Morals without god/the bible

[waynepii]

Do you want to be treated with respect? Yes? Then treat others with respect.
Do you want to dealt with honestly? Yes? Then deal with others honestly.
Do you want your property stolen? No? Then don't steal or condone stealing other's property.
Do you want to be enslaved? No? Then don't enslave or condone enslaving others.
Do you want to discriminated against because of your race, gender, national origin, etc? No? Then don't discriminate or condone discrimination against others.
Do you want to be told whom you can or cannot marry? No? Then don't tell others whom they can or cannot marry.
etc.

YOU WANT = Subjective

Do want your neighbors 50" bigscreen?

The good thing about these things Wayne list, is they are all true. Objectively true. Wayne just doesn't know who to thank for the reality of these truths.

Would you care to explain what you mean here?

[jlay]

Wayne, the phrase "you want" is as subjective as it gets.

What if someone doesn't want those things. Why are you right, and them wrong? If morality is based only on wants (preferences) then how could someone wanting something that conflicts with your preference be evil or abhorrent?

It seems to me you were chiding the use of the word "preference" on the other thread, and yet your entire worldview seems to be entangled in just that.

You see Wayne, I agree with those things you list. (except the last) The difference is I see a standard that exist outside my fallable mind that insures those values are not merely opinion.

Have you always treated people with respect? (Even in your thoughts)
Have you ever lied to people?
Have you ever stolen?
Have you ever misused authority over another?
Have you ever discriminated?

Funny that all of those things are summed up in the commandments of God.

[waynepii]

Wayne, the phrase "you want" is as subjective as it gets.

Why does discussion of the GR always come down to semantics rather than substance? The concept is very simple - do unto others as you would have them do unto you". What's the problem?

What if someone doesn't want those things. Why are you right, and them wrong? If morality is based only on wants (preferences) then how could someone wanting something that conflicts with your preference be evil or abhorrent?

IMO morality is cultural. Each culture has defined its own code of conduct (morality) by which its members are expected to live. As evidence of the cultural relationship to morality consider the differences in the morality of various cultures throughout history - for example, the ancient Aztecs vs the contemporary cultures. IMO the GR serves as a fairly objective litmus test to evaluate various moralities against an "ideal" of equal treatment for all.

It seems to me you were chiding the use of the word "preference" on the other thread, and yet your entire worldview seems to be entangled in just that.

Preferences have nothing to do with the GR.

You see Wayne, I agree with those things you list. (except the last)

You really want someone telling whom you can and cannot marry?

The difference is I see a standard that exist outside my fallable mind that insures those values are not merely opinion.

What standard would that be? How do validate that standard? Are you sure your standard isn't just the morality you were taught by your parents? Do you really think our Aztec friend didn't have similar standard telling him that cutting the heart out of a human sacrifice was the right thing to do (because doing so was an essential part of the culture in which he was raised)?

Have you always treated people with respect? (Even in your thoughts)

I try to, sometimes I slip.

Have you ever lied to people?

"White lies" when necessary.

Have you ever stolen?

Occasionally as a child.

Have you ever misused authority over another?

Again, occasionally when I was much younger. Not in the last 20-30 years (a few people might disagree - I had to give several people bad performance reviews (they were honest reviews of bad performance) and had to lay off some people.)

Have you ever discriminated?

I grew up in a culture that did discriminate. As the culture started to change (during the civil rights era of 60's and 70's), I actively participated in the marches and protests against discrimination.

What's your point?

Funny that all of those things are summed up in the commandments of God.

Which commandment covers discrimination?

[topic]

quote="waynepii"]Why does discussion of the GR always come down to semantics rather than substance? The concept is very simple - do unto others as you would have them do unto you". What's the problem? [/quote]

So what is the substance?Is it actually that simple and what is the problem?

What is the substance --- you have to look at the total context of it in the bible.
Is it that simple --- yes and no. Yes if you look at the authority of God and it is an absolute; and no, if you look at it out of context and at it from a subjective perspective.
What is the problem ---- the understanding of the moral code.

The terms comes from the bible and the manner in which it is written;it is objective. You do not have a choice on YOUR take on it. Why? Because Leviticus is God speaking to Moses as the authority and in the N.T. it is Jesus speaking as the authority on it, so man has no part in making the law or on how to intepret it, but has the duty only to fulfull it.

Leviticus 19:18 is part of the "book of laws", so too take one law you must take it all - you can't pick and choose. Jesus clarifies this in Matthew 7:12. Jesus speaks the verse which is clearly identified by the last point in the sentance --" for this sums up the LAW and the PROPHETS". To clarify it even more Jesus repeats the verse verbatim in Luke 10:27. He is then asked "who is my neighbour?" and he proceedes to expand on the meaning by bringing focus on the "good Samaritian" story.
More importantly the term inwhich the GR is used in the bible is in the positive (the only book to do so ) and not the negative.
By positive i mean that you look at it from the other persons perspective and reflect it to yourself. The negative is that you look at it soley from your perspective and relaite it only to your view point - which all historical writings from differant Continents and countries did do - they looked at it from the negative, and most if not all still do.
The issue also is that it is totally inclusive - even of religion, and this is where your referance too the Aztecs falls short of the rule, which i will address in a sec.

IMO morality is cultural.

OK.So you look at it with a subjective moral code and you are looking at if from a negative pespective (inline with what negative is as stated above).If this is your view and you of coarse have every right to this, so no argument from me on that point.What i would ask you though is where accountability is in your view. If every culture looks at the GR as the subjective which you have stated by saying------

Each culture has defined its own code of conduct (morality) by which its members are expected to live.

how can and by what reasoning/right or authority can one culture overrule the "conduct of morality" of that opposing culture(s)?

for example, the ancient Aztecs vs the contemporary cultures.

In your opinion you clarify by saying -----

IMO the GR serves as a fairly objective litmus test to evaluate various moralities against an "ideal" of equal treatment for all

.First off can you clarify by what you mean "fairly objective?" it is a contradiction of term - oxymoron.It is not objective, it is being subjective. First you are relaiting one Nation to another, secondly you are relaiting one culture too another, yet you are using the GR on the condition of what you refer to the GR and not what the GR actually represents in the bible.

How is this defined in the Aztec culture.

If we look at the GR as "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Then why is it (from anthropological and historical observations) that the Religious rulers did not sacrifice themselves, yet where more than willing to do it to others and even encourage others to participate in the acts? How does the GR reflect to this ?? From both sciences, the Aztecs "human sacrifice" was well beyond those of any other Culture through out history. They did not always do human sacrifice but when they did, they went into it with gusto.A case in point --- in or around 1450 (the date is actually unclear but evidence supports this timeline) a great famine was upon them and the Aztec priests encourage the population to 'draw blood'. To do this the priests and the populace killed thousands of people .Again the decision (actually directive) by the Aztec priets was that they could do it too the populace, but the populace could not do it to the priests! They did not do this for following the GR as stated in the bible but did it because they viewed the GR in the negative.They were willing to sacrifice others for the greater good but not themselves. They did not mind one bit the pain or suffering they caused or inflicted as long as they could benefit from the apparent results of the sacrifice.
Not every sacrifice was the same. If it was to appease a god they would sacrifice in limited capacity; in other words, the priests would choose who was to be sacrificed (not everyone fitted into their guidelines or criteria -- so again selective ) but if the appeasement did not work and the situation grew worse; as exampled above by the 1450 drought it was a free for all and anyone could be sacrificed and anyone could actually do the sacrifice.
So again where is the GR in this ? There is no difinitive GR but a free for all perspective and more importantly an authoritive perspective , and in that perspective it is not a rule because noone is agreeing to the substance, guidelines or critiria

[jlay]

IMO the GR serves as a fairly objective litmus test to evaluate various moralities against an "ideal" of equal treatment for all.

Wait a minute. Is morality objective or subjective? Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

A litmus test would be like a scale, right? A scale would indicate a way to rank things. Being able to rank things indicates that you are comparing one culture's ethic to another. This would indicate objective morality to be a fact. And The GR would be an expression of this fact.

Preferences have nothing to do with the GR.

Only if OM exist. Otherwise you have no basis to hold the GR above might is right, or kill or be killed. Why do you want us to prove OM when you keep proving it for us? It is quite confusing Wayne.

You really want someone telling whom you can and cannot marry?

They already do. I can not marry a dog, or two women at the same time, or a turnip. I also don't want someone telling me how fast I can drive. There are a lot of things I don't perse, like, but I know there are legit reasons as to why I can or can't.

What standard would that be? How do validate that standard? Are you sure your standard isn't just the morality you were taught by your parents? Do you really think our Aztec friend didn't have similar standard telling him that cutting the heart out of a human sacrifice was the right thing to do (because doing so was an essential part of the culture in which he was raised)?

My dad ran off and left my family in an adulterous relationship, so yes, I'm pretty sure I didn't learn it from my parents.
You don't make a point here. Someone teaching something is right, doesn't make it so. That's why we KNOW the Aztecs were wrong, and not just that their atrocities were cultural preferences that don't juve with ours. Just because half of a teachers class gets the answer to the test wrong, doesn't mean there wasn't a right answer. People getting things wrong doesn't disprove OM any more than people getting math answers wrong diproves the reality of math.
I think the GR is a very good standard. No question that it stands above every ethic. No question that if everyone would abide by the GR in word, thought and deed that suffering would virtually end in the world. Not just this "do unto others," as long as it is convenient. But I mean really being pro-active about it. I mean it really is obvious, as you state Wayne. The GR does stand apart and above. Self-validating isn't it. The difference Wayne is I give credit to the author of it. The God who transcends time and space. What a shame for you. It's as if you are observing this beautiful painting. And you recoginize its beauty, but then you say, "the painting didn't have a painter."

Which commandment covers discrimination?

Jesus and Paul both said that the law is summed up in "love your neighbor as yourself."

What's your point?

My point is you don't even abide by your own ethic. And I would bet that if we really examine your life, REALLY EXAMINE, you would be like most of us. Most people want to justify themselves as good. Of course the point is to get us back to, "so what?" Why is the GR superior to any other ethic? If nothing is wrong in and of itself, then it isn't. No painter.

I grew up in a culture that did discriminate. As the culture started to change (during the civil rights era of 60's and 70's), I actively participated in the marches and protests against discrimination.

Ohhh. This is good. You went against the culture? Seriously. Are you proud of that? You should be. You mean even though your culture viewed discrimination as good, you were able to recoginze that it wasn't. Interesting. No painter.

[Jac3510]

I grew up in a culture that did discriminate. As the culture started to change (during the civil rights era of 60's and 70's), I actively participated in the marches and protests against discrimination.

Ohhh. This is good. You went against the culture? Seriously. Are you proud of that? You should be. You mean even though your culture viewed discrimination as good, you were able to recoginze that it wasn't. Interesting. No painter.

Holy cow, J. If that wasn't an admission on his part, I don't know what is.

So things are right and wrong if the culture so defines it . . . American culture embraced an ethic that allowed discrimination. Wayne had the good sense to see that it was WRONG and rightfully opposed it. But how could it be wrong if, by definition, things are only wrong if the culture opposes them?!?

The fact is, as you point out very well, that he KNEW discrimination was wrong regardless of what the culture said. He knows even today that discrimination is inherently wrong. Amazing . . . absolutely amazing . . .

Sorry, don't want to interrupt your conversation. My jaw just went slack when I saw that admission. I had to comment. Good show. Check mate. It's over.

[waynepii]

IMO the GR serves as a fairly objective litmus test to evaluate various moralities against an "ideal" of equal treatment for all.

Wait a minute. Is morality objective or subjective? Are you trying to have your cake and eat it too?

It's subjective - dependent upon the values and ethics of each society.

A litmus test would be like a scale, right? A scale would indicate a way to rank things. Being able to rank things indicates that you are comparing one culture's ethic to another. This would indicate objective morality to be a fact. And The GR would be an expression of this fact.

It doesn't work equally well in all circumstances, but in many cases the GR serves as a pretty good basis for treating everyone equally.

Preferences have nothing to do with the GR.

Only if OM exist. Otherwise you have no basis to hold the GR above might is right, or kill or be killed. Why do you want us to prove OM when you keep proving it for us? It is quite confusing Wayne.

So the GR IS "objective morality"? If OM is more than the GR, then THAT is what I'd like some definition concerning.

You really want someone telling whom you can and cannot marry?

They already do. I can not marry a dog, or two women at the same time, or a turnip.

Marriage is a contract. Dogs and turnips are not capable of entering into ANY contract. Bigamy is a valid issue, but the laws governing marriage are all structured around a contract between two people and AFAIK there hasn't been any serious requests to get them expanded.

I also don't want someone telling me how fast I can drive. There are a lot of things I don't perse, like, but I know there are legit reasons as to why I can or can't.

Speed limits are to protect you and others from the dangers of excessive speed. Most other laws are similar, to prevent others being adversely impacted by certain actions on our part. What possible adverse outcome is the basis for precluding two homosexuals who wish to enter a committed relationship to each other from getting the benefits and protections afforded by marriage? (Remember, it is not homosexuality itself that is at issue, it is marriage between two homosexuals)

What standard would that be? How do validate that standard? Are you sure your standard isn't just the morality you were taught by your parents? Do you really think our Aztec friend didn't have similar standard telling him that cutting the heart out of a human sacrifice was the right thing to do (because doing so was an essential part of the culture in which he was raised)?

My dad ran off and left my family in an adulterous relationship, so yes, I'm pretty sure I didn't learn it from my parents.

Your culture is more than just your parents, although even the parent who raised you probably had a significant impact. Your teachers, clergy, and peers all have an impact.

You don't make a point here. Someone teaching something is right, doesn't make it so. That's why we KNOW the Aztecs were wrong, and not just that their atrocities were cultural preferences that don't juve with ours. Just because half of a teachers class gets the answer to the test wrong, doesn't mean there wasn't a right answer. People getting things wrong doesn't disprove OM any more than people getting math answers wrong diproves the reality of math.

You missed my point - the Aztecs thought human sacrifice was necessary and that not making the sacrifices was immoral. Don't you think that the average Aztec knew human sacrifice was "right" just as strongly as you know it is "wrong"?

I think the GR is a very good standard. No question that it stands above every ethic. No question that if everyone would abide by the GR in word, thought and deed that suffering would virtually end in the world. Not just this "do unto others," as long as it is convenient. But I mean really being pro-active about it. I mean it really is obvious, as you state Wayne. The GR does stand apart and above. Self-validating isn't it. The difference Wayne is I give credit to the author of it. The God who transcends time and space. What a shame for you. It's as if you are observing this beautiful painting. And you recoginize its beauty, but then you say, "the painting didn't have a painter."

Where does the GR first show up in the Bible? I could be mistaken, but I don't think it is in the OT. If God authored such a gem, why did He wait so long to publish it? The concept is quite simple, isn't it possible that it is a product of human reasoning?

Which commandment covers discrimination?

Jesus and Paul both said that the law is summed up in "love your neighbor as yourself."

So it was left until the NT before discrimination was attended to?

What's your point?

My point is you don't even abide by your own ethic. And I would bet that if we really examine your life, REALLY EXAMINE, you would be like most of us. Most people want to justify themselves as good.

I strive to be good.

Of course the point is to get us back to, "so what?" Why is the GR superior to any other ethic? If nothing is wrong in and of itself, then it isn't. No painter.

You answered your own question about the superiority of the GR several paragraphs ago.

I grew up in a culture that did discriminate. As the culture started to change (during the civil rights era of 60's and 70's), I actively participated in the marches and protests against discrimination.

Ohhh. This is good. You went against the culture? Seriously. Are you proud of that? You should be. You mean even though your culture viewed discrimination as good, you were able to recoginze that it wasn't. Interesting. No painter.

Ah, the GR in action. I've said right along that a society's morality gets refined (I've also used "revised" and "evolved" in prior posts), this was a recent example of the refinement process. I will note that a lot of the resistance to civil rights was in the name of God, some of it from clergy.

[waynepii]

I grew up in a culture that did discriminate. As the culture started to change (during the civil rights era of 60's and 70's), I actively participated in the marches and protests against discrimination.

Ohhh. This is good. You went against the culture? Seriously. Are you proud of that? You should be. You mean even though your culture viewed discrimination as good, you were able to recoginze that it wasn't. Interesting. No painter.

Holy cow, J. If that wasn't an admission on his part, I don't know what is.

So things are right and wrong if the culture so defines it . . . American culture embraced an ethic that allowed discrimination. Wayne had the good sense to see that it was WRONG and rightfully opposed it. But how could it be wrong if, by definition, things are only wrong if the culture opposes them?!?

As I have mentioned in quite a few posts, a cultures morality gets refined occasionally. I am proud to say that I played a small part in the civil rights refinements.

The fact is, as you point out very well, that he KNEW discrimination was wrong regardless of what the culture said. He knows even today that discrimination is inherently wrong. Amazing . . . absolutely amazing . . .

Actually, I admit to needing a little persuading. Discussions with peers and a bit of reflection on the GR convinced me that discrimination against blacks, women, anyone should not be tolerated

[Proinsias]

The terms comes from the bible and the manner in which it is written;it is objective. You do not have a choice on YOUR take on it. Why? Because Leviticus is God speaking to Moses as the authority and in the N.T. it is Jesus speaking as the authority on it, so man has no part in making the law or on how to intepret it, but has the duty only to fulfull it.

If I write something in an objective manner does that then make it objective?

Of course you have a choice with regards to your take on it. As an individual you have a subjective opinion on the matter. You can hold the opinion that it is subjective, written by an individual as any other text is, or that it is the objective word of God, or anything in between.

One being completely convinced that a particular doctrine is defining morality does not make it so. By that standard there are many objective moralities. Who decides? you?

I think it comes back to Wayne's subjective golden rule. What do you want? If you want Christianity fair enough but I fail to see why someone else does not have a choice.

As for man having no part in interpretation: the bible was written by man, possibly inspired by God, and was/is interpreted by man - otherwise all Christians would need to be fluent in Hebrew and Greek which is again an issue as language is very much a product of time and location. If the word of the Christian God was not open to interpretation then all Christians would surely be in agreement, this is not the case.

[topic]

proinsias,

If I write something in an objective manner does that then make it objective?

The issue is not that you (by your view point) write something in an objecive manner, but that you have the authority to guide the moral code and not permit the option of subjective interpretation.Only an absolute can put a claim to giving an objective ethic and direct the morals.

Of course you have a choice with regards to your take on it. As an individual you have a subjective opinion on the matter. You can hold the opinion that it is subjective, written by an individual as any other text is, or that it is the objective word of God, or anything in between.

.

Well that is free will, that is not the argument, we agree on this.

One being completely convinced that a particular doctrine is defining morality does not make it so. By that standard there are many objective moralities. Who decides? you

Answer to your question as stated again and again - only an abslute can make it objective by directing the moral code. Give some examples of what you refer too " Many objective moralities".Again that is free will,everyone has a choice to listen to the absolute or not - you are not forced to do so.However, you are informed of the consequances if you do not follow the objective morality.

I think it comes back to Wayne's subjective golden rule. What do you want? If you want Christianity fair enough but I fail to see why someone else does not have a choice

You have stated the mantra over and over again - i have said enough to reply to this. In the last paragraph you have again said the same thing.

THE ISSUE IS - HOW DOES SUBJECTIVE MORALITY HOLD ANYONE(PEOPLE) OR NATION(S) ACCOUNTABLE? AND WHAT SUBJECTIVE MORALITY ARE WE DISCUSSING? Going by Waynes hypothesis that and i quote - "IMO morality is cultural" - unquote

So answer these if you do not mind, remembering that the agreement of "majority rules is morality - morality is cultural" - unless of coarse your view is differant i.e. your subjective morality is differant to Waynes, then if you wish to explain your view but then if you do not mind and care to engage in a discourse --

point 1 -For practicle purposes you are living in this society, not observing this society. As such any changes to the society's ethos, directly affects you.
point 2 - You cannot leave, so you have no choice but too abide there.
point 3 - the society you live in is Democratic with no inclination towards a Totalitarian agenda. (I have observed by your call sign you are from Scotland, so this should sit very comfortably with you).
point 4 - the questions are by my intention HYPOTHETICALS and your replies will be viewed as clinical in nature and do not represent your personal views on the subject matter, specifically - child marrage, torture and euthanasia, unless you specify to the contrary.

1. Ethics and morals are two differant things -yes or no?If yes - why?, if no - why not?
2. The goverment makes a law, with the observation that the majority agree with the law, does this make the law moral? yes or no. If yes - why? if no - why not?
The law introduced is --- "You can know marry anyone (either sex) 12yrs and above without parents consent."
3. Can a persons morals be influenced by the change in the law? Observing again that the majority agree to the change. yes or no. If yes - why? if no - why not?
The law being -- "You can know marry anyone (either sex) from 12yrs old, without the parents consent?
4. If the Moral code is subjective then you cannot use it as a definitive(benchmark) and call any cultures view or actions right or wrong. yes or no. If yes - why? if no - why not?
5. If collectively the society including the goverment agrees that Torture and Euthanasia are lawfull and morally correct; those who then oppose these - are immoral to the society? yes or no. If yes -why? if no - why not?
6. If the moral view of the minority is not in agreement with the morals of the greater society, but overtime there is a sway in moral agreement and the minority now becomes the majority so the morals are changed as are the laws, are those who do not wish to change - immoral? if yes - why? if no - why not ?
The moral view of the minority being that Torture and Euthanasia are not only humane but the benefits justify the change.


Note : the above questions are not exclusive, so if Wayne would also like to answer? I would be interested in his views and anyone else who would be inclined to participate

peace

[jlay]

So the GR IS "objective morality"? If OM is more than the GR, then THAT is what I'd like some definition concerning.

Wayne, like Jac said, the debate is over. You can try to cleverly disguise the conflicts within your own world view, but the evidence is on the table for all to see. Your own words expose the truth. Your flip flopping, which I'm sure you don't see that way, is apparent.

I've already addressed this exact same question regarding the GR on the other thread. EXACTLY. The GR is an identifiable expression of OM. It is true because it is true. It is a way to see and understand the reality of the source of the GR. It is God knocking on the door of your heart.

A teacher can teach a listener, but that is no guarantee that the listener will apprehend or comprehend the truth. Especially when the listener is being willfully ignnorant and stubborn.

Pro, this reall is simple when you filter through all the duck and dodging.
If morality is subjective then there is no basis to extol the GR above any other ethic. There is no basis to regard the GR as superior or inferior to any other ethic. It is all preference. When one tries to rate an ethic, they are borrowing from OM. For something to be superior or inferior must mean there is an objective source that we can measure by. Otherwise the measuring itself is subjective and has no inherent value. Just as the words good and evil would have no inherent value. If throwing babies into a fire can be good in one culture and bad in another simply because of the subjective preferences within the culture, then what true meanings do these words have at all?

So, I see it as ripe with hypocrisy that someone would be "proud" of going against the cultural norm, because they are violating the essence of what they claim their worldview to be. Oh mercy the hyposcrisy. Think of this ridiculous assertion.
Let's say:
-Right and Wrong are subjective.
-What determines right or wrong, is the collective ethic of a particular culture.
-Let's say this culture is overwhelmingly theistic. In fact the founding documents of this culture state that people's rights are rooted in the reality of an objective source. ("We hold these truths to be self evident....... That ALL men are endowed by their CREATOR......." )
-So, the person who bases right and wrong on subjective reality would have to admit that the theist is right and they are wrong. And that within said culture the non-theist has the right to be wrong. In this case, being a non-theist isn't just wrong, but unAmerican.


Ridiculous isn't it?

[ageofknowledge]

It is ridiculous and makes all the great sweeping emotions that atheists like to project against "religion" ultimately immaterial.

[Proinsias]

If I write something in an objective manner does that then make it objective?

The issue is not that you (by your view point) write something in an objecive manner, but that you have the authority to guide the moral code and not permit the option of subjective interpretation.Only an absolute can put a claim to giving an objective ethic and direct the morals.

I think the issue is that by your point of view someone has written a moral code in an objective manner. I don't agree. I do agree that an objective ethic would require an absolute. My issue is that it is not an absolute which is handing out objective ethics, it is people claiming an absolute origin for the morals they proclaim, as I could also do and I'm sure you would be suspicious of my claims. I'm not convinced that you have any authority, beyond giving your opinion, to prevent subjective interpretation of any text.

One being completely convinced that a particular doctrine is defining morality does not make it so. By that standard there are many objective moralities. Who decides? you

Answer to your question as stated again and again - only an abslute can make it objective by directing the moral code. Give some examples of what you refer too " Many objective moralities".Again that is free will,everyone has a choice to listen to the absolute or not - you are not forced to do so.However, you are informed of the consequances if you do not follow the objective morality.

By many objective moralities I mean that there are many people who believe in objective morality and all of these people do not agree, they hold subjective opinions on the nature of objective morality. You may look to Leviticus or the teachings of Jesus, others look elsewhere - The Koran for instance, those who stopped at the OT or those who subscribe to the scripture of latter day saints. I'm sure there are many other examples outwith the Abrahamic framework.

You are also free to present to me a theory as to what will happen if I do not subscribe to a certain text. I'm unlikely to live as devout Muslim just because I've been told what a devout Muslim thinks will happen to me if I don't.

Many people claim to be listening to the absolute, they all seem to hear different things. It also seems to be the case that the overwhelming majority of people who do claim to experience the absolute tend to interpret it in a manner which falls within the framework of the cultural and religious beliefs dominant in their area/upbringing, of course there are exceptions.

You have stated the mantra over and over again - i have said enough to reply to this. In the last paragraph you have again said the same thing.

THE ISSUE IS - HOW DOES SUBJECTIVE MORALITY HOLD ANYONE(PEOPLE) OR NATION(S) ACCOUNTABLE? AND WHAT SUBJECTIVE MORALITY ARE WE DISCUSSING? Going by Waynes hypothesis that and i quote - "IMO morality is cultural" - unquote

So answer these if you do not mind, remembering that the agreement of "majority rules is morality - morality is cultural" - unless of coarse your view is differant i.e. your subjective morality is differant to Waynes, then if you wish to explain your view but then if you do not mind and care to engage in a discourse --

How does subjective morality hold people accountable? That's up to you. You decide what's moral and how to hold that person accountable. If you wish to beat them up, talk to them or utilize the legal framework of your society that's up to you. Or you could just quietly hold them accountable, possibly in the knowledge that God or simply their actions will bring them their just desserts.

I would imagine my subjective morality would differ from Wayne's, as I'm not Wayne. I would say that morality is certainly influenced by culture but not to the extent that morality is cultural. It seems to me that it is an either or, discounting OM for the sake of brevity. Either morality is cultural or morality is subjective. It can't be both. If it is subjective then the unit is the individual, if it's cultural then it's based on general agreement - it's not moral if you think so, it's only moral when a certain amount of people agree with you.

1. Ethics and morals are two differant things -yes or no?If yes - why?, if no - why not?

They cover a lot of common ground. I tend to think of ethics more as the study of morality - I may be wrong on that.

2. The goverment makes a law, with the observation that the majority agree with the law, does this make the law moral? yes or no. If yes - why? if no - why not?

Not necessarily. I don't see mass agreement as a definitive test of morality. It can be a factor.

The law introduced is --- "You can know marry anyone (either sex) 12yrs and above without parents consent."

I don't think that is moral law, I believe people need to older before being allowed to make such a commitment.

3. Can a persons morals be influenced by the change in the law? Observing again that the majority agree to the change. yes or no. If yes - why? if no - why not?

Yes I do think that changes in the law can influence the morality of individuals. I think that changes in law relating to race and sexuality have changed the morals of many people. I attended a civil partnership ceremony of two dear friends recently and seen, and heard, attitudes changing then and there. I don't think this would have happened without changes in the law. I think that my daughter will grow up with with a different set of morals than I did partially due to changes in the law since I was born.

The law being -- "You can know marry anyone (either sex) from 12yrs old, without the parents consent?

That law does seem rather extreme for where I stay but as far as I'm aware both the age and sex factors are present elsewhere, although not at the same time. In those places it does appear that the law influences morality in that area if we're talking about general agreement.

4. If the Moral code is subjective then you cannot use it as a definitive(benchmark) and call any cultures view or actions right or wrong. yes or no. If yes - why? if no - why not?

A definitive benchmark seems like quite a tough call. I can call whatever I want right or wrong as can you. If you appeal to OM stemming from God via a text and I appeal to my own feelings at that particular point in time I don't see one as being more definitive as the other.

5. If collectively the society including the goverment agrees that Torture and Euthanasia are lawfull and morally correct; those who then oppose these - are immoral to the society? yes or no. If yes -why? if no - why not?

Society in my estimation doesn't tend to deal in morals, it deals in laws. I'm not sure the question makes much sense. How can society collectively agree and at the same time disagree with a law? Where I live one is free to object to laws on moral ground. If you break the law then you face the consequences of the law, if you get caught. The question of being seen as immoral to society means little to me. If a law is passed to say that drinking tea is immoral I couldn't care less, I'll keep drinking tea. If a law is passed to hand out custodial sentences to those who drink tea I'd be furious.


6. If the moral view of the minority is not in agreement with the morals of the greater society, but overtime there is a sway in moral agreement and the minority now becomes the majority so the morals are changed as are the laws, are those who do not wish to change - immoral? if yes - why? if no - why not ?
The moral view of the minority being that Torture and Euthanasia are not only humane but the benefits justify the change.

I get to decide. If percentages and laws are changed I may change my opinion and I may not. I'm fine with euthanasia in some cases and I believe that many of the worlds penal systems incorporate torture. It depends how you define torture, I would classify large periods of time in solitary confinement or on death row as torture. As with murder, torture is very much as subjective thing, many people view eating meat as murder. How does one distinguish punishment from torture?

In short whether you believe your morality stems from an objective source doesn't mean I think it is in any way objective. It's still just your opinion. You believe that certain religious texts convey objective morality, I don't. In much the same way as I imagine you disagree with other texts which people claim to be of divine origin.

[Proinsias]

Pro, this reall is simple when you filter through all the duck and dodging.
If morality is subjective then there is no basis to extol the GR above any other ethic. There is no basis to regard the GR as superior or inferior to any other ethic. It is all preference. When one tries to rate an ethic, they are borrowing from OM. For something to be superior or inferior must mean there is an objective source that we can measure by. Otherwise the measuring itself is subjective and has no inherent value. Just as the words good and evil would have no inherent value. If throwing babies into a fire can be good in one culture and bad in another simply because of the subjective preferences within the culture, then what true meanings do these words have at all?

Of course it's all preference. You prefer to live by certain texts. If you preferred to live by other texts, or no texts, you could.

I'm not holding up the golden rule, I don't live by it.

I believe that when one tries to rate an ethic they are doing just that, as they would rate a cheese or wine. They are not borrowing from OM. If I declare something is better than something else I'm not borrowing from the mind of God, I'm stating my opinion.

When one tries to rate an ethic they are not borrowing from objective morality, they are rating an ethic as they would a cheese, a wine or war. By their own standards.

I'm fine with language having no inherent value. We create it and give it meaning. Language and the meaning it conveys changes over time.

I'm fine with declaring something as wrong, I don't need the agreement of society and God, it's just my opinion.

So, I see it as ripe with hypocrisy that someone would be "proud" of going against the cultural norm, because they are violating the essence of what they claim their worldview to be. Oh mercy the hyposcrisy. Think of this ridiculous assertion.
Let's say:
-Right and Wrong are subjective.
-What determines right or wrong, is the collective ethic of a particular culture.
-Let's say this culture is overwhelmingly theistic. In fact the founding documents of this culture state that people's rights are rooted in the reality of an objective source. ("We hold these truths to be self evident....... That ALL men are endowed by their CREATOR......." )
-So, the person who bases right and wrong on subjective reality would have to admit that the theist is right and they are wrong. And that within said culture the non-theist has the right to be wrong. In this case, being a non-theist isn't just wrong, but unAmerican.


Ridiculous isn't it?

If right and wrong are subjective then the collective ethic of a particular culture is not what determines right and wrong. An individual does. If they are subjective everyone on the planet can disagree with me and it won't make much difference - what I think goes. I'm not forced to go along with anything. If I say that morality is subjective and everyone on the planet is a devout Christian aside from me then my opinion carries far more weight than everyone else's opinion.

Subjective morality does not mean adherence to popular opinion. It means one can decide for one's self.

[ageofknowledge]

"Subjective morality does not mean adherence to popular opinion. It means one can decide for one's self."

Like Hitler and Stalin, for example. Hey no harm no foul in atheism. It's all ultimately meaningless in their view of the world. Everyone do whatever you want. There's no good nor evil, accoutability, etc... after this life. Everyone makes their own rules, like the animals they are, regardless of the good (meaningless) or harm (meaningless) it does to anybody else.

^ This looks like a heavy price to pay for humanity just to justify nobody being able to tell you what to do even if it's good for you and others.