Objective Morality
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-12-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 12:30 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Help me understand, if morality is a belief system then it's subjective is it not?
The word "morality" is ambiguous, it needs to be broken down.

"Moral truths" is a claim that there are actions that are "right" and some that are "wrong". There is no qualifier on this, it just says "right" or "wrong" regardless of the goal or situation, regardless of the observer.

"Moral belief" is a belief that a person hold with regards to "moral truths".

Most people have moral beliefs. (BTW I don't)

Most people's moral beliefs differ (at least in some way) from other people's moral beliefs. There are many sources of these beliefs, be it scriptures, church teachings, parantal teachings, peer influence, society and cultural influence, empathy, philosophy e.g. Kant...

So moral beliefs can be termed as subjective or objective, basically whatever the believer wants to label on their beliefs.

But "Moral truths" cannot be proven to exist.
Moral truths cannot be objective nor subjective.

Believers in subjective morality can state that they themselves behave according to their own moral code, but how can they justify that others ought to follow their own personal moral beliefs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:48 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 12:38 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 12:34 PM)DLJ Wrote:  and yet... completely wrong.

Big Grin

I am wrong often. I really did agree with the post.

'Wrong' and 'right' are subjective. Big Grin

If you think that "subjective morality is just idiotic", could you please explain were I and Chippy and Vos and djkamilo etc. have erred.

Cheers. Heart

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 12:53 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 12:39 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  DLJ, who is WLC?
WLC is an acronym for the name "William Lane Craig". He's arguably one of the most, if not the most famous Christian apologist alive.

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Vosur's post
04-12-2013, 01:29 PM
RE: Objective Morality
Thanks for your input.

Stevil would you fall in the moral nihilist camp?

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 01:39 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 12:53 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 12:39 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  DLJ, who is WLC?
WLC is an acronym for the name "William Lane Craig". He's arguably one of the most, if not the most famous Christian apologist alive.

He is so adept at using circular logic that its like he's invented a brand new geometric shape to confound you with his well versed Bible excuses.

Even Hitchens was caught off guard by his must be first to speek, so he can create dozens of strawmen.,

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes sporehux's post
04-12-2013, 01:43 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 12:48 PM)DLJ Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 12:38 PM)WitchSabrina Wrote:  I am wrong often. I really did agree with the post.

'Wrong' and 'right' are subjective. Big Grin

If you think that "subjective morality is just idiotic", could you please explain were I and Chippy and Vos and djkamilo etc. have erred.

Cheers. Heart

The two words: 'subjective' and 'morality' are really too ambiguous (both of them) that the combination of the two could be argued into infinity. It's just a headache waiting to happen as far as I'm concerned. I mean they sound all lofty and shit to toss around - but they're pretty useless when combined.
Unless of course - lofty tossing of shit is what you have in mind.


(no offense meant)

When I want your opinion I'll read your entrails.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 01:54 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 12:53 PM)Vosur Wrote:  
(04-12-2013 12:39 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  DLJ, who is WLC?
WLC is an acronym for the name "William Lane Craig". He's arguably one of the most, if not the most famous Christian apologist alive.

I don't know if the most famous. It depends on what circles. Of my 10+ years I heard about him in the last 3 or so. He gets no respect from the YEC because he doesnt think the earth is 6000 years old.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 02:09 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 01:29 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  Thanks for your input.

Stevil would you fall in the moral nihilist camp?
Yes
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 03:14 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(03-12-2013 10:54 PM)djkamilo Wrote:  I dont see how you get from that premise to that conclusion.
Maybe we're talking past each other as I often see in this topic.
When I say objective morality I dont mean what everybody thinks is moral. I mean what's moral regardless of what people think.
It's also more of a philosophical question rather than a biological one. I'm not arguing that our sense and perception of morality doesnt evolve with our species. I'm asking whether there are objective morals (regardless of time and place)
I think I side with moral realism now that I've read some about it.
I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise

My conclusion is based primarily on discussions with Christians who believe that objective morals are universal because they were handed down from on high. I know you are not a Christian, I guess I'm just not used to a fellow atheist using the term. Having read your other replies, I think I understand what you mean. However, I still stick by what I said earlier about empathy. Sure, there are morals that are common to every culture like not killing or stealing, but these are based on the premise that others would not like those done to them.

As you know, all humans on Earth derive from the bands of people who left Africa 50,000-60,000 years ago. Genetics show that they splintered and spread to (what would become) different countries around the world. Each group took with them the beliefs of the group that they split off from. The important thing to remember is that these beliefs may have changed--such as a proto-Thunder god snowballing into Indra, Zeus, and Thor--but the core remained the same.

We lived as hunter-gatherers in those days, so killing or steeling from a group mate (who was most likely a relative) would have endangered the group's stability. Individuals who did these things risked punishment, ranging up to being ostracized. Hence, the threat of punishment kept those who might override their empathic nature (for, say, material gain) from doing these things. Our common origin then explains why there are so many similarities between systems of morals around the globe. But notice too that the original "rules" governing morality originally only pertained to in-group members. For example, the bible says do not kill, but it was totally fine for the early Hebrews to slaughter their enemies.

Regarding Moral Realism, how does one determine if something is moral despite time and place? Also, does moral realism have a stance on how things become moral in the first place (i.e. the origin of said morality)?
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-12-2013, 04:02 PM
RE: Objective Morality
(04-12-2013 03:14 PM)ghostexorcist Wrote:  My conclusion is based primarily on discussions with Christians who believe that objective morals are universal because they were handed down from on high. I know you are not a Christian, I guess I'm just not used to a fellow atheist using the term. Having read your other replies, I think I understand what you mean. However, I still stick by what I said earlier about empathy. Sure, there are morals that are common to every culture like not killing or stealing, but these are based on the premise that others would not like those done to them.
I agree with this. My question is more in regards to what morals SHOULD be common to every culture rather than what morals ARE common to every culture. This presents the is/should dilemma in philosophy.

Quote:Regarding Moral Realism, how does one determine if something is moral despite time and place? Also, does moral realism have a stance on how things become moral in the first place (i.e. the origin of said morality)?
This is a great question with complex answers.
Sam Harris proposes that science can establish an universal morality based on the well being of sentient creatures especially with advances in neuroscience.
I think he makes a good case.

“The reason people use a crucifix against vampires is because vampires are allergic to bullshit.” ― Richard Pryor
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: