimate: rocks etc, that have no free will (and thus no ability to act morally or otherwise).

Next up is the vegetable, which has 'life' but little free will or ability to act. One degree of the vegetable, one flower or seed, has more awareness than all the mineral put together.

Next comes the animal, one degree of which is worth all the mineral and vegetable dimension put together. Free will exists, action exists, but 'sin' does not, in the animal realm, because there is no concept of time or death, in the expanded sense. Animals live moment to moment. They have feelings etc, but limited entirely to the natural sphere.

Above that, and highest in the natural sphere, although just a very tiny part of it, is human existence. We bridge from nature into 'spirit'. Above us there is no time. And we have other bodies than the physical. We have a 'thinking' and a 'feeling' body too ... thoughts, intentions, feelings ... they matter a lot more than we can see


----------



## Moonbat (Jun 13, 2012)

It seems, to me, that for those of us who don't believe in God that there is no objective morality, and for those of you that do believe in God there is and it comes from him.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 13, 2012)

Moonbat said:


> It seems, to me, that for those of us who don't believe in God that there is no objective morality, and for those of you that do believe in God there is and it comes from him.



Perhaps it's more than that?

Anyone who follows modern physics (as I know you do) is bound to be stunned by the beauty and complexity of 'the world'.

But what happens afterwards? When our few years are gone? Darkness? Extinction? The universe ceases to exist, when we're not there to perceive it?


----------



## Moonbat (Jun 13, 2012)

> But what happens afterwards? When our few years are gone? Darkness? Extinction?
> The universe ceases to exist, when we're not there to perceive it?


 
If you mean our few years as in my century (I'll be lucky) on this planet then I don't agree that it'll cease to exist, we know that Newton percieved a universe and it hasn't ceased when he died, it is still here for you and I to see. If you mean the few years (several billion or more) that the known universe has existed then I don't know, possibly.

As for the beauty and complexity of the world, I am stunned by it but I find the idea that it evolved naturally from simplistic rules and basic matter/energy much more brilliant and wonderful than the, frankly mundane, idea that some great conscious being created it.

Are you more amazed by a random pattern of twigs on the forest that spells out the word 'bottom' or by a person arranging them that way for comic effect? 



> I have not acknowledged that my morals do not apply universally


 
I'm not sure that this means there is a subjective morality, isn't the meaning of a subjective morality one that does apply universally, which we have (mostly) agreed doesn't exist, even in the most extreme of cases. 

I have, for a long time, felt that everything is relative to the observer and so there was only ever one crime that I could not justify in some extreme situation and that was rape (in my opinion the worst crime that anyone can commit on a single victim);

theft - stealing bread to feed the starving
murder - killing Hitler (my views may have changed but 15 years ago I thought differently)
dishonouring parents - (sorry to get biblical) some parents do not deserve the honour or respect of their children for crimes they have committed against them

and so on...

But rape was one where the only justifiable situation was the end of the human race without procreation and that was much more sci-fi and less real life than any of the other examples (if we swap Hitler with any evil self confessed mass murder/bad guy)

Then I thought what situation could anyone (except the rapist) think that rape was a good thing, and I realised that a child born of rape would (neccessarily for their own self worth) see that the rape of their mother by their father created them and so would have to be good rather than bad. A disturbing thought and a controversial idea, I know, but never-the-less a conclusion I have come to. It does not mean I think it is ok to rape, but from the POV of the child the act of forced copulation was not entirely bad.


----------



## hopewrites (Jun 14, 2012)

Moonbat, since you choose to disagree with my admittedly weak definition of subjective morality and not the point I was making about objective morality, I will assume that my outline for the possible existence of objective morality meets with your approval. 

Since it nether includes nor excludes the existence or approbation of a higher power I will ignore your rather provocative statement that only those with a god can have objective morality, and then only from said god.


----------



## Moonbat (Jun 14, 2012)

Sorry Hopes, I don't think I properly understood your example of objective morality (and I have to learn to get Objective and Subjective the right way round dammit!!) but reading through your posts again I'm not sure I agree



> What I call morals are the In-Born guidelines by which one knows how much respect one holds for oneself.


 
In-Born? That doesn't equate with anything I have seen evidence for, for starters I don't think a baby has morals, secondly aren't the morals that you would call in-born actually a product of the enviroment you are raised in? Some cultures don't practice manogamy and so cheating on a partner wouldn't seem as immoral to them as to those of us that have been raised to believe that monogamy is the good/right way to do things. What does self-respect have to do with morals, some people who class themselves as very respectable and truly believe that they are have low moral values that other people who are much more humble and admit that they are not all good do. 

I'm not sure I fully understand the idea of 'price'. Are you saying that we all have a price set by our own self-respect that we will only break a rule/behave immorally when said price is beaten? If I understand it correctly it is not objective at all, but merely a line that we will only cross in extreme circumstances.



> I have sat in on many religious-based sermons, from a decent variety of sources, to feel comfortable stating that it is a difficult distinction that those who understand try to impart to those who dont. Why one keeps a law is, in some ways, more important than that one keeps it.


 
Does Law here refer to a social/societal norm that we, as members of the society, adhere to, in which case it only applies to the society and therefore isn't objective.




> not all persons will want to mentally explore their morals to the extent where they become aware of their price but that some will, then I would say that those individuals who know their own price have objective morality.


 
But surely the price is different for each person, so regardless of knowing that price the moral is not objective but dependant on the subject. Would you say that your price has changed through your life? If it has then how can it be Objective?

Sorry if my statement about God was provocative, I was merely pointing out that, apart from yourself, the two main proponents of objective morality were both (seemingly) taking it from a higher power.


----------



## RJM Corbet (Jun 15, 2012)

Moonbat said:


> If you mean our few years as in my century (I'll be lucky) on this planet then I don't agree that it'll cease to exist, we know that Newton percieved a universe and it hasn't ceased when he died, it is still here for you and I to see. If you mean the few years (several billion or more) that the known universe has existed then I don't know, possibly...


 
I'm not even postulating a 'creator' at this stage, just observing that when the universe ceases to exist for me, it effectively ceases to exist -- for me. This all may be a dream. I may wake up to something completely different, like _The Matrix._

This reality of which we're so convinced by our own experience of it, is actually very tenuous in greater terms ...


----------

