Morality

[firedragon]

I’m not Christian. Sorry.
1. My morality is non existent. I believe in ethics. Ethics are much more in line with my core values. Do not hurt others. Show compassion and empathy.
2. Society has long claimed that Jesus and God almighty sanctioned their moral behaviour. Which included (but no limited to) rape, domestic violence, slavery as sanctioned by the literal Bible no less and other immoral acts.
So please tell me about objective morality again???

I thought you were Christian. Since you are not, that reasoning about Christ and God is not relevant to you so I must apologise for not understanding you.

No problem. You said you were a theist. Am I correct?

 

[firedragon]

The other factor as to what our morality might be based upon is mostly reason and rational thought,

So according to the reasoning and rational thought of a terrorist like Pirabhakaran who invented or fathered the suicide belt, do you think he was right in the thousands of people him and his people killed? Or would you say that they did not possess reason and rational thought?

 

[sayak83]

That is how you view it. But your thesis was not about how you view another society somewhere else. It was about "them". The viewed it differently. So that was your standard you set. Hope you understand. If they deemed Jews as part of their society they would not consider eradicating them. So Jews were alien, and the Aryans who were superior (in their concept) were pure and need to cleanse.

You justified it. I am not saying you justified their murder, but your thesis justified their pattern as moral.

I have no idea what you are saying.
I am defining what I believe morality or ethics is and I am defining what an interconnected society means. The actions of the Nazis fail to be moral because they cause harm to beings who are part of the interconnected group as per my definition.

You asked how I ( and other members here) define it. I am merely presenting my definition. And as per my definition Nazis are immoral. Whether the, Nazis consider themselves to be moral is beside the point entire. As per my definition they are not.

 

[firedragon]

I am defining what I believe morality or ethics is

I understand your definition. It is social morality. But what you spoke of is social consensus. It fails and it succeeds. You have to accept that.

 

[sayak83]

I understand your definition. It is social morality. But what you spoke of is social consensus. It fails and it succeeds. You have to accept that.

Yes. Morality obviously fails. Otherwise how can there be Nazis, or even a single criminal. Morality is not a physical law that cannot be violated.

 

[Mock Turtle]

So according to the reasoning and rational thought of a terrorist like Pirabhakaran who invented or fathered the suicide belt, do you think he was right in the thousands of people him and his people killed? Or would you say that they did not possess reason and rational thought?

History will no doubt tell us. It depends upon what you think 'do no harm' means in any particular philosophy or the 'means justifies the ends'. Many of us no doubt would not justify such but a suicide belt is just one means of achieving an aim - if they do actually do so - which no doubt many would argue they don't, since the reaction towards the motives (a religious belief perhaps or other such) for doing so are often greater than any result of the action. There are just too many of such decisions people make, for whatever reasons, that most people abhor but would they destroy all else that people believe in, or are they just things we have to accept in relatively free societies?

 

[firedragon]

Yes. Morality obviously fails. Otherwise how can there be Nazis, or even a single criminal. Morality is not a physical law that cannot be violated.

Thats not what I said of course.

 

[SomeRandom]

I thought you were Christian. Since you are not, that reasoning about Christ and God is not relevant to you so I must apologise for not understanding you.

No problem. You said you were a theist. Am I correct?

No problem at all. I should have been a bit clearer.

My family is half Catholic (long story short, a direct consequence of the “colonial Hangover.”) And given that I have grown up in the west which primarily derives its cultural values from the Abrahamic religions, mainly Christianity, I kind of think it’s still relevant to me. If you disagree then fair enough, that’s your prerogative.

I grew up primarily in a what we Hindus call a “Sai Baba house.”
They’re basically universalist Hindus.
So a lot of my religious views, ethical values, duties and responsibilities were shaped by my Dharmic background and understanding of that side of philosophy.

So that’s why I claim to be roughly a theist. It’s a bit “lost in translation” I’m afraid as the two paradigms (Abrahamic and Dharmic) have differing ideas on what exactly constitutes a theist and an atheist.

I am pragmatic minded so I do not jive well with absolute or objective morality, because to me such things are inflexible. Therefore they cannot address new issues that may crop up in the future. That is why I rely on my ethical values, which can change depending on if “new data” emerges. Does that make sense?

 

[firedragon]

History will no doubt tell us. It depends upon what you think 'do no harm' means in any particular philosophy or the 'means justifies the ends'. Many of us no doubt would not justify such but a suicide belt is just one means of achieving an aim - if they do actually do so - which no doubt many would argue they don't, since the reaction towards the motives (a religious belief perhaps or other such) for doing so are often greater than any result of the action. There are just too many of such decisions people make, for whatever reasons, that most people abhor but would they destroy all else that people believe in, or are they just things we have to accept in relatively free societies?

So you have a moral value you possess that says "its a bad thing". Do you have any idea where it comes from?

 

[Mock Turtle]

So you have a moral value you possess that says "its a bad thing". Do you have any idea where it comes from?

Well, as I had a very loving mother (father not bad also) and who appeared to act throughout her life as a metaphorical angel - such that I could hardly have faulted such - I suspect I did get my moral nature from her. Both my elder brothers were much the same too. All else no doubt came from my interactions at school, noticing the behaviour of others, and forming my own beliefs as to morality as I matured. No doubt some thinking was involved too as to what seemed right and what seemed wrong in my understanding. Since I skipped out of religious teaching from an early age I certainly didn't get it from this. Where my mother got her nature from I don't know, since she was abused as a child, and seemingly hid this from us until shortly before her death.

 

[firedragon]

No problem at all. I should have been a bit clearer.

My family is half Catholic (long story short, a direct consequence of the “colonial Hangover.”) And given that I have grown up in the west which primarily derives its cultural values from the Abrahamic religions, mainly Christianity, I kind of think it’s still relevant to me. If you disagree then fair enough, that’s your prerogative.

I grew up primarily in a what we Hindus call a “Sai Baba house.”
They’re basically universalist Hindus.
So a lot of my religious views, ethical values, duties and responsibilities were shaped by my Dharmic background and understanding of that side of philosophy.

So that’s why I claim to be roughly a theist. It’s a bit “lost in translation” I’m afraid as the two paradigms (Abrahamic and Dharmic) have differing ideas on what exactly constitutes a theist and an atheist.

I am pragmatic minded so I do not jive well with absolute or objective morality, because to me such things are inflexible. Therefore they cannot address new issues that may crop up in the future. That is why I rely on my ethical values, which can change depending on if “new data” emerges. Does that make sense?

I understand.

You have in my opinion not understood objective morality. Forgetting whether anything of that nature exists or not, people having varying "moralities" as you put it does not mean if any absolute morality or objective morality exists, it cannot be flexible. They are two different things. Absolute morality by definition is absolute.

 

[firedragon]

Well, as I had a very loving mother (father not bad also) and who appeared to act throughout her life as a metaphorical angel - such that I could hardly have faulted such - I suspect I did get my moral nature from her. Both my elder brothers were much the same too. All else no doubt came from my interactions at school, noticing the behaviour of others, and forming my own beliefs as to morality as I matured. No doubt some thinking was involved too as to what seemed right and what seemed wrong in my understanding. Since I skipped out or religious teaching from an early age I certainly didn't get it from this. Where my mother got her nature from I don't know, since she was abused as a child, and seemingly hid this from us until shortly before her death.

All the love and precious little prayers and happinesses should be with your parents and yourself, of course the family.

 

[sayak83]

Thats not what I said of course.

Then I did not understand what you said. I do not see the difference between and individual redefining morality as he wants and a society doing the same.

 

[Nimos]

I understand that. But you are going the other way around. Which means you first reject there is an authority or a yardstick, so because of that you reject objective morality. Rather, first you must analyse the subject of the thread, and afterwards decide what this so called "authority" is. Thats a completely different matter altogether. I hope you can try and understand this. It is like saying since I do not want to reach the edge of the earth to see if its flat or not, I am not going to begin my journey at all. That was just an analogy so we dont have to delve on this analogy for ever. As long as you understand my point.

I get your point and I agree with what you are saying..

But I also hold the principle, that if you want to claim that objective morality is the way to go, you have to make a case for it, not me. (Like I did in the other thread, about my view on why I think subjective morality is the best explanation. You might not have read it yet as I just posted it.)

I make the claim that subjective morality best explains it, so you are not required to prove me wrong, because you didn't make the claim to begin with.
But this holds true to you as well, its not up to me, and to use your own analogy, to disprove that Earth is not flat, if you made the claim. So if you say that objective morality best explain what we see in the world, you have to present a case for it. Who decided these rules? How do you explain that people don't agree on these things? etc. whatever you think is relevant of course.

 

[Kooky]

So the thing is, I didnt say anything about All Atheists. Thus, you should read that comment you responded to once more.

You keep talking about atheists as a single quasi-religious group, which they are not. I hoped to enlighten you with my posts, but it seems you don't want to recognize a misunderstanding as such when it is pointed out to you.
Fair enough, I've stopped caring. Have a nice day.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Is there a thing called absolute morality? Or is it all subjective? Or do they coexist?

Is morality a biological outcome. If as Darwin says, natural selection lays the morality, “If men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hivebees, there can hardly be a doubt that our un-married females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering." Thats to justify objective morality with a biological explanation to it, where if morals are contingent on changes in biology and subject to change based on it, which makes objective morality an impossibility.

If this philosophy is true, and we were brought up under the same conditions as the nurse shark, we accept raping our partner is moral.

It seems like many atheists seem to hold the position that morality is subjective in this forum. Morality seems to be thought as entirely subjective. Which means based on the biology, social pressure, or some factor, your morality changes and that's justified.

Did this defiance to objective morality come out of adherence darwinian evolution, debunking the God idea, social moulding or actual weighing of philosophy, research and/or biology? What is the atheists epistemology?

To be clear, subjectivism is not the general principle of atheists because philosophers have written a lot on objective morality. Yet what is strange is that many atheistic apologists and evangelists seem to reject objective morality with a vengeance. But doing so, some atheists also blame all the violence on religions or/and claim "religions are by nature violent" or at least pick one religion to be immoral. That is objective morality. Which means these people are contradicting themselves without realising it.

Though the question is what is the atheists epistemology on this, the topic is the ontology of morals or moral ontology. The topic is, the foundation of morality.

I think morality is seen in different levels depending who you speak with, if they are religious or not.
Morality of Allah may be totally different than what humans can hope you gain.

But i do not think there is only one set of morality.
I could be wrong

 

[SomeRandom]

I understand.

You have in my opinion not understood objective morality. Forgetting whether anything of that nature exists or not, people having varying "moralities" as you put it does not mean if any absolute morality or objective morality exists, it cannot be flexible. They are two different things. Absolute morality by definition is absolute.

Well I am an idiot I know
So please tell me what is objective morality.

 

[Tiberius]

To be subjective, it has to have relativity and with this God concept, there is none.

Can you be more specific here please?

 

[Tiberius]

When someone claims religion or one religion is evil by nature, that is a claim of objective morality.

Why? Sounds to me that such a person would simply be stating their opinion (even if they claim it is a fact), and thus it is subjective, not objective.

 

[blü 2]

When someone claims religion or one religion is evil by nature, that is a claim of objective morality.

I don't understand how that could be the case.

For morality to be objective, it would have exist independently of any person, such that any onlooker would see it and understand that this was "correct" morality.

And I know of no such morality, or even how it could exist in theory.

If A claims that X is evil by nature, that tells you that A probably thinks X is evil by nature. It doesn't of itself tell you that X is in fact evil by nature.

"Good" and "evil" are subjective judgments, based on our evolved moral tendencies and our learned moral views.