I don't believe in right and wrong.

[Kris_J]

Not in the sense most Christians mean, which is to say, I don't believe in objective right and objective wrong. I believe that people evaluate actions by various criteria, and that this evaluation is necessarily subjective.

In other words, I don't think that rape is just plain wrong. I think rape is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. I don't think that murder is just plain wrong. I think murder is wrong-to-people, and perhaps not all people. (Both are wrong-to-me.)

Now, I don't act very differently from Christians. I give to charities, I've sponsored a kid in Argentina since I was 20, I am a signed up supporter of Amnesty, I protest illegal invasions of countries, I often pick up litter I see on the street and put it in a rubbish bin, I only eat free-range eggs, I tell people when they've given me too much change, I hug people who need hugs and help people who need help. I don't think any of these deeds are "good" in the sense meant by Christians.

And yet often when Christians hear that I don't believe in objective morality, they start talking about how my attitude would spawn rape and murder and etc.

Why do you think I act the way I do? (this question is open for both objective-moralists and subjective-moralists - OMists and SMists).

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think what is missing is "time" in your discussion. What you think right & wrong at one time may change later on as the future unravels & you see the consequences of your actions. Given enough time & information, say if you were omnipotent, omniscient & omnipresent, you are no longer have reason to re-assess what your perception of what is right & wrong is. As it is, what you did as a 13yo seemed right at the time, but now you decide it was wrong at your (hopefully) progressed level of "maturity" - & taking this idea of progression, say if you progressed to a God-like level (omni-present etc), then you will reach the ultimate point of knowing right from wrong, with ultimate insight, hindsight & foresight - thus if any entity reaches this ultimate level, eg. God, then that means that there is such a thing as objective morality, rather than relative morality.

Really, you don't have to believe in the real existence of God to believe in objective morality. You just have to concede to the reality that as you grow in maturity, you constantly (ideally) refine your boundaries of what right & wrong & that hypothetically given enough time & resources, you will reach a plateau from where you can no longer refine your notion of right & wrong (when you are omnipresent/omnipotent/omniscient).

The idea with Abramic religions, since it has a beginning & an end/"Alpha & Omega" (unlike cyclical world views) is that there is an ultimate judge/standard for what is right & wrong, & that we just have one shot at getting life right (ie. not reincarnated). Perhaps the implication with this linear timeline is also that each life is more valuable & unique, rather than recyclable/amendable.

 

[Zoot]

Kris,

To me, maturing views are simply changing views, perhaps becoming more consistent with other, but not becoming superior in any objective sense.

 

[Western Deity]

You're that way because it benefits you the most.

 

[Kris_J]

Kris,

To me, maturing views are simply changing views, perhaps becoming more consistent with other, but not becoming superior in any objective sense.

So your ideas of right and wrong are according to you, no "better" now than it was when you were 13?

 

[Dragar]

So your ideas of right and wrong are according to you, no "better" now than it was when you were 13?

Kris, you need to always ask 'better to who?

My 'ideas of right and wrong' now are better than 13 year old Dragar's views - to this Dragar. I rather imagine 13 year old Dragar would have considered his views better than the views of this Dragar, now.

 

[Western Deity]

That persisting self sure does get in the way .

 

[Kris_J]

Kris, you need to always ask 'better to who?

My 'ideas of right and wrong' now are better than 13 year old Dragar's views - to this Dragar. I rather imagine 13 year old Dragar would have considered his views better than the views of this Dragar, now.

Can you say that the 13yo Dragar is less competent than the dragar now in terms of deciding what is right from wrong? (please note, be honest if you have children you decide what is right for them) Thats right, so what about the hypothetical highly evolved Dragar, 3 billion years from now, with unimaginable God-like resources & intellectual capacity? (yes, assume you are alive then, & not senile)

 

[Dragar]

Can you say that the 13yo Dragar is less competent than the dragar now in terms of deciding what is right from wrong? (please note, be honest if you have children you decide what is right for them)

He's less competent in determining what's likely to make him happy and what's likley to be false. He's just as good at discerning what's right-to-him and wrong-to-him as I am, in the same way I'm just as good at noticing what's tasty-to-me, or beautiful-to-me.

It's not discerning what is right or wrong, it's reporting what he experiences as right-to-him and wrong-to-him. Read Zoot's post on the cat. Unless he lies, he will always be reporting perfectly accurately if he says 'I perceive a cat' when he perceives a cat. But he may not be reporting accurately if he says 'there is a cat responsible for perceptions of a cat'.

Thats right, so what about the hypothetical highly evolved Dragar, 3 billion years from now, with unimaginable God-like resources & intellectual capacity? (yes, assume you are alive then, & not senile)

If he'd changed his views, he'd probably consider his views better-to-him. But that's the point; everyone sees their views as better-to-them. That's why they hold them.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Thats right, so what about the hypothetical highly evolved Dragar, 3 billion years from now, with unimaginable God-like resources & intellectual capacity? (yes, assume you are alive then, & not senile)

Well, Kris, to get a little biblical twist into this discussion: It's plain to see that the rules laid down in the Bible reflect the perception of a very primitive society, and not the highly evolved morality of an infinitely wise Spirit-being. Geez, they didn't even grasp the concept of contagion, and thought that diseases were a means of divine punishment.

 

[Kris_J]

He's less competent in determining what's likely to make him happy and what's likley to be false. He's just as good at discerning what's right-to-him and wrong-to-him as I am, in the same way I'm just as good at noticing what's tasty-to-me, or beautiful-to-me.

It's not discerning what is right or wrong, it's reporting what he experiences as right-to-him and wrong-to-him.

If he'd changed his views, he'd probably consider his views better-to-him. But that's the point; everyone sees their views as better-to-them. That's why they hold them.

Your position implies that there is no continuity of self, as you refer to your 13yo & 3billion y.o. self as "him" rather than "I".

I think first we have to agree on the continuity of self, otherwise, I might not be speaking to the same Dragar as in the previous post.

 

[Western Deity]

I think first we have to agree on the continuity of self, otherwise, I might not be speaking to the same Dragar as in the previous post.

Uh-oh ...

 

[Dragar]

I think first we have to agree on the continuity of self, otherwise, I might not be speaking to the same Dragar as in the previous post.

Dude, there isn't even an event of consideration-by-Dragar that considers you are speaking to the Dragar at all.



But, if it makes you feel better, subsitutute 'Dragar' for 'Fred', and pretend I believe it's the same 'person' from one day to the next.

Dragar

 

[Kris_J]

Well, Kris, to get a little biblical twist into this discussion: It's plain to see that the rules laid down in the Bible reflect the perception of a very primitive society, and not the highly evolved morality of an infinitely wise Spirit-being. Geez, they didn't even grasp the concept of contagion, and thought that diseases were a means of divine punishment.

Jane, we do not evolve as quickly as you might think. We are not in an anarchy, & neither were they. We still have fathers & mothers, as did they. We still have the same parenting issues, as did they. We still have authority figures as did they.

Many cultures still do honour their mothers & fathers, despite the nursing home culture of the west, & despite different religions. We all still have the same struggles with authority, as children seeking freedom from parental guidance. Though you may argue that it is not unique, it cannot be denied that the bible does address timeless & universal issues.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Your position implies that there is no continuity of self, as you refer to your 13yo & 3billion y.o. self as "him" rather than "I".

I think first we have to agree on the continuity of self, otherwise, I might not be speaking to the same Dragar as in the previous post.

You aren't speaking to the same Dragar.

 

[Dragar]

You aren't speaking to the same Dragar.

There's no 'him', and there's no Dragar. Gotta get it straight.

But this is digression, and I liked where we've been going with this.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

TRUE anarchy can never be achieved, but if it were possible, it'd be much better than following an authority.
(Just consider that the very moment somebody abuses the freedom granted to him by anarchy to suppress others ends the state of anarchy.)

 

[Kris_J]

Dude, there isn't even an event of consideration-by-Dragar that considers you are speaking to the Dragar at all.



But, if it makes you feel better, subsitutute 'Dragar' for 'Fred', and pretend I believe it's the same 'person' from one day to the next.

Dragar

Ok pal, whatever your imaginary friend says. However, I don't speak to puppets, or Ken, Barbie, etc.

 

[cygnusx1]

Acting the way you do has proven itself to be an evolutionary advantage, you're accting the way you were designed to act.

A bit like the chicken that cannot really fly ........ I love chicken

 

[Dragar]

Ok pal, whatever your invisible friend says. However, I don't speak to puppets, or Ken, or Barbie dear.

No, no, no. Not my invisible friend. Your imaginary one.

(Zoot's gonna kill me. I'm stealing all his best material).

Let's get back to the topic.

In a million years from now, when I'm super-knowledgeable, I'll consider my right-to-mes in the future better-to-me than the things things that are right-to-me in the present (assuming they've changed).

Not objectively better, because that's nonsense. Just better-to-me.

 

[Kris_J]

There's no 'him', and there's no Dragar. Gotta get it straight.

But this is digression, and I liked where we've been going with this.

I think you were getting your butt kicked, thats why you sidestepped by proposing the discontinuity of self - comes in handy when losing a debate .. oops that was the old self that sidestepped right?