Re: Morality
Posted: Mon Dec 11, 2017 5:48 am
Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.
"The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands." (Psalm 19:1)
https://discussions.godandscience.org/
So many questions:PaulSacramento wrote:Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.
What if Tommy the gorilla believes it's SUBJECTIVELY good to smash little apes into rocks?PaulSacramento wrote:Can animals be moral?
Can they have a conscious rational view of good and bad?
Good question, how can we find the answer? ask them?
Hey, Fido, when you protected that kitten from that Pitbull and put yourself in danger, were you aware that you were showing self-sacrifce? and why?
Hey Tommy the gorilla, when you grabbed that infant ape and smashed it into the rocks to establish your dominance and such, were you aware that was WRONG?
If such a world did exist, how would it be any different than the world we live in today?PaulSacramento wrote:I want you to picture, for a moment, a world in which any act that is done is defined as good or bad based solely on the whim of either the majority OR those with enough power to impose their best interest ( Hollywood for example).
People don't generally apply morality to animals.PaulSacramento wrote:Can animals be moral?
Can they have a conscious rational view of good and bad?
Good question, how can we find the answer? ask them?
Hey, Fido, when you protected that kitten from that Pitbull and put yourself in danger, were you aware that you were showing self-sacrifce? and why?
Hey Tommy the gorilla, when you grabbed that infant ape and smashed it into the rocks to establish your dominance and such, were you aware that was WRONG?
What about the problem of taking Objective morality to it's natural conclusion?PaulSacramento wrote:Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.
Which conclusion is that Kenny?Kenny wrote:What about the problem of taking Objective morality to it's natural conclusion?PaulSacramento wrote:Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.
Ken
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.RickD wrote:Which conclusion is that Kenny?Kenny wrote:What about the problem of taking Objective morality to it's natural conclusion?PaulSacramento wrote:Very few people have the balls to take subjective morality to it's natural conclusion and those that do are, typically, viewed as psychopaths or sociopaths. But they are at least honest.
Ken
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his ownRickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?
You said:
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
Kenny,Kenny wrote:If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his ownRickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?
You said:
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
How does it matter if there is objective or subjective morality ontologically speaking if no one cares? There are lot of examples from the Middle ages of princes that didn't care of right and wrong. See for instance the book The Prince of Machiavelli. So morality may end up anywhere both with subjective or objective morality.PaulSacramento wrote:If you really can't get were subjective morality can end up, I am not sure where this conversation is going.
I want you to picture, for a moment, a world in which any act that is done is defined as good or bad based solely on the whim of either the majority OR those with enough power to impose their best interest ( Hollywood for example).
Are you able to determine right from wrong on all moral issues? (like me) or do you still need an outside source on some issues, but not others.RickD wrote:Kenny,Kenny wrote:If one requires an outside source as a moral foundation when determining right from wrong, this is a person unable to determine right from wrong on his ownRickD wrote:Before we continue, with all of your post, can we address this first?
You said:
Why would you assume that people aren't qualified to determine right from wrong?Kenny wrote:
Okay; lets assume morality is objective, and people aren’t qualified to determine right from wrong (morality), thus we need something else superior to us to determine such complicated issues; like God.
Who requires an outside source to determine right from wrong?
Do I need an outside source to determine that it's wrong to rape 5 year olds? To murder my neighbor? To steal from the corner store?
In my day to day life, when I have to make conscious decisions about right and wrong, I don't require an outside source.
This is the premise to your post, and it's a faulty premise.