Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[Ken-1122]

Steve (quote)

First we have workplace laws that stop this so this. If an employer claimed that his moral view was its ok for children to work or employees to work beyond the legal hours they will be breaking the law.

(Ken Reply)
That’s not what I asked. I asked to prove it is immoral for children to work, and for adults to work too many hours per week

Yes it was perceived to be morally acceptable back then. But thinking something is morally acceptable and actually being morally acceptable are two different things.

(Ken
So it is your view that it was immoral to do those jobs back then because they were more dangerous than it is to do them today? How dangerous does a job have to be before it becomes immoral to preform? Cop? Soldier? Firefighter? Where do you draw the line?

They all have minimum safety standards that minimize the risk to an acceptable level that won't harm or kill the workers. People then make their own choice as to whether they want to take on that job. No one forces them or imposes any obligation to do the job. If there were people getting harmed or killed on the job they would be shut down.
But the safeguards stop unacceptable dangers. The point is the job may be more risky but there are extra precautions taken like training, equipment etc. But I agree that in some ways work is a health hazard in that just putting your body on the line to survive takes a toll. But that is an acceptable fact of life. It doesn't mean there are no moral standards we can make to stop unacceptable risks.

(Ken)
You seem to be changing it now. At first you were saying it is immoral to do dangerous jobs, now you seem to be saying dangerous jobs are okay as long as reasonable safety practices are employed. With that I agree.

No they are based on their gods moral laws. Even if you say they are human made its still an objective law because everyone has to follow those morals whether they like it or not. Often the moral laws go against what people really think but they still have to adhere to those laws.

(Ken)
God’s laws subjective to what God believes; just like anyone else’s laws. If I made up a law that my friends decided to follow, that law would be subjective to what I believe.

By the way 'thought' itself is not necessarily subjective. Thought comes in many forms and can be analytic, lucid, rational, biased, group think or subjective.

(Ken)
Analytic, lucid, rational, biased, and group think are all subjective means of reaching a conclusion.

'Ethics' are morals. They are more or less the same thing.

(Ken)
Okay let me rephrase; when ethics or morals become laws, they become objective.

So the law of the land allows companies to enforce their objective ethical views on others.

(Ken)
As long as the company makes those ethical views a law.

That's an example of objective morality at work within society. What does the company cite as the reason for their ethical standards. They cite something outside the company like Human Rights laws. They don't just pick their ethical standards by asking the personal opinions of their board without any good reason.

(Ken)
They could! The company can site anything they choose as reason for their ethical standards; inside or outside the company.

 

[Ken-1122]

The Bible only reports the cultural practices of the time which are not necessarily supported by Biblical moral truths.

(Ken reply)
Where in the Bible does it suggest it to be immoral for 12 year old girls to have children?

And the same thing is treating workers fairly within the law regardless of the type of work or conditions. Each company has to provide a fair and safe standard whether they are a logger or a clerical secretary. Fair pay and conditions for type of work. But the principles underpinning fair pay and conditions is about treating people respectfully and with dignity.

(Ken reply)
Equality of outcome is not treating everybody fairly, respectfully or with dignity, it is making sure everything ends up equal; regardless of fairness, respect, or dignity.

So how do we determine if something is wrong about unfair work pay and conditions. What is the basis for giving fair p0ay and safe conditions.

(reply)
Somebody/somebodies subjectively decides what is fair, and make it an objective law.

Actually I think morality is very simple. There are only a few core morals for which all other morals are based on. Basically its about doing to others what you would want done to you.

(reply)
If I am rich, a flat tax sounds moral to me and a progressive tax is immoral. If I am poor, a progressive tax sounds moral to me, and a flat tax sounds immoral.
Which core moral does that moral Delia fall under?

 

[stevevw]

(Ken Reply)
That’s not what I asked. I asked to prove it is immoral for children to work, and for adults to work too many hours per week

Didn't I just link some science on how these practices harm children and adults.

(Ken)
So it is your view that it was immoral to do those jobs back then because they were more dangerous than it is to do them today? How dangerous does a job have to be before it becomes immoral to preform? Cop? Soldier? Firefighter? Where do you draw the line?

No we have always had dangerous jobs. Its just today we are more aware and take more precautionary measures to mitigate the risk. But often there is a lapse between being aware that something is wrong and doing something about it. This is reflected in cases like with smoking, or many work situations where there were signs that something wasn't right but it was covered up.

(Ken)
You seem to be changing it now. At first you were saying it is immoral to do dangerous jobs, now you seem to be saying dangerous jobs are okay as long as reasonable safety practices are employed. With that I agree.

Well then we agree on something. I wasn't changing things, I think we just had a communication breakdown. There's a difference between people doing dangerous jobs with safety protections which mitigate the risk to the point where its an acceptable risk and putting people in dangerous situations knowing its dangerous and ignoring that danger. We will always have potentially dangerous work but we have mitigated most if not all of the risk where we can say its pretty safe.

(Ken)
God’s laws subjective to what God believes; just like anyone else’s laws. If I made up a law that my friends decided to follow, that law would be subjective to what I believe.

God is not subject to time and space so is not subject to human mortality. Gods moral laws are not so much given but permeate from God because God is love, kindness, justice, etc. These qualities emanate from God to us and by their nature become manifest in us and obligate us to moral responsibility.

We are moral creatures by nature because we have a higher conscious awareness of our behavior in relationship to others so it comes natural to us to know right from wrong behavior towards others.

(Ken)
Analytic, lucid, rational, biased, and group think are all subjective means of reaching a conclusion.

Apart from certain types of thinking like rational thinking where we can reflect on things and reveal hidden bias. Like critical thinking is academia where we need to remove 'I' statements and refer to outside facts to support a thesis.

(Ken)
Okay let me rephrase; when ethics or morals become laws, they become objective.

So what do you mean by this. Are you saying that simply by adding a law that makes behavior wrong makes it objectively wrong. Making something law doesn't necessarily make it objectively wrong morally. Its more the principle of it being a law which sort of make it a stand alone decree that something is wrong beyond personal opinion.

Like speeding laws. We cannot argue our opinion that the speed should be 100km hour on a 60km road. Just like we cannot argue our personal opinion that stealing is OK when its not. The determination for laws are usually based on a good reason like speeding will kill or stealing will undermine society and cause chaos.

(Ken)
As long as the company makes those ethical views a law.

Company ethical codes are not really laws and that is why I used them as an example of more of a social standard that is like a law but is not. We cannot be criminally charge with having a relationship at work or making personal calls during work hours. So they are a good example of how we try to enforce social morals on others as though they are objective. As though the companies ethics are the only one true set of morals we should all follow.
Its even getting to the point today where employees can be scrutinized for their behavior outside the company such as what your associations are, how you vote, if you have had any priors, or when you misbehave socially especially now with social media and people outing each other for perceived bad behavior in public.

(Ken)
They could! The company can site anything they choose as reason for their ethical standards; inside or outside the company.

So that is a form of objective morality as it dictates to people there is only one way to behave morally, the companies way. This brings a new meaning to the company man, not only do they have your labor and time they now have your morality.

(Ken reply)
Where in the Bible does it suggest it to be immoral for 12 year old girls to have children?

No where as far as I know. The Bible is pretty silent of this. But Jesus did say that if anyone were to harm children they were in big trouble. As he called them 'innocents' meaning that they could be taken advantage of by people who knew better.

(Ken reply)
Equality of outcome is not treating everybody fairly, respectfully or with dignity, it is making sure everything ends up equal; regardless of fairness, respect, or dignity.

Yes I agree, is that your position.

(reply)
Somebody/somebodies subjectively decides what is fair, and make it an objective law.

So are you saying that if someone or a group of people subjectively decide that looting businesses is morally OK that should become law. If not what is the deciding factor that makes something a law, ethical standard or objective.

(reply)
If I am rich, a flat tax sounds moral to me and a progressive tax is immoral. If I am poor, a progressive tax sounds moral to me, and a flat tax sounds immoral.
Which core moral does that moral Delia fall under?

Well we would have to look at the underlying moral that is at play. Why do people want to have favorable tax systems to their circumstances. I would say to have more money to live. If that's the case then its about human well-being. A tax system falls within an economic ideology which may be immoral in the first place. But primarily its about everyone being able to afford to live. Unfortunately the current economic system doesn't work well for achieving this as it creates a class society where a small group get a lot and a increasing larger group struggle. That is not a moral system as far as human well-being is concerned. Its complicated but that doesn't mean we can aim to make things better for everyone. No one likes taxes.

 

[apollosdtr]

Someone with a good heart but a dysfunctional brain is not able to distinguish between good and evil. And religion cannot fix this. One needs intelligence to properly apply religious teachings. And one needs a moral sense to even care. Modern culture promotes stupidity and immorality both through how children are raised and through dysgenic selection which lowers the quality of the human gene pool.

I agree.

Let me add, that a classical education used to be offered. Philosophy and Natural Philosophy, studied, may actually teach a man to think. Plato teaches a man to go from point A to point Z without missing any steps in between. The Logic is all there, so you can see where he got the conclusion.

These days, some people say they're too busy to read long texts, and go looking for the cliff notes. In other words, they're letting someone else tell them what the ancients thought. That's like reading a bible commentary instead of the bible.

The commentators and translators who write the Introductions to the classics are doing the same thing, by telling you what the book is about before you have the chance to discover it for yourself. And nine times out of ten, their bias is evident. I never read the Introduction. And I never trust the translators. I've seen some translations that skip whole sections of inconvenient history. Otherwise, the best you can hope to be is a robot.

Schools don't teach you how to think, they teach you how to pass the class. In some colleges, a lot of the textbook isn't even covered. And who chooses the textboks, anyway? Because it's the same way your doctor prescribes medicine. And what are the tests? They're geared to the lowest-common denominator. I even had a Psych class that graded on the curve. Kinda makes the joke... Someone is having a doctor's appointment with the one with the lowest passing grade... seem awfully true.

They call all of this the dumbing down of America. Are they hoping to make everyone a gingerbread man, or paper doll?

 

[apollosdtr]

The problem with everyone in religion (without any exceptions) is no one is brave enough to get out of their comfort zone and to scrutinize the things they believe in.

They fear losing their salvation or losing their soul. Would that be thing Jesus warned us about (Matthew 16:25). If you seek to save your life, you will lose it. It's very likely Jesus isn't only talking about saving our physical bodies but also our very souls.

Because if you fear losing your soul, you get trapped into whatever belief system that tells you they know a way how to save your soul. It's only a matter of who (what religion) got to you first.

And then there's happiness. Most religious people I know if you're not "grilling" them about the truth, they will only speak of two reasons why they joined a particular religion, it's only about saving their skin or saving their soul and seeking happiness. Again, there are no exceptions. I found the same problem in most Christians as well.

It's NOT about seeking the truth. So we end up harming / corrupting other people with our errant beliefs because we have no care for the truth as compared to our happiness and salvation.

That's the problem with religion and if you don't care about the truth, you are bound / doomed to misinterpret religious teachings and end up harming / deceiving other people even if that isn't your intentions "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

Good post.

Some have gotten out of "their comfort zone" and asked the hard questions. Mainstream doesn't want to hear it.

"Saving their skin or saving their soul"... The method depends upon the person. Intelligence is the key.

"Seeking the truth"... "As being is to becoming, so is Truth to belief."--Plato, Timeaus (a must-read, IMO)

"The Road to Hell"... Truth seems to be defined according to the mainstream bias. If you're the square peg in that round hole, your edges will get knocked off until you're like everyone else... or you'll leave.

 

[apollosdtr]

every man is made in God's image. Genesis 1:26: "Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

That's the bible's viewpoint, yes. But it's not the only view available.

But the Creator spoke to the Greek Gods who were given the rule of their nations:

"Now, when all of them, both those who visibly appear in their revolutions as well as those other gods who are of a more retiring nature, had come into being, the Creator of the universe addressed them in these words: ‘Gods, children of gods, who are My works, and of whom I am the artificer and father, My creations are indissoluble, if so I will. All that is bound may be undone, but only an evil being would wish to undo that which is harmonious and happy. Wherefore, since ye are but creatures, ye are not altogether immortal and indissoluble, but ye shall certainly not be dissolved, nor be liable to the fate of death, having in My will a greater and mightier bond than those with which ye were bound at the time of your birth. And now listen to My instructions: Three tribes of mortal beings remain to be created—without them the universe will be incomplete, for it will not contain every kind of animal which it ought to contain, if it is to be perfect. On the other hand, if they were created by Me and received life at My hands, they would be on an equality with the gods. In order then that they may be mortal, and that this universe may be truly universal, do ye, according to your natures, betake yourselves to the formation of animals, imitating the power which was shown by Me in creating you. The part of them worthy of the name immortal, which is called divine and is the guiding principle of those who are willing to follow justice and you–-of that divine part I will Myself sow the seed, and having made a beginning, I will hand the work over to you. And do ye then interweave the mortal with the immortal, and make and beget living creatures, and give them food, and make them to grow, and receive them again in death.’"
--Plato, Timeaus (tr. Jowett)

The Greek Gods of Olympus are like the archangels in the bible, or tribal gods of Canaan.

 

[apollosdtr]

Do Christians ever think about what the Lord's Prayer means? Matthew 6:10 essentially says to try to make Earth more like Heaven. And this requires a fair amount of intelligence to do.

I agree.

Plato's Timeaus says the soul has three parts, and the divine part is the brain. The other two parts are the human soul and live in the heart and stomach... with obvious connotations.

 

[apollosdtr]

this answer does not sufficiently answer his question. and with it has one of the most absurd interpretations of the Scripture i have seen. Matthew 6:10 asks that God's plan happens as it is intended. praying for what God wants to happen is to accept that His plan is good and right for everyone.

The lord's prayer is for his kingdom to come... it also implies that you read and conform to the kingdom laws in the previous chapter of matthew... and are found actually doing his commandments in the next chapter. That religion for the Israelites is specific in its demands. Not much wiggle-room, there.

 

[apollosdtr]

I have written about these issues at length on my Arkian website. I have posted about this to a Mennonite forum and a Muslim forum. Now I hope to get general Christian feedback here.

This sub-forum isn't necessarily christian... ethics and morality certainly isn't confined to the big three.

Orpheus and Plato and Aristotle practically birthed ethics and morality... the religion they followed would later be called Hellene by the Kingdom of Judah. Today, they call it Pagan... aka non-Jacob. Pagan religions are folk-religions... ethnically determined at the beginning. Local gods had laws for their own people. Thor has laws for his people, and Zeus has laws for Crete, etc. But the Creator is the same for all people. Some people confuse their local god with the Creator God... that's where it gets sticky.

I've glanced at your website.
Let me ask you this: How many people do you suppose are pure-bloods today? DNA is biased and cannot be trusted because of the way they gather their material and question their volunteers... a few generations of migrants are given the status of indigenes, and they're off to the races. Blood grouping used to be useful, even in 1965 when they charted the miners of Wales. They found that the overlords of the mines were group A, while the actual miners were group O. Body-type O was short and stocky and tanned. A was Nordic. B is Asiatic.

 

[apollosdtr]

Terrif.
It used to be immoral to eat beef on Friday but now it's moral.
And there's no way to tell if slavery is moral or not.

Fish Friday was a power-that-be proping up the fishing industry. Is that morality?

People who used to be slaves bought and sold slaves. Hypocrits.

 

[Ken-1122]

Didn't I just link some science on how these practices harm children and adults.

(Ken)
Yes! Now all you gotta do is provide objective proof that harm for children and adults is immoral.

God is not subject to time and space so is not subject to human mortality.

Subject to time or space or not has nothing to do with morality. If I am able to judge God, by definition he is subject to my moral views. There is nothing preventing me from judging God as morally good or bad; subject to time or not does not prevent me from doing this

So what do you mean by this. Are you saying that simply by adding a law that makes behavior wrong makes it objectively wrong.

When you make it a law, it is no longer just a moral issue but a legal one; so instead of being moral/immoral, which is subjective, it becomes legal/illegal which is objective.

Company ethical codes are not really laws and that is why I used them as an example of more of a social standard that is like a law but is not. We cannot be criminally charge with having a relationship at work or making personal calls during work hours.

Not all laws are enforced by criminal charges, company laws are enforced via termination from employment

So that is a form of objective morality as it dictates to people there is only one way to behave morally, the companies way.

It has nothing to do with morality, it’s all about Company LAWS. The Company is a group of people can never agree on morality, so they enact laws, and those laws are usually based on what’s good for business.

No where as far as I know. The Bible is pretty silent of this.

If those who penned the scriptures wanted it in there, I’m sure they would have put it in there. Yet YOU say it is wrong don’t cha. Is that Subjectively wrong?

Yes I agree, is that your position.

Yes that is my position. Post #214 you seemed to have had a different point of view.

So are you saying that if someone or a group of people subjectively decide that looting businesses is morally OK that should become law.

I personally don’t think it should happen, but that is how it works. During Nazi Germany, it was legal to loot stores, and break into people’s houses and take whatever you wanted; so long as the stores you looted, and the houses you broke into were owned by Jewish people. So there is actually history of this happening.

(Steve quote)
Well we would have to look at the underlying moral that is at play. Why do people want to have favorable tax systems to their circumstances. I would say to have more money to live. If that's the case then its about human well-being.

(Ken)
So what's the answer? Who is objectively morally right?

 

[Lost Witness]

(Ken)
Yes! Now all you gotta do is provide objectiv proof that harm for children and adults is immoral.

Subject to time or space has nothjing to do with morality. If I am able to judge God, by definition he is subject to my moral views. There is nothing preventing me from judging God as morally good or bad; subject to time or not does not prevent me from doing this

When you make it a law, it is no longer just a moral issue bue a legal one; so instead of being moral/immoral, which is subjective, it becomes legal/illegal which is objective.

Not all laws are enforced by criminal charges, company laws are enforced via termination from employment

It has nothing to do with morality, it’s all about Company LAWS. The Company is a group of people can never agree on morality, so they enact laws, and those laws are usually based on what’s good for business.

If those who penned the scriptures wanted it in there, I’m sure they would have put it in there. Yet YOU say it is wrong don’t cha. Is that Subjectively wrong?

Yes that is my position. Post #214 you seemed to have had a different point of view.

I personally don’t think it should happen, but that is how it works. During Nazi Germany, it was legal to loot stores, and break into people’s houses and take whatever you wanted; so long as the stores you looted, and the houses you broke into were owned by Jewish people. So there is actually history of this happening.

(Steve quote)
Well we would have to look at the underlying moral that is at play. Why do people want to have favorable tax systems to their circumstances. I would say to have more money to live. If that's the case then its about human well-being.

(Ken)
So what's the answer? Who is objectively morally right?

You need Jesus in your life. I'll Pray for you so that the LORD might Reveal himself to you before it's too late. GOD Bless You

 

[Ken-1122]

You need Jesus in your life. I'll Pray for you so that the LORD might Reveal himself to you before it's too late. GOD Bless You

I appreciate your good intentions.

 

[timewerx]

"The Road to Hell"... Truth seems to be defined according to the mainstream bias. If you're the square peg in that round hole, your edges will get knocked off until you're like everyone else... or you'll leave.

I'm inclined to think, we are all square pegs and the only way out are few round holes against huge numbers of square holes that lead to nowhere.

We have to deny the desires of the flesh to have our eyes opened to the truth and not let the biases of the flesh corrupt our ideas of the truth. It's a sacrifice many Christians are unwilling to make and would even fight to avoid it at all cost.

 

[apollosdtr]

I'm inclined to think, we are all square pegs and the only way out are few round holes against huge numbers of square holes that lead to nowhere.

We have to deny the desires of the flesh to have our eyes opened to the truth and not let the biases of the flesh corrupt our ideas of the truth. It's a sacrifice many Christians are unwilling to make and would even fight to avoid it at all cost.

The square holes lead to somewhere... but never any place good. Plato taught reincarnation (and so did the christians, before Justinian and Theodora). And apparently karma goes along with that. The secular world calls it "what goes around comes around." If all you had to worry about was this one life... well, most people are still determined to get it all wrong.

Not only christians are told to avoid self-indulgence. It's a very common saying among all religions teaching moderation. Plato said it too, from both a religious and scientific point of view. People are so busy breaking all the rules that they aren't noticing what it's doing to their health. Their ill-health was a warning that they ignored. I think that all the laws, including those called science, are put there for our good. But when science creates new things, and man becomes addicted to them... that's when the real trouble starts for modern man.

Earth is so polluted that living here much longer is hard to imagine... even according to christian timeframes.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
Yes! Now all you gotta do is provide objective proof that harm for children and adults is immoral.

And what sort of proof would you like. By what standard of measure.

Subject to time or space or not has nothing to do with morality. If I am able to judge God, by definition he is subject to my moral views. There is nothing preventing me from judging God as morally good or bad; subject to time or not does not prevent me from doing this

It does if you want to put God into some box according to your understanding when you don't know that this is the case. Especially when the accepted understanding of God if He exists is that he is not of this world consisting of time and space but beyond that in some spiritual realm.

When you make it a law, it is no longer just a moral issue but a legal one; so instead of being moral/immoral, which is subjective, it becomes legal/illegal which is objective.

But as you and I acknowledged that certain social standards such as company ethical codes of conduct and how society regards certain bad social behavior as wrong and can cause people to lose jobs, money and reputation are also not laws. No one can be criminally charged for social and company morals that force people to behave morally to certain subject standards. Yet these socially constructed standards are applied objectively like they are laws.

Not all laws are enforced by criminal charges, company laws are enforced via termination from employment

you just said above that when you make it law it is no longer just a moral issue but a legal/illegal one. I think you were trying to differentiate between company ethical codes and legal requirements by law. Company ethical codes are not laws because they cannot apply across society like laws. The same law applies to all companies but the company ethical codes don't. They only apply to their employees so its not a society wide ethical standard.

It has nothing to do with morality, it’s all about Company LAWS. The Company is a group of people can never agree on morality, so they enact laws, and those laws are usually based on what’s good for business.

I think your confusing the term law here with 2 different meanings, Company ethical codes are not laws and have no legal enforcement. Laws only relate to the legal definition which is criminal, civil and commercial law. Some ethical codes are underpinned by law like the discrimination law or negligence in unsafe practices causing harm or death of its employees.

But there are ethical standards each company may have such as whether personal relationships are allowed, whether employees can use the companies stuff, whether they emphasize green policies or not. These have no legal enforcement as there is no law against these behaviors either way as they social standards.

Each company will have their own view on those standards are. Yet they can be used to sack people when they have done nothing illegal. Therefore they are enforcing their subjective social moral standards on others who may have different subjective social moral standards like they are objective.

If those who penned the scriptures wanted it in there, I’m sure they would have put it in there. Yet YOU say it is wrong don’t cha. Is that Subjectively wrong?

All I am saying is that taking advantage or abusing children or anyone is objectively wrong full stop which the Bible also says. The idea that taking advantage or abusing children and adults is objectively wrong is reflected throughout society and the world in laws and ethical standards.

Yes that is my position. Post #214 you seemed to have had a different point of view.

I think there is a difference between equal outcomes and equal opportunity. Equal outcomes is not really equality as if forces everyone to be the same regardless of individual talent and ability. Whereas equal opportunity for all allows everyone an equal chance to live their life to its potential which is a Human Right.

I personally don’t think it should happen, but that is how it works.

I can never understand this. Its seems nihilistic that we have to resign ourselves to "that's just how it is". It may be how society works but that doesn't mean its acceptable. In fact we do enact laws to stop it. Its a fundamental truth we have come to realize over 1,000s of years that taking from each other doesn't not work, it causes chaos and we harm and destroy ourselves which goes against our very nature to survive but also being moral beings goes against our own experience and moral nature of knowing right from wrong.

During Nazi Germany, it was legal to loot stores, and break into people’s houses and take whatever you wanted; so long as the stores you looted, and the houses you broke into were owned by Jewish people. So there is actually history of this happening.

Yes there is a history and we have learnt from it. But I don't think ever in our history have we ever thought it was morally OK to steal and loot from each other. Its in our DNA so to speak that its just wrong in so many ways.

(Steve quote)
Well we would have to look at the underlying moral that is at play. Why do people want to have favorable tax systems to their circumstances. I would say to have more money to live. If that's the case then its about human well-being.

(Ken)
So what's the answer? Who is objectively morally right?

The point is I think the answer (the best way to behave morally) is there to be found even if it seems too complicated at first. At least we can say we can know a better way to behave or model society then what may be causing problems or contributing to inequality and disadvantage that cause people to suffer.

The tax system is part of a system that perhaps needs revising. Maybe we need to put people first before making money and saving taxes. Like they say money is at the root of all evil.

 

[Ken-1122]

And what sort of proof would you like. By what standard of measure.

(Ken)
I am convinced there is no such a thing as objective proof when it comes to morality because morality is subjective. But you on the other hand seem to think morality is objective, and if that is the case you should be able to do what I would consider impossible; provide objective proof.

It does if you want to put God into some box according to your understanding when you don't know that this is the case. Especially when the accepted understanding of God if He exists is that he is not of this world consisting of time and space but beyond that in some spiritual realm.

(Ken)
What does to be beyond our understanding, time and space have to do with being morally good?

But as you and I acknowledged that certain social standards such as company ethical codes of conduct and how society regards certain bad social behavior as wrong and can cause people to lose jobs, money and reputation are also not laws. No one can be criminally charged for social and company morals that force people to behave morally to certain subject standards. Yet these socially constructed standards are applied objectively like they are laws.

(Ken)
Perhaps they’ve become laws; which would make it objective.

you just said above that when you make it law it is no longer just a moral issue but a legal/illegal one. I think you were trying to differentiate between company ethical codes and legal requirements by law. Company ethical codes are not laws because they cannot apply across society like laws. The same law applies to all companies but the company ethical codes don't. They only apply to their employees so its not a society wide ethical standard.

(Ken)
Company laws are laws. They may not be like Federal laws or State laws that are applied to everybody, but they are laws; only applied to those who choose to work for the company

I think your confusing the term law here with 2 different meanings, Company ethical codes are not laws and have no legal enforcement. Laws only relate to the legal definition which is criminal, civil and commercial law. Some ethical codes are underpinned by law like the discrimination law or negligence in unsafe practices causing harm or death of its employees.

But there are ethical standards each company may have such as whether personal relationships are allowed, whether employees can use the companies stuff, whether they emphasize green policies or not. These have no legal enforcement as there is no law against these behaviors either way as they social standards.

Each company will have their own view on those standards are. Yet they can be used to sack people when they have done nothing illegal. Therefore they are enforcing their subjective social moral standards on others who may have different subjective social moral standards like they are objective.

(Ken)
Company laws are not like the laws of the state, they only apply to employees. They are enforced in many ways to include suspension from work to termination from work.

All I am saying is that taking advantage or abusing children or anyone is objectively wrong full stop which the Bible also says. The idea that taking advantage or abusing children and adults is objectively wrong is reflected throughout society and the world in laws and ethical standards.

(Ken)
That which is objective can be proven. If what you say is objectively wrong, provide the proof.

I can never understand this. Its seems nihilistic that we have to resign ourselves to "that's just how it is". It may be how society works but that doesn't mean its acceptable.

(Ken)
It’s only acceptable when you agree with it. Someone or a group of people decided it is NOT okay to loot business so they made it a law to not do this. Now all of a sudden, you agree with the system you was just complaining about; don’t cha!

Yes there is a history and we have learnt from it. But I don't think ever in our history have we ever thought it was morally OK to steal and loot from each other. Its in our DNA so to speak that its just wrong in so many ways.

(Ken)
Bruh! We used to have slavery! Now before you claim we know more now than we used to; remember this is the society where a supreme court justice doesn’t even know what a woman is, and we have psychologists claiming men can get pregnant and bear children. Are we really smarter than we used to be?

The point is I think the answer (the best way to behave morally) is there to be found even if it seems too complicated at first. At least we can say we can know a better way to behave or model society then what may be causing problems or contributing to inequality and disadvantage that cause people to suffer.

The tax system is part of a system that perhaps needs revising. Maybe we need to put people first before making money and saving taxes. Like they say money is at the root of all evil.

(Ken)
The reason you can’t give a straight answer is because the answer is based on subjectivity.

 

[stevevw]

(Ken)
I am convinced there is no such a thing as objective proof when it comes to morality because morality is subjective. But you on the other hand seem to think morality is objective, and if that is the case you should be able to do what I would consider impossible; provide objective proof.

That is why I asked "by what measure do you determine truth". Certainly science cannot determine truth so there seems to be a category difference in the type of truth we are seeking. I think most people would agree that there are truths about ourselves and our place in that are beyond objective truths. Morality seems to be one of those ideas that we embody as real but cannot be reduced entirely to our bodies or the objective measure.

(Ken)
What does to be beyond our understanding, time and space have to do with being morally good?

Because we don't know if there is some unobservant influence that causes us to intuitively know when something is right or wrong. So we cannot assume that if there is no evidence as in the way we measure things scientifically or logically then this must mean there is no evidence at all or that measuring things scientifically or logically equals the truth when it comes to moral truths. I think the truth of the matter is in us, in our experience. We naturally know right from wrong, its not something we learn or are indoctrinated with. At least not fundamentally.

(Ken)
Perhaps they’ve become laws; which would make it objective.

Or perhaps they are not laws but rather social norms which people create and then there is this natural inclination to try and force others to conform to them because the nature of morality means there cannot by more than one moral truth. In other words people believe there are certain moral truths that should apply to everyone and can't help but act them out and push them on others.

(Ken)
Company laws are laws. They may not be like Federal laws or State laws that are applied to everybody, but they are laws; only applied to those who choose to work for the company

So therefore we have these little pockets of entities that impose their personal subjective moral views on people within those pockets. This could be a smaller group or 1,000's of employees with larger global organizations. Within these groups the organisation which could hyothetically represent the personal moral views of 1 person with enough power to dictate to 1,000s of people their personal morals which could destroy peoples lives.


Added to this individuals with relatively little power on their own can have great power potentially with social media to push their moral views or as groups impose their moral view3s on individuals or groups and destroy their lives. That doesn't sound like a good moral sysytem. Seems very divisive. Surely we can do better than that.

(Ken)
Company laws are not like the laws of the state, they only apply to employees. They are enforced in many ways to include suspension from work to termination from work.

But as they are not laws like criminal law where its illegal company ethic like laws are social conventions which we usually consider not illegal to do, like having a relationship with a co-worker or holding a certain belief that may oppose the companies views. So for a company to enforce their moral views on others seems unjustified if social morals are truly subjective because no one is actually doing anything illegal. It would be like sacking someone for liking chocolate cake.

(Ken)
That which is objective can be proven. If what you say is objectively wrong, provide the proof.

But you just said that legal laws and company ethic like laws are objective. So I could ask what is the evidence used by the companies to make their morals objective.

(Ken)
It’s only acceptable when you agree with it.

But not everyone agrees but they still have to work in the company keeping their moral views to themselves. Especially when companies want to align themselves with certain green and socially woke issues today. Qantas is a good example. Dare to make your personal views know and speak up to loudly. You may not get sacked right away but your not really welcome when you express a different view to the company line.

Someone or a group of people decided it is NOT okay to loot business so they made it a law to not do this. Now all of a sudden, you agree with the system you was just complaining about; don’t cha!

I agree with a system that makes objective determinations about certain bad behavior like stealing, murder, abuse ect. I disagree that a system based on morals being only subjective can function consistently and coherently while maintaining there is no objective reality.

It doesn't work in practice as someone or some group will always end up imposing their version of morality and make it objective because thats how morality works. Its impossible to have multi views all holding equal status. Its divisive as it pits different views of morality against each other.

It comes down to who has the most power or sway, who shouts the loudest often imposing biased standards on people which aim to undermine the person to while elevating the other as being morally virtuous or what do they call it today 'woke'.

(Ken)
Bruh! We used to have slavery! Now before you claim we know more now than we used to; remember this is the society where a supreme court justice doesn’t even know what a woman is, and we have psychologists claiming men can get pregnant and bear children. Are we really smarter than we used to be?

Yeah its ironic really. You would think we would get smarter about whats right and wrong with all the experience we have had. But I think what you mention about even those who represent our justice system and scientific establishments have become dumb in that regard. I think because we have gone overboard with subjective thinking. Now the truth of the matter is what the person believes is true.

There is no single truth but many truths. So people are too scared to speak up anymore about the truths we know are real because of political correctness. A good example is gender. We know that there are only town genders but now we have to accept a growing list of varied genders as a truth or otherwise we can be hauled off to the anti-descrimination tribunal.

(Ken)
The reason you can’t give a straight answer is because the answer is based on subjectivity.

I don't think so. Its wrong to jump from thinking that its too hard to find the answer to there is no answer at all. I think that a pessimistic view that gives up before we try. I think its common sense to say that if we have a situation where the outcomes of behavior cause problems in one way or another than we cannot improve on that. Improvement is the first step to finding answers and perhaps a truth about what is the best way to behave in that situation.

We have already done this throughout our history. The world was shocked by 2 world wars and we realized we needed to put some rules in place to prevent this happening again. It wasn't a coincident that the same truth principles of Human Rights is also reflected throughout our history. That's because they are truth like laws that have been there all the time. It just took 2 world wars and a lot of other horrible human acts on each other to wake us up to those truths.

There not just agreed upon because there agreed upon. They are agreed upon for good reason. We have embodied them and they have become part of the real world through our experience of how life happens when we treat each other badly. So they represent truth like laws just as much as truth like laws in the objective world through science because we've lived them out.

 

[Ken-1122]

That is why I asked "by what measure do you determine truth". Certainly science cannot determine truth so there seems to be a category difference in the type of truth we are seeking.

(Ken)
Actually your question was not about truth, but morality. Truth is that which is aligned with reality; and many truths are objective; but not morality.

SteveW
Because we don't know if there is some unobservant influence that causes us to intuitively know when something is right or wrong. So we cannot assume that if there is no evidence as in the way we measure things scientifically or logically then this must mean there is no evidence at all or that measuring things scientifically or logically equals the truth when it comes to moral truths. I think the truth of the matter is in us, in our experience. We naturally know right from wrong, its not something we learn or are indoctrinated with. At least not fundamentally.

(Ken)
I think there is good reason to believe there is not some unobservant influence that causes us to intuitively know when somethings right or wrong; because what we in know to be right vs wrong is in a constant state of change. If something were influencing us, our moral views would mirror this influence and never change.

So therefore we have these little pockets of entities that impose their personal subjective moral views on people within those pockets. This could be a smaller group or 1,000's of employees with larger global organizations. Within these groups the organisation which could hyothetically represent the personal moral views of 1 person with enough power to dictate to 1,000s of people their personal morals which could destroy peoples lives.

(Ken)
(LOL) If you think that’s bad, consider the family; an even smaller group being dictated by the head of household his moral views to his children! As far as a company law destroying the lives of employees, I think most reasonable people will quit the job before they allow the job to destroy their lives.

Added to this individuals with relatively little power on their own can have great power potentially with social media to push their moral views or as groups impose their moral view3s on individuals or groups and destroy their lives. That doesn't sound like a good moral sysytem. Seems very divisive. Surely we can do better than that.

Ken
This conversation is not about which is better, it’s about what exists.

But you just said that legal laws and company ethic like laws are objective. So I could ask what is the evidence used by the companies to make their morals objective.

(Ken)
Laws are usually written down somewhere. If you wanna know if it is illegal to steal, somewhere it is written down to not steal.

I don't think so. Its wrong to jump from thinking that its too hard to find the answer to there is no answer at all. I think that a pessimistic view that gives up before we try. I think its common sense to say that if we have a situation where the outcomes of behavior cause problems in one way or another than we cannot improve on that. Improvement is the first step to finding answers and perhaps a truth about what is the best way to behave in that situation.

We have already done this throughout our history. The world was shocked by 2 world wars and we realized we needed to put some rules in place to prevent this happening again. It wasn't a coincident that the same truth principles of Human Rights is also reflected throughout our history. That's because they are truth like laws that have been there all the time. It just took 2 world wars and a lot of other horrible human acts on each other to wake us up to those truths.

There not just agreed upon because there agreed upon. They are agreed upon for good reason. We have embodied them and they have become part of the real world through our experience of how life happens when we treat each other badly. So they represent truth like laws just as much as truth like laws in the objective world through science because we've lived them out.

(Ken)
So….. Who is right? The rich man who says a flat tax system is moral, or the poor man who says the progressive tax system is moral?

 

[apollosdtr]

Subject to time or space or not has nothing to do with morality. If I am able to judge God, by definition he is subject to my moral views. There is nothing preventing me from judging God as morally good or bad; subject to time or not does not prevent me from doing this

When you make it a law, it is no longer just a moral issue but a legal one; so instead of being moral/immoral, which is subjective, it becomes legal/illegal which is objective.
...

I personally don’t think it should happen, but that is how it works. During Nazi Germany, it was legal to loot stores, and break into people’s houses and take whatever you wanted; so long as the stores you looted, and the houses you broke into were owned by Jewish people. So there is actually history of this happening.

And after WWII, the Allies looted the German civilians. If it was bad for the vanquished to have done so, it was equally bad for the victors to do. We can find photos of GIs carrying stolen paintings, and we know the PaperClip story. If only the victors get to write history, then this history will repeat until Karma takes over.

I was with you right up to the one-sided history part.
One person's god isn't every person's god, so linking morality to some god or other is... picking a fight.
And when morals are being forced by law... it's not really morality, is it? People do what's right by their own volition. If not, the law/force will be avoided through every kind of loophole. Money is the usual way out. Money buys morality in the eyes of the world, which only knows what it's allowed to know by the people with the money.