I don't believe in right and wrong.

[Zoot]

Making up one's own standards does not in any way, make one moral, Zoot.

What you mean by "moral" has no meaning.


Stalin, Saddam hussein, Hitler, etc. ALL chose their own standards.

Yes. So did Jesus, Gandhi and Snoop Dogg.


Again, that is playing God.

Well, it would only be playing God if it involved arbitrarily picking values for no reason. God would have no context, nothing to draw from. He'd have to make it all up.


It is true that you can do anything you want, but that has nothing to do with morality. You are also accountable for your choices. When man "decides" right and wrong, he will find out one day, just how wrong he is! if you think you know better than Jesus Christ what the truth is, then by all means, pass your wisdom along to others.

Well, obviously, I already do that.


But you and you alone are also responsible for the lives you affect by your ideas.

So people aren't responsible for whether or not they listen to me? Does that mean I'm not responsible for whether or not I listened to other people?

 

[Kris_J]

Would anyone so far agree that morals are universal, such that everyone has their specific moral codes (or lack of; and even this is a code of sorts) that that they live by, but that morals are not absolute, such that there is one specific moral and cultural law that evryone should live by?

I think there are universal/absolute ideals - & those ideals is the objective of all moral values.

for example:
Atheist & Theist...
Ideal No 1: everyone has a happy & fullfilling life (& afterlife).

...or for the fundamentalist Christian:
Ideal No 1: Everyone acknowledges the Christian God as their God, & Jesus as their Lord & Saviour.
Ideal No. 2: everyone follows the Will of God.
Ideal No. 3: everyone has a happy life & fullfilling life. (note: for the FChristian #1 & #2 "ideally" is the state of #3)

So although not everyone will agree with the fundamentalist Christian on Ideal 1 & 2, I hope everyone can agree with #3.

Morals then develop in how we can best attain the ideal of "everyone has a happy & fullfilling life". Morals then are "laws" we believe are useful in attaining that ideal - eg. it is immoral to let someone who diminished another's capacity for a happy & fulfilling life (eg. rape) to continue to do so, & thus are punished (contingency plan).

So Zoot, you may argue that Morals may not necessarily be absolute, but its purpose to is serve absolute ideals. The state of being God is the absolute ideal for everyone, though becoming a God impossible for us to attain.

 

[Zoot]

Morals then develop in how we can best attain the ideal of "everyone has a happy & fullfilling life". Morals then are "laws" we believe are useful in attaining that ideal - eg. it is immoral to let someone who diminished another's capacity for a happy & fulfilling life (eg. rape) to continue to do so, & thus are punished (contingency plan).

So Zoot, you may argue that Morals may not necessarily be absolute, but its purpose to is serve absolute ideals. The state of being God is the absolute ideal for everyone, though becoming a God impossible for us to attain.

Those ideals are no more absolute than any other idea. Being God isn't an ideal for me. People's happiness is an ideal to me, but obviously most people's idea of "good" is not a matter of "making people happy", as people would often rather be good than happy, and call things bad (such as homosexual love) that cause happiness.

 

[Kris_J]

Morals then develop in how we can best attain the ideal of "everyone has a happy & fullfilling life". Morals then are "laws" we believe are useful in attaining that ideal - eg. it is immoral to let someone who diminished another's capacity for a happy & fulfilling life (eg. rape) to continue to do so, & thus are punished (contingency plan).

So Zoot, you may argue that Morals may not necessarily be absolute, but its purpose to is serve absolute ideals. The state of being God is the absolute ideal for everyone, though becoming a God impossible for us to attain.

Those ideals are no more absolute than any other idea. Being God isn't an ideal for me. People's happiness is an ideal to me, but obviously most people's idea of "good" is not a matter of "making people happy", as people would often rather be good than happy, and call things bad (such as homosexual love) that cause happiness.

Depends what is your notion of God. If your notion of God is to be able to alleviate world hunger & suffering without diminishing people's free will, do you not want to be God?

 

[Zoot]

I should make that more clear.

There's no objective standard by which to evaluate happiness as a better or worse value than any other. It's not an evaluation that can be made. Someone may value happiness, and many, if not most, do - but though they may say "happiness is good", they can't answer, "What's so good about happiness?"

 

[Zoot]

Depends what is your notion of God. If your notion of God is to be able to alleviate world hunger & suffering without diminishing people's free will, do you not want to be God?

In this case, being God would be valued only in terms of being able to serve my value of causing happiness - a value which is essentially foundationless (as per my most recent post in this thread).

 

[Kris_J]

I should make that more clear.

There's no objective standard by which to evaluate happiness as a better or worse value than any other. It's not an evaluation that can be made. Someone may value happiness, and many, if not most, do - but though they may say "happiness is good", they can't answer, "What's so good about happiness?"

I am not defining an universal/absolute description of what it is to be happy & have a fulfilling life. However, we can agree to the idea that we want to have a happy & fulfilling life. Hence it is an "ideal". Can we agree that ideally we all have this universal/absolute ideal?

 

[Zoot]

I am not defining an universal/absolute description of what it is to be happy & have a fulfilling life. However, we can agree to the idea that we want to have a happy & fulfilling life. Hence it is an "ideal". Can we agree that ideally we all have this universal/absolute ideal?

Nope, because "absolute ideal" is a contradiction in terms. You say, "Ideally we all have this ideal." Ideally by what standard?

We can agree that this subjective value is common to most people, just as the value of continued life, the value of rational consistency, etc.

 

[Kris_J]

I am not defining an universal/absolute description of what it is to be happy & have a fulfilling life. However, we can agree to the idea that we want to have a happy & fulfilling life. Hence it is an "ideal". Can we agree that ideally we all have this universal/absolute ideal?

Nope, because "absolute ideal" is a contradiction in terms. You say, "Ideally we all have this ideal." Ideally by what standard?

We can agree that this subjective value is common to most people, just as the value of continued life, the value of rational consistency, etc.

We can agree on the "idea of a happy & fulfilling life".

However, you are asking for a definition of how that standard is applied, but any definition is no longer in the realm of the "idea" but rather in "reality" (practice based on theory on how to attain the ideal). Concepts of right & wrong is in the realm of ideas, not reality.

 

[Zoot]

We can agree on the "idea of a happy & fulfilling life".

However, you are asking for a definition of how that standard is applied, but any definition is no longer in the realm of the "idea" but rather in "reality" (practice based on theory on how to attain the ideal). Concepts of right & wrong is in the realm of ideas, not reality.

We can agree that most people have the subjective value of wanting a "happy and fulfilling life for themselves and others", yes.

Right and wrong are ideas, yes, and ideas are subjective and contextual.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Did you know that Plato's misconceptions were based on the Greek alphabet and its disconnectedness from its original meaning?
The Greek letters were borrowed from Phoenician. In Phoenician, however, each letter is associated with a natural concept. For example, the word for "fish" must have been something like "sea animal". When the greeks asked the Phoenicians what their letters meant, however, they transcribed only the phonetical value: "Tau" no longer meant a thing.
Thus, the idea arose that each object was a disconnected abstract in itself, an idea that's best viewed outside of its natural context, even though quite the contrary is the case.

 

[Zoot]

Jane,

Only through my highly developed sense of humour can I not burst into tears hearing that so much ridicularity could be based on something so silly.

 

[Kris_J]

We can agree on the "idea of a happy & fulfilling life".

However, you are asking for a definition of how that standard is applied, but any definition is no longer in the realm of the "idea" but rather in "reality" (practice based on theory on how to attain the ideal). Concepts of right & wrong is in the realm of ideas, not reality.

We can agree that most people have the subjective value of wanting a "happy and fulfilling life for themselves and others", yes.

Right and wrong are ideas, yes, and ideas are subjective and contextual.

Ideals such as having "a happy & fulfilling life" is not subjective anymore than sunshine is. It is a concept of an existence outside the realm of reality, such as heaven, & is not a practice.

However, how to achieve having a "happy & fulfilling life" is a practice - such as Buddhism (theory of fulfillment via absence of suffering). So yes, we may have different theories as to how to achieve happiness/fulfillment, but our goal is still the same, universal & absolute goal of attaining an unimaginable ideal/heavenly state.
I'd have to say that all people have the ideal concept of a "happy & fulfilling life for everyone".

 

[an7222]

Ideals such as having "a happy & fulfilling life" is not subjective anymore than sunshine is. It is a concept of an existence outside the realm of reality, such as heaven, & is not a practice.

However, how to achieve having a "happy & fulfilling life" is a practice - such as Buddhism (theory of fulfillment via absence of suffering). So yes, we may have different theories as to how to achieve happiness/fulfillment, but our goal is still the same, universal & absolute goal of attaining an unimaginable ideal/heavenly state.
I'd have to say that all people have the ideal concept of a "happy & fulfilling life for everyone".

I agree. And if everybody have the same wish, that is to have a happy and fulfilling life or a "heavenly life", it's not subjective anymore, it's an objective value, an objective moral value, the ultimate universal moral value that must be maximized in the universe. But unfortunately, there are people that do not act morally and their actions minimizes it.

 

[Carico]

Making up one's own standards does not in any way, make one moral, Zoot.

What you mean by "moral" has no meaning.


Stalin, Saddam hussein, Hitler, etc. ALL chose their own standards.

Yes. So did Jesus, Gandhi and Snoop Dogg.


Again, that is playing God.

Well, it would only be playing God if it involved arbitrarily picking values for no reason. God would have no context, nothing to draw from. He'd have to make it all up.


It is true that you can do anything you want, but that has nothing to do with morality. You are also accountable for your choices. When man "decides" right and wrong, he will find out one day, just how wrong he is! if you think you know better than Jesus Christ what the truth is, then by all means, pass your wisdom along to others.

Well, obviously, I already do that.


But you and you alone are also responsible for the lives you affect by your ideas.

So people aren't responsible for whether or not they listen to me? Does that mean I'm not responsible for whether or not I listened to other people?

Again, it sounds like you are still trying to escape accountbility for your actions, attitudes, and beliefs, Zoot. You are responsible for your motives when dealing with people and how you treat them. They are in turn responsible for their reaction to the way you treat them. You sure try to hold God accountable to you!!...as if He's even threatened by you in any way. You will be held accountable for what you say, think, and do REGARDLESS of how others respond to you. Accepting that responsibility is called growing up. Sorry.

As far as Jesus's ideas, they ALL came from God.

Hitler also had reasons for his beliefs! EVERYONE has a reason for their beliefs regardless of whether they are honest about them.

Just because you don't understand the word "morals" doesn't mean the word has no meaning at all! Morals are based on standards of behavior upon which men base their lives. Without God, men like Hitler, Stalin, Husesin, and others who think of themselves as good and righteous, make up for themselves. You again, will be held accountable for those also. Your scoffing at God, boasting about your own knowledge of truth, and arrogance are not only based on deception but will also be brought into account. Again, you may be fooling yourself, Zoot, but you're not fooling other Christians and you're DEFINITELY not fooling God!

 

[Prometheus_ash]

I think there are universal/absolute ideals - & those ideals is the objective of all moral values.

for example:
Atheist & Theist...
Ideal No 1: everyone has a happy & fullfilling life (& afterlife).

...or for the fundamentalist Christian:
Ideal No 1: Everyone acknowledges the Christian God as their God, & Jesus as their Lord & Saviour.
Ideal No. 2: everyone follows the Will of God.
Ideal No. 3: everyone has a happy life & fullfilling life. (note: for the FChristian #1 & #2 "ideally" is the state of #3)

So although not everyone will agree with the fundamentalist Christian on Ideal 1 & 2, I hope everyone can agree with #3.

Morals then develop in how we can best attain the ideal of "everyone has a happy & fullfilling life". Morals then are "laws" we believe are useful in attaining that ideal - eg. it is immoral to let someone who diminished another's capacity for a happy & fulfilling life (eg. rape) to continue to do so, & thus are punished (contingency plan).

So Zoot, you may argue that Morals may not necessarily be absolute, but its purpose to is serve absolute ideals. The state of being God is the absolute ideal for everyone, though becoming a God impossible for us to attain.

Kris J,

Universal and absolute are two different things, and I was not using them interchangibly. I think that because you did not make the distinction between them you may have read into my post perhaps too much.

Allow me to explain. A universal idea would be law. Almost all culturures have some sort of law from which they use as a standard. All cultures have morals, but they are totally different and distinct form each other.

If it were absolute, that would mean that there is one moral that all cultures should use, because it is objective and absolute. When the moral is universal, it is subjective to the person and culture. Absolute, then everyone should follow it, in all cases for all people regardless of culture.

Suicide for example, you might say has a universal moral attactched to it. all of the cultures that I can think of have a moral attached to suicide, however, this specific moral differes greatly from culture to culture, and indeed contradict each other's cultures. Some say that suicide is permissable, for any reason, others limit the reasons, others demand it in some cases, some forbid it completly. However, but none of these can be said to be absolute.

Or order to say that a moral (regarding suicide) were absolute you would have to have some objective means of measuring it. And I don't think you can come up with an objective means of measuring morals, because what works for some will not work for others. Anything you use to measure morals is atomatically subjective, or arbitrary.

Keep universal and absolute seperate, because the two are different and distinct.


-Ash

 

[Prometheus_ash]

Kris J,

I thought of one other kind of universal that might help illustrate my point a little clear.

Think of music. Now, all human cultures have music. You could say, that as far as humn behavior goes, music is universal.Each culture has their own music, with different or similar instraments and sounds.

But is there one kind of music that is absolute? ONe musical type that is suppurior to all other musical types? The answer is no, because we can't measure such a thing, at least not objectivly. You might say that you prefere some type of music over others, but such a preference is subjective.

So it is with morals. You prefere a certain moral code more than other codes, and such a preference is subjective to what you believe.

 

[an7222]

Kris J,

I thought of one other kind of universal that might help illustrate my point a little clear.

Think of music. Now, all human cultures have music. You could say, that as far as humn behavior goes, music is universal.Each culture has their own music, with different or similar instraments and sounds.

But is there one kind of music that is absolute? ONe musical type that is suppurior to all other musical types? The answer is no, because we can't measure such a thing, at least not objectivly. You might say that you prefere some type of music over others, but such a preference is subjective.

So it is with morals. You prefere a certain moral code more than other codes, and such a preference is subjective to what you believe.

You just can say wether a music is better than the other if you define an objective means to value it. For instance, chemical alterations in the brain is a measure of how pleasuring is a music to an individual or a group of individuals or even the entire mankind (if you had the means of measuring the chemical brain alterations of everybody).

The fact we do not have yet come to a good way to measure objectively if a song is better than the other, does not mean that a song cannot be objectively better than the other. For instance, silence will objectively always be the worst song, no matter the criteria you use to value a song.

The same occurs with morality. The fact that we do not have a good objectively well defined way to measure the morality of an act, doesn't mean that the act doesn't have an objective moral value attached to it.

To me, a good moral value that should be used to measure objectively the morality of an act is LIFE and HAPPYNESS.

 

[YWGWYS]

You just can say wether a music is better than the other if you define an objective means to value it. For instance, chemical alterations in the brain is a measure of how pleasuring is a music to an individual or a group of individuals or even the entire mankind (if you had the means of measuring the chemical brain alterations of everybody).

The fact we do not have yet come to a good way to measure objectively if a song is better than the other, does not mean that a song cannot be objectively better than the other. For instance, silence will objectively always be the worst song, no matter the criteria you use to value a song.

no. the rests in a song are often more important than the notes.
and you obviously have never heard john cage´s 4`33", a masterpiece.
there will never be objective standards for music. if indeed chemical alterations in the brain are a measure of how strong impact the music has on the listener, your idea of using it as objective standard for quality would collapse, as soon as someone says "emotional manipulation is a bad thing".
let alone the fact, that even people who have their own standards as to what makes good music, may make situational differences: e.g. hate the music, that they love when driving a car, when they are studying (and vice versa).
the best song is annoying, if your neighbour plays it loud on his stereo, when you want to sleep.

The same occurs with morality. The fact that we do not have a good objectively well defined way to measure the morality of an act, doesn't mean that the act doesn't have an objective moral value attached to it.

in which case someone would have to have attached it there.

To me, a good moral value that should be used to measure objectively the morality of an act is LIFE and HAPPYNESS.

yes, to you. and by saying this you reintroduce the subjectivity again.
you are very often and explicitly using "i believe" in your attempts to deduce the existence of objectivity, anyways.

as for the "HAPPINESS and FULFILLMENT" criterium: it is either subjective (because everyone has other preferences), or completely meaningless for a moral value, if meant to be absolutely abstract and general. in the latter case it wouldn´t help a bit to come to an "objective" judge things, actions or persons.
terms like "happiness" are completely empty, as long as you don´t fill them with a real meaning. you could as well say "greatness" should be used to measure morality objectively.

 

[an7222]

no. the rests in a song are often more important than the notes.
and you obviously have never heard john cage´s 4`33", a masterpiece.
there will never be objective standards for music. if indeed chemical alterations in the brain are a measure of how strong impact the music has on the listener, your idea of using it as objective standard for quality would collapse, as soon as someone says "emotional manipulation is a bad thing".
let alone the fact, that even people who have their own standards as to what makes good music, may make situational differences: e.g. hate the music, that they love when driving a car, when they are studying (and vice versa).
the best song is annoying, if your neighbour plays it loud on his stereo, when you want to sleep.

I didn't want to say that the rest is not important in a song. What I was trying to say is that silence, if you find a good criteria to value the beauty of a song, will always be the worst song.

And I gave you an example of chemical alterations of the brain. But it was just an example. I was not supposing to know here all the criterias necessary to evaluate the beauty of a song. Maybe there are so many criterias that not even a supercomputer of today will be able to calculate the beauty of a simple song. But again, it doesn't mean that this song has not an objective beauty value associated to it. When our brain says "this song is beautyfull", it is "calculating" many things that we value in a song ang giving us an average value to the song. But the fact that other brain have other things it values in a song doesn't mean that song does not fullfill objectively some of the values of both brains. For instance, supose brain A values very very much guitar, and the brain B does not value so much guitar, but values more piano. A song with guitar will be better valued in brain A than in brain B, but it does not mean the song beauty is subjective because both sounds of guitar and piano has been proven to be objectively more pleasant than the sound of an ambulance or a siren. So, behind some small subjectivity, there's always a bigger objectivity.

yes, to you. and by saying this you reintroduce the subjectivity again.
you are very often and explicitly using "i believe" in your attempts to deduce the existence of objectivity, anyways.

as for the "HAPPINESS and FULFILLMENT" criterium: it is either subjective (because everyone has other preferences), or completely meaningless for a moral value, if meant to be absolutely abstract and general. in the latter case it wouldn´t help a bit to come to an "objective" judge things, actions or persons.
terms like "happiness" are completely empty, as long as you don´t fill them with a real meaning. you could as well say "greatness" should be used to measure morality objectively.

The same here. Behind a small subjectivity, there's always a bigger objectivity. There are some ones that will say that happiness for them is to be poor, ugly, dirty and starving. But the majority will not. And why? If our values were 100% subjective, the probability of somebody saying he desires to be healthy would be almost the same (maybe 50%) as being sick. But that's not the case. 99% will say they prefer to be healthy. It's because there is something objective that makes to be healthy better than being sick.
And the same with morality: of course there will always be some that will say it's moral to kill children purposeless, but the majority will say it is immoral. Why? It proves morality is not 100% subjective, it is in part objective.