Is morality objective, even without God?

[Zaha Torte]

You don't. You determine the objective facts of the situation (using the scientific method). And then use them to determine how you should act.

So, the scientific method does not help us determine if there is such a thing as objective moral truth and certainly not what they would be if there were?

 

[Bradskii]

So, the scientific method does not help us determine if there is such a thing as objective moral truth and certainly not what they would be if there were?

No, as you said, you can't apply the scientific method per se to work out what you should do. You have to base your decision on the facts of the matter. You gather the facts as best you can and then decide.

 

[partinobodycular]

How do you apply your solipsist perspective to issues like morality?

Okay, Ill give it a shot.

I think that morality is a human construct. It's what you get when you try to codify "Love thy neighbor as thyself". It's like trying to codify beauty. In a way, it's like mistaking the map for the territory. One's a simplistic representation that can never do justice to the other.

There's a reason why Christ stated, and Paul reiterated. That the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

 

[zippy2006]

In actuality, I'm an epistemological solipsist. Which means that I will accede to anything that makes logical sense, and hold in question anything that doesn't.

You have used the word "solipsist" many times throughout this thread. Do you know what it means?

 

[partinobodycular]

You have used the word "solipsist" many times throughout this thread. Do you know what it means?

Gee, I hope so. I've been one since before I even knew there was a word for it. But I'm never averse to someone educating me. So please, feel free. I'm always open to learning something.

 

[zippy2006]

Gee, I hope so. I've been one since before I even knew there was a word for it. But I'm never averse to someone educating me. So please, feel free. I'm always open to learning something.

A solipsist basically believes that they are the only mind which exists.

Solipsism (MW):

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing​

also : extreme egocentrism​

Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” (IEP)

"It is the thick skeptical problem that leads to the possibility of solipsism—that I am alone in the universe." (SEP)

"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind." (Wikipedia)

 

[partinobodycular]

A solipsist basically believes that they are the only mind which exists.

Solipsism (MW):

: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing​

also : extreme egocentrism​

Solipsism is sometimes expressed as the view that “I am the only mind which exists,” or “My mental states are the only mental states.” (IEP)

"It is the thick skeptical problem that leads to the possibility of solipsism—that I am alone in the universe." (SEP)

"Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist. As an epistemological position, solipsism holds that knowledge of anything outside one's own mind is unsure; the external world and other minds cannot be known and might not exist outside the mind." (Wikipedia)

That's pretty accurate. I probably would've emphasized the difference between metaphysical and epistemological solipsism a bit more, but people are gonna conflate them anyway so I tend to simply call it solipsism... it makes me seem a bit more Looney Tunes.

Then again nobody asked me to define it, so who am I to quibble. They're just words.

 

[Zaha Torte]

No, as you said, you can't apply the scientific method per se to work out what you should do. You have to base your decision on the facts of the matter. You gather the facts as best you can and then decide.

Decide based on what?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Okay, Ill give it a shot.

I think that morality is a human construct. It's what you get when you try to codify "Love thy neighbor as thyself". It's like trying to codify beauty. In a way, it's like mistaking the map for the territory. One's a simplistic representation that can never do justice to the other.

So - in your opinion - there is no objective morality?

There's a reason why Christ stated, and Paul reiterated. That the entire law is fulfilled in keeping this one commandment: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”

That is not what the Lord said in full. You and Paul shared only the second and lesser of the two commandments.

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40)

Is it not possible that you consider morality to be a human construct because God is removed from your equation?

 

[Bradskii]

Decide based on what?

Good grief, Zaha. I just said. On the facts of the matter.

 

[partinobodycular]

I think that morality is a human construct. It's what you get when you try to codify "Love thy neighbor as thyself". It's like trying to codify beauty. In a way, it's like mistaking the map for the territory. One's a simplistic representation that can never do justice to the other.

So - in your opinion - there is no objective morality?

As I stated above, I think that you're mistaking the map for the territory. You don't seem to understand what that means. But rather than argue with you, which would be pointless, I'll just acquiesce to your assertion. No, there's no such thing as objective morality, simply because you don't seem to understand what morality actuality is. It's man's attempt to codify their understanding of right and wrong. It doesn't mean that right and wrong isn't objective, it means that your understanding of right and wrong isn't objective. One is the territory, the other is the map. Men create the map, and call it morality.

That is not what the Lord said in full. You and Paul shared only the second and lesser of the two commandments.

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

This is the first and great commandment.

And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets." (Matthew 22:36-40)

Rather than explain it all over again, I'll simply provide you with a link.

what-is-it-to-be-a-true-believer

 

[QvQ]

Reading over this thread, I am becoming convinced there isn't any 'subjective" morality.
It seems to be some amorphis "whatever seems best' reaction in light of external circumstances.
Morality that is entirely a reaction to external stimuli without coherent principal is not even subjective.
It is mere accidental stumbling guesswork prompted by a variety of motives and provocations.

If morality is entirely dependent on objective external circumstances, then it is providence that determines morality.
And providence is objective.

Just a thought,
If a person is entirely alone, isolated in a remote area, a hermit, what morals operate in that environment?
All the moral "what if's" listed in the thread, such as the trolley car, all assume social interactions.
What about morality in a society of one?

 

[Zaha Torte]

As I stated above, I think that you're mistaking the map for the territory. You don't seem to understand what that means. But rather than argue with you, which would be pointless, I'll just acquiesce to your assertion. No, there's no such thing as objective morality, simply because you don't seem to understand what morality actuality is. It's man's attempt to codify their understanding of right and wrong. It doesn't mean that right and wrong isn't objective, it means that your understanding of right and wrong isn't objective. One is the territory, the other is the map. Men create the map, and call it morality.



Rather than explain it all over again, I'll simply provide you with a link.

what-is-it-to-be-a-true-believer

You are claiming that there is objective Good and objective Evil - yet Man is unable to know them?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Good grief, Zaha. I just said. On the facts of the matter.

Only on facts?

 

[Bradskii]

Only on facts?

I guess that you try fiction. What else is there?

 

[Neogaia777]

You are claiming that there is objective Good and objective Evil - yet Man is unable to know them?

Objective morality is subject to each individual case in every possible circumstance, etc. Or both the unique individual's unique make-up has to be considered, along with when it is individually placed in every possible circumstance, etc. And no, no other human being (or book) has been able to fully know, or show, or has been able to lay that all down/out for us fully yet, etc. The world might not be able to contain the amount of scrolls/writing that would need to be written in order to contain all of that for us fully maybe yet, etc

God Bless.

 

[partinobodycular]

You are claiming that there is objective Good and objective Evil - yet Man is unable to know them?

CORRECT!!!

 

[o_mlly]

You are not likely to ask Shiva for advice. I won't be asking him either. And for the same reason I won't be asking God. But you said that He gives you the answer to moral problems. So I can ask you.

Sure, I'll try to help you out. Give me the moral act that your contemplating specifying the moral end(s) you foresee, your intention, and any circumstances that would affect the morality of the act.

 

[Bradskii]

Sure, I'll try to help you out. Give me the moral act that your contemplating specifying the moral end(s) you foresee, your intention, and any circumstances that would affect the morality of the act.

Let me see....

Here's one. I've told my partner that wives should be subject to their husbands (I read it somewhere). Am I morally correct in holding to that position?

 

[Zaha Torte]

I guess that you try fiction. What else is there?

What you believe is Good.