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.
Do you believe in them or not. Why and how do you know?
I want to get a sense of how people think about this so your thoughts are appreciated.
I would for this question define 'Objective' as outside of the human mind yet binding upon humans; 'Moral' as basically the right or 'good' action for a particular end; and 'Values' are those things, in this case the morals, that we adopt for how we act.
I would like to know which individual moral or system of morals humans adhere to which bear the hallmark of a divine or supreme intelligence, and could not have come about through human reason...
Last edited by Asheville Native; 04-18-2011 at 06:29 PM..
04-18-2011, 10:55 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuixoticHobbit
I would like to know which individual moral or system of morals humans adhere to which bear the hallmark of a divine or supreme intelligence, and could not have come about through human reason...
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.
04-18-2011, 10:57 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
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.
Do you believe in them or not. Why and how do you know?
I want to get a sense of how people think about this so your thoughts are appreciated.
I would for this question define 'Objective' as outside of the human mind yet binding upon humans; 'Moral' as basically the right or 'good' action for a particular end; and 'Values' are those things, in this case the morals, that we adopt for how we act.
Cheers.
If morals were objective they would not vary from region to region and culture to culture.
Female circumcision is a good thing in some cultures, and shockingly savage in others.
In some parts of our country two guys walking and holding hands wouldn't get a second look.
In other parts violence would ensue.
See what I mean?
04-18-2011, 11:52 PM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sizzly Friddle
If morals were objective they would not vary from region to region and culture to culture.
Female circumcision is a good thing in some cultures, and shockingly savage in others.
In some parts of our country two guys walking and holding hands wouldn't get a second look.
In other parts violence would ensue.
See what I mean?
So then there is no difference between Hitler's actions and that of the Dalai Lama - or can you say that there is and if so why and how?
I have seen no reason to think there exists objective morals. I have seen many reasons to understand why people think there are. There simply does not appear to be any source external to us for them, nor has anyone here shown one. Where are they coming from if not us? Rocks? Air? The sea? People simply can not find a source, so they make some up out of nowhere, like gods.
Our morality appears to be entirely subjective. However that does not mean there are not very real constraints of the human condition on them which influence what most of us conclude on the subject. The fact most of us conclude similar things is what gives the illusion of objectivity but an illusion is all it is.
For example most of us, with few exceptions hate pain and pain is an almost universal fact of the human condition. When building a society together most of us therefore conclude that the infliction of pain should be considered “bad”.
Similarly another aspect of the human condition is a strong emotional attachment to, and desire to protect, our children. When constructing a society therefore most of us consider harming children “bad”.
Given the vast moral consensus on these issues, it is very understandable that the moral positions in question SEEM objective. For every seemingly objective extreme position however, there are 100s more that are not so black and white and divide our society 50:50. The people who want you to think an objective morality exists will always rush to the extreme positions… abuse, rape, murder…. They will usually do their best to keep the conversation away from the Vaaaaast number of topics where consensus is not so clear.
That they need to ignore the vast majority of moral questions in order to sell their idea of an objective morality however should ring alarm bells for you instantly however.
04-19-2011, 12:31 AM
2K5Gx2km
n/a posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nozzferrahhtoo
I have seen no reason to think there exists objective morals. I have seen many reasons to understand why people think there are. There simply does not appear to be any source external to us for them, nor has anyone here shown one. Where are they coming from if not us? Rocks? Air? The sea? People simply can not find a source, so they make some up out of nowhere, like gods.
Our morality appears to be entirely subjective. However that does not mean there are not very real constraints of the human condition on them which influence what most of us conclude on the subject. The fact most of us conclude similar things is what gives the illusion of objectivity but an illusion is all it is.
For example most of us, with few exceptions hate pain and pain is an almost universal fact of the human condition. When building a society together most of us therefore conclude that the infliction of pain should be considered “bad”.
Similarly another aspect of the human condition is a strong emotional attachment to, and desire to protect, our children. When constructing a society therefore most of us consider harming children “bad”.
Given the vast moral consensus on these issues, it is very understandable that the moral positions in question SEEM objective. For every seemingly objective extreme position however, there are 100s more that are not so black and white and divide our society 50:50. The people who want you to think an objective morality exists will always rush to the extreme positions… abuse, rape, murder…. They will usually do their best to keep the conversation away from the Vaaaaast number of topics where consensus is not so clear.
That they need to ignore the vast majority of moral questions in order to sell their idea of an objective morality however should ring alarm bells for you instantly however.
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.
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.