• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A universal morality?

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Actually, I'm Norwegian.

Oops! I'm afraid that makes my decision much easier. Watch overhead for Klingon craft.

Two people are alone in the woods completely isolated. One has been in an accident and is horribly injured and in horrible pain and begs to be shot. There are no other alternatives. Shoot or let him suffer. Are you going to tell us that the correct moral decision depends on whether the other guy subjectively feels like shooting him or not?

You may have me confused with someone else. I have no belief in that thing which you label as 'the correct moral choice/decision.'

That's because I don't believe in God, and one can only believe in objective morality if one believes in God. I mean, where can objective morality exist except within God's Great Noggin? Sure there's a chance that Artie actually is the smartest human being on our planet and also a super Jeopardy champion, but there would still be no reason for me to see Artie's moral opinion as anything other than Artie's moral opinion. What would induce me to see it as actual Objective Morality? I don't believe in prophets.

For me, moral decisions are always fallible things. That's because humans make them -- always based on inadequate intelligence, upset emotions, personal bias, lack of complete informations, etc....

You don't think the correct moral decision would be to shoot no matter what the shooter might subjectively feel like? "Sorry, I can't shoot you no matter how much agony you are in it's not moral for me to shoot you because that is my subjective feeling that it's better to let you slowly die in agony for who knows how long."

Yes, you're confusing me with someone else. I would shoot the guy long before most of my compatriots... for I am a sensitive soul with a finely-tuned moral sense.

Now let me ask you about the same scenario. Let's say that this thing is happening 300 years ago in colonial America. Everyone is a Christian. I have been taught from childhood that if a person commits suicide, he will go to a special hell. And I live in a brutal world where people suffer all the time. Heck, I've been shot twice myself and have begged to be dispatched, but they wouldn't shoot me and I recovered, thank God.

So do I shoot the guy and send him straight to an awful Hell?

Nah... he'll be fine.

Of course morality depends on the subjective state of the shooter.
 

JoeZen

Member
Morality is nothing but a practiced thing done collectively in the eyes of others so as to be seen. People can be moral, yet, still remain dishonest : the only real morality in my own opinion is when one does things according to his own consciousness and awareness.
 
Last edited:

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
You may have me confused with someone else. I have no belief in that thing which you label as 'the correct moral choice/decision.'
What a way to avoid taking a stand. Can you come up with any other correct moral choice than to shoot?
That's because I don't believe in God, and one can only believe in objective morality if one believes in God.
Of course not. You can't believe in objective morality if you believe in God. God's morality is God's subjective morality and is the opposite of objective morality.
I mean, where can objective morality exist except within God's Great Noggin?
How can God's subjective morality become objective?
Sure there's a chance that Artie actually is the smartest human being on our planet and also a super Jeopardy champion, but there would still be no reason for me to see Artie's moral opinion as anything other than Artie's moral opinion. What would induce me to see it as actual Objective Morality? I don't believe in prophets.
in my scenario is it my moral opinion that it's better to shoot if he begs me to shoot him or would it be the correct action no matter who was there?
Now let me ask you about the same scenario. Let's say that this thing is happening 300 years ago in colonial America. Everyone is a Christian. I have been taught from childhood that if a person commits suicide, he will go to a special hell. And I live in a brutal world where people suffer all the time. Heck, I've been shot twice myself and have begged to be dispatched, but they wouldn't shoot me and I recovered, thank God.

So do I shoot the guy and send him straight to an awful Hell?
What the hell does your beliefs have to do with what's moral to do? If he asks to be shot, shoot him. If he doesn't want to be shot, don't shoot him. Your beliefs have nothing to do with anything. You have no right to let your subjective beliefs override what he wants.
Of course morality depends on the subjective state of the shooter.
Interesting point of view. Then every murder is moral if the murderer subjectively thinks murder is moral. Congratulations. You just pronounced every murder and evil act on the planet moral if the perpetrator thinks it is. You weren't shot in the head, by any chance?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
Morality is nothing but a practiced thing done collectively in the eyes of others so as to be seen. People can be moral, yet, still remain dishonest : the only real morality in my own opinion is when one does things according to his own consciousness and awareness.
Murdering somebody would be moral if the murderer followed his own consciousness and awareness?
 

JoeZen

Member
You didn't reply to my question and seem to enjoy speaking in riddles instead of rationally so good luck with that.

NO ...because One who acts out of his own awareness cannot be a murderer ...get it ? : hence I say awareness is that which burns any wrong doing : you have to understand what awareness is before you can understand what I'm saying ..
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
What a way to avoid taking a stand. Can you come up with any other correct moral choice than to shoot?Of course not.

Yikes. You really are a bit lost in there, aren't you.

I just gave you an opposite moral choice (to withhold fire), and you reply by declaring that I can't come up with an opposite moral choice. Goodness. Do you see why I continue to view you as someone of a fundamentalist mindset? You seem organically incapable of removing yourself from your own assumptions and seeing other worldviews as possibly legitimate.

That's a fundamentalist, yes? Yet you claim to be an atheist. It's curious.

You can't believe in objective morality if you believe in God. God's morality is God's subjective morality and is the opposite of objective morality.How can God's subjective morality become objective?

I have no idea what you are talking about. How could God's morality be subjective?

Or to put it into your terms: How can God's objective morality become subjective?

in my scenario is it my moral opinion that it's better to shoot if he begs me to shoot him or would it be the correct action no matter who was there?

It's your moral opinion. What else could it be? If someone else were there, it could be that shooting him would be the immoral action. Obviously. Let's say the shooter had had a near-death experience and knows for a certainty that hell actually exists. And that if he aids his friend's suicide, he will spend eternity in hell.

But for five extra minutes of physical pain here on earth, Artie would be willing to condemn him to eternal agony. What sort of monster would make a decision like that.

Clear your mind for a moment and read the following words carefully. I would like a direct answer to this question: If hell is real and suicides go to hell, would it be moral or immoral for you to agree to his plea for suicide and shoot him?

I am most curious to hear how you answer that question. My guess is that you will find the question silly or stupid or some other ugly thing and therefore refuse to address it.:) I hope otherwise.

What the hell does your beliefs have to do with what's moral to do?

I don't know how to answer you. It's as if you've asked me, "What the hell does roundness have to do with the shape of the moon?"

You yourself missed the McQueen question based upon your belief that the US could not be a hostile aggressor in China. But I believe that the US could be a hostile aggressor. And in that case, the clear Correct Moral Choice would be to allow the sailor to be tortured for his military secrets, thereby saving thousands of Chinese civilians from violence.

But your personal beliefs won't let you think such a thing. So you continue to make the wrong moral choice in the McQueen Case.

If he asks to be shot, shoot him. If he doesn't want to be shot, don't shoot him.

He's retarded. His wound is not as bad as he thinks and will heal well enough. And he is the oldest son in a family of twelve, the rest of whom are underaged or sick and cannot work to support the family. He has a job in a steel mill, just lifting and moving stuff. If this young man dies, his widowed mother and eleven siblings will suffer horribly and starve to death in the cold.

But you would shoot him anyway. Wow, what a horrible moral stance. Not to mention that it goes against everything you have claimed about morality. The greatest good for the greatest number, remember?

Your beliefs have nothing to do with anything. You have no right to let your subjective beliefs override what he wants.

Some of us are not afraid to play God. We recognize that all humans do that all day long. I will indeed let my subjective beliefs about his family and their probable fate override what the young man wants.

All beliefs are subjective, by the way. What else could they be?

Then every murder is moral if the murderer subjectively thinks murder is moral.

No. Only the ones where I agree that the killing was moral.

Murder and killing are two entirely different things, by the way. 'Murder' presupposes guilt and immorality.

You just pronounced every murder and evil act on the planet moral if the perpetrator thinks it is.

How interesting that the self-proclaimed atheist would use a word like 'evil'. I'm an atheist, at least on odd days of the month, and the word 'evil' doesn't even make sense to me. Are you sure you are an atheist?

You weren't shot in the head, by any chance?

Haven't you figured out yet that I am way beyond having any of my strings pulled. Certainly not by you, anyway.
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Is it moral to argue so much over morality?

Absolutely. It would be immoral not to argue over it. That's how so much harm is done in the world... by people just not thinking or talking about their behaviors.

Is it moral to point out your opponents stupidity?

It's like an actress getting naked in a film. She should only do so if it's artistically justified.

Welcome, by the way.
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
I just gave you an opposite moral choice (to withhold fire), and you reply by declaring that I can't come up with an opposite moral choice.
I declared that you couldn't come up with an opposite correct moral choice.
I have no idea what you are talking about. How could God's morality be subjective?
How can God's morality not be subjective to Him if your morality is subjective to you? Objective morality would be correct no matter what God thinks or you think. The definition of objective is: "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" which means uninfluenced by whatever you or God might think.
It's your moral opinion. What else could it be? If someone else were there, it could be that shooting him would be the immoral action. Obviously. Let's say the shooter had had a near-death experience and knows for a certainty that hell actually exists. And that if he aids his friend's suicide, he will spend eternity in hell.
Then you would tell your friend about your near-death experience and let him make the decision. That would be the moral thing to do. Who the hell are you to decide on his behalf what is best for him based on your beliefs and experiences? He might have had completely different experiences and believe something completely different and it's his life at stake.
Clear your mind for a moment and read the following words carefully. I would like a direct answer to this question: If hell is real and suicides go to hell, would it be moral or immoral for you to agree to his plea for suicide and shoot him?
1. If he believed or knew for a fact that suicides went to hell but asked to be shot anyway, shoot him. It is his life and his decision to make. That would be the moral thing to do. He decides how he lives or dies, not you.
2. If he believed or knew for a fact that suicides went to hell and asked not to be shot, don't shoot him. It is his life and his decision to make. That would be the moral thing to do. He decides how he lives or dies, not you.

Has it ever occurred to you that everything isn't about you? That the world doesn't revolve around you? That you are not some kind of little god here and that there are things you must do regardless what you feel or think is moral or immoral? Have you considered that everything in the world doesn't have to abide by your subjective morals? Has it occurred to you that your stance that whatever you do shall be based on your subjective morals and to hell with everybody else's is a pretty immoral stance? Everything isn't about you...
 

JoeZen

Member
I declared that you couldn't come up with an opposite correct moral choice.How can God's morality not be subjective to Him if your morality is subjective to you? Objective morality would be correct no matter what God thinks or you think. The definition of objective is: "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" which means uninfluenced by whatever you or God might think.Then you would tell your friend about your near-death experience and let him make the decision. That would be the moral thing to do. Who the hell are you to decide on his behalf what is best for him based on your beliefs and experiences? He might have had completely different experiences and believe something completely different and it's his life at stake.
1. If he believed or knew for a fact that suicides went to hell but asked to be shot anyway, shoot him. It is his life and his decision to make. That would be the moral thing to do. He decides how he lives or dies, not you.
2. If he believed or knew for a fact that suicides went to hell and asked not to be shot, don't shoot him. It is his life and his decision to make. That would be the moral thing to do. He decides how he lives or dies, not you.

Has it ever occurred to you that everything isn't about you? That the world doesn't revolve around you? That you are not some kind of little god here and that there are things you must do regardless what you feel or think is moral or immoral? Have you considered that everything in the world doesn't have to abide by your subjective morals? Has it occurred to you that your stance that whatever you do shall be based on your subjective morals and to hell with everybody else's is a pretty immoral stance? Everything isn't about you...
Agree with you: the same freedom you give the other to think, is the same freedom to give one to die : the freedom to be himself :)
 
Last edited:

JoeZen

Member
Is it moral to argue so much over morality? Is it moral to point out your opponents stupidity?
It is better to master oneself than to master others.One should not point out what is wrong and what is right. One's own transformation comes from the person himself through his own awareness. let him see from his own eyes - not yours. The seed knows how to become a flower on it's own accord without you tampering, same as the power of awareness in all to see right. :)
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
I declared that you couldn't come up with an opposite correct moral choice.

And that's just what I did. But you merely waved it away as incorrect.

Remember what I said earlier about fundamentalists and Biblical contradiction? No matter what contradictions one might present to a fundamentalist, he'll simply declare that it isn't a contradiction. And he's being sincere. He just can't see it. It's invisible to him.

So it is impossible to show a fundie any Biblical contradictions, just as it is impossible to show Artie two opposite correct moral choices. I can't force you to see what you refuse to see, although I don't mind continuing to try.

Objective morality would be correct no matter what God thinks or you think.

Right. It only matters what Artie thinks. He is the one person out of 7 billion currently on the planet (7 billion and One, if we include God) who has the magic power to see the correct objective morality, as easily as anyone else can see the sum of 2+2.

But what I can't understand is this: Why should I believe you? There are many prophets thoughout history who have claimed to know the Absolute Truth. Why should I embrace Artie as the one true Seer? Can you maybe give me a few reasons? Is it IQ? Higher education? Guidance by the Holy Spirit?

Why should I accept that you can discern the correct objective morality and that if I disagree with you, I am left with the Incorrect morality? That's the question which I've been asking you since we first met but which you have so far adamantly refused to answer. I really need an answer if I'm to understand you.

The definition of objective is: "Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices" which means uninfluenced by whatever you or God might think.

Right. It only matters what the unemotional, unbiased, unprejudiced Artie thinks. I get that. But I continue to wonder why I should embrace you as my prophet.

Then you would tell your friend about your near-death experience and let him make the decision. That would be the moral thing to do.

Can't. He lapsed into delirium after begging me to kill him. Actually I think he was delirious the whole time. I'm pretty sure he knows that suicides will go to hell. He was just out of his head when he asked me to kill him, I'm pretty sure.

Who the hell are you to decide on his behalf what is best for him based on your beliefs and experiences?

I've told you again and again that I have no fear of playing God, so why do you keep asking me? I am a moral agent. I want the most good for the most people, so I must deny him his death in order to save his dozen family members and also to save him from eternal torment in hell.

He might have had completely different experiences and believe something completely different and it's his life at stake.

He's delirious and retarded. It's interesting to me that you won't touch my retarded scenario. Scary, isn't it... the vagueness of morality? Read Of Mice and Men. Steinbeck wasn't afraid of morality and he didn't make Lennie retarded by accident.

1. If he believed or knew for a fact that suicides went to hell but asked to be shot anyway, shoot him. It is his life and his decision to make. That would be the moral thing to do. He decides how he lives or dies, not you.

Retarded. Deal with it. Morality is hard. Running away from hard moral choices is easy.

2. If he believed or knew for a fact that suicides went to hell and asked not to be shot, don't shoot him. It is his life and his decision to make. That would be the moral thing to do. He decides how he lives or dies, not you.

Retarded and delirious. Deal with it.

Has it ever occurred to you that everything isn't about you? That the world doesn't revolve around you? That you are not some kind of little god here and that there are things you must do regardless what you feel or think is moral or immoral? Have you considered that everything in the world doesn't have to abide by your subjective morals? Has it occurred to you that your stance that whatever you do shall be based on your subjective morals and to hell with everybody else's is a pretty immoral stance? Everything isn't about you...

That really is a most curious paragraph, almost to the point of seeming bizarre to me.

You're the guy who thinks that he can see the Correct Moral Answer as easily as he sees the sum of 2+2. And that anyone who disagrees with you has come up with the objectively-incorrect moral answer.

I'm the guy who allows as how others can arrive at different moral answers than I do, depending on their fundamental assumptions about life, their knowledge of the case, their logical powers, etc.

So tell me again... which one of us thinks that he is a god?
 

ArtieE

Well-Known Member
I'm the guy who allows as how others can arrive at different moral answers than I do, depending on their fundamental assumptions about life, their knowledge of the case, their logical powers, etc.

So tell me again... which one of us thinks that he is a god?
What an illogical rant with not a single rational question or argument or comment to my many points. No rational discussion of my points at all. Retarded and delirious is a good description. I didn't touch your retarded scenario because it was retarded. I will answer if you decide to try a rational post again. Until then, live long and prosper.
 
Last edited:

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
Lols .... would you kindly explain further what you really need to know . Don't play with words ..

Playing with words is the purpose of this place -- which can be a real handicap for the meditators and HolySpirit communers. They really have no good chance.:)
 

AmbiguousGuy

Well-Known Member
What an illogical rant with not a single rational question or argument or comment to my many points. No rational discussion of my points at all. Retarded and delirious is a good description. I didn't touch your retarded scenario because it was retarded. I will answer if you decide to try a rational post again. Until then, live long and prosper.

OK. Come back when you can't bear to be without me anymore.

And don't worry about the Klingons. The cute one is moving in with me next weekend. She likes the way I scream when she does the thumbscrew thing.
 
Top