Is there Objective Morality?

Whyayeman said:

Before returning to topic, I wonder if Kyrani could explain how she could see the tumours or what ever they were inside her. I feel sure my own GP would be able to benefit from her technique.

Click to expand...

It would be great if doctors did try to use some of these methods but in all fairness they take many, many years to perfect. I trained in meditation and then insight meditation all up for more than two decades. It is not easy.
In 1993, when I was diagnosed with the cancer I was also diagnosed with type 2 diabetes because of high blood sugars at the time. I used walking meditation that I learnt from a Tibetan master for that but I didn't get as much knowledge as I did years later with the other cancer.
The master gave me a twenty meter stretch of path and said I had to walk it in two hours. Wow. I had trouble trying to walk it in ten minutes. What I was taught to do first of all was to concentrate on the steps. Lifting the leg, moving the leg, placing the foot on the ground, shifting the balance and then lifting the other foot, etc.
Once you can do that with high level of attention, you then move on to placing the attention on the calf muscle. You have to observe it tense and then relax for each leg as you take the steps. Once you can do that with unbroken attention, you move down to a small amount of tissue and observe that. Finally you get down to observation of a small group of cells until you then reach to being able to observe a single muscle cell. All this took place in long retreats where we practiced for hours and hours every day. And we had to be interviewed by the master for him to verify that we were on the right path and to help us improve.

I found that one can simply choose to become aware of any part of the body and move the attention to that area. And then as the meditation deepens, one gains more and more clarity. I discovered this during a Zen meditation retreat. My position was near a window and mosquitoes came into the room. My teacher said we were not allowed to swat the mosquitoes. So it was not good. He told me that if a mosquito stung me that I was to make that stinging the object of my meditation. So I tried it. I did not look at the mosquito with my eyes. I simply focused my attention. After some practice I was able to observe it land, move it's proboscis (tubular mouthpart) around on my skin, then plunge it through the skin and into a capillary. I was even able to observe blood leaving the capillary and being sucked up into the mosquitos proboscis. Then it staggered a bit and finally flew away. Remarkably, the stinging didn't affect me when I used it as an object of meditation. But it also made me realize just how much we can observe.

I believe we can make these observations because there is only One Mind, the Mind of God and that we as conscious being participate on that platform. We don't have any personal minds. So the information for all of creation is in The Mind and hence we can select that information and that enables us to make the observations. This also enables us to remote view and even counter attack an enemy to stop mental attacks.

What I have come to understand is that our physicality is the manifestation of information, which God upholds in the Divine Consciousness. You can think of it as a vast matrix. The information can be amended but it can't be erased. So in making observations we are really accessing this information and in bringing it to consciousness, we observe the physical manifest form. Every cell and every part of each cell is basically information that is manifest. And we don't only observe. If we react to ideas then that reaction is an amendment, which then becomes part of the physiology. When we stop reacting there is again another amendment and that helps bring the physiology back to the resting state. I think this is what is observed as homeostasis.

Kyrani said:

I don't believe that Jesus is God nor a savior, so that means I am not a Christian. I believe that Jesus is a prophet most high. And I don't believe that simply accepting Jesus as a savior is going to help one get to Heaven. The reason is because my mother was a Christian and claimed she accepted Jesus as her savior, however that didn't stop her from being inhumane, not one little bit. And there were plenty of instances also that she recruited and used people straight out of the congregation. So the idea of universal salvation doesn't sit well with me. My father on the other hand, who was also inhumane, went to church because he said that as Greek Orthodoxy was Greek it should be revered. it had nothing to do with God. He was atheist.

Click to expand...

Poor witnesses cause a lot of damage, and that is sad. But I would bet there are poor witnesses for Islam and Hinduism as much as there are poor witnesses for Christianity. It's not exclusive to any one group.

Jesus never said God's grace would make people moral. In Christianity that is referred to as Sanctification, and it is important, but it has nothing to do with salvation or God's grace.

Still, I understand your experiences shaped you. I'm sorry your experience with the Orthodox community of your youth was so negative. I can imagine it's a difficult thing to get past. Maybe in the future you'll be able to get past it and start to see what message Christ is trying to send.

Kyrani said:

As humane people, love is basic in our nature, our spiritual nature. I agree that humans have not investigated this enough to form some agreed upon standard, but that doesn't change much. There is recognized "standards" of sorts. We have names for them in Greek culture.
Agape is the universal love, also seen as love that is "of God".
Then there is:
filia, which is the love between friends, in English I guess we would say this is friendship.
Then there is storge, which is familial love or the love for others in one's clan.
Eros, which is romantic love, the love between lovers.

Click to expand...

What about fairness? What about justice? These are basic in our human nature as well; why can’t these be the standard of which we judge moral vs immoral behavior? Let’s face it; everybody has their own standard; yours just happen to be love.

Kyrani said:

Several things.
Firstly when the cancers moved to spontaneous remission, it was the cancer cells themselves that were doing one of two things. Some cells were breaking up and other cells, which I believe were macrophages, engulfed the debris. They were not attacked and destroyed by inflammation, i.e., by the immune system.

Secondly some cells changed and ended up looking indistinguishable from the normal cells in the area. What appeared to be happening is that some of the cells self destructed and other reverted back or at least changed to look the same as normal cells. I am not good enough to see fine details. For instance I can see large proteins, but they are blurry. However I could see a lot of similarities.

Another thing that I was fortunate to see was part of metastasis. Various cells moved out through a membrane. They seem to melt through it. And they travelled through a blood vessel. I did lose them after a time but what I did see was that there seemed to be a few cells in front and the cells behind them kept moving towards them. I found in the medical literature that there is a process called chemotaxis. From what I read this may have been what I was observing. The cells in front might have been immune system cells and/ or fibroblasts. They must have given off some chemical that the other cells detected. In detecting the chemical they move towards the stronger concentration so they were able to follow the cells in front. It is hard to see well because there were a lot of other cells around, especially red blood cells. But as it appeared the cancer cells, which must have been cancer stem cells were being led, assisted to reach the destination.

All of the cells that either destructed or changed were in my large intestine. The ones that I saw move into the blood stream were from the ovary.

I had been first diagnosed with ovarian cancer, with metastasis to the uterus, cervix, bowel and both lungs. The doctors at that time said "nothing we can do for you". But within six months I had further tests as I was feeling well and the tests came back with no evidence of disease. At that time I had not made any observations. The ones I made were subsequent cancers. Some years later there was a recurrence of the ovarian cancer and it went to the bowel. I was also able to see why I had reacted as to form these cancers the second time and there were similarities with the first instance. If you are interested I can explain what happened.

Click to expand...

Your observations are fascinating.

But what you describe are observations, rather than a qualitative research methodology.

Ken-1122 said:

What about fairness? What about justice? These are basic in our human nature as well; why can’t these be the standard of which we judge moral vs immoral behavior? Let’s face it; everybody has their own standard; yours just happen to be love.

Click to expand...

Love is not just my standard. Love is fundamental. If there was no love, there wouldn't be any justice in the sense of what we see as right and wrong. This is why God made us with love. And the same goes for fairness.

Larnievc said:

Your observations are fascinating.

But what you describe are observations, rather than a qualitative research methodology.

Click to expand...

Yes they are observations, but as far as scientists are concerned they are seen to be qualitative rather than quantitative.

Kyrani said:

Love is not just my standard. Love is fundamental. If there was no love, there wouldn't be any justice in the sense of what we see as right and wrong. This is why God made us with love. And the same goes for fairness.

Click to expand...

Sometimes love will contradict fairness or justice. If I love everybody equally, I might want the same for everybody; AKA equality of outcome. But is that really fair for those who try harder? Equal opportunity never results in equal outcome. My point is; there is no objective standard when it comes to morality, everybody has their own standard and those standards are based on personal opinions and beliefs; AKA subjective

Kyrani said:

I don't believe that the immortal souls are puppets. They have chosen to walk the Path of Righteousness because that is what they wanted to do, what they chose to do. You can still be an atheist and go to Heaven.

Click to expand...

Do you believe it is possible to live a sinless life? If so, have you ever heard of anybody actually doing this?

Kyrani said:

Not the regular Muslim, an Australian garden variety.
I recall 12 other past lives so I can't very well deny reincarnation. Five or six of those reincarnation were in Ancient Egypt and for most of them I was a priest or priestess. I still end prayers with "Amoun-Ra".

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, have you done anything to verify your previous incarnations?

com7fy8 said:

I don't think morality is a main focus of God. But He can use it to help bring about His ultimate purpose.

Click to expand...

Kylie said:

Which is...?

Click to expand...

To me, Romans 8:29 shows that God's number-one priority with humans is to change people to be like Jesus who is so pleasing to God. And so . . . human morality of behavior is not God's first concern. And He is guided by His first priority, though there is what I would say is objective morality.

com7fy8 said:

He Himself is capable of much greater good, than what humans are capable of doing even if we act perfectly morally.

Click to expand...

Kylie said:

Can you give an example of this?

Click to expand...

In my personal life . . . He gave me a real female companion, after I had fooled myself for so long . . . while often being quite moral but quite stupid! He brought me to better than what any objective morals could bring me. But by holding to certain morals that helped me to not get totally with the wrong people.

com7fy8 said:

There are cases in the Bible, where God uses what is evil to bring about much greater good than humans were doing while trying to be moral.

Click to expand...

Kylie said:

Wouldn't it be even more morally good to accomplish the same goal without using evil?

Click to expand...

not if He is using the evil and putting an end to it, in the process

com7fy8 said:

To me, Romans 8:29 shows that God's number-one priority with humans is to change people to be like Jesus who is so pleasing to God.

Click to expand...

So God created Humans because he wanted us to please him?

And so . . . human morality of behavior is not God's first concern. And He is guided by His first priority, though there is what I would say is objective morality.

Click to expand...

There were plenty of moral laws laid down in the Bible. You also have not shown that there is an objective morality.

In my personal life . . . He gave me a real female companion, after I had fooled myself for so long . . . while often being quite moral but quite stupid! He brought me to better than what any objective morals could bring me. But by holding to certain morals that helped me to not get totally with the wrong people.

Click to expand...

From reading between the lines, I get the feeling that there is something more to this...

not if He is using the evil and putting an end to it, in the process

Click to expand...

Of course, if God is all powerful, then there doesn't need to be evil at all...[/quote][/QUOTE]

Kyrani said:

Yes they are observations, but as far as scientists are concerned they are seen to be qualitative rather than quantitative.

Click to expand...

I was referring to a qualitative research method such as discourse analysis. They involve inferential statistical analysis rather than raw observational data.

Ken-1122 said:

Do you believe it is possible to live a sinless life? If so, have you ever heard of anybody actually doing this?

Click to expand...

The response from anyone who does not believe that sin exists as a metaphysical reality is ‘yes’.

J_B_ said:

I didn't chase your link to see if there is more, but the equation shown is a better example than you probably realize. It's an indeterminate case, which means there is insufficient information to get a definitive answer. That is all too true of morality as well when speaking of finite humanity.

Click to expand...

Sam Harris in his moral landscape takes this approach. Establishing what is moral is not a black and white situation. What is moral fact may be clear in some cases but unclear in others cases that may be more complicated. But as with science things can become clearer with more time and investigation. But just because there is no clear answer at that time doesnt mean one will be found and that morals are subjective.

BUt I don't think Harris's moral landscape works as using human wellbeing can be a subjective determination as well. But I think we can establish objective moral truths through lived experience. As I mentioned in a previous post there are certain moral truths we cannot avoid or deny when applied to lived situations.

For example people cannot debate like we are doing now without implicitly using honesty as a measure for what is truth. Otherwise debates breakdown and become incoherent. THis is the same for many moral truths when applied practcial situations. There may be more complicated situations where we cannot establish a clear moral truth but that doesnt mean there are none or that morality is subjective.

People who use "1+1=2 is fact" often don't seem to understand the nature of mathematics very well. Such a claim is a conflation of a defined man-made structure with simple physical experiences you assume no one will disagree with.

In number theory, it is not taken for granted that 1+1=2, but proven from definitions and assumptions that took centuries to develop.

Click to expand...

I am not quite sure what you mean can you elaborate. If I understand what you are saying you think that math is a human made idea and humans have limited knowledge. So therefore the example I have given is not a clear objective fact as there are assumptions inbuilt into how we can use that math.

Ken-1122 said:

I disagree! (to use my previous analogy) If we can agree lying to a criminal to save an innocent life is the right thing to do, how about if instead of lying to a criminal, I lie to a cop about a person who may not be innocent? How about if I determine the cop to be crooked? Is it okay to lie to the cop then? How about if the cop is not crooked, but he is enforcing a law I have determined is criminal thus I’ve determined the cop to be criminal? Is it okay to lie to the cop then? And we haven’t even gotten into the person I’m protecting yet; how do I know he is innocent if he hasn’t had a trial?
In each of these cases an alternative position is taken due to my personal view.

Click to expand...

Yes and objective morality can accommodate each and every alternative position. Under objective morality we dont have to stick to the same application for each scenario. An objective moral truth can be found for each different scenario. Sometimes it may be objective right to be honest and other times it may be objective wrong to be honest depending on the consequences of those actions.

Objective morality also allows for greater moral truths to be considered depending on the situation which may take priority. But all these different scenarios don’t make a case for subjective morality. People get confused that just because there are different situations morality must be subjective because we cannot apply the same objective moral to each situation.

But as mentioned this is not objective morality but universal morality which makes moral values unchangable in different situations. So under the moral value of honesty a person must be honest in every situations regardless of circumstances. Whereas objective morality allows us to find an objective truth in each different situation. Sometimes it may be morally right to be honest and sometimes not if a greater moral value is being breached.

I think some people think complicating a situation = subjective morality. But it doesn’t.

PS
Though I didn’t look at the entire video, the little bid I did look at; I noticed he made the claim that killing the mentally handicap is morally wrong regardless of what anybody says. He didn’t prove it to be wrong, he just said it is wrong. If it were objective morally wrong to kill the mentally handicap, he should be able to demonstrate why it is morally wrong; otherwise he is just stating his subjective moral opinion on the issue.

Click to expand...

Thats why it pays to listen to the whole video. He was talking about how objective moral truths work. He was saying that objective morality is a truth that stands independent of human opinion ie form the video.

If the proponents of Eugenics won the debate and convinced the entire world to adopt the theory of Eugenics it would still be morally wrong to kill/eliminate the mentally disabled. It would be morally wrong regardless of what everyone thought.

Therefore we must realise when someone says moral realism must be false because there are various forms of morality around the world depending on the culture. They must realise that this doesn’t show that moral realism is false for the very same reason that the existence of competing scientific theories doesn’t show that science is subjective or based on the culture or individual.

Kylie said:

There were plenty of moral laws laid down in the Bible. You also have not shown that there is an objective morality.

Click to expand...

Well, I think God is the One with objective morality. So, I do not think I can prove He exists; so likewise I can't prove there is His objective morality. All I can do is offer what I believe and understand.

I understand there is objective morality for humans, but on our own without God we can't get it right. We need to be personally guided by God so we are on the right track.

But by the standards of proof which I have encountered with ones claiming to be atheists, no I can not prove this by atheistic standards. Actually, it is not clear to me what they would consider to be proof of God's existence and His objective morality.

Kylie said:

So God created Humans because he wanted us to please him?

Click to expand...

Yes, but we can not please Him by staying the way we are; so we need how our Heavenly Father changes us to be like Jesus who is so pleasing.

This is a basic, which I meant by referring us to Romans 8:29.

His morals are oriented, then, to us becoming like Jesus and with this being able to share as family.

So, then, objective morals include how hate is wrong, and unforgiveness . . . not only outwardly practical morals.

But humans can have their objectives which have them rejecting God's morals, plus even saying God hates them because He does to approve of their stuff.

stevevw said:

Sam Harris in his moral landscape takes this approach. Establishing what is moral is not a black and white situation. What is moral fact may be clear in some cases but unclear in others cases that may be more complicated. But as with science things can become clearer with more time and investigation. But just because there is no clear answer at that time doesnt mean one will be found and that morals are subjective.

BUt I don't think Harris's moral landscape works as using human wellbeing can be a subjective determination as well. But I think we can establish objective moral truths through lived experience. As I mentioned in a previous post there are certain moral truths we cannot avoid or deny when applied to lived situations.

For example people cannot debate like we are doing now without implicitly using honesty as a measure for what is truth. Otherwise debates breakdown and become incoherent. THis is the same for many moral truths when applied practcial situations. There may be more complicated situations where we cannot establish a clear moral truth but that doesnt mean there are none or that morality is subjective.

Click to expand...

Mmm. We may have to get some semantic issues out of the way first. I'm not sure if you're arguing for a strict objective morality or using the term more as something synonymous to a best utilitarian morality, or maybe something else.

Strict objective morality is defined as a moral proposition whose truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Is that what you mean? I ask because, remember that God is a sentient subject. Would you say your idea of objective morality means it's true apart from God?

stevevw said:

I am not quite sure what you mean can you elaborate. If I understand what you are saying you think that math is a human made idea and humans have limited knowledge. So therefore the example I have given is not a clear objective fact as there are assumptions inbuilt into how we can use that math.

Click to expand...

There is the practical arithmetic of the apple seller. He sets a price of $1.50 per apple. There is a common understanding that an apple is the fruit of the malus domestica. It's a physical thing we can point at, pick up, bite into, digest. A customer offers to buy two of these things, and he knows he has to offer $3.00 in exchange.

Everybody knows that. One thing is $1.50, therefore two things is $3.00.

But then there's always that $@#^% who says, "Wait a minute. Not all these apples are the same size. I don't want to pay the same price for my small apples that he's paying for his large apples."

The statement of that troublemaker has taken a step from the practical, physical thing everyone knows toward an abstraction no one will ever agree on. Suddenly, we don't know what "apple" means, so we don't know what it means to request purchase of some set of things.

That's where the deeper aspects of number theory take off. At it's root it becomes the question: What is a number? If we can't define a number, we can't know what 1+1 means. That question was more or less settled by the Principia Mathematica of 1910, but the agony of the journey in getting there has left most mathematicians unsure whether we will ever be able to define number concisely.

So, you can rest easy in the certainty of simple and obvious physical things, but you can't use those physical things as an argument to prove an abstraction. The apple seller can shrug and say, "That's the price. Take or leave it." But once he steps off into the deep end of trying to define "apple" as an abstraction, he's dead meat.

Objective morality is an abstraction. 1+1=2 does not apply.

Kylie said:

Just out of curiosity, have you done anything to verify your previous incarnations?

Click to expand...

All I can do is look up historical events that can verify what I recall, I don't recall a great deal. However some I have verified, some I am still looking.

stevevw said:

Sometimes it may be objective right to be honest and other times it may be objective wrong to be honest depending on the consequences of those actions.

Click to expand...

That seems to be the very embodiment of relative morality. My vote is thus cast; there is no case made for an objective morality.

Not being able to make any sense of the God references (because there is no God) I withdraw from this discussion in atheistic friendship.