May I be a skeptic?

[Pygoscelis]

Far Far away, there may be a planet where it is considerd the height of good manners to wake early in the morning, smack your family awake with a freindly and courteous baseball bat to the skull, then as a good deed, smash next doors Toyota up and spit in his face.

In this happy world, theres a few deviants who go around shaking hands and opening doors for people. They will quickly get the attention of the police and the derision of society.

That'd be a weird alien race. lol!

No such society could exist on earth of course, given our common experiences and simple self interest and empathy. Unless of course we designate a particular group to be those who bash people and those who get based. We could then solidify it and make it more palatable to everybody by saying it is the will of the Coconut God.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I do get your point. You don't get your own point. You say there is no objective morality. That means that all morality must be subjective. Subjective like in beauty. You say one thing is good and I say another is. In punching you in the nose, I would likely be hauled off to jail. Not because I had done anything objectively bad however, but simply because it was subjectively viewed that way by more people than those who didn't.

Yes. Why is this a problem?

The truth is, I'll bet that probably the majority of the 6 billion could care less if I punched you in the nose, as I long as I didn't also punch them in the nose.

Actually, they'd care if they can relate to me. Empathy kicks in. The more different I am from them though, you're right, they start to care less. This can be seen in many facets of life. You may even seek to dehumanize me, say if I'm of another race, or influenced by demons or something, to differentiate further and make it seem just for me to be a nose punchee.

Empathy really does more often than not intercept these things though. So does simple self interest.

But the count of one side for and another side against a morality does not make it right or wrong, because as you say, there simply are no objective morals. And if there are no objective morals, then the whole concept of right and wrong is a complete sham.

Sham?

Your conlcusion does not follow your premise here. Why is it a complete sham? Just because it is subjective? Sham implies that you were misled by a trickster or something. Did a preacher tell you to believe in objective morality and now you're hearing there isn't such a thing, so are feeling you wre fooled?

And the morality of the intelligent mind you propose isn't objective either, it is still very much subjective.

The only objective things that factor into this are our experiences, the chemistry in our brains, our DNA, and the resulting empathy and self preservation drives that result from it. This often leads to universal findings on what is moral and what is not. But that doesn't make morality objective. It would not exist if we did not exist to perceive it.

It is the result of one mind, and you have excluded the possibility of such an objective mind being true.

"objective mind" is an oxymoron. If a mind is creating it, it isn't objective.

 

[Skavau]

I do get your point. You don't get your own point. You say there is no objective morality. That means that all morality must be subjective.

He is of the opinion that there is no objective source for morality, from what I can entail.

You say one thing is good and I say another is. In punching you in the nose, I would likely be hauled off to jail. Not because I had done anything objectively bad however, but simply because it was subjectively viewed that way by more people than those who didn't. The truth is, I'll bet that probably the majority of the 6 billion could care less if I punched you in the nose, as I long as I didn't also punch them in the nose. But the count of one side for and another side against a morality does not make it right or wrong, because as you say, there simply are no objective morals.

That would be true if moral assertions were deemed morally viable based on consensus. Basing morality by who agrees on it is simply flawed. What matters most is that whether a moral assertion is substantiated. You can justify why punching Pygoscelis is morally wrong and it is not through numbers.

And if there are no objective morals, then the whole concept of right and wrong is a complete sham.

When you say 'objective' do you mean originating from an infallible source or no universal consensus or agreement that there should be objective moral values?

It is merely opinion and preference and nothing more.

Everything is simply opinion. You appear to be coming close to Alfred Ayer's viewpoint on morality.

Whether you have fully understood that this IS the ultimate conclusion of your point I don't know. But it is where, by your system, morality both begins and ends, at the tip of one's nose.

Morality ends when it is no longer understood or attempted to be understood.

I'm just proposing putting your system to the test, and you don't seem to like it. That doesn't surprise me. But who are you going to call on? There is no one out there to say that I am wrong. You can get all 6 billion to team up with you against me. But that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Correct. That would actually be a logical fallacy.

It just means that you are more persuasive, more charismatic, or more willing to bribe people than me. But that's OK. There is nothing right or wrong about any of those behaviors either, because there is no such thing as right or wrong in a world without objective morality.

When you say 'objective' do you mean originating from an infallible source or no universal consensus or agreement that there should be objective moral values?

And the morality of the intelligent mind you propose isn't objective either, it is still very much subjective. Change the culture and I am sure that we can find one where punching people in the nose is perfectly acceptable, just like punching people in the arm is perfectly acceptable in Jr. High cultures.

Different cultures do not validate acts.

Objective morality cannot be the result of many minds. It is the result of one mind, and you have excluded the possibility of such an objective mind being true.

This is simply wishful thinking. Objective morality does not exist in so much that no-one agrees on what morality actually entails but this does not undermine the necessity in striving for a moral standard. I have to be a Moral Absolutist. I am an Atheist and I reject any source advocating a moral standard outside of humanity. A source existing itself which does advocate such does not validate any moral ideas. It simply advocates them.

So we are left to our collective subjectivity. Something which has about as much meaning to me as beauty. It is in the eye or culture of the beholder.

Which is why a moral standard should be pursued.

 

[Grace Seeker]

He is of the opinion that there is no objective source for morality, from what I can entail.


That would be true if moral assertions were deemed morally viable based on consensus. Basing morality by who agrees on it is simply flawed. What matters most is that whether a moral assertion is substantiated. You can justify why punching Pygoscelis is morally wrong and it is not through numbers.


When you say 'objective' do you mean originating from an infallible source or no universal consensus or agreement that there should be objective moral values?


Everything is simply opinion. You appear to be coming close to Alfred Ayer's viewpoint on morality.


Morality ends when it is no longer understood or attempted to be understood.


Correct. That would actually be a logical fallacy.


When you say 'objective' do you mean originating from an infallible source or no universal consensus or agreement that there should be objective moral values?


Different cultures do not validate acts.


This is simply wishful thinking. Objective morality does not exist in so much that no-one agrees on what morality actually entails but this does not undermine the necessity in striving for a moral standard. I have to be a Moral Absolutist. I am an Atheist and I reject any source advocating a moral standard outside of humanity. A source existing itself which does advocate such does not validate any moral ideas. It simply advocates them.


Which is why a moral standard should be pursued.

Well, you appear to be thinking this through a little more fully.

For me, objective morality is not something that can be determined by consensus or numbers. It has to be something that all would be able to recognize, not becuase they agree with it but because it actaully does exist. I don't believe that my claiming of something as moral makes it exist. And thus having everyone claim it would not make it exist either. Though we might all agree that it does, its exist has to be independent of us and our thoughts regarding it. So, for objective morality to exist it has to exist in and of itself, independent of human thought or opinion.

If there is no source for determining morality outside of human thought, then there can be no source of objective morality. And given that I don't recognize subjective morality to be valid as anything other than mere preference, then if there is no source of objective morality, there is no such thing as morality at all. And if there is no such thing as morality at all, then there is no behavior that in and of itself is either right or wrong, there is just behavior that is appreciate or unappreciated.

Do, I really believe that to be the case? No. I don't. I do think that there is a source of objective morality. I do believe in the existence of a divine creator and I believe that this creator creates not only people and animals and earth and other things, but that this creator calls some things good. And that which is outside the will of the creator would be not good. The creator could have created a world in which there was no morality, a world in which wind blew and water flowed and volcanoes erupted all as set in motion by the creator. But I believe we live in a world in which the creator not only created amoral creatures and things that do not make choices between that which the creator calls good and something else, but that this creator gave some of the creatures the ability to make choices for themselves as to whether they would cooperate with the creator or not. Those choices are moral choices, and the standard they are measured by are those of the creator, which I hold to be an objective source of morality.

Of course, if there is no creator, then there would be only the random chance happenings of this atom or that particle and there is no moral action in such happenings. Thus without a creator we live in a world with not source of objective morality, no choices that can be called either good or bad. We, just as much as trees and tornados are not truly moral creatures, just cosmic accidents and our choices are just compound functions of those cosmic accidents and have no real good or bad behind them. Thus punching Pygoscelis in the nose is just a cosmic accident, even if it does look like premediation to you, that is your subjective evaluation, not an objective fact.

I think that covers all your questions.

 

[barney]

We could take morality from animals. thats outside human thought.

The cookoo will smash up others eggs and replace them with its own because It CBA looking after them.
The Penguins will travel miles to rescue one of their own, even not from their family.
Dolphins keep humans alive when drowning.


Lots of issues of morality outside human thought. I'm wondering what sort of God the Dolphins beleive in and if doing "good deeds2 will carry them to dolphiny heaven?

 

[Pygoscelis]

Well, you appear to be thinking this through a little more fully.

Hmm? You mean in comparison to me? Come now, Grace Seeker, you've never been one to engage in ad homs.

For me, objective morality is not something that can be determined by consensus or numbers.

This would be true by definition. If it is objective, it doesn't matter what is subjectively thought of it.

By definition It has to be something that all would be able to recognize, not becuase they agree with it but because it actaully does exist.

This does not follow. If it is objective why must all be able to recognize it? Maybe it exists and we don't view it correctly. If morality exists in a vacuum, then our subjective opinions on it seem to become moot.

I don't believe that my claiming of something as moral makes it exist. And thus having everyone claim it would not make it exist either.

I understand this. You believe morality somehow exists in a vacuum with nobody to perceive it (objective). I believe it can only exist in the mind (subjective).

So, for objective morality to exist it has to exist in and of itself, independent of human thought or opinion.

By definition.

And given that I don't recognize subjective morality to be valid as anything other than mere preference, then if there is no source of objective morality, there is no such thing as morality at all.

Now you are just defining your way into the absurd. Seems an odd definition for morality to say it does not exist even though we have concepts of right and wrong.

And if there is no such thing as morality at all, then there is no behavior that in and of itself is either right or wrong, there is just behavior that is appreciate or unappreciated.

Appreciated or unnappreciated. As well as socially constructive and destructive.

But really this is just more semantics. All you are doing in this whole post so far is redefining terms. You want to define right and wrong that way, thats ok, but don't expect others to know what you are talking about if you do. And don't fall into the fallacy of trying to attach the emotional loadings of the old terms to your new definitions.

Thus without a creator we live in a world with not source of objective morality

Not necesarily so. There are some who believe in good and bad existing in a vacuum but don't believe in Gods. But I'm not one of them, and that would be a whole other thread.

no choices that can be called either good or bad.

Sure they can. This is where your new definitions for good and bad lead you astray. People will definitely be calling choices good or bad, and they will be doing it universally in some cases, due to their common experience and brain chemistry. Morality doesn't have to be objective for that. And you certainly don't need anything supernatural.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Lots of issues of morality outside human thought. I'm wondering what sort of God the Dolphins beleive in and if doing "good deeds2 will carry them to dolphiny heaven?

Well that depends on if you speak of the dolphins in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Atlantic dolphins are pagans. Pacific dolphins worship the one true Dolphin God. They get 72 seahorses in paradise for it too. Good deal.

 

[barney]

I know the Tuna get a bit sick of them ranting on about being the chosen ones.
Yet it is the Tuna who every day accend into nets and are raised up above the waves!
Yea! though they are gone they shall return!

 

[Malaikah]

Lots of issues of morality outside human thought. I'm wondering what sort of God the Dolphins beleive in and if doing "good deeds2 will carry them to dolphiny heaven?

Animals don't go to paradise. They will be resurrected on the day of judgement and put to trial. After they see the condition of the humans, they will bow down to Allah, although the angels will tell them they don't have to bow, but they will reply that they are grateful to Allah for not having created them as humans. After that they will be turned to dust.

 

[doorster]

Pacific dolphins worship the one true Dolphin God. They get 72 seahorses in paradise for it too

Mock all you like, but you and this forum are heading to hell in a hand basket, all squished and screaming

 

[Malaikah]

Wow, which religion do you follow? I never knew computer program would go to hell too.:rollseyes

 

[doorster]

Wow, which religion do you follow? I never knew computer program would go to hell too.:rollseyes

in our language usage, forum is a gathering not a program.

I'll try a dictionary if I were you, and that is lughat, tarjama, sorry cant make it any easier I only know Urdu and english like my father and some Arabic to get by

 

[Pygoscelis]

Mock all you like, but you and this forum are heading to hell in a hand basket, all squished and screaming

I'd rather go in a ferrari if that can be arranged. Handbaskets are so crowded.

 

[Pygoscelis]

in our language usage, forum is a gathering not a program.

I'll try a dictionary if I were you, and that is lughat, tarjama, sorry cant make it any easier I only know Urdu and english like my father and some Arabic to get by

Wow, so you don't discriminate eh? Even Malaikah, Grace Seeker, and all the "good" Christians and muslims here are going to hell with me? I'll bring the marshmallows.




Sidenote: Why can't I see my private messages? Is there something awry with the board or is it my computer?

 

[Malaikah]

^The forum is acting up. I can't access my user cp either.

 

[barney]

Animals don't go to paradise. They will be resurrected on the day of judgement and put to trial. After they see the condition of the humans, they will bow down to Allah, although the angels will tell them they don't have to bow, but they will reply that they are grateful to Allah for not having created them as humans. After that they will be turned to dust.

How would the earthworm bow. It hasnt got any hips.

I know that sounds silly, but to me all of the above sounds just as silly. escpecially that theyre all grateful and then they get zapped.

Plus, if all the great food in heaven that beleivers are going to eat is retroactively turned into powder....whats the mechanics of that?

And yeah PG, ive just mailed ya...mines on the blink as well.

 

[ranma1/2]

Well that depends on if you speak of the dolphins in the Atlantic or the Pacific. Atlantic dolphins are pagans. Pacific dolphins worship the one true Dolphin God. They get 72 seahorses in paradise for it too. Good deal.

but how far can they carry a coconut?

 

[Grace Seeker]

Hmm? You mean in comparison to me? Come now, Grace Seeker, you've never been one to engage in ad homs.

Well, in truth, you did not seem to be thinking it through as fully. That could be becuase you weren't, or because I wasn't being perceptive enough.

This does not follow. If it is objective why must all be able to recognize it? Maybe it exists and we don't view it correctly.

Ah, you are correct. Objective morality, like objective truth could exist and we might not either see it or even in seeing it not recognize it.

If morality exists in a vacuum, then our subjective opinions on it seem to become moot.

Are you introducing the concept of morality existing in a vacuum, or do you think that I already have?

I understand this. You believe morality somehow exists in a vacuum with nobody to perceive it (objective). I believe it can only exist in the mind (subjective).

Your restatement of your view is helpful. I understand this expression of it much better. But I am not quite in agreement with your restatement of my position. I do think that we are able to perceive the morality that does exist apart from us.

Now you are just defining your way into the absurd. Seems an odd definition for morality to say it does not exist even though we have concepts of right and wrong.

I think that is the logical conclusion of your position. They are no more than prejuidices of one sort or another.

Query: Is head hunting right or wrong? People have views with regard to it. But if there is no objective morality, how can we really say that it is wrong. Indeed for those who practice it, it is a very basic moral good. But separate from some sort of objective morality, while we might subjective opinions of somethings rightness or wrongness, we cah't really say that our morality is in fact right at all. We can't say that it is right, because in reality there is no right nor wrong, on our particular prejuidices with regard to those things that we call right and wrong for reasons about from any moral reality.

But really this is just more semantics. All you are doing in this whole post so far is redefining terms. You want to define right and wrong that way, thats ok, but don't expect others to know what you are talking about if you do. And don't fall into the fallacy of trying to attach the emotional loadings of the old terms to your new definitions.

Semantics are about the meaning of words. Sometimes those meanings are important. I am suggesting that they are important in this discussion. That we must define our terms. If I understand you correctly, you want to say that there is no objective source for morality. And I want to say that if that is true, then there is no sense talking about morality at all. That what you call morals is not morality at all, but something else.

Sure they can. This is where your new definitions for good and bad lead you astray. People will definitely be calling choices good or bad, and they will be doing it universally in some cases, due to their common experience and brain chemistry. Morality doesn't have to be objective for that. And you certainly don't need anything supernatural.

This is where talking about morality when you don't believe in objective morality leads you astray. With only subjective morality, you have no ground to stand on for you or anyone else to make a moral decison. You can only call things good and bad because you agree to use those terms to describe something instead of what you really mean which is a common like and a common dislike.

 

[Pygoscelis]

This has been a very interesting discussion on semantics. But I think that's all it really is. We're defining terms differently. And I don't think we really disagree on much other than the objective/subjective nature of morality.

Are you introducing the concept of morality existing in a vacuum, or do you think that I already have?

I thought you already had. If morality was created separate from a mind to perceive it, could it not exist in a vacuum?

I think that is the logical conclusion of your position. They are no more than prejuidices of one sort or another.

Good and bad are no more than subjective. Creations of our minds resulting from our common experiences, empathy, and self interest, ultimately resulting from our DNA and brain chemistry.

Using words like "prejudices" (instead of say "judgments") and redefining "morality" to exclude subjective moral judgments just looks to me like attempts to emotionally load your terms.

Query: Is head hunting right or wrong?

I think its great that people come to me and offer me another job.

But separate from some sort of objective morality, while we might subjective opinions of somethings rightness or wrongness, we cah't really say that our morality is in fact right at all. We can't say that it is right, because in reality there is no right nor wrong, on our particular prejuidices with regard to those things that we call right and wrong for reasons about from any moral reality.

This is all about our definitions of "right" and "wrong", on which we differ. You are correct that without objective morality there can be no objective statements of right or wrong. That isn't saying as much as I think you think it is though.

If I understand you correctly, you want to say that there is no objective source for morality.

Yes. That is my view.

And I want to say that if that is true, then there is no sense talking about "morality" at all. That what you call morals is not morality at all, but something else.

""s added by me.

This is semantics. You can call subjective morality what you wish, but it is still what it is. It is a sense of right and wrong. And it is often universal amongst humans (due to what I mentioned above).

This is where talking about morality when you don't believe in objective morality leads you astray. With only subjective morality, you have no ground to stand on for you or anyone else to make a moral decison.

If you redefine morality as you have, then sure. But so what? You are still making decisions for the same purposes and with the same impacts and value.

I reject your redefinition and I say morality must be subjective, for objective morality doesn't exist. So you're not talking about morality unless you are talking about the subjective.

I actually find belief in objective morality to be one of the more dangerous things religions lead us towards. If morality is thought to be objective, and thought to be revealed to us, then we are prone to accept this "revealed" code of "right" and "wrong" and subdue our own moral sense. Things like burning witches, stoning people to death, or flying planes into buildings become "moral" even though our own internal senses of good and bad scream otherwise.

True, absent a belief in objective morality we may decide that doing a horrible act is just, because we are psychopaths or have been brainwashed and our victims demonized, but at least we could still readjust if a non-psychopath or non-programmed moral voice in us tells us otherwise.

Obedience to an external moral code, if you don't internally agree with that code, is just bare obedience. And I say that is not morality at all. Many things in religions follow this pattern. Some political ideologies do too.

If you speak to believers/followers you often find them telling you that many things are "right" because such-and-such God or Great Leader says they are right, and not because they the believer actually themselves feel they are right. Recipe for disaster that is.

 

[thirdwatch512]

Animals don't go to paradise. They will be resurrected on the day of judgement and put to trial. After they see the condition of the humans, they will bow down to Allah, although the angels will tell them they don't have to bow, but they will reply that they are grateful to Allah for not having created them as humans. After that they will be turned to dust.

why do we have souls and are able to go to heaven, but animals aren't?

as a Christian, i believe that animals ARE inferior to us. which is why they don't have to follow the Bible, because they can't do so. but at the same time, they can think, and some are just as smart as humans. and as a Christian, i believe they will be able to go to heaven