Morality

[Kenny]

Ken: So you are asking how do I explain the universal reaction of people feeling bad when they are wronged, though selfish people don’t feel bad when someone everyone else is wronged? EXTENUATING CIRCUMSTANCES. When extenuating circumstances are taken into account before determining, this is an example of subjective.

Extenuating circumstances can't explain a universal - as ALL people - no matter how selfish, evil, or kind, considerate, considered moral within their own cultures - consider a wrong done to them if someone steals from them.

Extenuating circumstances is not about any of that stuff, extenuating circumstances is about other things that are to be considered before judging. If the right or wrong of an action is not set in stone; if other things are to be considered before judging it as good or bad, that is an example of considering extenuating circumstances.

If it were merely subjective, we'd see wide inconsistency in that. Some would be glad they were visited by thieves - others, extremely angry.

Do you know the difference between Objective vs Subjective when applied to morality? If so, how are you defining these differences?

But that's not what we see. If ANYONE, without provocation, has been physically assaulted by another - no matter how selfish, murderous, or kind and forgiving, they see such action as a great wrong has been committed against them. That's another universal and objective moral standard!

Are you defining Objective as “everybody agrees”? There was a time in history when everybody agreed that the Earth was the center of the Universe and that the Sun traveled around the Earth. Just because everybody agrees doesn’t make it objective.

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

Something is objectively wrong when in no circumstances it is right.
Nor condone or accepted but right.
While in some cultures taking from others is CONDONED (under certain circumstances), stealing in of it self is NOT considered right.

Ken seems to be confusing the simple fact that condoning an act does NOT make it right.

Stealing would only be SUBJECTIVELY wrong if there was a culture that believed that stealing, no matter the circumstance or who it is happening to, is right.

That culture, to my knowledge, does not and has never existed.

[Kenny]

Something is objectively wrong when in no circumstances it is right.
Nor condone or accepted but right.

And how do YOU know (not believe) KNOW when something is right? And please don’t say “because everybody says it’s right” because I’ve already shown that popularity is not the indicator of truth. So what method do you employ to demonstrate action “X” is right or wrong?

While in some cultures taking from others is CONDONED (under certain circumstances), stealing in of it self is NOT considered right.

Wrong. The action of taking from others in some circumstances (like paying taxes) is considered RIGHT in most cultures.

Ken seems to be confusing the simple fact that condoning an act does NOT make it right.

Rather than making stuff up about me, try refuting the points I’m making instead.

Stealing would only be SUBJECTIVELY wrong if there was a culture that believed that stealing, no matter the circumstance or who it is happening to, is right.

That culture, to my knowledge, does not and has never existed.

So you believe if stealing were believed to be right, it would be subjective, but because it is considered wrong, that makes it objective?
Do me a favor; go to a dictionary, look up the definition of objective and subjective, and tell me the difference between those two terms when applied to morality, because it seems we are talking two different languages here.

[melanie]

I think we become very focused the idea of how morality can differ from cultural perspectives and I think there’s real significance there but more so I feel that perpetrators who are undoubtebly guilty can be seen through a lens that we are unable to comprehend.
Every individual is unique, every experience and every crime.
Studies exhaustively have shown that damaged children produce damaged adults. People don’t randomly hurt others usually unless they have been programmed to violence. Statistically most pedophiles have been sexually abused themselves.
Damage and violence has a footprint that echos through generations. To electively stand by a set of principles that we’ve had the good fortune of being instilled too, to then hold others accountable by that standard is unfair.
Some people have been terribly altered from their purpose, no moral high ground can take away from just how troubled and violently inclined some people are.
They are still God’s children, morality is not a pie chart or a lucky for you you’ve secured 60%.
Good people are capable of horrible things and monsters still have a story. Morality does not determine faith.
Nor does faith set morality.
Religious people have been historically the biggest perps of sexual assault especially against a minor. Morality takes on a different perspective when those that are meant to uphold it are the abusers.
What I see is a very blurred perspective of morality, self serving and based on fear.

[Kenny]

I think what it often boils down to is the theist will believe morality is based on who he calls God. This would make morality objective; (observation via measurable facts) rather than subjective because a particular moral action could be proven as good or bad by simply going to the moral base (God) and determining the action accordingly.

Obviously this line of thought is going to be a problem with a atheist who doesn’t believe in God; a person who probably believes nothing is beyond, or superior to mankind, thus all moral decisions can only be determined by humans. Because humans are the only ones qualified to determine if an action is good or bad, the only way this can be accomplished is through discussion; which will usually involve personal opinions, beliefs, interpretations, and a consideration of extenuating circumstances. This system makes morality subjective.

Another problem lies with the inherent inconsistencies of the virtue-based ethical system, and the deontological based ethical systems. The virtu-based ethical system seems like a nice system, and many both atheist and theists naturally gravitate towards it, but its bound to be inconsistent because even people who claim a virtue based ethics will disagree on what actions are virtuous.
Every ethical system has its weaknesses and that is the weakness of the virtue-based ethical system.

Theists generally assert God as their moral dictator, which actually makes it a deontological (duty based) system. Of course theists will usually disagree on which God is their moral dictator, and among those who do agree, because Gods word generally comes from an ancient book rather than an audible voice from the clouds; there is an inconsistency in how the words in the book are interpreted. This is the weakness of the deontological based ethical system.

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Theists generally assert God as their moral dictator, which actually makes it a deontological (duty based) system.

Could you please explain:

1) what is a moral dictator

2) what deontological means

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
Theists generally assert God as their moral dictator, which actually makes it a deontological (duty based) system.

Could you please explain:

1) what is a moral dictator

A moral dictator would be one who decides what is morally right or wrong.

2) what deontological means

the study of the nature of duty and obligation.

K

[RickD]

kenny wrote:
Theists generally assert God as their moral dictator, which actually makes it a deontological (duty based) system.

Could you please explain:

1) what is a moral dictator

A moral dictator would be one who decides what is morally right or wrong.

2) what deontological means

the study of the nature of duty and obligation.

K

Would you then please explain how the term "moral dictator", and "deontology" are related to Christianity, if that's what you believe.

[Kenny]

kenny wrote:
Theists generally assert God as their moral dictator, which actually makes it a deontological (duty based) system.

Could you please explain:

1) what is a moral dictator

A moral dictator would be one who decides what is morally right or wrong.

2) what deontological means

the study of the nature of duty and obligation.

K

Would you then please explain how the term "moral dictator", and "deontology" are related to Christianity, if that's what you believe.

Many Christians do not feel mankind is capable of being a moral creature on his own; that he needs God as his “moral compass”. Because of this they feel it is their duty to follow Gods laws even when they conflict with the laws of mankind. If mankind says action “X” is good, and the word of God says action “X” is bad, their moral obligation is to the word of God not mankind.

Ken

PS What do you think about the first point I made? Agree? Disagree?

[Kurieuo]

You're arguing a strawman Kenny. Many Christians believe God has written morality on our conscience, and it is by our own conscience we will be judged. (see Romans 2:15-16) You will be judged accordingly Ken.

Furthermore, if one doesn't have the Law (or God's commandments, say as given is Israel and found in the Torah), then they can't be held accountable for breaking such. (see Romans 5:13) While such commandments were specifically part of Israel's said covenant with God, nonetheless Christians can glimpse at what God desires through them (and Jews of course) to appropriate them to us today. Yet, fundamentally, God has implanted within each of us a moral conscience, Christian and non-Christian alike, Jew and non-Jew alike, and it is by such many Christians believe we will be judged.

Now, the question is, for someone who believes in Materialism, why do we have this moral conscience? Given we have the power to ignore it, and do contrary to it, even desensatise ourselves to it, why should we continue listening to it? You can't say because it is "good" or "honourable" to do so, for it is neither more good and honourable that a lion kills off another lion to protect its territory and pack. It just is the way of nature. If humans are the way of nature too, nature is all there is, then why should we transcend nature, even think we can do so, if indeed nature is all there is? Unless we can transcend the natural order, then there is no more good or honourable, just perhaps something like survival and a protective instinct when it comes to one's way of life.

[Kenny]

You're arguing a strawman Kenny. Many Christians believe God has written morality on our conscience, and it is by our own conscience we will be judged. (see Romans 2:15-16) You will be judged accordingly Ken.

Furthermore, if one doesn't have the Law (or God's commandments, say as given is Israel and found in the Torah), then they can't be held accountable for breaking such. (see Romans 5:13) While such commandments were specifically part of Israel's said covenant with God, nonetheless Christians can glimpse at what God desires through them (and Jews of course) to appropriate them to us today. Yet, fundamentally, God has implanted within each of us a moral conscience, Christian and non-Christian alike, Jew and non-Jew alike, and it is by such many Christians believe we will be judged.

So you believe God will judge us according to our conscious? So because (for example) My grandfathers conscious told him “race mixing” (interracial relationships) was wrong, that God would judge him in the context that interracial relationships is wrong, and judge me differently because my conscious tells me interracial relationships are okay; is this what you are saying?

Now, the question is, for someone who believes in Materialism, why do we have this moral conscience?

The human conscience is a part of a human being.

Given we have the power to ignore it, and do contrary to it, even desensatise ourselves to it, why should we continue listening to it?

Because it is a part of who we are.

You can't say because it is "good" or "honourable" to do so, for it is neither more good and honourable that a lion kills off another lion to protect its territory and pack.

Why would you compare what wild animals do to what materialist choose to do?

It just is the way of nature. If humans are the way of nature too, nature is all there is, then why should we transcend nature, even think we can do so, if indeed nature is all there is? Unless we can transcend the natural order, then there is no more good or honourable, just perhaps something like survival and a protective instinct when it comes to one's way of life.

Why do you feel it necessary to transcend nature in order to behave better than animals?

[Kurieuo]

You're arguing a strawman Kenny. Many Christians believe God has written morality on our conscience, and it is by our own conscience we will be judged. (see Romans 2:15-16) You will be judged accordingly Ken.

Furthermore, if one doesn't have the Law (or God's commandments, say as given is Israel and found in the Torah), then they can't be held accountable for breaking such. (see Romans 5:13) While such commandments were specifically part of Israel's said covenant with God, nonetheless Christians can glimpse at what God desires through them (and Jews of course) to appropriate them to us today. Yet, fundamentally, God has implanted within each of us a moral conscience, Christian and non-Christian alike, Jew and non-Jew alike, and it is by such many Christians believe we will be judged.

So you believe God will judge us according to our conscious? So because (for example) My grandfathers conscious told him “race mixing” (interracial relationships) was wrong, that God would judge him in the context that interracial relationships is wrong, and judge me differently because my conscious tells me interracial relationships are okay; is this what you are saying?

According to the moral conscience God has placed within us. Do you really think your grandfather's moral conscience was so different from yours?

I personally think moral differences are often overplayed and come down more to differing beliefs of fact rather than moral intuition. I can only guess at your grandfather's beliefs, do you know his reasons for why one shouldn't racially inter-marry? Let's say he was a pure racist, believing black people as something less than human only good for slaves. If we also saw white marrying black akin to marrying a monkey, then we might agree with him. Similarly, if he saw black people like an ordinary white person, he likely wouldn't see any issue. So then, we see the difference is more with our knowledge of facts about reality, rather than having a differing moral conscience.

Now, the question is, for someone who believes in Materialism, why do we have this moral conscience?

The human conscience is a part of a human being.

Of course, "wella" and there it is. Your worldview seems to me awfully superficial, but you seem happy with that so I'll try not prod you further.

[PaulSacramento]

Something is objectively wrong when in no circumstances it is right.
Nor condone or accepted but right.

And how do YOU know (not believe) KNOW when something is right? And please don’t say “because everybody says it’s right” because I’ve already shown that popularity is not the indicator of truth. So what method do you employ to demonstrate action “X” is right or wrong?

While in some cultures taking from others is CONDONED (under certain circumstances), stealing in of it self is NOT considered right.

Wrong. The action of taking from others in some circumstances (like paying taxes) is considered RIGHT in most cultures.

Ken seems to be confusing the simple fact that condoning an act does NOT make it right.

Rather than making stuff up about me, try refuting the points I’m making instead.

Stealing would only be SUBJECTIVELY wrong if there was a culture that believed that stealing, no matter the circumstance or who it is happening to, is right.

That culture, to my knowledge, does not and has never existed.

So you believe if stealing were believed to be right, it would be subjective, but because it is considered wrong, that makes it objective?
Do me a favor; go to a dictionary, look up the definition of objective and subjective, and tell me the difference between those two terms when applied to morality, because it seems we are talking two different languages here.

And this is why so many here get frustrated with you Ken.
You don't grasp basic philosophy and YET want to debate advanced philosophy.

Let me make this as simple as possible:
There can be NO subjective ( what is good) without the objective ( that there is good).
Until you grasp this ( ie: agree with it because disagreeing is not only self-refuting but a logical inconsistency) then this is pointless.
Truly.

[Kenny]

Something is objectively wrong when in no circumstances it is right.
Nor condone or accepted but right.

And how do YOU know (not believe) KNOW when something is right? And please don’t say “because everybody says it’s right” because I’ve already shown that popularity is not the indicator of truth. So what method do you employ to demonstrate action “X” is right or wrong?

While in some cultures taking from others is CONDONED (under certain circumstances), stealing in of it self is NOT considered right.

Wrong. The action of taking from others in some circumstances (like paying taxes) is considered RIGHT in most cultures.

Ken seems to be confusing the simple fact that condoning an act does NOT make it right.

Rather than making stuff up about me, try refuting the points I’m making instead.

Stealing would only be SUBJECTIVELY wrong if there was a culture that believed that stealing, no matter the circumstance or who it is happening to, is right.

That culture, to my knowledge, does not and has never existed.

So you believe if stealing were believed to be right, it would be subjective, but because it is considered wrong, that makes it objective?
Do me a favor; go to a dictionary, look up the definition of objective and subjective, and tell me the difference between those two terms when applied to morality, because it seems we are talking two different languages here.

And this is why so many here get frustrated with you Ken.
You don't grasp basic philosophy and YET want to debate advanced philosophy.

Let me make this as simple as possible:
There can be NO subjective ( what is good) without the objective ( that there is good).
Until you grasp this ( ie: agree with it because disagreeing is not only self-refuting but a logical inconsistency) then this is pointless.
Truly.

A quick note for ya;
Subjective is not defined as "what is good"
Objective is not defined as "there is a good".
I will come back later and explain why you keep getting frustrated with me when pressed.

[PaulSacramento]

No Ken, that's ok, you don't need to explain to me why I get frustrated with you not grasping basic concepts of philosophy.