Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
And we will probably have to spell out what exactly arbitrary means in this context, but an example would be that racist moral systems are not objective because they are based on variables that are arbitrary with respect to morality, namely race.
I dunno, I think I agree with you mostly, and I don't think there's much of an argument to be had here. Making distinctions by arbitrary differences is a non sequitur. When culture has no effect on the act itself, there's no rational reason to take it under consideration at all. We're on the same page with that.@Moral Orel - I think my last post leaves something to be desired, so let me try to flesh out what I mean by "arbitrary".
Just because there are objective morals and everyone knows them doesn’t mean people choose to acknowledge and folow them. People do have free will. People do ignore their conscience and deny the truth.Woah, hang on there.
If all Humans intuitively know them, then we should see ALL human societies tend towards the same moral viewpoints. Yet in some we see plural marriages are find, but not in other societies. We see some societies are okay with the death penalty, and others are not.
I think I may have mentioned this to you before.It doesn't matter if anyone sees God do it or not.
If you claim that moral laws are laws because God has declared them to be so - that there is a law maker - then that's all that matters.
this is the evolutionary explanation for morality which actually cannot ground morality. Evolution is descriptive and not prescriptive. Evolution describes what does survive not what ought to survive. It tells us how we come to know morals and not why we ought to follow those morals.We don't need some external source to show us what works to keep a society working. Any society where murder, theft, etc was common would quickly find itself falling apart and failing. So any society that lasts is naturally going to have attitudes against murder, theft, etc.
Not their personal views but objective morals have to come from beyond the person. By C. S. Lewis using the argument against God that the universe was cruel and unjust this caused him to wonder where he got the morals of just and unjust from in the first place.How do you figure? Why does a person's personal views have to come from beyond that person?
The important thing is honesty will remain a beacon even in discussions where people are bias or lack understanding. When people interact they debate, question others, clarify issues, usually point out bias and get a better understanding of issues. The important thing is that honesty is the guide to prevent people misrepresenting others and lying on purpose.In my experience, the average person doesn't.
Look at the opposite of Honesty. Purposely lying and misrepresenting others is a moral issue. So honesty is a virtue as they say that prevents people from lying.True. Honesty is needed for clear communication. However, I don't see that makes it a moral issue.
Yes but that doesn’t change honesty being an objective moral and moral guide. In your scenario you still referred to the value of honesty to determine not to use it.There are cases where dishonesty can be the more morally correct thing to do. I could meet a friend for a night out on the town and think she's wearing a dress that looks bad on her, but I'm not going to tell her that. It will ruin her whole night. I'll just tell her that she looks great and we'll both go out and have a good time.
Why not, if you look up honesty it will tell you it’s a moral quality. It’s associated with integrity, trust, truth, fairness, moral character etc. It is actually a foundational moral that other moral values stem from. Honesty is closely linked to truth and truth is one the greatest moral values.That doesn't make it a moral quality.
Honesty is a moral value though. If someone is dishonest then they are untrustworthy, as opposed to having integrity, being sincere and trustworthy. That seems to speak about moral values. This is how significant Honesty is as a moral valueAgain, this is making a connection that honesty has some bearing on morality, and I don't see that this is the case.
Just because people allow this sort of thing doesn’t mean it’s a justified moral position. What we can say is that we can show that this is objectively wrong and reject any subjective claim that this is morally good. That’s unless you can give some justification for why its morally good to assault children.I've heard situations where parents allow people to assault their children in return for money. It's very rare, thankfully, but it does happen.
But you were saying that people in our society see things a certain way because of the society they live in and not because of their personal view. Therefore their relative situation (the society they live in) has a bearing on how they see things.It's subjective, because the ideas of what is moral or not will depend on the opinions of those in the society.
Yes it is objective because the person themselves is trying to promote a moral position that only applies to them onto other people. That is saying I know the ultimate truth about morality that it’s objectively true enough to apply to other people. Objective morality means beyond the human so taking a personal moral view from within and applying it outside the person makes the moral objective.There are always going to be people who think that what is good for them will be good for everyone. A person can hold a moral view and think that since it works for them, everyone should hold the same view, but that doesn't make it objectively true.
Yes but if they are claiming subjective/relative morality they can claim that their personal morals are objective truth for themselves. But the moment they then push their views onto others like they should also live by their morals they are taking an objective moral position beyond themselves.Doesn't stop a person from holding such a view and still thinking it's objectively moral.
But isn’t subjective morality about what you think is right. If you have another person standing next to you they will have their subjective opinion on what is right and wrong which may be different to you. How can you then say to that person they should hold the same moral view as you and deny their personal moral view? That contradicts the very idea of subjective morality.I don't see how thinking other people should share your opinion makes that opinion objectively moral.
It does if subjective morality is only about the subject (person) who holds the view. If he is truly a subjectivists or a moral relativist for that matter he should be saying “I have my view and someone over in the Amazon will have a different view because they have different beliefs, customs and culture and have a right to their different view”. In that way they are being true to their relative moral position.A person living in a large European city may hold a certain moral viewpoint, and so think that this moral viewpoint should be applied to the man living in a tribe in the Amazon. The city man may believe that his viewpoint is objectively true, which is why he feels justified in trying to apply it to the Amazon man. But that doesn't make it an objectively true viewpoint, even if he thinks it does.
Actually its what is called moral realism and an arguemnet can be made from experience that we intuitively know certain morals are real and true for everyone because when lived they stand on their own and cannot be denied. You can make a case that trying to contradict them is objectively wrong.In short, living like there is an objective morality doesn't mean there is an objective morality.
Assuming you are not intentionally being nonsensical:"All rapists everywhere everywhen should be boiled alive in cauldrons of duck fat." is an objective moral truth?
"All women who dress like that everywhere everywhen ought to be raped."
Nope. In post #381, I disagreed with your claim that you had answered the question on the morality of Dkaih and Saobi. You continued to attempt to muddle the moral definitions with legal ones. So, here's another chance to directly answer the same questions:On post #381 I am the one who said Dkaih (murder) and Saobi (rape) to be immoral, and you are the one disagreeing with me; remember? It's up to you to provide the example of them being moral acts.
My bad, it was post #380 that I answered your question; #381 was your reply to my answer.Nope. In post #381, I disagreed with your claim that you had answered the question on the morality of Dkaih and Saobi.
Again; No. Those acts are always immoral.Is it ever moral for anyone, at any time, or any place to commit Dkaih or Saobi?
What makes one subjective, and the other objective?How rapists should be punished is subjective. "No one should rape" is objective.
I don't think you understood what I meant. I am saying people live out morality like its objective and contradict their subjective moral position.How can people know that taste is subjective when they contradict their own subjective taste position by acting/reacting to situations objectively? This is the whole point of my analogy. I showed you something that you accept as subjective, yet you (like every other human) is compelled at times to react as though it is objective.
I havnt said that as far as I recall.People who believe morality is subjective will react the same to immorality as a person who believes morality is objective; they both will proclaim the act is wrong. This (objectivist) idea that subjectivity means you believe all moral views are equal,
So let me know if I am wrong on this. Under subjective morality if two people are at a table and they have different moral views is each person entitled to their own moral view. With all things being equal is there something that states when a person cannot have that view.or that everybody is entitled to their moral views is absurd.
Assuming you are not intentionally being nonsensical:
How rapists should be punished is subjective. "No one should rape" is objective. The former is not universal, the latter is universal.
You can't have morality without a foundation. If you reject the foundation (i.e. God and His revealed word), there is no morality. With the foundation (i.e. God and His revealed word), it doesn't matter which people or where in the world they live, people can consistently reach the same moral pronouncements.The problem with this characterization of this moral opinion as "objective" is that less than 1/3 of the world's population is part of your religion and feels some obligation to accept the moral teachings with in your scripture. There are plenty of non-Christians that would disagree with many of the moral pronouncements inside the bible including this one. This eliminates the possibility that biblical moral judgements are automatically objective and means that some of them may be subjective.
The involuntary genital mutilation question certainly fall in the "some people think it's immoral and some think it is moral" box, which means that opinions about GM are therefore subjective.
I do think there are possibly objective moral foundations, but only at the level of the fundamentals of human nature, but at a higher level that becomes difficult, so I have not answered the poll question. On top of those we make all sorts choices about what outcomes or systems we prefer and these result in natural moral choices that are predictable.
So if you apply the subjective taste example This would show that a person who claims they like chocoalte and that chocolate is the best tasting food will react like chocolate is horrible when someone gives them some choclate.
But food is a poor comparison to objective morality ...
Taste can change and can be aquired whereas objective morality doesnt change and is not aquired.
The point is these people are contradicting their own subjective moral position and are acting like morals are objective
If that is the case does that mean if two people sitting at the table had different views on chocolate where one person likes chocoalte and the other doesnt are each person entitled to their likes or dislikes for chocolate. If subjective moral views are 'likes and dislikes' and not really about moral values then does that mean under subjective morality there is no moral right and wrong for society in an ultimate truthful kind of way.
I think those 2 acts are immoral.No, they do not. Apparently you missed the definitions given to get us out of the muddling of the moral meaning with the legal meaning. Here you go:
You can't have morality without a foundation. If you reject the foundation (i.e. God and His revealed word), there is no morality. With the foundation (i.e. God and His revealed word), it doesn't matter which people or where in the world they live, people can consistently reach the same moral pronouncements.
Otherwise, it is essentially might is right.
So we agree that universally acts of Dkaih and Saobi are objectively immoral.Again; No. Those acts are always immoral.
The statement, "No one should rape" is deduced as a conclusion certain from the premises, "Everyone has a right to their bodily integrity" and, "Everyone has an obligation to respect the rights of others".How is the former not universal? It applies to all rapists everywhere everywhen.