Morality

Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18428
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Morality

Postby RickD » Sat Nov 04, 2017 4:39 am

Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
ken wrote:
Not quite; all humans will consider human life more valuable than an insect or animal life...

You sure about that Kenny?

Ever heard of chattel slavery? Nazi extermination of Jews and others? What about the practice of murdering unborn humans for convenience?

I think you understand the point I was making.

K

Yes Kenny, I understand what you're saying. But I don't think you understand the consequences of what you're saying.

Without an objective source for morality, morality would only be subjective. And one person's subjective morality can't be any better than another person's. Without an objective source for morality, killing Jews, or killing an insubordinate slave, or killing unborn humans, is no worse than clubbing a baby seal, or killing a dog, or chopping the head off a snake.

According to who? Not me! Who are these disturbing people who would conclude killing a person is equal to killing an animal if there were no single objective source for morality?

Now Kenny, be nice. Calling someone "disturbing" because he may not hold the same objective value of human life that you hold, isn't very nice of you! Oh wait, by which standard am I judging what's nice, and what's not nice?

I'm confused! :lol:
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Morality

Postby Kenny » Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:52 am

RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:You sure about that Kenny?

Ever heard of chattel slavery? Nazi extermination of Jews and others? What about the practice of murdering unborn humans for convenience?

I think you understand the point I was making.

K

Yes Kenny, I understand what you're saying. But I don't think you understand the consequences of what you're saying.

Without an objective source for morality, morality would only be subjective. And one person's subjective morality can't be any better than another person's. Without an objective source for morality, killing Jews, or killing an insubordinate slave, or killing unborn humans, is no worse than clubbing a baby seal, or killing a dog, or chopping the head off a snake.

According to who? Not me! Who are these disturbing people who would conclude killing a person is equal to killing an animal if there were no single objective source for morality?

Now Kenny, be nice. Calling someone "disturbing" because he may not hold the same objective value of human life that you hold, isn't very nice of you! Oh wait, by which standard am I judging what's nice, and what's not nice?

I'm confused! :lol:

You have your own personal standard of which you judge what’s nice and what’s not nice. Perhaps your standard is the result of the environment you of which you live, perhaps it is the result of reading the Bible, and believing in God, or something else; but whatever the case, I would say you have your own personal standard, (as does everybody else) and this is the standard of which you judge.

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18428
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Morality

Postby RickD » Sat Nov 04, 2017 7:25 am

Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:I think you understand the point I was making.

K

Yes Kenny, I understand what you're saying. But I don't think you understand the consequences of what you're saying.

Without an objective source for morality, morality would only be subjective. And one person's subjective morality can't be any better than another person's. Without an objective source for morality, killing Jews, or killing an insubordinate slave, or killing unborn humans, is no worse than clubbing a baby seal, or killing a dog, or chopping the head off a snake.

According to who? Not me! Who are these disturbing people who would conclude killing a person is equal to killing an animal if there were no single objective source for morality?

Now Kenny, be nice. Calling someone "disturbing" because he may not hold the same objective value of human life that you hold, isn't very nice of you! Oh wait, by which standard am I judging what's nice, and what's not nice?

I'm confused! :lol:

You have your own personal standard of which you judge what’s nice and what’s not nice. Perhaps your standard is the result of the environment you of which you live, perhaps it is the result of reading the Bible, and believing in God, or something else; but whatever the case, I would say you have your own personal standard, (as does everybody else) and this is the standard of which you judge.

It was actually a rhetorical question.
A rhetorical question is a question that you ask without expecting an answer. The question might be one that does not have an answer. It might also be one that has an obvious answer but you have asked the question to make a point, to persuade or for literary effect.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Nils
Recognized Member
Posts: 53
Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2017 11:51 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Sweden

Re: Morality

Postby Nils » Mon Nov 13, 2017 5:14 am

To me morality is definitely not objective but not totally subjective either. Morality is needed for animals and humans living and co-operating in groups for mutual benefit. It is a code of conduct that partly is induced by evolution and made us to act morally instinctively. In a group, a tribe or even a nation you should not kill each other, you should be able to trust each other, share resources etc. All these things are vital to a successful society and evolution has inclined us to punish those that don't follow these rules.

Besides the evolutionary instinct men have developed cultures that have fine-tuned the moral laws to create more advanced societies and have built moral infrastructures and institutions that enforce morality. In a modern democratic nations most citizens have a common moral view that is implied in laws and in moral conduct rules about what is right and wrong. However that doesn't imply that every person will follow her inherited intuition and the moral conduct but instead will go for her specific personal interests. Such persons like free riders and cheaters may get along with their behaviour if they are very clever but most "unmoral" persons will not succeed in the long run.

This is a condensed description of my (materialistic) view on morality.

So a few comment to earlier posts

Page 6 by Kurieuo » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:19 pm (note that this is local time).
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42169&start=75

"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."

Why we have this moral conscience is clear, because it is beneficial to our society. To me it is good and honourable to work for my family and other persons to give them a good life. As a materialist I have no wish to transcend natural order.

page 7 by Philip » Thu Nov 02, 2017 12:23 pm
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42169&start=90

"So, a purely materialistic worldview would assert that neither [killing cows nor killing humans] is ultimately wrong - that it's how one views that is all merely personal opinion. But most people who have only a materialistic view of things would never deny murder was a horrendous wrong, correct? Why?"
It doesn't follow that an act is only about ones personal opinion from that an act isn't ultimately wrong. It can be wrong according to ones intuitions, common understanding or law. If you came to live in a country that was completely governed by materialistic considerations (some countries in Northern Europe come close) I am certain that you would appreciate if it were commonly thought that it is horrendous wrong for someone to kill you, your wife, or children.

Page 8, by RickD » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:38 pm
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42169&start=105
"Without an objective source for morality, morality would only be subjective. And one person's subjective morality can't be any better than another person's. Without an objective source for morality, killing Jews, or killing an insubordinate slave, or killing unborn humans, is no worse than clubbing a baby seal, or killing a dog, or chopping the head off a snake."
As I answered Philip above there is a third alternative. What is best to a group or a society is not objectively set, it depends on the circumstances. But a morality that is based on instincts and the best outcome for the group isn't completely subjective (based on a single person's feelings), the morality is (in an ideal world) based on the best outcome for the group.

Nils


PS How do I get the exact "start" number in the links? The link is now pointing at the start of the page not to the actual post.
I would be nice to have the posts numbered so one can use them for reference.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Morality

Postby Kenny » Mon Nov 13, 2017 8:22 pm

Nils wrote:To me morality is definitely not objective but not totally subjective either.

In what ways is morality not subjective?
Nils wrote:Morality is needed for animals and humans living and co-operating in groups for mutual benefit. It is a code of conduct that partly is induced by evolution and made us to act morally instinctively.

But there is always disagreements concerning this morality which is the cause of friction that always results in such groups. These disagreements are because of subjectivity not objectivity.
Nils wrote:In a group, a tribe or even a nation you should not kill each other, you should be able to trust each other, share resources etc. All these things are vital to a successful society and evolution has inclined us to punish those that don't follow these rules.

IOW; laws. Do you agree there is a difference between what is moral, vs what is legal?
Nils wrote:Besides the evolutionary instinct men have developed cultures that have fine-tuned the moral laws to create more advanced societies and have built moral infrastructures and institutions that enforce morality. In a modern democratic nations most citizens have a common moral view that is implied in laws and in moral conduct rules about what is right and wrong. However that doesn't imply that every person will follow her inherited intuition and the moral conduct but instead will go for her specific personal interests. Such persons like free riders and cheaters may get along with their behaviour if they are very clever but most "unmoral" persons will not succeed in the long run.

I disagree! There are many honest people who will look at specific laws and deem them immoral; than there are others who are just as honest will deem the same law as moral. It’s not just cheaters, or the immoral who will disagree with the law, many honest people will disagree as well. Most people will agree on the basics when it comes to morality, but when it comes to the details, thats where people disagree. But laws must be applied to everybody, so even though people will disagree morally, legally there must be agreement; hence the old saying just because its legal doesn't mean its right The fact that there is moral disagreement and it cannot be demonstrated who is morally right or wrong, says subjectivity; not objectivity.

Ken

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9001
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Morality

Postby Kurieuo » Mon Nov 13, 2017 10:36 pm

Nils wrote:Page 6 by Kurieuo » Sun Oct 29, 2017 8:19 pm (note that this is local time).
viewtopic.php?f=19&t=42169&start=75

"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."

Why we have this moral conscience is clear, because it is beneficial to our society. To me it is good and honourable to work for my family and other persons to give them a good life. As a materialist I have no wish to transcend natural order.


  • First, I can picture how not having a moral conscience is also beneficial for society (it often works in the animal kingdom, of which human sentience is apparently the latest development). Please give an example of how it is beneficial to society, where the opposite wouldn't be just as beneficial or moreso?

  • Second, it seems to me you may be defining what is "good" or "honourable" by that which is "beneficial to society", or does what is "beneficial to family" take a higher priority? Nonetheless, I disagree. It does not seem to me when we call someone good or honourable that we simply mean they're doing what is beneficial to society or family.

    For example, if we take China's one child policy (now two), then it is good and honourable for a woman who gives birth to a child beyond their "child quota" to dash their baby against rocks. Or, should a society need to increase in number, then it is good and honourable for women to dedicate themselves to birthing lots of babies. If these examples, which I came up with quickly off the top of my head, aren't satisfactory to demonstrate that what is good and honourable isn't necessarily that which is beneficial to society, then I'm sure many examples can be produced from history where Marxist beliefs once reigned.

  • Third, it remains to be seen how you are not transcending the natural order when you label behaviour, which is otherwise quite natural in terms of any other animal species, as not "good" or not "honourable" when it comes to human species.

Nils wrote:PS How do I get the exact "start" number in the links? The link is now pointing at the start of the page not to the actual post. I would be nice to have the posts numbered so one can use them for reference.

It would be a good feature, and one many non-phpBB boards support. Today, people use all other sorts of technology, social media and the like, such that boards are lesser utilised. So rather than switch to another board which has many more features, which has also been discussed here and there in the past, we may ride out this board until it just fades out. My statements here represent my opinion and feelings only, and not the opinion of any other moderator here, nor direction this board might take in future.
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

PaulSacramento
Board Moderator
Posts: 7989
Joined: Fri Mar 25, 2011 12:29 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
Location: Ontario, Canada

Re: Morality

Postby PaulSacramento » Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:25 pm

Ah, the slippery road of subjective morality, that which gave us the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Morality

Postby Kenny » Thu Nov 16, 2017 9:19 pm

PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the slippery road of subjective morality, that which gave us the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.

Is this your way of admitting morality is subjective?

Ken

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9001
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Morality

Postby Kurieuo » Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:18 pm

Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the slippery road of subjective morality, that which gave us the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.

Is this your way of admitting morality is subjective?

How's this? Objectively subjective to God. ;)
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Morality

Postby Kenny » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:37 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the slippery road of subjective morality, that which gave us the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.

Is this your way of admitting morality is subjective?

How's this? Objectively subjective to God. ;)

No, he suggested Stalin, Pot, and Mao did what they did because morality is subjective. Do you agree?

Ken

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18428
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Morality

Postby RickD » Fri Nov 17, 2017 6:46 am

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the slippery road of subjective morality, that which gave us the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.

Is this your way of admitting morality is subjective?

How's this? Objectively subjective to God. ;)

No, he suggested Stalin, Pot, and Mao did what they did because morality is subjective. Do you agree?

Ken

Kenny,

PaulSacramento wasn't saying that morality is subjective. He was saying that belief in subjective morality resulted in the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 9001
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: Morality

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Nov 17, 2017 8:15 am

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the slippery road of subjective morality, that which gave us the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.

Is this your way of admitting morality is subjective?

How's this? Objectively subjective to God. ;)

No, he suggested Stalin, Pot, and Mao did what they did because morality is subjective. Do you agree?

PaulS, say it's not so?!? What's the world coming to! :econfused:

Do I agree? Didn't I just say objectively subjective to God, what part of that didn't you understand?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Morality

Postby Kenny » Fri Nov 17, 2017 9:45 am

RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
PaulSacramento wrote:Ah, the slippery road of subjective morality, that which gave us the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.

Is this your way of admitting morality is subjective?

How's this? Objectively subjective to God. ;)

No, he suggested Stalin, Pot, and Mao did what they did because morality is subjective. Do you agree?

Ken

Kenny,

PaulSacramento wasn't saying that morality is subjective. He was saying that belief in subjective morality resulted in the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.


Do you really think PaulSacramento believe all of those mad men considered if morality were objective or subjective, concluded it was subjective; then went out slaughtering millions because of it?

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18428
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: Morality

Postby RickD » Fri Nov 17, 2017 10:02 am

Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:Is this your way of admitting morality is subjective?

How's this? Objectively subjective to God. ;)

No, he suggested Stalin, Pot, and Mao did what they did because morality is subjective. Do you agree?

Ken

Kenny,

PaulSacramento wasn't saying that morality is subjective. He was saying that belief in subjective morality resulted in the likes of Stalin, Pot, Mao and so many others.


Do you really think PaulSacramento believe all of those mad men considered if morality were objective or subjective, concluded it was subjective; then went out slaughtering millions because of it?

I suppose it's possible that they knew morality is objective, but just didn't give a crap.
But usually atheists have no basis for objective morality, so their worldview demands subjective morality, despite what their conscience might tell them. But I'd guess that once someone gets to the point that Stalin, Pot and Mao reached with their depravity, they've already gone past ignoring their conscience.

Subjective morality leads to atrocities like those committed by the above people, because there is no right or wrong. Right and wrong are whatever one decides them to be. And with those who have power as they did, they can force their subjective morals on others.

Subjective morality tells me that if I'm in a position of power as they were, and I think it's in my best interest to kill millions of people, then I just do it. It can't be wrong(under subjective morality), if I say it's right. If there's nothing objective that says murder is wrong, then it's only wrong if I say so. If you think murder is wrong, too bad, don't force YOUR subjective morality on mine.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2711
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: Morality

Postby Kenny » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:32 pm

RickD wrote:
Subjective morality leads to atrocities like those committed by the above people, because there is no right or wrong. Right and wrong are whatever one decides them to be. And with those who have power as they did, they can force their subjective morals on others.


So are you saying there IS such a thing as subjective morality? That some moral acts are subjective? I noticed you said: “subjective morality leads to X” which seems to suggest “X” happened because those moral acts are subjective; rather than saying “IF morality were subjective, X would happen”; which would imply there is no subjective morality. Exactly what are you saying here?

Ken


Return to “Philosophical Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests