I don't believe in right and wrong.

[Dragar]

It's because there is something objective that makes to be healthy better than being sick.

No, it's not. It's because those people who considered it 'better' to be sick than healthy died out. The cultures that produced these values in people died out.

Their values weren't conducive to survival. It has nothing to do with objective or not.

 

[Zoot]

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!

Carico,

How can I be accountable for things that are not my choice?

Do you choose your morals?

 

[YWGWYS]

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.

sorry, an7222, i´m really trying, but for the life of me i do not understand how your argumentation is supposed to prove the existence of objective values for music and sounds. as soon as someone finds the sound of an ambulance pleasing (like the injured victory of an accident, who certainly will rate this sound higher than some bloody guitar or piano), your reasoning seems to collapse.

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.

correct me, if i´m wrong, but you seem to be saying here, that objectivity is a matter of majority. this would be a completely new line of reasoning. i am willing to adress it, as soon as you have confirmed this to be indeed your argument.

 

[ProbePhage]

Your feelings take precedence over your thoughts.
And considering the disordered and evil nature of your thoughts, that is a good thing in this case.

What do you mean? What would happen if Zoot "acted upon his thoughts" rather than his feelings? I don't want idle speculation here; I want a human action that will logically follow from a belief in subjective morality. Hint: you will find this extremely difficult.

We act on our feelings: our impulses, our desires, our perceived needs, our habits, our burned-in moral imperatives. We do not act upon fundamental beliefs as to the functioning of the universe. Sure, everything within us affects everything else, but ultimately it is our feelings that we act upon.

We act upon "I am hungry." We do not act upon "The sky is blue."

Nor do we act upon "Morality is subjective."

If Zoot's feelings (specifically his "subjective morality") prompt him to be harmless, then you have nothing to fear from him, regardless of his beliefs. Beliefs don't directly cause action.

 

[Kris_J]

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.

Prometheus, we can examine Hitler, & we can still say that even Hitler has a concept of an universal & absolute ideal exisitence - ie. the Aryan race ruling the world. However flawed, that was still Hitler's utopia.

Now speaking of absolute objective morals, in the light of our universal & absolute moral value of "everyone should have a happy & fulfilling life", the resultant absolute immoral value is "everybody should not have a happy & fulfilling life".

An absolute immoral value is therefore evil.

 

[Zoot]

Prometheus, we can examine Hitler, & we can still say that even Hitler has a concept of an universal & absolute ideal exisitence - ie. the Aryan race ruling the world. However flawed, that was still Hitler's utopia.

Yes. Hitler's.


Now speaking of absolute objective morals, in the light of our universal & absolute moral value of "everyone should have a happy & fulfilling life", the resultant absolute immoral value is "everybody should not have a happy & fulfilling life".

An absolute immoral value is therefore evil.

Kris, we agreed that "everyone should have a happy & fulfilling life" is a common, but ultimately subjective, value. Remember?

 

[Kris_J]

Kris, we agreed that "everyone should have a happy & fulfilling life" is a common, but ultimately subjective, value. Remember?

Not only is it common, but is universal & timeless - therefore absolute.

How it is put into practice is subject to the inclinations of the individual. None the less, it doesn't diminish the fact that the ideal of living a "happy & fulfilling life" is an absolute ideal.

As I have said, even our historical monsters like Hitler even has such an ideal as having a "happy & fulfilling life". The only being that you can convince me of that has no such ideal would be Satan & Devils. But then you don't believe Satan exists do you?

 

[YWGWYS]

Not only is it common, but is universal & timeless - therefore absolute.

How it is put into practice is subject to the inclinations of the individual. None the less, it doesn't diminish the fact that the ideal of living a "happy & fulfilling life" is an absolute ideal.

except, that it is practically meaningless and doesn´t help on iota with the idea of "absolute morality or values".
it would include literally everything, that any one person perceives as fulfilling or making him happy. since "happy" and "fulfulling" are inherently subjective terms, you won´t succeed in deducing any objective morality or values from them.
answering the question for "objective values" with "happiness&fulfilment" basically is like answering the question "is there something, that is objectively positive" with "yes, everything, that feels good".

 

[Kris_J]

except, that it is practically meaningless and doesn´t help on iota with the idea of "absolute morality or values".
it would include literally everything, that any one person perceives as fulfilling or making him happy. since "happy" and "fulfulling" are inherently subjective terms, you won´t succeed in deducing any objective morality or values from them.
answering the question for "objective values" with "happiness&fulfilment" basically is like answering the question "is there something, that is objectively positive" with "yes, everything, that feels good".

I think you're missing the point.

Replace "happy & fulfilling life" with "distant & remote planet". It doesn't matter whether "distant" is defined geographically or psychologically, or "remote" as being alien or lonely. The point is that such existences are conceivable, & my point deals with concepts & ideals, not its practicalities, as I highlight in your post.

 

[YWGWYS]

I think you're missing the point.

Replace "happy & fulfilling life" with "distant & remote planet". It doesn't matter whether "distant" is defined geographically or psychologically, or "remote" as being alien or lonely. The point is that such existences are conceivable, & my point deals with concepts & ideals, not its practicalities, as I highlight in your post.

maybe "practical" was the wrong wording...
yes, these things "happy, fulfilling" are conceivable, because they are terms for undefined feelings and therefore in this context meaningless.
our language has such terms, the mere purpose of which is to as broadly as possible point to something desirable (they can be very useful, but definitely not for a definition).
to use such terms in a way that make them appear to say more than they actually do (i.e. leaving most possible space for subjective interpretation, and nothing else), is misleading.
sure, we can agree upon that an objective value is "quality". but, just like with "happiness", "fulfilment", "love", "good"..., this is just replacing one broad term with an equally broad term. you don´t add any information by doing so.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Concepts and ideals are but a means of describing practicalities. They carry no value in and of themselves, but are merely linguistic devices to communicate.

And language is not objective, it is collectively subjective.

 

[YWGWYS]

here´s another attempt to explain it, kris_j:
saying, that objective values/ideals are "happiness&fulfilment", is basically saying "objective values is ´what is valued´". you are just rewording, paraphrasing, you are moving in semantic circles, without making any progress towards a substancially new insight. (but you are not alone. i think, that many philosophers did just that most of the time.

let´s assume, this discussion had started with the question: "is there objective fulfilment?", then the answer could have been: "yes: being occupied with valuable things."
we would lead the same discussion as we are doing now (just with the terms exchanged).

defining (or in this case merely paraphrasing) a term is not yet demonstrating there to be whatever kind of objectivity in it.

 

[an7222]

"objective values is ´what is valued´".

Ok. You agree that there are some things that are more valued than others? I cannot say with 100% of certainty why this happens (if there are some objective cause for it or not, but I believe yes), but the fact is that it happens. If it happens, why not to think of morality as something that favors the "most valued things"? So, everything that values life, fulfillment, happiness is by definition objectively moral, and everything that goes against life, fulfillment, hapiness is by definition objectively immoral.

I know happiness is, to some extent, subjective. But now we will be able to say that we acted objectively moraly when we made somebody happy, even if we don't know exactly what makes him happy. Did you get it?

"To make somebody happy is by definition objectively moral".

 

[Blackmarch]

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).

If we use "subjective morality" (and one would also have to take god out of the picture), rape would not be wrong to the rapist, and the only thing counter to it would be the victim's objective morality. Then the question goes to who was right and who was wrong. If we use the hypothetical situation that it happened in an area with a law that punished. Then the rapist would be in the wrong, merely and just by breaking the law (and only up to the point for which there was punishment). Now if we take this scenario and say somehow that the rapist was able to put together an army and displace the ruling government with him as supreme ruler of that country and he maade laws that made it so that rape and murder were that promoted such acts, THen went on such a spree as to make hitler look like an angel, would that be wrong?
Why?

(one could say that he was just helping evolution... killing the opposition, and spreading his genes which were obviously superior-providing he didn't kill those of the opposite gender-...)

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

If we use "objective morality" (and one would also have to take god out of the picture), rape would not be wrong to the rapist, and the only thing counter to it would be the victim's objective morality.

(Pssssssssht... you are referring to SUBJECTIVE morality here!)
And no, the "only" thing to counter it is the collective morality of the society he's living in.

Then the question goes to who was right and who was wrong. If we use the hypothetical situation that it happened in an area with a law that punished. Then the rapist would be in the wrong, merely and just by breaking the law (and only up to the point for which there was punishment). Now if we take this scenario and say somehow that the rapist was able to put together an army and displace the ruling government with him as supreme ruler of that country and he maade laws that made it so that rape and murder were that promoted such acts, THen went on such a spree as to make hitler look like an angel, would that be wrong?
Why?

Wrong-to-us, but possibly not wrong-to-him. Most not-so-well-known dictators of the 20th century died peacefully in their sleep, because nobody considered them important enough to do something about their cruel reign.

(one could say that he was just helping evolution... killing the opposition, and spreading his genes which were obviously superior-providing he didn't kill those of the opposite gender-...)

Yeah, that's why according to the Bible, a rapist's victim was ordered to marry the guy who mutilated her.

 

[beetlequeendiva]

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).

You really think you are acting like a christian??? The Bible tells us we should be christ like in all that we do - your attitude is not christ like!!! Somehow I don't think Jesus or God think that rape or murder is okay!!

 

[Davebuck]

You really think you are acting like a christian??? The Bible tells us we should be christ like in all that we do - your attitude is not christ like!!! Somehow I don't think Jesus or God think that rape or murder is okay!!

easy...simmer down. What would jesus think of you?

Say, aren't there stories in the bible where Yahweh tells folks to go kill all the first born babies in a city? Or, asks a dad to kill a son? I mean, that's not a test that comes from someone who thinks murder is ok.

And, what do you have to say about Moody Blue's comment about the bible saying Unmarried rape victims must marry her rapist? Deuteronomy 22:28

Not to be degrading but you sound like someone who learned most of your religion from church sermons and little from really digging into the parts of the bible your preist doesn't want you to read.

 

[beetlequeendiva]

easy...simmer down. What would jesus think of you?

Say, aren't there stories in the bible where Yahweh tells folks to go kill all the first born babies in a city? Or, asks a dad to kill a son? I mean, that's not a test that comes from someone who thinks murder is ok.

And, what do you have to say about Moody Blue's comment about the bible saying Unmarried rape victims must marry her rapist? Deuteronomy 22:28

Not to be degrading but you sound like someone who learned most of your religion from church sermons and little from really digging into the parts of the bible your preist doesn't want you to read.

you sound like someone who has read these things out of the context in which they are in - i suggest that you might wanna do that. I have read all of these stories in their context therefore i do dig around in the bible - i don't just believe what my preacher's tell me!!

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Okay, so tell me of a context in which a rape victim should marry her rapist, or a context in which it is justifiable to kill babies for the misdeeds committed by their fathers. Your response is the default Christian response - which boils down to basically ignoring these passages - or else reasoning them away by either claiming that they are a hallmark of "perfect justice" or that the New Testament somehow makes up for the cruelty of the Old.

 

[YWGWYS]

Ok. You agree that there are some things that are more valued than others?

sure. some value this, some value that.

I cannot say with 100% of certainty why this happens (if there are some objective cause for it or not, but I believe yes), but the fact is that it happens. If it happens, why not to think of morality as something that favors the "most valued things"?

yes, you can think of it as what you want. but that doesn´t make it objective.

by definition objectively immoral.

by definition objectively moral,

"by definition objectively" is the the most obvious oxymoron i have seen in a long time, and, sorry, it shows the error in your thinking in a nutshell.

I know happiness is, to some extent, subjective. But now we will be able to say that we acted objectively moraly when we made somebody happy, even if we don't know exactly what makes him happy. Did you get it?

yes, i get what your line of reasoning is; i had already gotten it after your first post. but i think it is flawed, and i try to show you why. i can´t make myself understood (you don´t adress my arguments), so i guess i better rest my case.
thanks for the friendly conversation, an7222!