The Evolution of Morality

[Loudmouth]

That is only true if there is no God. You as a non-
believer would see it as subjective but believers do not.

Of course believers will not admit that religious opinions are subjective. They are wrong on many things. Your point?

So if God is a true objective reality, all can't be right but one could be true.

How do you determine if a specific deity exists? That's the rub.

Who determines what improves society? Hitler thought that he was improving society, actually had reasons that he felt rationalized his actions yet most people consider the acts he perpetrated were evil. So, if good is what improves a society, that can not be a principle that is objective. We can see that what a society may think is best for the whole is not always good and can be an evil. ON the flip side who determines evil comes from making a society worse and causes suffering. Wars can be good if it is our freedoms or our lives are at risk and this could cause suffering in those people the wars are against. Is that evil? Empathy and morality are not the same thing, they can be connected but they are not one in the same.

I think you are making the case for subjective morality for us.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are there universal laws across all nations and societies for what is and is not a murder? Last I checked, murder is determined relative to the situation and the society it occurs in. What would be considered a moral honor killing in an Islamic country would be considered murder and immoral in Western countries, as one example. Even the definition of murder in the US has changed with the advent of "Stand Your Ground" laws.

IF it is relative to a situation it is subjective. Stand your ground laws are based on self defense. I don't think that has changed, it has always been the case but it has made it a legal ruling which makes it more easily defended.

If morals change with society then no society has the right or the defense to claim that something is right or wrong and we don't see that in the world. The world came together (for the most part) against Hitler and called his actions evil. If it were subjective or if it were situational, no one would have the right to claim it was evil at all.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Of course believers will not admit that religious opinions are subjective. They are wrong on many things. Your point?

And of course unbelievers do. They are wrong on many things. So?

How do you determine if a specific deity exists? That's the rub.

Ask God. That is really what it comes down to. However, when one doesn't even believe that God exists it is a mute point. Just because you don't believe God exists doesn't mean He doesn't and can't reveal Himself. It just means that you have no reason to believe He does.

I think you are making the case for subjective morality for us.

If there is a standard of Good or Evil there must be an objective good or evil that exists. If there is an objective good or evil then there is a universal rule that exists that over rides subjective morality.

 

[Loudmouth]

IF it is relative to a situation it is subjective. Stand your
ground laws are based on self defense.

The point being made is that what we consider murder has changed over time based on changing and subjective opinions.

If morals change with society then no society has the right or the defense to claim that something is right or wrong and we don't see that in the world. The world came together (for the most part) against Hitler and called his actions evil. If it were subjective or if it were situational, no one would have the right to claim it was evil at all.

That is why "might makes right" when it comes to clashes between nations.

 

[Oncedeceived]

The point being made is that what we consider murder has changed over time based on changing and subjective opinions.

How so?

That is why "might makes right" when it comes to clashes between nations.

So you are saying that there is no actual right if you have enough might?

 

[HitchSlap]

Murder: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.

Does that make it clearer?

This is a definition of "murder." I asked how you know it's objectively immoral?

 

[HitchSlap]

So are you saying you do not believe it is?

Correct.

 

[Oncedeceived]

This is a definition of "murder." I asked how you know it's objectively immoral?

It is a universal principle that is held by all societies.

 

[HitchSlap]

It is a universal principle that is held by all societies.

This is not a demonstration of objective, but only an opinion based on observation. What if all societies sacrificed their second born to god, because he requires it? Would that be objectively moral, then?

I'm asking you how know murder is objectively wrong?

What makes murder objectively wrong?

 

[Loudmouth]

It is a universal principle that is held by all societies.

What is murder in one society may not be murder in another.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Correct.

So a society that feels it improves itself by killing off undesired beings that is good?

 

[Loudmouth]

How so?

Did you read my posts? The new "stand your ground" laws have changed our definition of murder. Previously, if you stood your ground and shot someone you could be charged with murder.

So you are saying that there is no actual right if you have enough might?

In practice, you don't have rights if your society does not provide them.

 

[Loudmouth]

So a society that feels it improves itself by killing off undesired beings that is good?

That depends on who you ask. Just look at the great many opinions on the death penalty within the US.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Did you read my posts? The new "stand your ground" laws have changed our definition of murder. Previously, if you stood your ground and shot someone you could be charged with murder.

Self defense has always been a part of society. Nothing has changed, and it would not be considered murder if you were defending yourself.

In practice, you don't have rights if your society does not provide them.

This was in reference to the war scenario.

 

[Oncedeceived]

That depends on who you ask. Just look at the great many opinions on the death penalty within the US.

Again, if someone is guilty of a crime that is death penalty punishable, that is not murder. The universal objective morality underlays the principles that a society incorporates. The subjective aspects are overlaid the underlying principle.

 

[Loudmouth]

Again, if someone is guilty of a crime that is death
penalty punishable, that is not murder.

There are other societies that do consider it murder. The death penalty has been abolished in many western societies because it is considered immoral.

The universal objective morality underlays the principles that a society incorporates. The subjective aspects are overlaid the underlying principle.

Please evidence this universal objective morality.

 

[HitchSlap]

So a society that feels it improves itself by killing off undesired beings that is good?

That would depend.

 

[Loudmouth]

Self defense has always been a part of society. Nothing has changed, and it would not be considered murder if you were defending yourself.

Yes, it has changed. Previously, if you stood your ground and shot someone when you could have fled the scene then you could be tried for murder.

This was in reference to the war scenario.

Notice how we forced our morality onto other countries through war.

 

[Oncedeceived]

There are other societies that do consider it murder. The death penalty has been abolished in many western societies because it is considered immoral.

Why do they consider it immoral?

Please evidence this universal objective morality.

All societies believe that the unjustifiable killing of someone is immoral.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Yes, it has changed. Previously, if you stood your ground and shot someone when you could have fled the scene then you could be tried for murder.

It is still self defense.

Notice how we forced our morality onto other countries through war.

Explain what point you are making here please.