What I think.

[Nooj]

Just keep in mind that I'm 17 years old, I've got a lot of growing up to do and I'll probably change my opinions as I grow up.

If I may speak from my perspective as a moral relativist, there are no objective morals or ethics. Or to put it simply, there is no 'truth' or reality divorced from preconceptions.

IMO, when we condemn the Holocaust, or any other acts of murder, our condemnations are built on the framework of untrue things: For example, a Christian condemns murder because his or her God tells it is wrong. That's not true (imo, Christianity is not objectively true). When a humanist condemns murder because of some inherent sanctity of life, that's not true (imo, humanism is not objectively true).

But the thing is, even if these religions/frameworks/ways of life are untrue, that doesn't mean we can't stop using them to better our lives. They don't have to be true for us to accept them as good ways to live. Just think of these philosophies as a vehicle we can piggyback on until we die.

Why stick to these untrue frameworks, why not go out in an orgy of murder and greed? You can if you want. But there are two reasons why I personally don't live my life like this. Other people's frameworks (in this case, society's laws which are funnily enough, again untrue) are stopping you from doing this. And most importantly, it is a question of how I want to live my life. I don't want to kill other people, or do drugs or get drunk every other day. So I don't, even though I don't think it's 'wrong' to do so.

I don't think it's objectively wrong to be a mass murderer.

But I piggyback on the vehicle of humanism because that's what best fits my opinions at this moment, and I (and humanism) condemn mass murderers.

So thanks for hearing me out, I just wanted to get that out.

 

[platzapS]

If I may speak from my perspective as a moral relativist, there are no objective morals or ethics. Or to put it simply, there is no 'truth' or reality divorced from preconceptions.

Do you mean just morally, or do you also lack belief in any absolute reality? For example, does oxygen objectively exist?

 

[Nooj]

Do you mean just morally, or do you also lack belief in any absolute reality? For example, does oxygen objectively exist?

Morally. But that's an interesting question. I don't know if anything objectively exists.

 

[Solidlyhere]

The OP is correct in some ways (even if he doesn't see it).

All things (by definition) are subjective.
This does not mean that certain things are inherently AWFUL, subjectively.

There can be NO good or evil, unless someone subjectively decides that it is Good or Evil.
During WWII (inside of Germany), it was a GREAT thing to murder-off the Jews ... Kill a Jew, go to Heaven.
In New York, however, it was NOT Good to murder Jews (in fact, you could get into trouble for doing it).

So, a mass murder-er goes to town.
After being arrested, he asks the Judge for leniency: Hey, your honor, murder is not objectively a bad thing.
The Judge responds: Yeah, well my subjective take on it is: You did a BIG no-no.
So, I will send you to Jail.
You can either handle that either objectively, or subjectively.
Because, remember, there is no real difference between a Jail, and a posh Palace, except subjectively.

 

[quatona]

Just keep in mind that I'm 17 years old, I've got a lot of growing up to do and I'll probably change my opinions as I grow up.

If I may speak from my perspective as a moral relativist, there are no objective morals or ethics. Or to put it simply, there is no 'truth' or reality divorced from preconceptions.

IMO, when we condemn the Holocaust, or any other acts of murder, our condemnations are built on the framework of untrue things: For example, a Christian condemns murder because his or her God tells it is wrong. That's not true (imo, Christianity is not objectively true). When a humanist condemns murder because of some inherent sanctity of life, that's not true (imo, humanism is not objectively true).

But the thing is, even if these religions/frameworks/ways of life are untrue, that doesn't mean we can't stop using them to better our lives. They don't have to be true for us to accept them as good ways to live. Just think of these philosophies as a vehicle we can piggyback on until we die.

Why stick to these untrue frameworks, why not go out in an orgy of murder and greed? You can if you want. But there are two reasons why I personally don't live my life like this. Other people's frameworks (in this case, society's laws which are funnily enough, again untrue) are stopping you from doing this. And most importantly, it is a question of how I want to live my life. I don't want to kill other people, or do drugs or get drunk every other day. So I don't, even though I don't think it's 'wrong' to do so.

I don't think it's objectively wrong to be a mass murderer.

But I piggyback on the vehicle of humanism because that's what best fits my opinions at this moment, and I (and humanism) condemn mass murderers.

So thanks for hearing me out, I just wanted to get that out.

What I don´t seem to understand is how you start from deconstructing the concept of "truth" and continue by arguing that something is "untrue".

I just revisited the works of Paul Watzlawick. You might be interested in "radical constructivism". It could help solving the above mentioned incoherence of your approach. Just a suggestion.

 

[quatona]

Do you mean just morally, or do you also lack belief in any absolute reality? For example, does oxygen objectively exist?

All I know is that I find the assumption that oxygen exists extremely useful in many respects. The fact that most everyone seems to agree with me in this notion is simplifying that which otherwise might be a problem.

 

[FishFace]

The OP is correct in some ways (even if he doesn't see it).

All things (by definition) are subjective.

I would say that all things we are aware of are subjective, but they may have been caused by something objective. All our perceptions are of course subjective, yet those perceptions may nonetheless be of real things.

This does not mean that certain things are inherently AWFUL, subjectively.

Inherently subjectively? I'm not sure that makes sense.

So, a mass murder-er goes to town.
After being arrested, he asks the Judge for leniency: Hey, your honor, murder is not objectively a bad thing.
The Judge responds: Yeah, well my subjective take on it is: You did a BIG no-no.
So, I will send you to Jail.
You can either handle that either objectively, or subjectively.
Because, remember, there is no real difference between a Jail, and a posh Palace, except subjectively.

Not a moral argument, although nonetheless something that needs to be said! The point is we don't want to just say that it was a bad idea for the guy to murder people, but also that he shouldn't have done so.

 

[elman]

Just keep in mind that I'm 17 years old, I've got a lot of growing up to do and I'll probably change my opinions as I grow up.

If I may speak from my perspective as a moral relativist, there are no objective morals or ethics. Or to put it simply, there is no 'truth' or reality divorced from preconceptions.

IMO, when we condemn the Holocaust, or any other acts of murder, our condemnations are built on the framework of untrue things: For example, a Christian condemns murder because his or her God tells it is wrong. That's not true (imo, Christianity is not objectively true). When a humanist condemns murder because of some inherent sanctity of life, that's not true (imo, humanism is not objectively true).

But the thing is, even if these religions/frameworks/ways of life are untrue, that doesn't mean we can't stop using them to better our lives. They don't have to be true for us to accept them as good ways to live. Just think of these philosophies as a vehicle we can piggyback on until we die.

Why stick to these untrue frameworks, why not go out in an orgy of murder and greed? You can if you want. But there are two reasons why I personally don't live my life like this. Other people's frameworks (in this case, society's laws which are funnily enough, again untrue) are stopping you from doing this. And most importantly, it is a question of how I want to live my life. I don't want to kill other people, or do drugs or get drunk every other day. So I don't, even though I don't think it's 'wrong' to do so.

I don't think it's objectively wrong to be a mass murderer.

But I piggyback on the vehicle of humanism because that's what best fits my opinions at this moment, and I (and humanism) condemn mass murderers.

So thanks for hearing me out, I just wanted to get that out.

So why is it good to not be a mass murderer?

 

[elman]

What I don´t seem to understand is how you start from deconstructing the concept of "truth" and continue by arguing that something is "untrue".

I just revisited the works of Paul Watzlawick. You might be interested in "radical constructivism". It could help solving the above mentioned incoherence of your approach. Just a suggestion.

Interesting post.

 

[peter22]

Before anyone comes in and arrogantly rips his arguments to shreds, please bear in mind his (her?) preface

"Just keep in mind that I'm 17 years old, I've got a lot of growing up to do and I'll probably change my opinions as I grow up."

Heck, this attitude alone shows more maturity than some people around here.

 

[quatona]

Interesting post.

Interesting response.

 

[quatona]

Before anyone comes in and arrogantly rips his arguments to shreds, please bear in mind his (her?) preface

"Just keep in mind that I'm 17 years old, I've got a lot of growing up to do and I'll probably change my opinions as I grow up."

I am assuming that he wants to be taken seriously, and that he posts his ideas for the purpose of putting them to the test - he is expecting to change his opinions, after all.
In my opinion the "Well, that´s quite nice for a 17year old" attitude is more arrogant and condescending than ripping his arguments to shreds would be.

Heck, this attitude alone shows more maturity than some people around here.

I would like to keep comments to the person out of these discussions - that includes positive ones, particularly when they are negative comments about other persons at the same time.

But keep in mind that I am an old fart, stubborn and with his brain worn out.

 

[DoubtingThomas29]

Here is something I like to think about when it comes to an objective reality. I personnally believe nature has forced us to exist, I mean I can't prove that, but look at this. Here is an objective truth I am about to tell you, something we know Apriori, 100% absolutely true. A lot of people don't know this, you have to think about it but it is true.

All Married men are not Bachelors

It is either raining or not raining outside your window right now.

It cannot both rain and not rain outside your window at the same time.

I dare say all the laws of physics and chemistry work, because they are forced to work like this, much like our laws of motion, it is just impossible for the laws of motion to not be true, and that is why there are no such things as ghosts. It is true.

Also I feel that one day the human race will be so advanced, in science philosophy art and poetry that we will know Apriori how everything works, meaning we'll know how things work, because it is impossible for them to not work the way they do.

About morality though, I would have to say, we can only know our moral laws in a relative fashion, there is no set moral programming set down from biological evolution. Moral laws are subjective, but they are there an they get us through the day you bet.

Merry Chrstmas!

 

[Stinker]

Perhaps the only time we see the truth concerning God & objective morality is when we or our loved one/s are in dire straights. Another example is when, say some high politician and or businessman can make a decision that puts us or someone we dearly love, in danger or dire straights, and this person making this decision knows that they can escape any human detection or repercussion for making this decision that will increase their profits greatly. No matter thick a shell a person developes around their conscience, just before they die the shell shatters, but the damage they did cannot be undone.

 

[peter22]

Quatona,
All I was really saying was "be nice".

 

[Nooj]

So why is it good to not be a mass murderer?

If you accept my assertion for the moment that objective morality does not exist, then it isn't wrong (by any objective standards) to be a mass murderer.

I don't like using the terms good and bad, because I think they're subjective judgements we make as well.

What I don´t seem to understand is how you start from deconstructing the concept of "truth" and continue by arguing that something is "untrue".

I just revisited the works of Paul Watzlawick. You might be interested in "radical constructivism". It could help solving the above mentioned incoherence of your approach. Just a suggestion.

Thank you.

What I don´t seem to understand is how you start from deconstructing the concept of "truth" and continue by arguing that something is "untrue".

To clarify, I defined what I meant by objective morality in the opening paragraph so I could point out some examples where objective truth and morality is lacking: Christianity, humanism, any other religious movement that makes a 'definite' moral statement. But yeah, my post was confusing. Sorry.

I was wondering if anyone had thoughts about 'piggy-backing on vehicles'? I thought some people might find it strange to accept and live my life by a code (secular humanism) that I don't actually think is true. Cause aren't we supposed to follow only what we believe, truly and wholly?

 

[Nooj]

On a related matter, I've been doing some thinking about objective truth in religions (not just morality). Islam or Christianity claims to be the only true religions in the world, their laws and moralities derived from God himself. So do a hundred other religious movements and most of them contradict each other. How do we figure out which one is The Truth?

I think it's humanly impossible to do so for a variety of reasons. Just one is, how are you supposed to recognise the Truth? By what standards can you distinguish it from other religions that claim to be true?

Anyway, if it's impossible to figure out the objective Truth (and for some reason, there only seems to be one objective religion), then just abandon the search. Pick out the one you best like and live your life by it. That's that. If you die and end up in a Christian Hell, too bad. If you die and end up in an Islamic Hell, too bad. If you get rebirthed and end up back in samsara, too bad.

But there was really nothing you or the vast majority of humans could do to stop where you ended up. You couldn't help it or prevent it. There's just so many options and so little time in the human life that it's going to be very hard to pick out the Truth and if you happen to, it'll mostly likely be due to pure luck. The fact is that if the afterlife and truth is anything like the Abrahamic faith's afterlife, most people including you will be burning in Hell for eternity. I take comfort in the idea that I'm almost completely powerless to try to prevent my fate.

And God help the human species if the objective truth is some obscure African tribal animist religion that died out four thousand years ago.

 

[quatona]

I was wondering if anyone had thoughts about 'piggy-backing on vehicles'? I thought some people might find it strange to accept and live my life by a code (secular humanism) that I don't actually think is true. Cause aren't we supposed to follow only what we believe, truly and wholly?

Supposed? By whom?
Do you "truly" believe that the secular humanist code is the currently best available you are aware of? Thus, aren´t you matching the requirement you are "supposed" to match?
The question whether an objective morality/truth exists is practically irrelevant. At best it is inaccessible/undiscernable for us. If all we have are vehicles I wouldn´t know what else to use.

 

[Nooj]

Supposed? By whom? Do you "truly" believe that the secular humanist code is the currently best available you are aware of? Thus, aren´t you matching the requirement you are "supposed" to match?

Yes...sort of.

Are religious leaders looking for fake belief or half-hearted belief? I thought they wanted you to look for the religion that once attained, feels like an objective truth. I thought that this was their requirement, because these priests/sheiks think their religion isn't just the best available currently, they think it's the best. Permanent.

But to be honest I haven't got any proof that religious leaders actually do think like this. So that's just my broad stereotyping talking. You've challenged me on it and I've actually got to go out to a priest and talk to them about it.

The question whether an objective morality/truth exists is practically irrelevant. At best it is inaccessible/undiscernable for us. If all we have are vehicles I wouldn´t know what else to use.

Not much more to say than I agree.

 

[quatona]

Well, people (my sister and a few close friends are the only people I'm really comfortable talking about my religious ideas with, the rest of my family don't know I'm an atheist or whatever) tend to think of my position as a sort of lie. But I'm not out to deceive anyone.

I just get the feeling it's not acceptable in society. Truth is held up to be very important. I can see it most clearly in a lot of movies. Like the Matrix. So what if you go back to living in the Matrix after realising that reality is just a sham? Is it so wrong to not really 'believe' in the way of life you're living? Actually, I probably wouldn't go back into the Matrix, but that's another matter.

Don´t take it the wrong way but I think this is where your young age and lack of experience may play a part. I understand better now why you come here and ask those questions.

However, there are plenty of people out there who, like you, have come to realize that the Aristotelean concept of "truth" is not useful.

On a sidenote: One problem with the term "truth" is that it can be used in different meanings. This is often the cause for false equivocations, e.g. the assumption of your relatives that rejecting the idea of an "objective truth" means the acceptance of "lies" or "deception". "Truth (as opposed to lies/deception) is an entirely different concept than "(Objective) truth (as opposed to subjectivity)". Unfortunately these concepts carry the same name.