Good and bad is real to us because our brains, and everything we know about reality tells us this is good/bad. I would caution against assume subjective morals as somehow less than if it were objective. Objective simply means it can be demonstrated as good/bad; that it is regardless of how we feel about the situation
Okay, but I would say there is no good and bad apart from beings capable of experiencing it. You can observe beings experiencing good and bad regardless of how you feel.
Yeah. Daniel Kahneman wrote about it.
I'll repeat what I said for you. I don't care what people think, unless their position affects me and mine. And then I will demand reasons for their position. What's the alternative? 'Oh, your God says it's wrong? Well OK then...'
Quite right. It's my position that it's up to each of us to determine what is right or wrong for us. Not some amorphous 'authority'. If someone said that being robbed wasn't a bad thing for them, then I'd have a great deal of trouble understanding that. But I couldn't possibly say 'You are wrong.' My only response would be bemused incomprehension.
Exactly! And in order to be subjective, it must be regardless of our experiences. There is a tree on my front lawn regardless of whether I or anybody else can experience it. 1+1=2 regardless of whether or not people exist on planet Earth. These things are objective because they don’t require human interpretation/views. Killing, rape, or torture, are only bad if there are people around to judge them as bad.
Before I answer that question; is it your opinion that everything good is moral, and everything bad is immoral?
Isn't that exactly what it means? People vote based on their conscience whether they are Christian or not. Christians can support Christian laws but if they are out voted by secularists they lose.
It still remains a secular democracy with laws based on majority rule. If the majority rule happens to be a Christian one but it is secular laws that allowed them to have the majority vote. We simply don't base our government on any religious dogma, You are welcome to vote with your Christian conscience but we do not base our laws on any Christian dogma. You are talking about a fantasy government. Should it be Catholic or Baptist?
Did you misspeak here? You meant objective?
Actually, you can’t prove the tree is there unless there’s someone around to experience the proof, otherwise it’s an assumption. But I agree, we assume it’s there when we’re not looking, QT be dammed!
Actually, again, we assume math exists when we’re not comprehending it.
To prove they exist, they do require interpretation.
And/or people around to experience them, which there are…
I think I’d like you to address my question and the points I’ve brought up so we can hopefully come to an agreed understanding here soon.
What happens if the Christians out-vote the "secularists" and we end up with Christian laws? Is that still a secular state? Or does it magically become a non-democracy?!
Majority rule is not inherently secular. This is the logical fallacy of begging the question.
Yes I did mean objective. Good catch; my bad.
Yes. But I think it is a bit more than just an assumption; it’s existence can be demonstrated.
A little more than an assumption; math DOES work even though there are those who don’t understand it. Math does not require your understanding to work.
True! But even if there is nobody’s around, it’s still just as much of a reality.
If a lion goes to a female lioness den, kills her cubs and forces a sex act on her getting her pregnant, is that rape and murder? People only judge those actions immoral when people do it to each other.
Fair enough; IMO goodness and badness can only be demonstrated at the subjective level, because what we call good or bad is opinion based, and sometimes the same act can be either one depending on who you ask.
Right, but so can the existence of good and bad in the experiences of people.
This recent demonstration about QM may make you question that assumption. Interesting stuff Science | AAAS
Maybe, maybe not given the QM info. Sorry, it really has me thinking…
Right, and for good reason
yea, determining everything that’s actually good and bad isn’t easy, but the subjective view can be objectively analyzed by an outside source.
If you'd have asked if I knew what Plato's 'the good' was then you'd have received the same answer. He was hardly up for defining it himself. From the Republic:
Let's avoid terms like evil. There are too many connotations there that will cloud the water. And as I said upstream, we can crank up the examples until we reach a point where your wife being beaten to death is a tad more than an inconvenience. The terms good and bad are simple enough to be used to describe actions that we term moral or immoral. Leaving my wallet at home is an inconvenience. Having it stolen is bad.
No. Which is precisely my point. But if you don't mind having it stolen then as far as you are concerned there has been no immorality. That's your call. That's what makes the morality of the action relative.
The logical standard that I stated. If all involved agree it’s good based on the facts then it’s actually good. If there’s someone in the mix who thinks it’s bad, let them try to provide the info to back that up. In the end, facts and sound logic/reasoning should convince those of sound mind.
Though the experiences can be objectively verified, the label of good/bad, moral/immoral will often vary from one person to another. Example; One person might say purposely giving false information concerning a specific event (lying) is bad, while the other person will say it is good. That’s because the good/bad label is subjectively determined by the person judging the event
My point is; some things are objective, some things are subjective. IMO Morality carries the subjective label.
Yes; because human morality only applies to humans. When something is objective, it applies to everything; humans and animals alike. If I jump off a cliff, the impact upon landing will cause injury; this is the case for animals as well.
Getting 2 outside sources will probably result in them disagreeing with each other.
Good and bad things that happen you you? Obviously you make the decision. And if someone tells us that they had their wallet stolen, I don't feel it necessary to ask him if he thought it was a bad thing. I can assume that because it's a virtual certainty that he would. But...he is the person that will decide. If, for whatever bizarre reason, he thought it was acceptable then that's his call.
No, it's bad because you think so. What the rest of us think is irrelevant. Hence relative morality.
