Objective Morality

[hopewrites]

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]

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]

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]

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]

hence 'the price'

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

 

[RJM Corbet]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

... 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]

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]

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.

(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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.