Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Morality and Subjectivity
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 121 of 238 (304668)
04-16-2006 9:24 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by pink sasquatch
04-16-2006 9:07 PM


Re: Back to criteria for absolute vs subjective/relative
If an absolute God exists, and if God has morals, then those morals would be absolute by definition, I suppose - even if the God's moral code included things like "torture thy neighbor," the morals would be "absolute". I haven't seen evidence for either of those "ifs", but grant that you would be correct if those two conditions were true.
OK, thank you. I now have two votes for this definition, three counting my own.
any moral code agreed upon by all humanity would be absolute.
Getting all humans to agree upon a moral code would be quite difficult, especially given the multitudes who have psychiatric or other disorders which might make them anti-social.
But if I could twist your "all humanity" thought a bit, I'd like to suggest that a moral code that is biologically/behaviorally hard-wired in (healthy) humans may be considered absolute/objective - such as the aversion to murder.
I'll accept the qualification of "healthy" for this purpose, or the best legal thinking in the community perhaps, from the leaders of the community if it's a small tribe. Whatever the majority of normal people in any community think perhaps.
Not going to consider trans-species "morals" though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-16-2006 9:07 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-16-2006 10:03 PM Faith has replied

Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 122 of 238 (304669)
04-16-2006 9:37 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Faith
04-16-2006 5:03 PM


Re: Rational Perception
...my impression is that there is just enough variation to thwart this possibility.
I think you're probably right. Whatever it is, assuming "it" exists at all, would very likely be lost in the background noise. On the other hand, such a discovery would go a loooong way toward evidencing an objective morality. This might be one of those rare opportunities for theist and non-theist to work together - discovering an "objective morality" that applies across cultural and temporal boundaries would seem to be a major breakthrough in our understanding of our species.
Perchance to dream...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Faith, posted 04-16-2006 5:03 PM Faith has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 123 of 238 (304673)
04-16-2006 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by Faith
04-16-2006 9:24 PM


Re: Back to criteria for absolute vs subjective/relative
Whatever the majority of normal people in any community think perhaps.
A majority, though, is not sufficient to establish an absolute moral code.
Just think of the changes in moral codes that have occurred in the United States - not all that long ago the majority thought that interracial marriage was immoral; now, the majority thinks it is moral (I'm hopefully assuming). Or perhaps slavery - at one time the majority in various cultures found slavery to be moral; now it is essentially internationally considered immoral. These sorts of examples refute the ability of the majority to determine absolute or objective moral codes.
Not going to consider trans-species "morals" though.
Why not? I would think that whether one believes that chimps and humans are the products of Creation, or distant cousins separated by several millions years' evolution, the relatively simple morality of chimps (that is shared with humans) should serve as strong indication of what is absolute morality.
That is, if creatures with a far less developed concept of morality also recognize "thou shalt not kill", then we should consider that a pretty good candidate for an absolute moral.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by Faith, posted 04-16-2006 9:24 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 04-16-2006 10:32 PM pink sasquatch has replied
 Message 125 by lfen, posted 04-17-2006 1:38 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 124 of 238 (304678)
04-16-2006 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 123 by pink sasquatch
04-16-2006 10:03 PM


Re: Back to criteria for absolute vs subjective/relative
Whatever the majority of normal people in any community think perhaps.
A majority, though, is not sufficient to establish an absolute moral code.
Just think of the changes in moral codes that have occurred in the United States - not all that long ago the majority thought that interracial marriage was immoral; now, the majority thinks it is moral (I'm hopefully assuming). Or perhaps slavery - at one time the majority in various cultures found slavery to be moral; now it is essentially internationally considered immoral. These sorts of examples refute the ability of the majority to determine absolute or objective moral codes.
Well, you may be right it's simply impossible, as I also suspect. But I would start with the moral principles we have reason to think might possibly be universal, if defined carefully anyway, not the ones we know are disputed.
Not going to consider trans-species "morals" though.
Why not? I would think that whether one believes that chimps and humans are the products of Creation, or distant cousins separated by several millions years' evolution, the relatively simple morality of chimps (that is shared with humans) should serve as strong indication of what is absolute morality.
But I think human beings are categorically different beings than any animals. I believe we were made in the image of God, that is, with perfect moral sense in tune with God's moral law, and then lost it through disobedience, are now Fallen and our moral sense is compromised since then. While animals are also affected by the Fall I'm not sure they were affected in anything like the same sense that human beings are. They simply have no culpability before God as we do.
That is, if creatures with a far less developed concept of morality also recognize "thou shalt not kill", then we should consider that a pretty good candidate for an absolute moral.
Well, give me a clue why I should consider this. I don't have the impression that any animal has such an absolute rule of behavior. And in any case, if a behavior is "hard wired" I doubt it can be called a morality. (I have the impression that animals do have something like a conscience however, even something like a sense of guilt, but it's based on very few personal experiences so doesn't mean much).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-16-2006 10:03 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-17-2006 5:44 PM Faith has replied

lfen
Member (Idle past 4678 days)
Posts: 2189
From: Oregon
Joined: 06-24-2004


Message 125 of 238 (304685)
04-17-2006 1:38 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by pink sasquatch
04-16-2006 10:03 PM


Re: Back to criteria for absolute vs subjective/relative
A majority, though, is not sufficient to establish an absolute moral code.
The personality rested in a gentle glow of happiness, but while it was very gentle, yet it was so potent as to dull the keenest sensuous delight. Likewise the sense of world-pain was absorbed. I looked, as it were, over the world, asking: "what is there of interest here? What is there worth doing?"
Franklin Merrell-Wolff, Pathways through to Space
http://www.bodysoulandspirit.net/mystical_experiences/read
/published_collections/pathways.shtml
I don't have a copy of the book handy and I could only find this abbreviated quote on the web. He went on to say that the only reason he found for remaining embodied on earth was the knowledge that so many beings were suffering and his wish to share the state he had found with them. I don't recall him using the term Bodhisattva's Vow but it's the same thing.
The Buddha said: "Subhuti, all Bodhisattvas and Mahasattvas should hold this thought:
All living beings, whether born from the womb or hatched from the egg, whether they transform like butterflies or arise miraculously, whether they have a body or are formless, whether they are capable or born from eggs, wombs, humidity or by transformation, with or without form, whether capable of profound thoughts, or of no thoughts at all, I vow to lead every individual being to Nirvana, and not until they are all safely there will I reap my reward and enter Nirvana!
And when this innumerable, immeasurable, infinite number of beings has become liberated, we do not, in truth, think that a single being has been liberated.
Why is this so?
In reality there is no such thing as an I who liberates, and no other who is liberated. If a Bodhisattva holds on to the idea that a self, person, living being, or life span exists, that person is not a true Bodhisattva!"
http://www.spiritual-happiness.com/nlpupdate3.html
This of course is not a societal morality and as the state Franklin realized was without object or subject so it's catagorically different from the focus of the thread and yet in a way this comes closer to satisfying the notion of objective morality in a paradoxial sense that it is neither objective nor morality and yet is the hightest priority on the border of leaving behind subjective/objective duality.
lfen

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-16-2006 10:03 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 126 of 238 (304704)
04-17-2006 8:14 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by Faith
04-16-2006 5:06 PM


Re: Rational Perception
But of course there IS doubt about it, although I believe God has done it as do all my fellow fundies. I've also argued that whether or not anyone believes in it, if the Creator God established it, that makes it objective and absolute.
Your opinion?
If there were a God and we knew it and knew His morality, there would definitely be an absolute standard--by definition. This God would be an ideal Being, the answer to everything. Some religious people think there is such a God and that our conscience is the recording of this standard. Our moral feelings in that case would be responding to an objective rule.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by Faith, posted 04-16-2006 5:06 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-17-2006 8:44 AM robinrohan has replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 238 (304705)
04-17-2006 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by JavaMan
04-16-2006 2:08 PM


Re: Rational Perception
'Objective thought' is an oxymoron.
We are trying to make a distinction here between objective and subjective. The Pythagorean theorum is objective. A theorum is something in the mind. We can't find the theorum lying about on the ground somewhere. The theorum doesn't exist except in the mind. What makes it objective is that it corresponds to the reality of triangles.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-17-2006 07:20 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by JavaMan, posted 04-16-2006 2:08 PM JavaMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 137 by JavaMan, posted 04-18-2006 4:35 AM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 128 of 238 (304712)
04-17-2006 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 126 by robinrohan
04-17-2006 8:14 AM


Re: Rational Perception
If there were a God and we knew it and knew His morality, there would definitely be an absolute standard--by definition.
Yes, but my question was about His status whether or not anybody believes in Him, or whether or not "we knew it and knew His morality," as clearly only those of us who believe in Him claim to have this knowledge.
This God would be an ideal Being, the answer to everything.
And in fact He is.
Some religious people think there is such a God and that our conscience is the recording of this standard. Our moral feelings in that case would be responding to an objective rule.
Except that those who believe in such a God also believe that our moral feelings have been damaged and therefore don't reliably respond to His objective rule.
In other words, this God could exist and provide an absolute moral standard and we not know it. How does that change your view if it does?
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-17-2006 08:45 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by robinrohan, posted 04-17-2006 8:14 AM robinrohan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by robinrohan, posted 04-17-2006 10:34 AM Faith has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 238 (304728)
04-17-2006 10:34 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Faith
04-17-2006 8:44 AM


Re: Rational Perception
In other words, this God could exist and provide an absolute moral standard and we not know it. How does that change your view if it does?
If we didn't know it then we wouldn't be responsible for upholding it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Faith, posted 04-17-2006 8:44 AM Faith has not replied

kongstad
Member (Idle past 2870 days)
Posts: 175
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Joined: 02-24-2004


Message 130 of 238 (304768)
04-17-2006 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 108 by nwr
04-16-2006 10:35 AM


Re: Axioms
nwr writes:
As a mathematician, why am I unaware of this "fundemental result?"
I was referring to Goedel. As English is a second language I was perhaps a little unclear. I simply meant that math as it is is unprovable. You cannot prove math by using only statements from within math - but we are going way off topic, so I'll cease now

This message is a reply to:
 Message 108 by nwr, posted 04-16-2006 10:35 AM nwr has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 131 of 238 (304801)
04-17-2006 3:34 PM


Subjective and Objective
I have a special fondness for the college I went to many years ago. Now if I were to get carried away, I might proclaim, "This college is the best college of all."
This would be a subjective idea on my part, and it would not be logical. It would be a bias. It's a fine college, but it's not "the best college of all."
This is what we call a subjective idea. There would be no logical basis for my view that this college is the best of all. My only standard would be the fact that I went there.
Such subjective thoughts are far different from logical, objective ideas, such as when we decide if a syllogism is valid or not and do so correctly.
Now moral ideas fall into those class of thoughts we call subjective. They always contain a bias.
This message has been edited by robinrohan, 04-17-2006 02:35 PM

Replies to this message:
 Message 132 by Faith, posted 04-17-2006 4:48 PM robinrohan has not replied
 Message 138 by JavaMan, posted 04-18-2006 6:58 AM robinrohan has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 132 of 238 (304808)
04-17-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 131 by robinrohan
04-17-2006 3:34 PM


Re: Subjective and Objective
Now moral ideas fall into those class of thoughts we call subjective. They always contain a bias.
Unless, as you have agreed, they are given by the omniscient omnipotent omnipresent up-close-and-personal Creator God.
In which case they carry the same weight as a true mathematical or logical statement.
In the case of the law given by God to Moses as reported in the Bible, it is continuously in operation, judging us. It doesn't require us to obey it or acknowledge it at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 131 by robinrohan, posted 04-17-2006 3:34 PM robinrohan has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6023 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 133 of 238 (304817)
04-17-2006 5:44 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Faith
04-16-2006 10:32 PM


behavior vs. morals
But I would start with the moral principles we have reason to think might possibly be universal, if defined carefully anyway, not the ones we know are disputed.
Good point; but to some extent it doesn't matter, since the ability of the majority to establish a universal moral code has been refuted.
What are those possibly-universal non-disputed principles? Has anyone suggested any possibilities for discussion-sake?
But I think human beings are categorically different beings than any animals. I believe we were made in the image of God, that is, with perfect moral sense in tune with God's moral law, and then lost it through disobedience, are now Fallen and our moral sense is compromised since then. While animals are also affected by the Fall I'm not sure they were affected in anything like the same sense that human beings are. They simply have no culpability before God as we do.
I can't argue with your personal beliefs, I can only state that by making arguments with such a subjective viewpoint you are losing any hope of finding objective answers.
There also seems to be an inherent contradiction in your statement regarding the Fall, "our moral sense is compromised since then". If such is the case, then how can you be so sure of your personal views on morality of humans and non-humans?
I don't have the impression that any animal has such an absolute rule of behavior.
Quite frankly, your "impression" alone doesn't hold any weight in the discussion.
And I never said it was an "absolute rule of behavior" by any means. I stated that chimpanzees very likely understand that it is wrong to murder other chimpanzees, though they do commit such acts in extreme power struggles.
This is no different a case than humans, who understand that it is wrong to murder other humans, even though they do commit such acts in extreme power struggles.
If humans and chimps share the same moral attitude regarding murder, I think we're getting as close as we can to an absolute moral code.
And in any case, if a behavior is "hard wired" I doubt it can be called a morality.
Again, I never said the behavior was hard-wired. I said the moral code was hard-wired.
That is a huge difference, since both chimps and humans with the same hard-wired moral can still choose behavior that goes against that moral. See the difference?
In any case, the point of this discussion is to find a universal moral code, one that is shared by all of humanity, in other words, one that is "hard-wired."
I have the impression that animals do have something like a conscience however...
A conscience requires understanding that some things are right and some things are wrong, in other words, morality - which you just claimed didn't exist in animals...
We just have to be careful when ascribing a guilty conscience to animals that co-habitate with humans, since they may simply be trained to understand human morality, and the accompanying punishment and rewards that come along with that framework.
That is why the chimpanzee morality example is so compelling - it was postulated following observation of natural populations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Faith, posted 04-16-2006 10:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 134 by robinrohan, posted 04-17-2006 6:28 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 135 by Faith, posted 04-17-2006 7:56 PM pink sasquatch has not replied
 Message 136 by Faith, posted 04-17-2006 8:19 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

robinrohan
Inactive Member


Message 134 of 238 (304820)
04-17-2006 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by pink sasquatch
04-17-2006 5:44 PM


Re: behavior vs. morals
I can only state that by making arguments with such a subjective viewpoint you are losing any hope of finding objective answers.
I wish you would explain that to these posters who are claiming that all thoughts are subjective--or something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-17-2006 5:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1445 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 135 of 238 (304829)
04-17-2006 7:56 PM
Reply to: Message 133 by pink sasquatch
04-17-2006 5:44 PM


Re: behavior vs. morals
I can't argue with your personal beliefs, I can only state that by making arguments with such a subjective viewpoint you are losing any hope of finding objective answers.
There also seems to be an inherent contradiction in your statement regarding the Fall, "our moral sense is compromised since then". If such is the case, then how can you be so sure of your personal views on morality of humans and non-humans?
But I don't consider anything I derive from the Bible to be merely my "personal beliefs" or a "subjective viewpoint" etc. The Bible is the source of OBJECTIVE standards, if in fact it reveals the nature of the omnipotent omniscient Creator God. If I were trusting my own moral sense of course it couldn't be trusted, but the moral standards given by the Bible, and its distinction between humans and animals, give me an objective standard.
I would argue that this criterion for objectivity is valid whether or not anyone else believes the Bible.
This message has been edited by Faith, 04-17-2006 07:56 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by pink sasquatch, posted 04-17-2006 5:44 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024