Objective vs Subjective Morality.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Hey guys, it's been a while, decided to drop by and visit for a bit :)

Something that's come up in a lot of my debates in real life and elsewhere on the intarwebs is the idea of subjective morality, the idea that the non-believer can't come up with a world view beyond like and dislike. For example, the idea that without God, the only reason someone would deem murder as "bad" is because they dislike murder, obviously a stronger form of dislike than say, not liking vegetables, but a dislike all the same.

So the conclusion that these theists make, is that man alone has no way of deciding what is good and what is bad beyond preference. But if this true, how can a theist recognize a goodness in God? The theist (at least in this case) has already concluded that man can not recognize goodness beyond preference. How can a theist claim that God is good if man doesn't understand what good actually means?

The best that the theist can do is trust that God is good, but that seems just as subjective as what the theist was arguing against in the first place.

To sum it up, if we have morality outside of God to judge that God is good, God becomes irrelevant, as we already have a basis for morality. If we have no way to judge morality, then no one can claim that God is good outside of personal preference.

[melodious fellow]

Lame that no one replied to such a cool topic.

Firstly, I do not believe objective morality exists.

If morality even exists, it can only exist in a relative, transient sense.

I follow your logic regarding a basis for morality preexisting any morality based on a God.

I absolutely love the quote in your sig, btw.

[Iambreathingin]

Awesome topic, very relevant to me at the moment.

I think you make very important points. Life and your vision of life is defined by your perspective. Your perspective that is both impermanent (subject to change) and heavily influenced by what's around you.

That is to say that anyone can do good believing it's good, when it's actually bad...Ofcourse what defines "good" and "bad" isn't as black and white as people might like to think so.

Essentially, I think it's all subjective. All you can do is use your human empathy to act in such a way that you believe will minimize negative impacts (Anything that causes harm to an individual or group whom recognize it as harmful), and maximize the positive effect of your actions (Anything that generates experience without causing suffering).

In Buddhism, karma is determined not by the action itself, but by the intention of that action.

The truth has no name and is, in my opinion utterly subjective. The law especially, which varies dramatically is a prime example of a government imposing what it believes as right and wrong, true and false.

[Hardcore Newbie]

I think morality must be something subjective, by it's very nature.



In Buddhism, karma is determined not by the action itself, but by the intention of that action. Even if we assumed Karma existed, one could acquire Karma by killing people to save them from "dark forces". If someone believes they are doing good, it doesn't mean they are.

I think that morals can only come from logic and reason. I live my life by 3 very logical laws, which are:

Respect other people's right to live
Remain truthful in all contracting
Respect other people's propertyPeople are assumed from birth to have entered this mutual contract because if you disagree to any of these three things, people have the right to kill you, lie to you, or take your stuff. I mean, if someone told me flat out that they don't respect my right to live, then my life isn't guaranteed, and is in danger by this person. It is reason that leads to the best moral system

[melodious fellow]

[QUOTE]Even if we assumed Karma existed, one could acquire Karma by killing people to save them from "dark forces". If someone believes they are doing good, it doesn't mean they are.



Great point about Karma! There is evidence that supports a type of energy, a medium of which we can affect with our own energy. Positive energy is often released when we do something we are taught are "good," such as feeling nice after you help a person really in need, etc. When you cause pain to other due to your own irrational decisions, you cause both negative energy from the one(s) you hurt, as well as by your own guilt if you experience any. And if this Karma is merely just a name for this scientific mystery, whether or not positive or negative energy would be emitted is likely solely based on the outcome of your actions, teleological theory anyway.... :rastasmoke:



Respect other people's right to live
Remain truthful in all contracting
Respect other people's property



And I think your list can be much improved. On your list was Remaining truthful.


"if you disagree to any of these three things, people have the right to kill you, lie to you, or take your stuff.

So now lying is illegal and punishable by death?

How long has it been since you smoked weed dawg? Get the fuck on that :rastasmoke:

Always being honest should not be an intrinsic morality enforced by coercive threat of punishment of death. Do not echo fascist madmen..

Upon making lying illegal, the advertising industry would crash, the media industry would crash, another idiotic war like the 'war on drugs' would emerge... A witch hunt for the filthy liars huh? O yea, and punishable by death by the fools that made the laws. :(

And instead of separate rules for the right to life and the right to private property, why not just simplify, consolidate, and increase efficiency:

"One may do as he wishes in order to pursue life to the fullest in the manner he so chooses, so long as he does not infringe upon the parallel and equal universal right of his fellow mankind to the same freedom."

peace

[human8]

ha....he said conclusions.

[melodious fellow]

ha....he said conclusions.

that's iT? :wtf:

and wtf were you talking about ? :wtf:

[40oz]

If anybody strongly thinks that morals have to come from a god and humans would not have them otherwise consider this:

Morality developed in humans over the course of our evolution out of necessity for survival. Think about it, if there was a war between two tribes of early humans the tribe that had a better sense of comradery would ultimatley survive. The tribe who warned the others of an oncoming attack and who joined together prevailed to stamp out the tribes that had no sense of this early morality. Individuals that demonstrated a high sense of this morality of looking out for each other gained a sense of achivement and glory from other members of the tribe. The sense of morality was passed on to their offspring, and their offsprings offspring and so on.

Morality grew from generation to generation, it was ruled by the ability to reason and eventually religion. Therefore it is possible for humans to have developed a sense of morality without the aid of a god commanding that it be a certain way.

You can find a lot of ideas being thrown around in the world of what the proper morals are, it is a subject that has been tackled by philosophers for ages. I personally take a relativism approach to explain what are proper morals. Its all dependent on your enviornment and how you view reality.

My moral standpoint right now is basically that we (all living creatures) are in this crazy confusing world together and the only way to live is to be a guiding light and helping hand to people who are lost in the darkness and confusion, and to try your best to make sure that the existence of those around you is better because of you. In turn I feel that happiness will follow.





And melodious fellow, I think you are taking hardcore's morals a little out of perspective. I think it would be more accurate to say that if you lie to people, you in turn deserve to be lied to, not killed. Its an interesting set of morals, not one I would adopt but hey, its all relative.

[carinia]

Personally, Im a strong believer in new age Karma, and I think youll find a hard arguement that all major religions are based on that same idea: do good to others, youll have good done to you.

That being said, I think an important point has been overlooked. Subjectively, we all can find ways to justify that our actions are good, that the things we do in the world make it better. Sure, there are always more things we can do good, and less bad things we can do bad.

However God is deemed as an objective morality. Now, my question is if this objective morality in any real way impacts and controls that of the subjective morality?

Ok so, what i mean is in the context of church, does having someone 'watch your back' make you do better things? Or is it the subjective community in which you are involved in when you are tied to a church make you do better things? And outside of that, if you are not involved at all, does that make you a person unconcerned with values associated with being in that community?

:)

[melodious fellow]

No, he said "if you disagree to any (me disagreeing to the one about lying violates this) of these three things, people have the right to kill you, lie to you, or take your stuff.

Unless he meant respectfully, that is to say only the punishment of being lied to is given to liars and only the punishment of death for murders, etc. But that was not indicated.

Now that you mention it, I actually hope that is where his intentions were. Guess my whole rant was a waste of my time then... he he :thumbsup:

peace

[Hardcore Newbie]

So now lying is illegal and punishable by death?

How long has it been since you smoked weed dawg? Get the fuck on that :rastasmoke:

What I mean is, if someone blatantly tells you that they will lie in their contracting with you, what incentive do you have to be truthful in your contracting with them? I'm not saying kill those who lie to you, I'm saying don't lie to me, and I won't lie to you, don't kill me and I won't kill you... etc.


Upon making lying illegal, the advertising industry would crash, the media industry would crash, another idiotic war like the 'war on drugs' would emerge... A witch hunt for the filthy liars huh? O yea, and punishable by death by the fools that made the laws. :(

I could only hope for the advertising industry to crash. You act like the truth in advertising would be a bad thing. And just to re-iterate, lying would not be punishable by death, lying would be punished by your words and motives being questioned and probably ignored.


And instead of separate rules for the right to life and the right to private property, why not just simplify, consolidate, and increase efficiency:

"One may do as he wishes in order to pursue life to the fullest in the manner he so chooses, so long as he does not infringe upon the parallel and equal universal right of his fellow mankind to the same freedom."

peacethat's exactly the kind of thought that laws like these (the only 3 real laws of our society, not acts and statutes), except mine are a little clearer, at least to me :)

[melodious fellow]

Sounds good. Let's go start a society :rastasmoke: