Religion is necessary, but not sufficient, for morality

[FireDragon76]

I think that's what they call fundamentalism. Don't you mean as you understand it.

Pietism is the common denominator behind Evangelicalism in the US. It is a technical term, perhaps. The opposite of Pietism is Scholasticism- religion articulated as systematic doctrines. Pietism focused on cultivating "holy" feelings, attitudes, and dispositions in the individual, and demonstrating them publicly.

Why not. I think its not just about 'matter' but what 'Matters'. Like you said human flourishing is important to us.

It's important to us, but that doesn't mean it's objectively true as some kind of fact of nature. It's in the realm of value, not fact.

Actually yes it does. The environment or what is called creation is not just there for us like some commodity but part of Gods creation and to destroy that or treat it without respect (though we often do) is actually treating God with disrespect. After-all God said it was good and we are treating it badly. I think that's why we are having such chaos with the planet.

So why do the majority of Evangelical Christians in the US vote for climate policies that treat the Earth badly? It stems from a Christian attitude towards nature that's it's a resource to dominate by humans, given by God for that purpose, and is reflected in western classical economics in David Ricardo and Adam Smith's theory of value (value = labor + raw materials from nature).

The Jews were monotheistic well before any thought of them being Jews or entering Jerusalem. They were known as the nomads of Yahweh while under Egyptian rule and even the Egyptian Kings called them so.

That's not the mainstream scholarly consensus on the matter, what you'll learn if you study the Bible at any large university in the US. Jewish monotheism developed from Canaanite polytheism over centuries (which is why the Old Testament has such frequent references to other gods worshipped in Canaan and even Israel). Judaism didn't take something similar to its modern form until the Exilic period.

YHWH was a regional war god, not the supreme being. Later he became identified with El, analogous to the Greek deity Zeus. This is why the northern and southern Hebrew kingdoms refer to God either as YHWH or El, and is reflected in the actual Hebrew text of the Bible as two separate traditions (J and E) from north and south were collated together into one biblical text.

 

[Ken-1122]

But we do impose morals socially through norms. Take social media and how movements like Me Too. This stipulates how men should behave, whats good and bad behavior which then influences moral norms. Anyone misbehaving socially is called out and condemned and often lose their reputation and job or suffer personally as a result. I think its call 'shaming'.

Or Ethical Codes which are not laws can dictate how we should behave in the workplace even as far as our relationship behavior which can lead to job termination. How many times have we seen politicians and workers sacked for inappropriate behavior.

Social media has become a bit of a bully platform; if someone doesn’t like what you do they expose you which can result in either the person exposed being vilified, or the exposer being vilified. As far as private companies, they do often dictate how employees behave; but these are not laws, just people engaging in free speech.

I thought you said we determine what is moral or not by arguing the case. Why bother arguing the case if its not that important.

If you care to have a relationship with your neighbor, it’s important.

I think morality for the most part does matter and I think moral views do have an effect on others and society. It shapes our behavior. For example using your example if we assume that your position was that interracial relationships are moral the right thing and your view represents the society your both living in then your subjective view is affecting your neighbor. He is denied living in a society that aligns with his beliefs and way of living.

On that particular issue, yes. But on other issues likely not. This is the case with everybody; nobody is going to live in a society where every one of their beliefs will align with what is allowed by society, there are compromises by everyone.

We could turn it around and say your neighbors moral view was societies view and then you would be denied living out your moral beliefs.

So in some ways we are imposing morals on people who hold different moral views. Someone is always going to be oppressed morally because we inevitably will have some subjective moral system as a society.

Everyone gets imposed upon because nobody agrees when it comes to all of the moral issues, thus the compromising required by all of us

But if its not that important to work out moral issues then why matter.

Again; it only matters if you care to have a relationship with the person

I understand this is the definition of subjective morality But if we are born with the basic moral cores then they are innate and not subjective. They come before family or cultural influences.

And it just so happens these core morals underpin most of our institutions, world organizations, filtering down in most individuals regardless of race, belief, and culture.

What are these moral cores that you speak of?

 

[stevevw]

Social media has become a bit of a bully platform; if someone doesn’t like what you do they expose you which can result in either the person exposed being vilified, or the exposer being vilified. As far as private companies, they do often dictate how employees behave; but these are not laws, just people engaging in free speech.

The point being that there are social standards that dictate behavior and are like laws in that you suffer consequences for having a different moral view.

That should not happen if morality is truly subjective because opposing moral views are not wrong but just different. That's more of an objective stance because is setting a moral standard that everyone has to abide by regardless of their different views.

If you care to have a relationship with your neighbor, it’s important.

Well your neighbor is different but it does depend on the circumstances. If she is married then people tend to frown down in that. Certainly if you have a relationship with one of your employees then your in trouble. But how is that wrong if morality is subjective.

You might believe that a relationship is OK at work so why should the companies moral view trump yours if all moral views are just different but not wrong. By imposing the companies morals on its workers its saying the companies morals are objectively right so everyone must abide and your personal morals are irrelevant.

The point being we cannot help but impose objective standards because we have to live together. Its unreal to have a system where all subjective morals count so we have to rule out some until we have a single standard that applies to all regardless of varying subjective views.

On that particular issue, yes. But on other issues likely not. This is the case with everybody; nobody is going to live in a society where every one of their beliefs will align with what is allowed by society, there are compromises by everyone.

I think its the case for most morals especially when it comes to social conventions on sex and relationships. Its a minefield out there morally.

Everyone gets imposed upon because nobody agrees when it comes to all of the moral issues, thus the compromising required by all of us

That's the problem though, the compromising. You don't know what you will get. Those with the power and shout the loudest get to have more compromises go their way. Doesn't seem like a good system for such an important aspect of life.

Again; it only matters if you care to have a relationship with the person

I think it matters all the time. Our moral dilemmas are constantly popping up. Where conscious moral beings so we not only think about our own moral state but that of others, how our behavior effects others and we know others think the same.

That's why I think its what matter to us that's important as far as reality is concerned because it makes or breaks us.

What are these moral cores that you speak of?

Basically its about treat others as we would want to be treated. All the morals stem from this. In the tests they done on babies they found two basic morals empathy and justice. Which is just the same as 'treat as you you would want to be treated'.

So it seems we are born with these core morals and then build our morals on this in one way or another culturally.

 

[Ken-1122]

The point being that there are social standards that dictate behavior and are like laws in that you suffer consequences for having a different moral view.

Social media are just people with views, and unless you are trying to impress these people, or care what they think about you, they have no power or enforcement over you. The only power they have is the power someone else gives them.

That should not happen if morality is truly subjective because opposing moral views are not wrong but just different. That's more of an objective stance because is setting a moral standard that everyone has to abide by regardless of their different views.

Moral views may be subjective, but people act as if they are objective and they are the ones who have the objectively right moral beliefs. But just because they may act as if their moral views are objectively right, doesn’t mean they are.

Well your neighbor is different but it does depend on the circumstances. If she is married then people tend to frown down in that. Certainly if you have a relationship with one of your employees then your in trouble. But how is that wrong if morality is subjective.

As long as there are those who think it is wrong, it is subjectively wrong.

You might believe that a relationship is OK at work so why should the companies moral view trump yours if all moral views are just different but not wrong. By imposing the companies morals on its workers its saying the companies morals are objectively right so everyone must abide and your personal morals are irrelevant.

Companies do often dictate rules for their employees that often include relationships with others.

The point being we cannot help but impose objective standards because we have to live together. Its unreal to have a system where all subjective morals count so we have to rule out some until we have a single standard that applies to all regardless of varying subjective views.

I agree! And that single objective standard is called the law.

That's the problem though, the compromising. You don't know what you will get. Those with the power and shout the loudest get to have more compromises go their way. Doesn't seem like a good system for such an important aspect of life.

Can you think of a better system?

Basically its about treat others as we would want to be treated. All the morals stem from this. In the tests they done on babies they found two basic morals empathy and justice. Which is just the same as 'treat as you you would want to be treated'.

So it seems we are born with these core morals and then build our morals on this in one way or another culturally.

Ahh the Golden Rule. But I think this rule is very subjective, because it is based on what you think, and not based on demonstrable facts. If treating someone else the way you would want to be treated were an objective moral, you would be able to demonstrate why treating someone this way is the right thing to do. Because it is based on an opinion, it is completely subjective.

 

[stevevw]

Social media are just people with views, and unless you are trying to impress these people, or care what they think about you, they have no power or enforcement over you. The only power they have is the power someone else gives them.

Actually social media is a powerful tool in the hands of the average person and a dangerous one in the hands of the power who know how to manipulate things to go their way. Social media campaigns have led to people being sacked, people being arrested, reputations ruined, policy changes.

Moral views may be subjective, but people act as if they are objective and they are the ones who have the objectively right moral beliefs. But just because they may act as if their moral views are objectively right, doesn’t mean they are.

I don't know about that. I think through lived experience over 1,000 of years we've articulated certain truths about how to behave and because we have tested them out and embodied them they have become part of our reality. We know that they are the only way to live because we tried the other ways and they didn't work.

As long as there are those who think it is wrong, it is subjectively wrong.

So what about those who think its wrong not to have an affair with a neighbor.

Companies do often dictate rules for their employees that often include relationships with others.

But is that fair if morals are subjective.

I agree! And that single objective standard is called the law.

Do you mean legally or some other kind of natural law.

Can you think of a better system?

Actually I was thinking of a thought experiment with allowing all subjective views to have equal standing and see what happens. It could be like the moral view Olympics and the last morals standing lol.

I don't know its a hard question. Obviously a theocracy is not going to work. I think it comes down to truth, what we know is true about a moral situation. I think that's in all of us. I think we have to put aside biases which isn't easy.

Rather than making some human made system I think it should be something that comes from our experience because that is all we have that is real. Like as humans we have probably experienced hurting and killing each other for 1,000s of years so we should be pretty good at spotting that by now, alarm bells start ringing when it happens and don't need to think twice about it. So we can lock that one down as like a law.

Others are more complicated but I think it would be good to start with the core morals like killing, rape, torture, child abuse, stealing. Then we can work out the rest. That may give us inspiration.

Ahh the Golden Rule. But I think this rule is very subjective, because it is based on what you think, and not based on demonstrable facts. If treating someone else the way you would want to be treated were an objective moral, you would be able to demonstrate why treating someone this way is the right thing to do. Because it is based on an opinion, it is completely subjective.

But its based on what you think and believe so there's no better witness but yourself. No one else can tell you what you think and believe. So if you treat others how you want to be treated that's a start. The thing is this cannot be measured scientifically yet you know to yourself that its true.

And I think unless someone is mentally deranged then just about everyone else will think and believe the same because the fundamentally its about how you want to be treated is good. You want a relatively happy, peaceful and safe life and so does everyone else.

 

[stevevw]

Pietism is the common denominator behind Evangelicalism in the US. It is a technical term, perhaps. The opposite of Pietism is Scholasticism- religion articulated as systematic doctrines. Pietism focused on cultivating "holy" feelings, attitudes, and dispositions in the individual, and demonstrating them publicly.

Yes the pharisees were pious parading around publicly and Jesus exposed them as vipers holier than thou on the outside were corrupt within.

It's important to us, but that doesn't mean it's objectively true as some kind of fact of nature. It's in the realm of value, not fact.

When you say fact you mean scientific fact. But we know that truth is not always about material objects. There are transcendental truths like truth itself. Like our experience. In fact our experience is really the only real thing we can know.

We cannot get outside our experience or mind to say that there is some objective world outside our minds. So the idea that material matter outside our minds is the only truth/facts is unjustified. So perhaps its our conscious experience that is telling us some truth about reality directly. That we can derive some truth knowledge about reality from our experience.

So why do the majority of Evangelical Christians in the US vote for climate policies that treat the Earth badly? It stems from a Christian attitude towards nature that's it's a resource to dominate by humans, given by God for that purpose, and is reflected in western classical economics in David Ricardo and Adam Smith's theory of value (value = labor + raw materials from nature).

Don't let the actions of a particular sect represent what Christianity is. Anyone should be very weary of mixing politics with religion as it will inevitably compromise ones principles and values because it has to appeal to voters and that's the main priority is to get into power not do the right thing.

Jesus opposed this sort of mentality when some said he came to overthrow the Romans and make a theocracy. He said he came to establish Gods Kingdom not a human made one.

That's not the mainstream scholarly consensus on the matter, what you'll learn if you study the Bible at any large university in the US. Jewish monotheism developed from Canaanite polytheism over centuries (which is why the Old Testament has such frequent references to other gods worshipped in Canaan and even Israel). Judaism didn't take something similar to its modern form until the Exilic period.

That cannot be right as even the 10 commandments which were given in the Exodus period around 1300 BC says there is only one God to be worshiped. So why would scholars go against this obvious Biblical truth.

There is even extrabiblical evidence of the name Yahweh being used as a single God around the same time.

YHWH was a regional war god, not the supreme being. Later he became identified with El, analogous to the Greek deity Zeus. This is why the northern and southern Hebrew kingdoms refer to God either as YHWH or El, and is reflected in the actual Hebrew text of the Bible as two separate traditions (J and E) from north and south were collated together into one biblical text.

There were several names that represented different aspects for the Old Testament God. But Yahweh was used for the proto Israelite's around 1300BC as a single God and it was around this time that the two names were merged.

It was then strangely enough around the same time that Akhenaten converted to pagan monotheism. He was very aware of the Hebrew God which demanded monotheistic worship through the 10 plagues. Interestingly he was the only Pharaoh to embrace monotheism as as soon as he died Egypt went back to polytheism.

 

[FireDragon76]

Yes the pharisees were pious parading around publicly and Jesus exposed them as vipers holier than thou on the outside were corrupt within.

When you say fact you mean scientific fact. But we know that truth is not always about material objects. There are transcendental truths like truth itself. Like our experience. In fact our experience is really the only real thing we can know.

I don't believe in transcendental truths, if you mean a truth that stands apart from any relationship to the phenomenal world.

That cannot be right as even the 10 commandments which were given in the Exodus period around 1300 BC says there is only one God to be worshiped. So why would scholars go against this obvious Biblical truth.

There is even extrabiblical evidence of the name Yahweh being used as a single God around the same time.

YHWH was one god among many worshiped in Canaan. Just because you find YHWH mentioned in inscriptions does not mean the theology was the same as modern day Judaism or Christianity. YHWH even has a wife, Asherah, in some inscriptions.

It was then strangely enough around the same time that Akhenaten converted to pagan monotheism. He was very aware of the Hebrew God which demanded monotheistic worship through the 10 plagues. Interestingly he was the only Pharaoh to embrace monotheism as as soon as he died Egypt went back to polytheism.

Akhenaten did not worship YHWH. He worshiped Aten, the god of the sun's disk, and prohibited the worship of other deities. His religion was also extremely unpopular in Egypt, and his son, Tutankhamun, restored the ancient religion.

 

[stevevw]

I don't believe in transcendental truths, if you mean a truth that stands apart from any relationship to the phenomenal world.

Can you clarify 'phenomenal world'.

YHWH was one god among many worshiped in Canaan. Just because you find YHWH mentioned in inscriptions does not mean the theology was the same as modern day Judaism or Christianity. YHWH even has a wife, Asherah, in some inscriptions.

No I am not saying it is the same as modern day but that the idea of a single God was being formulated back then. In fact it was a gradual process, an ongoing revelation.

But I don't want to get into a deep theological discussion but to bring it back to the OP. My point was that there is a core alignment of morals between all religions back then and today.

All the god representations were humans attempts to understand our intuition that there was some supernatural being or force behind things which is the commonality all we humans seem to have and were born with.

Akhenaten did not worship YHWH. He worshiped Aten, the god of the sun's disk, and prohibited the worship of other deities. His religion was also extremely unpopular in Egypt, and his son, Tutankhamun, restored the ancient religion.

Actually as I mentioned it was a pagan monotheism. So yes he didn't believe in Yahweh but did believe in a monotheist god. I think this seemed a strange coincident in that the Hebrews were merging their God into one at the same time. Makes you wonder who was influencing who.

Anyway it doesn't matter because its not so much about how many gods or what God but the core representations of divine concepts and qualities such as some existence and force beyond the material and the relationship to morals. These seem to align back then and today.

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't know about that. I think through lived experience over 1,000 of years we've articulated certain truths about how to behave and because we have tested them out and embodied them they have become part of our reality. We know that they are the only way to live because we tried the other ways and they didn't work.

For the most part, I cannot agree with that. We’ve tried various things over the past 1,000 years and we continue to do it today because very few things that worked for society 1,000 years ago will work today because moral views are in a constant state of change.

So what about those who think its wrong not to have an affair with a neighbor.

Those who disagree with him will voice their objection; IOW the same thing that would happen if morality were objective.

But is that fair if morals are subjective.

The company think’s it’s fair, the employee will think it is not; the same thing if morality were objective.

Do you mean legally or some other kind of natural law.

I’m talking about human enforced laws.

Actually I was thinking of a thought experiment with allowing all subjective views to have equal standing and see what happens. It could be like the moral view Olympics and the last morals standing lol.

How would the other views get eliminated?

I don't know its a hard question. Obviously a theocracy is not going to work. I think it comes down to truth, what we know is true about a moral situation. I think that's in all of us. I think we have to put aside biases which isn't easy.

I don’t think biases are the reason we disagree on morality or truth; I think it’s something else

Rather than making some human made system I think it should be something that comes from our experience because that is all we have that is real. Like as humans we have probably experienced hurting and killing each other for 1,000s of years so we should be pretty good at spotting that by now, alarm bells start ringing when it happens and don't need to think twice about it. So we can lock that one down as like a law.

Others are more complicated but I think it would be good to start with the core morals like killing, rape, torture, child abuse, stealing. Then we can work out the rest. That may give us inspiration.

How is that different from how laws are enacted today?

 

[stevevw]

For the most part, I cannot agree with that. We’ve tried various things over the past 1,000 years and we continue to do it today because very few things that worked for society 1,000 years ago will work today because moral views are in a constant state of change.

I think its because of past experience in trying things that didn't work that has refined our moral knowledge into truths.

For example take human sovereignty the idea that the individual is most important when it comes to equality. If you went back and said to a slave in ancient times or a villager in medieval times that they were on equal par with a Pharaoh or King they would think they were living in some time warp.

But over time we somehow we have derived this idea of human sovereignty from our experiences so its certainly not some subjective determination based on personal views. It has a strong history behind it as its foundation.

Those who disagree with him will voice their objection; IOW the same thing that would happen if morality were objective.

But only one voice and opinion seems to win out in the end. What about the losers they voice and opinion is just as valid. It seems it comes down to whoever can yell the loudest.

The company think’s it’s fair, the employee will think it is not; the same thing if morality were objective.

I think the difference with objective standards is that there needs to be an independent anchor point outside the people involved. Otherwise its just a matter of opinion and everyone will always be complaining their opinion is not being taken seriously.

I’m talking about human enforced laws.

OK criminal and civil law. I think there is an aspect of morals in criminal law at least as an underpinning for determining criminal wrong for a fair chunk of laws as its all about how you treat others. If there was no prior moral underpinning then we probably would not be justified to make them a law in the first place.

How would the other views get eliminated?

That is the BIG question lol.

I don’t think biases are the reason we disagree on morality or truth; I think it’s something else

Biases have to be a part, if not a big part. Our personal experiences make us more sensitive to certain issues. That's why they screen jury members. I know especially in politics and corporations there's vested interests and they have great sway in deciding whats moral or not.

How is that different from how laws are enacted today?

Well its not really. We have locked down some morals in the form of laws. That's how strong we feel about it and that is based on our experience of it. Actually embodying the moral in the real world and experiencing its outcomes. That seems pretty solid to me, just as much as any rock or paper its written on.

 

[Ken-1122]

I think its because of past experience in trying things that didn't work that has refined our moral knowledge into truths. For example take human sovereignty the idea that the individual is most important when it comes to equality. If you went back and said to a slave in ancient times or a villager in medieval times that they were on equal par with a Pharaoh or King they would think they were living in some time warp.

But over time we somehow we have derived this idea of human sovereignty from our experiences so its certainly not some subjective determination based on personal views. It has a strong history behind it as its foundation.

I disagree. This idea that the villager is equal to the king is a recent idea that only makes sense in todays world; not a 1,000 years ago. An attempt to bring todays moral standards to yesteryear would have been disastrous. Can you imagine trying to incorporate modern ideas like child labor laws, women working outside the home, or the 40 hr work week into a culture that existed 1,000 years ago? It would have been disastrous.

But only one voice and opinion seems to win out in the end. What about the losers they voice and opinion is just as valid. It seems it comes down to whoever can yell the loudest.

I don’t think it is as simple as who yells the loudest, sometimes it’s who makes the best point, or who has the most power, or who is able to speak in a way to convince others to back his point of view; there are countless reason some views get heard and enforced, and others are dismissed and ignored.

I think the difference with objective standards is that there needs to be an independent anchor point outside the people involved. Otherwise its just a matter of opinion and everyone will always be complaining their opinion is not being taken seriously.

The independent anchor point will only be trusted by the side he chooses. The reality is; if you wanna join the club (company) you gotta follow their rules; otherwise you are free to join another club.

Biases have to be a part, if not a big part. Our personal experiences make us more sensitive to certain issues. That's why they screen jury members. I know especially in politics and corporations there's vested interests and they have great sway in deciding whats moral or not.

I think the feminist and the Pope can have equal knowledge concerning abortion, be completely honest with themselves yet still disagree.
I believe the Capitalist and the Socialist can have equal knowledge concerning economics, remain completely honest with themselves yet still disagree.
I think there are countless examples where people on opposing sides of an argument will disagree,. Are these biases? Perhaps; but if so, then biases is not something we can let go of because it is the only thing we have allowing us to make a decision.

 

[stevevw]

I disagree. This idea that the villager is equal to the king is a recent idea that only makes sense in todays world; not a 1,000 years ago. An attempt to bring todays moral standards to yesteryear would have been disastrous. Can you imagine trying to incorporate modern ideas like child labor laws, women working outside the home, or the 40 hr work week into a culture that existed 1,000 years ago? It would have been disastrous.

I'm not saying that. I am saying the truth of these ideas like human sovereignty applies to the past as it does the present. That people did not see this back then has no reflection on their truth status.

We had to go through the trial and error of living things out to realize this truth. But that truth you can say has been discovered and has always been there is some form in the universe.

I don’t think it is as simple as who yells the loudest, sometimes it’s who makes the best point, or who has the most power, or who is able to speak in a way to convince others to back his point of view; there are countless reason some views get heard and enforced, and others are dismissed and ignored.

And that's the problem that many views compete and there is no clear way to determine which is right or wrong. Power, protesting, shouting, convincing others based on personal views all allow for bias and corruption of truth.

The independent anchor point will only be trusted by the side he chooses. The reality is; if you wanna join the club (company) you gotta follow their rules; otherwise you are free to join another club.

Who said the company holds the truth of morality to impose it on others. If morality is subjective then people should be able to hold their moral views and not have the company impose their version on them.

I think the feminist and the Pope can have equal knowledge concerning abortion, be completely honest with themselves yet still disagree.

I am not sure they would have equal knowledge. For starters the Pope has belief which influences his understanding of the issue. But for such a potentially vital issue you would think we could have a clear determination one way or the other. I know for example there are different views about abortion under Feminism. So they don't even have a clear position.

Applying your logic to say a pedophile and someone opposing pedophilia may disagree and there's no way to sort this out. That seems crazy.

I believe the Capitalist and the Socialist can have equal knowledge concerning economics, remain completely honest with themselves yet still disagree.

But there fundamental ideological positions are different regardless of knowledge. So of course they will disagree.

They may agree on the basic idea that economics should be about equality for example but they go about achieving that in opposing ways which may or may not be the right way about how we can achieve equality.

I think there are countless examples where people on opposing sides of an argument will disagree,. Are these biases? Perhaps; but if so, then biases is not something we can let go of because it is the only thing we have allowing us to make a decision.

Exactly. So if biases are something we cannot get rid of then we need an independent anchor outside human biases to help determine what is morally right and wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

I'm not saying that. I am saying the truth of these ideas like human sovereignty applies to the past as it does the present. That people did not see this back then has no reflection on their truth status.

I’m saying these things are not based on truth, but opinion. The idea that 6 and 8 year old children should not work in dangerous factories, or the work week should be based on 40 hours is an opinion we did not have the luxury of having years ago, that we do have the luxury of having today. But these are not moral facts, just opinions.

We had to go through the trial and error of living things out to realize this truth. But that truth you can say has been discovered and has always been there is some form in the universe.

Trial and error had nothing to do with it, modern technology did. The fact that we can build an economy and avoid starvation without the help of children, or over working the average laborer is due to building machines that allow us to get more done with less effort; so we can now afford to have more reasonable working conditions that we could not afford to have before. But this is about creating better working conditions via technology; not trial and error.

And that's the problem that many views compete and there is no clear way to determine which is right or wrong. Power, protesting, shouting, convincing others based on personal views all allow for bias and corruption of truth.

Everybody has their own way of determining the truth; it may not be the perfect system, but it’s the best we’ve got.

Who said the company holds the truth of morality to impose it on others. If morality is subjective then people should be able to hold their moral views and not have the company impose their version on them.

The company morals are made into enforced laws. The law of the land allows the company to impose it’s laws on those who choose to become a part of the company, but nobody is forced to join the company and follow it’s laws.

I am not sure they would have equal knowledge. For starters the Pope has belief which influences his understanding of the issue. But for such a potentially vital issue you would think we could have a clear determination one way or the other. I know for example there are different views about abortion under Feminism. So they don't even have a clear position

Applying your logic to say a pedophile and someone opposing pedophilia may disagree and there's no way to sort this out. That seems crazy.

I don’t know if the Pope and the Feminists would have equal knowledge, I’m just saying hypothetically if they did, it wouldn’t change their viewpoints.
Concerning pedophilia, most bible scholars agree the Virgin Mary was approx 11-12 years old when Jesus was born based on what was considered a young virgin in that part of the world during that time. Yet Christians of today do not claim all the other children Mary had with Joseph was a result of statutory rape. Going by your logic, her relationship with Joseph was an immorality they were unaware of back then, but only realizes today.

But there fundamental ideological positions are different regardless of knowledge. So of course they will disagree.

They may agree on the basic idea that economics should be about equality for example but they go about achieving that in opposing ways which may or may not be the right way about how we can achieve equality.

I disagree; the Capitalist will believe in equality of opportunity, and the Socialist will believe in equality of outcome; a completely different point of view.

Exactly. So if biases are something we cannot get rid of then we need an independent anchor outside human biases to help determine what is morally right and wrong.

Why would you assume non-human biases to be superior to human biases?

 

[stevevw]

I’m saying these things are not based on truth, but opinion. The idea that 6 and 8 year old children should not work in dangerous factories, or the work week should be based on 40 hours is an opinion we did not have the luxury of having years ago, that we do have the luxury of having today. But these are not moral facts, just opinions.

Human sovereignty is a truth we have come to know. Its not an opinion as it stands regardless of opinion. If morals are just opinions then we can never improve our morals standing. Yet when we look back we can say it is more moral that children are not made to work or that humans are treated as objects and have no sovereignty.

Trial and error had nothing to do with it, modern technology did. The fact that we can build an economy and avoid starvation without the help of children, or over working the average laborer is due to building machines that allow us to get more done with less effort; so we can now afford to have more reasonable working conditions that we could not afford to have before. But this is about creating better working conditions via technology; not trial and error.

That makes no sense. The logic would be that when if we do not have the tech to avoid putting people in dangerous situations then that's acceptable until we gained the tech.

Putting people in dangerous positions is wrong regardless of tech. It is wrong because it endangers people full stop even back in the 1800's. WE just overlooked that because we were ignorant of the truth. But we eventually realized it was wrong when we seen how it effects peoples health and well-being.

Everybody has their own way of determining the truth; it may not be the perfect system, but it’s the best we’ve got.

I think that's rather sad. That we accept that there is no way to determine a truth about whether some behavior is right or wrong. Its a high price to pay for making morals subjective.

The fact is we do make morals truth and apply this to everyone. Human Rights is an example. Its a rule or law that applies to all nations regardless of personal opinion. We came to the realization of these truths through living out world wars and the atrocities of humans on each other. We took the perpetrators to the world court and tried them from crimes against humanity.

We disregarded the personal opinions of the perpetrators and applied the truth that these acts were morally wrong.

The company morals are made into enforced laws. The law of the land allows the company to impose it’s laws on those who choose to become a part of the company, but nobody is forced to join the company and follow it’s laws.

Its not the law of the land but the personal view of each company. Many have different views in their ethics. Each company reflects their own ideals about ethics. They are not laws as you cannot be criminally charged for having an affair with another employee for example. But you can lose your job.

I don’t know if the Pope and the Feminists would have equal knowledge, I’m just saying hypothetically if they did, it wouldn’t change their viewpoints. [/quote] Of course it would change their views. We use to make children go down mines to work but new knowledge showed that it had a bad effect on their developing bodies so we stopped it. We use to give lobotomies but new knowledge showed it didn't work and made things worse. These were facts that changes our moral outlook.

Concerning pedophilia, most bible scholars agree the Virgin Mary was approx 11-12 years old when Jesus was born based on what was considered a young virgin in that part of the world during that time. Yet Christians of today do not claim all the other children Mary had with Joseph was a result of statutory rape. Going by your logic, her relationship with Joseph was an immorality they were unaware of back then, but only realizes today.

Ah regardless of age Mary's pregnancy was an immaculate conception meaning there was no intercourse.

The fact is we know pedophilia is wrong because it involves a child who cannot understand the implications of a sexual encounter with an adult. But this idea applies to older people who have mental conditions. Its about control and taking advantage.

To say we cannot make any distinction because its too difficult to tell age of consent or mental capacity or that people do it now is irrelevant because we can and do know that some kids are taken advantage of and its wrong.

I disagree; the Capitalist will believe in equality of opportunity, and the Socialist will believe in equality of outcome; a completely different point of view.

But the point is they both believe in equality. As they both believe in equality they agree that equality is the important moral truth. They just go about achieving the same moral of equality in different ways based on an ideology.

Why would you assume non-human biases to be superior to human biases?

because non-human biases are not biases but independent and grounded in facts. They don't require human determination as they stand independent of this.

For example as you have noted people get together and argue their opinions about a moral situation, say child labor. One says its OK and the other says its wrong. So how do we break this deadlock. Each person will give their reasons and the discussion goes back and forth with no resolution.

Then one cites evidence that child labor causes physical and mental health problems for children just as we discovered years ago. End of deadlock. The evidence was not anyone's personal opinion but something outside them and unless there is counter evidence it will stand as a fact that child labor is morally wrong.

 

[Ken-1122]

Human sovereignty is a truth we have come to know. Its not an opinion as it stands regardless of opinion.

If that’s true, you should have no problem providing proof of this truth.

That makes no sense. The logic would be that when if we do not have the tech to avoid putting people in dangerous situations then that's acceptable until we gained the tech.

Yes! That is exactly how it works. (BTW we still put people in dangerous situations, they are just less dangerous now) If the choices is to be put in a dangerous situation and live or die of starvation, people choose the dangerous situation and living 100% of the time. If they found it immoral, only immoral people would do the job.

I think that's rather sad. That we accept that there is no way to determine a truth about whether some behavior is right or wrong. Its a high price to pay for making morals subjective.

Nobody MAKES morality subjective, anything resulting from opinion is subjective and morality is something that results from opinion. This is the case whether we like it or not.

The fact is we do make morals truth and apply this to everyone. Human Rights is an example. Its a rule or law that applies to all nations regardless of personal opinion. We came to the realization of these truths through living out world wars and the atrocities of humans on each other. We took the perpetrators to the world court and tried them from crimes against humanity.
We disregarded the personal opinions of the perpetrators and applied the truth that these acts were morally wrong.

No; we disregarded the personal opinions of the perpetrators and applied OUR personal opinions and made them law

Its not the law of the land but the personal view of each company. Many have different views in their ethics. Each company reflects their own ideals about ethics. They are not laws as you cannot be criminally charged for having an affair with another employee for example. But you can lose your job.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m saying the enforced laws the company imposes on their employers is the ability to terminate employment if they break said laws; and the law of the land allows this

Ah regardless of age Mary's pregnancy was an immaculate conception meaning there was no intercourse.

I was talking about her other children. Those children was through sexual intercourse, and she was still under the age of 18. According to your standards, Joseph was a statutory rapist.

But the point is they both believe in equality. As they both believe in equality they agree that equality is the important moral truth.

But they want equality of different things! Suppose a company would give all their employers the same pay regardless of work or hours worked, but the other company treated everybody the same? They both want equality; would you consider these the same? It isn’t enough to want equality; it has to be equality concerning the same issue.

because non-human biases are not biases but independent and grounded in facts. They don't require human determination as they stand independent of this.

For example as you have noted people get together and argue their opinions about a moral situation, say child labor. One says its OK and the other says its wrong. So how do we break this deadlock. Each person will give their reasons and the discussion goes back and forth with no resolution.

Then one cites evidence that child labor causes physical and mental health problems for children just as we discovered years ago. End of deadlock. The evidence was not anyone's personal opinion but something outside them and unless there is counter evidence it will stand as a fact that child labor is morally wrong.

Your scenario that ended the deadlock is based on human bias also, it’s just that those 2 people just so happen to agree on that particular human bias. The idea that physical and mental health problems in children is bad, is a human bias. Someone else could have entered the conversation and countered that if the children do not work risking mental and physical health problems, that the entire family will starve to death and would have ended the deadlock the other way based on different facts.

 

[stevevw]

If that’s true, you should have no problem providing proof of this truth.

What sort of proof do you want, in what form.

Yes! That is exactly how it works.

I disagree. We avoid dangerous situations when we can without tech all the time. For example you choose not to sit in the middle of the road which requires no tech.

(BTW we still put people in dangerous situations, they are just less dangerous now)

such as.

If the choices is to be put in a dangerous situation and live or die of starvation, people choose the dangerous situation and living 100% of the time. If they found it immoral, only immoral people would do the job.

If there were no moral truths then this would not matter anyway. There would be no point in choosing one over the other as they both are not truths.

But I don't I think our society at least in the west forces people to choose between these two because they have already made laws to stop people being harmed or killed on the job and give welfare for those who cannot work to ensure they live.

Society has safe guards to protect people at work otherwise its against the law. Its more a calculated risk that no one will get hurt or be killed and therefore deemed acceptable.

Nobody MAKES morality subjective, anything resulting from opinion is subjective and morality is something that results from opinion. This is the case whether we like it or not.

That seems circular reasoning that assumes morality is subjective only. People choose to make morals objective all the time for example just about every religion in the world. We make morals objective at work when companies impose ethics on their employees which overrides the employees subjective morals and forces them to adhere to a standard against their subjective views.

No; we disregarded the personal opinions of the perpetrators and applied OUR personal opinions and made them law.

Therefore we took the position that our moral views were the truth to be able to disregard the perpetrators moral views. Otherwise there's no justification to disregard the perpetrators moral views.

I think you’ve misunderstood me. I’m saying the enforced laws the company imposes on their employers is the ability to terminate employment if they break said laws; and the law of the land allows this

It can't be a law of the land as each company can apply their own different views on what is ethical or not. Some companies have higher standards than others.

If it was a law of the land then every company would have the same ethical standards. As each company has their own ethical standards it only applies within that company. So the individual company is imposing their individual ethics on others which may be different to other companies.

I was talking about her other children. Those children was through sexual intercourse, and she was still under the age of 18. According to your standards, Joseph was a statutory rapist.

We don't know how old her other children were. Its all hypercritical. As Mary and Joseph were traveling to avoid Herod killing Jesus they may have not had their second child until Mary was 18. Even so the Bible doesn't say you can't have a baby at the age of 16 or 17. Women often married at 16 years with parental permission.

But they want equality of different things!

It doesn't matter as they both want equality. Your confusing how equality is achieved with the principle of equality itself. The principle of equality is that all humans have equal rights to certain basic standards regardless of race, belief etc. That doesn't change and if it does then they are breaching the principle of equality.

Suppose a company would give all their employers the same pay regardless of work or hours worked, but the other company treated everybody the same? They both want equality; would you consider these the same? It isn’t enough to want equality; it has to be equality concerning the same issue.

Yes and the same issue is the principle of equality between humans. This applies to all workers and there are minimum standards of pay we have to adhere to by workplace law.

So if one company is making their employees work long hours and do heavy work they are breaking workplace laws as this would mean they are getting below minimum pay for the job they do. The principle of equality applies to all regardless of company.

Your scenario that ended the deadlock is based on human bias also, it’s just that those 2 people just so happen to agree on that particular human bias. The idea that physical and mental health problems in children is bad, is a human bias.

I disagree. As mentioned the deadlock was broken by referring to an independent evidence that child labor is harmful to their developing bodies. Everyone agrees because of that independent evidence not because of bias. If someone disagrees that child labor is not harmful will have to provide independent counter evidence.

Someone else could have entered the conversation and countered that if the children do not work risking mental and physical health problems, that the entire family will starve to death and would have ended the deadlock the other way based on different facts.

Then the situations becomes differently morally. Now its not just about harm to children but killing the child or the entire family through starvation. So a new moral truth takes over and trumps the other.

But notice in both situations there is a moral truth that can be determined. In the first scenario the moral truth was child labor is wrong because it harms developing bodies. The second scenario the moral truth is to avoid killing the family through starvation. The moral truth of both different situations can be determined by independent facts from personal bias.

Objective morals don't work in isolation and sometimes conflict so the greater moral truth always trumps.

 

[Ken-1122]

What sort of proof do you want, in what form.

I want you to provide absolute proof that it is morally wrong to make children work and it is morally wrong to make adults work too many hours in a day.

I disagree. We avoid dangerous situations when we can without tech all the time. For example you choose not to sit in the middle of the road which requires no tech.

That was not the claim. The claim was it is morally acceptable to do dangerous jobs before technology made those jobs safer.

such as.

Fishermen, loggers, Firemen, Police, Soldier, etc. Need I go on?

But I don't I think our society at least in the west forces people to choose between these two because they have already made laws to stop people being harmed or killed on the job and give welfare for those who cannot work to ensure they live.

Society has safe guards to protect people at work otherwise its against the law. Its more a calculated risk that no one will get hurt or be killed and therefore deemed acceptable.

The most dangerous jobs have always had safeguards in place; but that does not mean the job still isn’t dangerous.

That seems circular reasoning that assumes morality is subjective only. People choose to make morals objective all the time for example just about every religion in the world.

Religious morals are still based on thought; thus subjective.

We make morals objective at work when companies impose ethics on their employees which overrides the employees subjective morals and forces them to adhere to a standard against their subjective views.

Those company ethics are company rules. Rules are objective, morals are subjective.

Therefore we took the position that our moral views were the truth to be able to disregard the perpetrators moral views. Otherwise there's no justification to disregard the perpetrators moral views.

Not quite; when we make our moral views LAW, that law disregards the perpetrators moral views.

It can't be a law of the land as each company can apply their own different views on what is ethical or not. Some companies have higher standards than others.

If it was a law of the land then every company would have the same ethical standards. As each company has their own ethical standards it only applies within that company. So the individual company is imposing their individual ethics on others which may be different to other companies.

Again; the law of the land allows companies to impose certain company laws on the people they employ. The company enforces those laws by threat of termination from employment

We don't know how old her other children were. Its all hypercritical. As Mary and Joseph were traveling to avoid Herod killing Jesus they may have not had their second child until Mary was 18. Even so the Bible doesn't say you can't have a baby at the age of 16 or 17.

The bible doesn’t say you can’t have a baby at the age of 12 either. Do you think it is okay for a 12 year old to have a child? 2000 years ago they said that was perfectly fine!

It doesn't matter as they both want equality. Your confusing how equality is achieved with the principle of equality itself.

No I’m not. I’m pointing out it has to be equality concerning the same thing.

The principle of equality is that all humans have equal rights to certain basic standards regardless of race, belief etc. That doesn't change and if it does then they are breaching the principle of equality.

No it is not. The principle of equality is everything the same concerning a specific issue; and that issue does not have to be human rights. Equal height, equal age, equal punishment, all of these things are equal; none of them have anything to do with rights. Equality has nothing to do with rights unless you make it about rights.

Yes and the same issue is the principle of equality between humans. This applies to all workers and there are minimum standards of pay we have to adhere to by workplace law.

So if one company is making their employees work long hours and do heavy work they are breaking workplace laws as this would mean they are getting below minimum pay for the job they do. The principle of equality applies to all regardless of company.

Great! Now care to answer my question? Because what you just said had nothing to do with what I said.

I disagree. As mentioned the deadlock was broken by referring to an independent evidence that child labor is harmful to their developing bodies. Everyone agrees because of that independent evidence not because of bias. If someone disagrees that child labor is not harmful will have to provide independent counter evidence.

The question was not whether it was harmful or not, the question was if it was wrong. Just because it is harmful does not mean it is wrong.

Then the situations becomes differently morally. Now its not just about harm to children but killing the child or the entire family through starvation. So a new moral truth takes over and trumps the other.

There are a million moral truths that can be applied to any situation. Who decides when a different moral truth takes over and trumps the other?

 

[stevevw]

I want you to provide absolute proof that it is morally wrong to make children work and it is morally wrong to make adults work too many hours in a day.

First we have workplace laws that stop this so this. If an employer claimed that his moral view was its ok for children to work or employees to work beyond the legal hours they will be breaking the law.

But the law is not some subjective determination. It was determined by objective facts that child labor and too long working hours is harmful. For example

The Cause and Impact of Child Labor on a Child’s
Short and Long-Term Health
https://www.wjrr.org/download_data/WJRR1304011.pdf

Human Rights: Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 32. Protection from harmful work
Children have the right to be protected from doing work that is dangerous or bad for their education, health or development.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/convention-rights-child
The Effect of Long Working Hours and Overtime on Occupational Health: A Meta-Analysis of Evidence from 1998 to 2018
The Effect of Long Working Hours and Overtime on Occupational Health: A Meta-Analysis of Evidence from 1998 to 2018

That was not the claim. The claim was it is morally acceptable to do dangerous jobs before technology made those jobs safer.

Yes it was perceived to be morally acceptable back then. But thinking something is morally acceptable and actually being morally acceptable are two different things. We use to think slavery was morally acceptable but now we don't. That means we realized that the past practcie of slavery was not morally right. We just didn't realize back then.

Otherwise why would we change laws to stop slavery and child labor if it was morally OK back then, it should be morally ok today. The fact that we progressed towards a better moral standard than the past shows that we are moving from something bad to something better or best practice.

Fishermen, loggers, Firemen, Police, Soldier, etc. Need I go on?

They all have minimum safety standards that minimize the risk to an acceptable level that won't harm or kill the workers. People then make their own choice as to whether they want to take on that job. No one forces them or imposes any obligation to do the job. If there were people getting harmed or killed on the job they would be shut down.

The most dangerous jobs have always had safeguards in place; but that does not mean the job still isn’t dangerous.

But the safeguards stop unacceptable dangers. The point is the job may be more risky but there are extra precautions taken like training, equipment etc. But I agree that in some ways work is a health hazard in that just putting your body on the line to survive takes a toll. But that is an acceptable fact of life. It doesn't mean there are no moral standards we can make to stop unacceptable risks.

Religious morals are still based on thought; thus subjective.

No they are based on their gods moral laws. Even if you say they are human made its still an objective law because everyone has to follow those morals whether they like it or not. Often the moral laws go against what people really think but they still have to adhere to those laws.

The same with company ethics. Some employees may disagree with those ethics but everyone has to follow them whjether they like it or not. By the way 'thought' itself is not necessarily subjective. Thought comes in many forms and can be analytic, lucid, rational, biased, group think or subjective.

Those company ethics are company rules. Rules are objective, morals are subjective.

'Ethics' are morals. They are more or less the same thing.

ethics, also called moral philosophy, the discipline concerned with what is morally good and bad and morally right and wrong.
ethics | Definition, History, Examples, Types, Philosophy, & Facts

Not quite; when we make our moral views LAW, that law disregards the perpetrators moral views.

Therefore the moral laws are objective because they disregard some peoples subjective moral views. Take Math laws they are like objective moral laws in that 2+2=4 regardless of a persons Math views.

Again; the law of the land allows companies to impose certain company laws on the people they employ. The company enforces those laws by threat of termination from employment

So the law of the land allows companies to enforce their objective ethical views on others. That's an example of objective morality at work within society. What does the company cite as the reason for their ethical standards. They cite something outside the company like Human Rights laws. They don't just pick their ethical standards by asking the personal opinions of their board without any good reason.

 

[stevevw]

The bible doesn’t say you can’t have a baby at the age of 12 either. Do you think it is okay for a 12 year old to have a child? 2000 years ago they said that was perfectly fine!

The Bible only reports the cultural practices of the time which are not necessarily supported by Biblical moral truths.

No I’m not. I’m pointing out it has to be equality concerning the same thing.

And the same thing is treating workers fairly within the law regardless of the type of work or conditions. Each company has to provide a fair and safe standard whether they are a logger or a clerical secretary. Fair pay and conditions for type of work. But the principles underpinning fair pay and conditions is about treating people respectfully and with dignity.

No it is not. The principle of equality is everything the same concerning a specific issue; and that issue does not have to be human rights. Equal height, equal age, equal punishment, all of these things are equal; none of them have anything to do with rights. Equality has nothing to do with rights unless you make it about rights.

Equal height. What has this got to do with morality. A person deserves the right to equal pay under the workplace law regardless of height. You apply equal determinations from other areas that have nothing to do with ethics. We are talking about morality not engineering or biology.

The question was not whether it was harmful or not, the question was if it was wrong. Just because it is harmful does not mean it is wrong.

So how do we determine if something is wrong about unfair work pay and conditions. What is the basis for giving fair p0ay and safe conditions.

There are a million moral truths that can be applied to any situation. Who decides when a different moral truth takes over and trumps the other?

Actually I think morality is very simple. There are only a few core morals for which all other morals are based on. Basically its about doing to others what you would want done to you.

We all don't want to be killed or harmed for no good reason, have our stuff unjustly taken, denied the right to freely live with dignity and respect, not be discriminated against based on race or belief.

Basically Human Rights. But all these moral standards trace back to the sovereignty of the human individual meaning we value human life enough to give it this status due to our experience throughout history.So we have actually lived out these morals and tested them and they work good enough to make them objective, untouchable by human opinion.

 

[Ken-1122]

Opps!