Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Very nice - I agree and it definately is on the right track. With this we can have both non-objective morals and the ability to condemn Hitler's actions in a certain humanitarian sense. I think there are many new insights pointing in this direction.
I wrote a lot more about this subject here if you are interested in any further reading on my position.
One point about the video that is definately right and just happened to me was arguing over definitions. Basically, morality necessitated objectivity and obligation (duty). At this point there is no further discussion if no one budges. Oh well.
So you believe morality is not objective? But why and how do you know? I want to know how you think about the issue and reason out your position.
I don't recall making any statement as to my beliefs on whether morality is objective or not. I asked how would we tell the difference between morality given to us from a divine source and morality created by human reason.
Divine morality (or objective morality) should be beyond the capabilities of man to conceive. The ten commandments for example are supposed to be an example of moral laws given to man from a "supreme" being. Yet, any modern day child of reasonable intelligence could create a set of moral principles that are far more relevant and meaningful than those ten or any other found any the Bible.
What is your position on the subject though - I am not sure how that answers my question other than you don't believe the Bible as a moral authority.
RESPONSE:
Numbers 31:17-18 "Slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man. But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man."
In short, the Bible directing the genocide of a people who didn't believe as the Hebrews did. The bible as a moral authority?????
But at least the soldiers could keep the virgins for themselves. Nice touch!
04-19-2011, 12:38 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuixoticHobbit
I don't recall making any statement as to my beliefs on whether morality is objective or not. I asked how would we tell the difference between morality given to us from a divine source and morality created by human reason.
Divine morality (or objective morality) should be beyond the capabilities of man to conceive. The ten commandments for example are supposed to be an example of moral laws given to man from a "supreme" being. Yet, any modern day child of reasonable intelligence could create a set of moral principles that are far more relevant and meaningful than those ten or any other found any the Bible.
Ok! But my question is what do you believe and why - not what you want to know about how to tell the difference between something. The sense of your first post seemed liked you did not believe in objective moral values. I am not so sure what is so difficult - I thought I was pretty clear in the OP.
04-19-2011, 12:44 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ancient warrior
RESPONSE:
Numbers 31:17-18 "Slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man. But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man."
In short, the Bible directing the genocide of a people who didn't believe as the Hebrews did. The bible as a moral authority?????
But at least the soldiers could keep the virgins for themselves. Nice touch!
I am not sure why you are repeating the fact that you do not take the Bible as an authority on morality as a response to me. I wanted to know your take on Objective Morals and your reasoning of that position. Why is that so difficult with some of the people on here?
No, I do not think there is such thing as objective moral values as I believe you are defining it. They vary from country to country, religion to religion, state to state, person to person. The subjectivity is obviated not only by the more intricate differences such as drinking alcohol, speeding, etc which varies widely by person, but even more serious acts such as murder. Look at all the bloodshed that has taken place in the name of religion in the past few thousand years? But those same religions ask us to believe that "most of the time" murder is wrong. So no, I cannot think of one moral or value that isn't subject to the culture or religion in which it occurs, or even going a step further, the person who chooses to interpret the culture or religion how s/he pleases...
There are objective morals, most of which serve to support small group survival. Things like prohibitions against stealing from the group, assaulting or killing members of the group, lying to members of the group, and incest are pretty common to all human societies. This has been observed from historical records going back to Mesopotamia and first-hand observation of groups ranging from modern nations down to the Earth's few remaining 'stone-age' tribes.
The details of those mores and the ramifications for breaking them may vary, but human societies that accept such behavior don't exist because they cannot survive without that basic human moral foundation.
04-19-2011, 03:06 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by ABQConvict
There are objective morals, most of which serve to support small group survival. Things like prohibitions against stealing from the group, assaulting or killing members of the group, lying to members of the group, and incest are pretty common to all human societies. This has been observed from historical records going back to Mesopotamia and first-hand observation of groups ranging from modern nations down to the Earth's few remaining 'stone-age' tribes.
The details of those mores and the ramifications for breaking them may vary, but human societies that accept such behavior don't exist because they cannot survive without that basic human moral foundation.
I agree but that would be a different kind of 'objective' not the one in the OP definition - to me they approach objectivity because of the proximity to who we are (the brain structure and it's chemical pathways) as humans - which is what you were hinting at. They are something like a collective subjective sense of 'objectivity' that is pretty ubiquitous.
Exactly right! The only objective morals are those which demonstrably contribute to the survival of a society.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
