Where is the Objective Morality?

[childeye 2]

Just drop it.

Sorry+Peace.

 

[childeye 2]

An observation in semantics:
One poster describes objectivity as never 100% attainable as a human.
Another poster describes objectivity as a spectrum of differing colors.
Another poster describes objectivity categorically as an absolute in the context of Morality/immorality happening in reality.

It just so happens that White Light meets all of the criteria.
1. Shades of gray.
2. Diffuses into colors.
3. Forms white in contrast to black.

I think we're all seeing the same thing, but that we describe our sentiments differently because we're evaluating the Light coming from our own unique and relative subjective views (which is our person).

The Light is the knowledge of the reality of our shared existence as persons in as much as we are able to see it, project, and reflect upon it. The subjective views are the spectrum of colors in our persons where the light is diffused in a developing character. The shades of gray imply a distance from the Light, which determines the brightness of every color. And the black and white are the dark/Light of immorality and morality.

The sentiment of the term God is axiomatic to our reasoning of the unknown in any proposition of reality. When understood correctly, the question becomes, "WHO is HE?"... So, whoever you are and wherever you are coming from, let us Love God with all our heart mind and soul, which is to Love others as we would want to be loved, because unkindness is never admired in a good people.

Everyone applauds.

 

[stevevw]

Sorry, good people... Another angle on this topic.

I simply want to know where it is.

If its not an aspect of my own mental state or yours, then it must be out there somewhere, right? So.... where?

I think its like what C. S Lewis said when he was questioning God about a JUst universe. He wondered where the idea of Justice came from and if there was injustice there had to be justice to know what injustice meant.

Like we cannot know a stick is straight unless we know what a bent stick is. In otherwords there must be objective morals out there like some moral law. Otherweise moral values have no value at all. There would be no Justice otherwise.

Its not material but its similar to Maths. They are just like laws in the universe and we intuitively know them.

 

[childeye 2]

I think its like what C. S Lewis said when he was questioning God about a JUst universe. He wondered where the idea of Justice came from and if there was injustice there had to be justice to know what injustice meant.

Like we cannot know a stick is straight unless we know what a bent stick is. In otherwords there must be objective morals out there like some moral law. Otherweise moral values have no value at all. There would be no Justice otherwise.

Its not material but its similar to Maths. They are just like laws in the universe and we intuitively know them.

The value of light is appreciated in the darkness. Good post.

 

[Astrid]

I think its like what C. S Lewis said when he was questioning God about a JUst universe. He wondered where the idea of Justice came from and if there was injustice there had to be justice to know what injustice meant.

Like we cannot know a stick is straight unless we know what a bent stick is. In otherwords there must be objective morals out there like some moral law. Otherweise moral values have no value at all. There would be no Justice otherwise.

Its not material but its similar to Maths. They are just like laws in the universe and we intuitively know them.

Maybe, and maybe too cute by one half

 

[Moral Orel]

Otherweise moral values have no value at all. There would be no Justice otherwise.

This is known as the "Argument from Consequences" fallacy. You're saying, "Wouldn't it be a bummer if our moral values weren't actually valuable? And wouldn't it be a bummer if there was no actual justice? It can't be a bummer, so it must be true". It's fallacious reasoning and doesn't even count as evidence.

 

[childeye 2]

This is known as the "Argument from Consequences" fallacy. You're saying, "Wouldn't it be a bummer if our moral values weren't actually valuable? And wouldn't it be a bummer if there was no actual justice? It can't be a bummer, so it must be true". It's fallacious reasoning and doesn't even count as evidence.

Respectfully, I think what he's saying is that the sentiment of morality by definition is never immorality, objectively speaking. Even subjectively speaking we all know that kindness is a good quality in a person, not a bad quality.

 

[Moral Orel]

Respectfully, I think what he's saying is that the sentiment of morality by definition is never immorality, objectively speaking.

I've been talking with Steve about this topic, off and on, for about a year or two. That's not what he means.

Even subjectively speaking we all know that kindness is a good quality in a person, not a bad quality.

Subjectively speaking, most people feel that kindness is a quality they like in a person. Subjectively speaking, most people merely prefer that people be kind. Subjectively speaking, the statement "Kindness is good" isn't a fact the same way the statement "The Earth is round" is a fact. Steve is saying that if subjectivity is true, then "kindness is good" is not an actual fact, and that would be a bummer.

 

[Neogaia777]

You know, you can state a moral rule as an objective fact if you just word it a bit differently, etc...?

Like "in the majority of cases, this or that should always be obeyed or adhered to or done", etc...

Or not done, in the majority of cases, etc...

And "why" needs to be connected to something that is always profitable or has value (to all of us humans collectively right now) as well, etc...

But no moral rule is ever an absolute, etc... There are always some, fewer in most cases, exceptions to the normal moral rules, etc...

But can be turned into an objective fact by the way it is put forth or worded, etc, and by determining it's objective and practical value for all, and that all would always unanimously always agree on, regardless of culture/race/nationality, or time or age or era, etc... And the exceptions would most usually be situational or circumstantial, and if you include these, and all of these, in writing, etc, it can be turned into an objective moral fact, or just an objective fact having to do with morals, at that point, etc...

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Do you think "murder" is always wrong and should be always condemned by all...?

I think "murder" maybe can be, especially if you define it like I define it, but that all "killing" is not always wrong, etc...

Because I define "murder", as just completely senseless and reasonless killing, etc, just killing someone just to kill them and for no other motivations or reasons (or purposes or aims or goals) involved at all, etc, and in all cases I think that would always be wrong, and would or should always be condemned by all, etc...

What do you think...?

God Bless!

 

[Neogaia777]

Do you think "murder" is always wrong and should be always condemned by all...?

I think "murder" maybe can be, especially if you define it like I define it, but that all "killing" is not always wrong, etc...

Because I define "murder", as just completely senseless and reasonless killing, etc, just killing someone just to kill them and for no other motivations or reasons (or purposes or aims or goals) involved at all, etc, and in all cases I think that would always be wrong, and would or should always be condemned by all, etc...

What do you think...?

God Bless!

And, the one who kills for absolutely no other reason or purpose other than it is maybe just fun for him or that one or something, but having no other real reason or purpose to it at all, etc, but is just 100% completely senseless, etc, should be locked up until they day they die if you ask me, etc...

But there are many, many other situations (reasons, etc) under which a person might kill another person, etc, like a what the legal system calls a "crime of passion", or something like that, as an example I'm going to use right now here right now, etc, and mostly we define this as adultery, etc, but that is not all of what I am using it for here right now, etc, because I mean "all passions", etc...

When humans, or a human, kill or kills another human, there are most usually circumstances or situations or reasons or passions involved in the killing and/or surrounding it, etc, and these both need to be, and should be all fully considered in any form of any kind of attempt of meting out any kind of punishments/consequences involved or having to do with true justice, etc, and I think we have tried to do that in America or in the western world, we try anyway, but have not done it perfectly yet, etc, but we have different degrees of crimes, and lesser punishments for lesser, and greater ones for greater, etc, it is not perfect, etc, but at least it is an attempt at least, etc...

The corruption is another story though, but I think the corruption is getting less or better in the justice system over time, or maybe it's just because in times past, the corruption was much less fully known, and a lot easier to do and/or get away with, etc...

But and/or anyway...?

I think that's enough about this/that subject for now, etc...

Comments...?

God Bless!

 

[childeye 2]

You know, you can state a moral rule as an objective fact if you just word it a bit differently, etc...?

But no moral rule is ever an absolute, etc... There are always some, fewer in most cases, exceptions to the normal moral rules, etc...

Morality as a virtue is objective to begin with, because in the moment I care about others and how my actions affect them I am being objective.

 

[Neogaia777]

Morality as a virtue is objective to begin with, because in the moment I care about others and how my actions affect them I am being objective.

Semantics, etc...

God Bless!

 

[childeye 2]

Semantics, etc...

God Bless!

Exactly. And may God's blessing return back to you seven fold.

 

[Neogaia777]

Exactly. And may God's blessing return back to you seven fold.

Thank you very much...

You as well...

God Bless!

 

[Astrid]

And, the one who kills for absolutely no other reason or purpose other than it is maybe just fun for him or that one or something, but having no other real reason or purpose to it at all, etc, but is just 100% completely senseless, etc, should be locked up until they day they die if you ask me, etc...

But there are many, many other situations (reasons, etc) under which a person might kill another person, etc, like a what the legal system calls a "crime of passion", or something like that, as an example I'm going to use right now here right now, etc, and mostly we define this as adultery, etc, but that is not all of what I am using it for here right now, etc, because I mean "all passions", etc...

When humans, or a human, kill or kills another human, there are most usually circumstances or situations or reasons or passions involved in the killing and/or surrounding it, etc, and these both need to be, and should be all fully considered in any form of any kind of attempt of meting out any kind of punishments/consequences involved or having to do with true justice, etc, and I think we have tried to do that in America or in the western world, we try anyway, but have not done it perfectly yet, etc, but we have different degrees of crimes, and lesser punishments for lesser, and greater ones for greater, etc, it is not perfect, etc, but at least it is an attempt at least, etc...

The corruption is another story though, but I think the corruption is getting less or better in the justice system over time, or maybe it's just because in times past, the corruption was much less fully known, and a lot easier to do and/or get away with, etc...

But and/or anyway...?

I think that's enough about this/that subject for now, etc...

Comments...?

God Bless!

Rape tends to come right after murder as a vilest of
crimes.
Son of a friend was convicted of rape, the girl was a few
months underage. He was not the only one she had
sex with, then got the guy in trouble.

OTOH, the sadist who assaulted me- i hope he is caught
and never sees sunlight again.

Every case of killing and rape has to be judged in the
exact nature of the case.
Rigid rules and definitions are the enemy of justice

 

[Tinker Grey]

Morality as a virtue is objective to begin with, because in the moment I care about others and how my actions affect them I am being objective.

The distinction between objective and subjective is NOT that the former means reasoned and the latter arbitrary. The word object CAN mean unbiased, but that is NOT what we are talking about here.

In this conversation, by objective (most of us*, I think) mean existing independent of humans. Does morality exist independent of humans the way the rock in my front yard exists?

If you think "yes", then the job is show how and where objective morality is.

* Well those of us arguing that morality is subjective.

 

[childeye 2]

The distinction between objective and subjective is NOT that the former means reasoned and the latter arbitrary. The word object CAN mean unbiased, but that is NOT what we are talking about here.

In this conversation, by objective (most of us*, I think) mean existing independent of humans. Does morality exist independent of humans the way the rock in my front yard exists?

If you think "yes", then the job is show how and where objective morality is.

* Well those of us arguing that morality is subjective.

In my subjective view of reality, such things as love/compassion/empathy are intrinsic to our nature, and they are not human constructs any more than a human is, or a rock in my yard is. This is the goodness that I experience and see in mankind that is an objective morality because it's common to all people and is not immoral by nature.

The subjective morality you describe sounds no different than a subjective immorality, and is likely seeing morality as a matter of policy making and politics rather than a higher power. We can already see in reality, these individual subjective moralities vying for power, each one claiming to be a better morality than the others, in vanity.

As a Christian, my belief is that the Christ is the righteousness of God being revealed to the world in the Gospel of the Christ crucified. This standard of morality is one that returns good for evil, so that's where people can find an objective morality that's not dependent upon corruptible humans.

 

[Astrid]

In my subjective view of reality, such things as love/compassion/empathy are intrinsic to our nature, and they are not human constructs any more than a human is, or a rock in my yard is. This is the goodness that I experience and see in mankind that is an objective morality because it's common to all people and is not immoral by nature.

The subjective morality you describe sounds no different than a subjective immorality, and is likely seeing morality as a matter of policy making and politics rather than a higher power. I can already see in reality, these individual subjective moralities vying for power, each one claiming to be a better morality than the others in vanity.

As a Christian, my belief is that the Christ is the righteousness of God being revealed to the world in the Gospel of the Christ crucified. This standard of morality is one that returns good for evil, so that's where people can find an objective morality that's not dependent upon corruptible humans.

What is subjectivevabout intrinsic qualities?

What morality is common to all people?

Last, how exactly can a person be objective, look only
at facts, have an open mind, be intellectually honest if
they come to the table with unshakeable conviction
that they are right, though they applied no evidence at
all to that belief?

 

[durangodawood]

....What morality is common to all people?...

Why does that matter?

People disagree about objective facts all the time.