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.
The idea of "stealing" is "taking something wrongly". That there are various ideas (and some extremely differing from each other) about what constitutes "wrongly" isn´t redefining the word - it is evidence of the fact that people disagree in their values, their criteria and their conclusions - without disagreeing about the facts.Well when you have to redefine the idea of "stealing" so completely to find an example, then it speaks to my point rather than yours.
Here's the first definition of stealing I come across in a basic dictionary search:The idea of "stealing" is "taking something wrongly". That there are various ideas (and some extremely differing from each other) about what constitutes "wrongly" isn´t redefining the word - it is evidence of the fact that people disagree in their values, their criteria and their conclusions - without disagreeing about the facts.
The easy way to overcome that is to accommodate the compromises. So "lying is always wrong except if it leads to a greater moral harm to another" is a moral objective.My point is, if lying is OBJECTIVLY wrong, there can be no compromises, or exceptions in certain situations. The compromises and exceptions are made via personal opinions, beliefs, and extenuating circumstances, which would make it subjective.
How are you defining the difference between Objective vs Subjective when applied to morality?
Of course morals are involved in complex policy matters.
But there's so many other issues flying around such topics that the strictly moral questions get confounded.
Yeah we can always come up with moral examples where everybody agrees, but that isn't enough for it to be considered objective, objective requires everybody agree because it would be demonstrable.Yes but there are certain morals that are common to almost all societies. Such as you shall not steal from your group, you shall not murder members of your group, you shall not steal wives from your group, you shall not lie to your group and etc.
That source is the objectively existing moral character of God.
If you want to look at morals in isolation then dont bring up complex policies that involve all manner of other considerations.Yeah; but right now we aren’t talking about the other issues, we’re talking about morals....
Not necessarily, especially if you believe in atheistic evolution, then the morality of different societies would more likely to vary wildly because of the randomness of the evolutionary process and some humans being more "advanced" than others. But if we are the result of a single moral creator and we are created in His image then this is expected to be the case.Uh no.
That could just as well be evidence for a morality that works based on the natural facts of being human.
This does not point to your explanation any more than it points to mine.
Not if humans have free will, then there will always be outliers. God did not create us as robots. Then our behavior would be absolutely the same everywhere."Almost all" can not be evidence for "absolute". It would be evidence for the opposite.
I didn’t say morality in isolation, we’re talking about if morality is objective or subjective. The argument I am making is the fact that there are other complex policies that involve other considerations indicates morality is subjective, not objective. To simply look at morality by itself without considering other issues surrounding the moral action is not how things are done in the real world.If you want to look at morals in isolation then dont bring up complex policies that involve all manner of other considerations.
Despite how someone says something and whether they mean it or not, what I am saying is that a persons reaction to a situation is normally a true indication of how they feel about something. People have moral ideals and may claim to have a different view but when it comes to someone actually committing that moral wrong against them everyone reacts as though it was wrong.No, it doesn´t show that. People use seemingly objective judgements all the time - in some instances you interprete it as a lapsus linguae and in some you interprete it as their "true moral view".
I am not equating a like or dislike with a moral. In saying that I have heard the example of subjective morality as being compared to someone liking or not liking a flavor of ice-cream. But my use of like was more about why people do not like having their stuff stolen. On the surface people may react because they do not like having their stuff taken. But when we look beyond this it is because they believe that stealing is unjust because someone has taken something that was their possession and is a violation. Therefore morally wrong.Well, since you now equate "not liking" and seeing it as "morally wrong" your actual point flies out the window.
Because it is about liking or disliking food. If 4 people are sitting at a table and two say they like the food, one says he thought it was OK and the other says he did not like the food how can anyone condemn the person who did not like the food. It is just an objective opinion/view. It is the same for subjective moral views. Replace the food with morals and you have the same situation.Why can´t they?
Because a subjective view has no ultimate basis for determining that it is truly bad. Going back to the food example how can someone at the table condemn the person whose subjective view is they think the food is horrible or for moral who thinks stealing is OK. On what basis are they determining that their view is correct over the other persons view.Why couldn´t they.
Only if the objective moralists contradicts their own position as does groups like ISIS. But if people disagree about the application of that objective moral that is not being subjective.So I´ll put you down as a moral subjectivist.
The example given is an objective moral. Is not torturing a baby for fun objectively wrong as a moral. Regardless of a persons subjective view this example will always be morally wrong and therefore stands independent of the subjective human mind. Can you give me an example where someone would have the subjective view that torturing a baby for fun is morally good. If not then this is an example of objective morality.You are again confusing "objective", "absolute" and "universally agreed upon".
Come back to me when you can demonstrate the existence of "objective morality".
Not if humans have free will, then there will always be outliers. God did not create us as robots. Then our behavior would be absolutely the same everywhere.
Thats a pretty huge claim youre making.Not necessarily, especially if you believe in atheistic evolution, then the morality of different societies would more likely to vary wildly because of the randomness of the evolutionary process and some humans being more "advanced" than others. But if we are the result of a single moral creator and we are created in His image then this is expected to be the case.
No it doesnt. It may just as well indicate that the other considerations are subjective, or contingent on non-moral issues like ones access to information.I didn’t say morality in isolation, we’re talking about if morality is objective or subjective. The argument I am making is the fact that there are other complex policies that involve other considerations indicates morality is subjective, not objective. To simply look at morality by itself without considering other issues surrounding the moral action is not how things are done in the real world.
Not necessarily, especially if you believe in atheistic evolution,
then the morality of different societies would more likely to vary wildly because of the randomness of the evolutionary process and some humans being more "advanced" than others.
But if we are the result of a single moral creator and we are created in His image then this is expected to be the case.
Objective morality means that moral statements have a truth value to them, and that that truth value is independent of individual or collective perceptions and attitudes. That doesn't require that everyone know that truth value or agree on it.Yeah we can always come up with moral examples where everybody agrees, but that isn't enough for it to be considered objective, objective requires everybody agree because it would be demonstrable.
No it doesnt. It may just as well indicate that the other considerations are subjective, or contingent on non-moral issues like ones access to information.
I know dam well what the discussion topic is. If you want to discuss just morality, and not these other considerations, then dont invoke examples that are confounded by these other considerations.
So if the year were 1938 in Nazi Germany, and the Gestapo came to your door looking for Jews to send to the concentration camp, would you consider lying to the Gestapo in order to save lives wrong? Because if lying is wrong independent of your individual perceptions and attitudes that the Gestapo is wrong, and the Jewish lives deserve to be saved, that would mean you would be wrong unless you told the truth. So would you consider it wrong to lie under those conditions?Objective morality means that moral statements have a truth value to them, and that that truth value is independent of individual or collective perceptions and attitudes.
If there is such a thing as the truth, but nobody knows the truth, or agree on it, how do you know it exist? If it existed, don’t cha think somebody would have discovered it by now, and be able to demonstrate why it is the truth, for all to agree?That doesn't require that everyone know that truth value or agree on it.
Objective morality allows exceptions. It does not change the moral itself. The point is the moral is always wrong unless a justification allows someone to act against that moral. The way to remedy this is to add the exceptions to the moral objective. So the objective moral becomes Killing is always wrong except in self defence and saving anothers life. In that way there is nothing to add or no other situation that can be justified for killing no matter what situation or personal view that can be justified. If someone still wants to disagree and say killing is OK in other situtaions then they need to show jusification otherwise it then becomes immoral.If it´s not absolutely wrong (i.e. if there are exceptions to it) it´s relative.
We were talking absolute vs. relative, not objective vs. subjective.Objective morality allows exceptions.
So what about the laws like to not kill and steal and the morals to not kill and steal. Are they not the same? Many laws are either directly the same as the moral or underpinned by the moral because originally that is how we determined what was right and wrong from our moral values.No. Just because laws originate from moralis doesn’t mean they are the same.. That would be like saying a car and a train are the same since they are both vehicles.
Normally out of control is just that, a situation begins to have bad consequences to the point where it is affecting others and causing problems for society so they bring in a law to stop it happening. But I can see that there would be situations where people disagreed on what is out of control and this may be the problem because there are often self-interest, bias, influences from money that can sway peoples views. The recent lockout laws in Brisbane are an example where the government wanted to stop the drunken behaviour where people were getting into fights and some were being badly injured or killed when the entertainment sector of the city closed at 3 to 5 am. So they brought the closedown time to 1 am to stop the extra drinking time and it seems to have worked.No because there will be disagreements on what constitutes “out of control”, and “bad behavior”
Yes if you kill someone when protecting your family it is seen as an exception for not killing. That is because there is a greater moral involved which is as you said not protecting your family or innocents. It is a compromise for a specific situation which is not to kill. In fact the person who kills in self defence is often traumatised and needs therapy as they still feel guilty for taking another life even though it was justified which shows how the original moral wrong still has an impact on the situation.Because they don't agree the act is wrong. When you are protecting your family from a violent intruder, that is not wrong, it is not a lesser of two wrongs, it is not a compromise for a specific situation, protecting your family is the morally RIGHT thing to do; anything less is wrong.
I thought I had already done that. Once again without even going into examples, the simple fact that people have subjective moral views implies that there must be an objective moral view that those subjective views are being measured against. Every time a person says in my view that action is morality correct and the other person view is wrong they are implying that there is an objective moral they are using to make that claim.Obviously we disagree here because even though you think it is wrong, I do not.
Objective means based on fact, not opinion. Facts can be demonstrated. If morality were objective, you could demonstrate why you are right and I am wrong.
If we are having to justify our actions, then we are admitting an objective moral fact. Therefore, the objective moral absolute is “It’s never OK to kill or lie without proper justification.”Again; compromise is subjective, not objective.
No I don't think it is fair. All these examples have a moral underpinning. So is it fair for the rich to pay more taxes to help the poor. Yes, in other words is it morally right for those who are in a better position to help the needy. That is a basic moral that our societies live from ie the good Samaritan. It has only been compromised with the age of capitalism and neo-liberalisation which promotes individualism in being financially independent. But this policy has seen the growth of a small amount of rich and a larger and larger poor population who go without.Killing is easy. How about taxes? Is it morally fair for people with higher income to pay more? Is a progressive tax system where they pay a higher percentage fair? Should the rich be required to pay the health care coverage for those who are poor so they don’t die in the streets? How about if the poor’s illness is due to unhealthy lifestyle? Is it still fair?
Are you going to tell me everybody is going to agree on moral issues like that? I think not, and I can come up with a hundred more moral questions that everybody disagrees on.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?