# My opinon on subjective and objective morals



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Obviously everyone knows where I get my strict set of ethics and morals from. But, thats not exactly what I want to talk about per say. I do not want this to dissolve into a "lets start grabbing random verses from the Bible" thread. I want to talk about subjective and objective morals. And my stace that the secular worldview simply cannot account for morality.

First though I need to be clear, people who hold to a secular worldview can be morally good. They can have integrity. That's not the issue I am hitting on. Having good integrity and morals, that doesn't mean one has objective morals. One persons morals might be consistent with objective morals, but another persons isn't. But both have integrity.

The basis for my argument is that one persons morals might only coincidentally consistent absolute morality where someone elses may not. 

Objective morality: Pretty much says that these morals are based outside of ourselves. Not tied to our opinions, cultures, or personal preferences. 

Subjective morality: Is the exact opposite. And is solely bases on your opinions, cultures, and personal preferences. Subjective morals can change, can become self contradictory, and can change from person to person. This is what I say all the secular worldview can give as a definition of morality.

I guess I need to put it out there right away. I say that in the secular world, their is no right and wrong (bear with me here and let me explain first). There is no moral "this is good", "this is bad". Why? Because the secular world has removed the standard by which objective morality and truth is established. In the secular world, morality is all up for grabs. 

In the secular world, stealing, lying, cheating are not right or wrong. They are something a person, if they choose, can assign moral values to. Yes, someone can say that all people should want to help society  function well and it doesn't do any good for society to do the things  mentioned above. Problem is, is this is weak reasoning at best.

Lets put an example up to show what I mean. A real life scenario would  be to point at New Orleans after Katrina and the lawlessness that tore  though the city. People didn't have access to a lot of basic things they  needed. So they stole what they needed. Now, onto my example:

Say there was a complete economic shutdown/catastrophe. And because of this  meltdown, what if robbing people at gunpoint became the norm in  society? Would this norm be wrong? If its not wrong, then you are using siduational ethics and really cannot complain when the situation suits someone else and you get robbed at gunpoint. A real life example is New Orleans. Anarchy ran rampant.

If you say its wrong to rob at gunpoint in this example is wrong, then  why?  If it is your opinion that it is wrong,let me just say opinions  donâ€™t make moral standards.  If you said it is wrong because it is  wrong, that's called begging the question.  And, that would mean there  was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer that  then implies that there is a higher being who gave moral law.

The secular worldview only offers a subjective worldview that is solely  based on experience, conditions and fallible human reason. That being  said, this kind of reasoning is very relativistic, and I would say  dangerous. It can and does change. It can and does become self  contradictory, and can and does lead to lawlessness. 

True morality is not just a bunch of ideas that the majority of people  agree upon because it helps keep the guy in my example from robbing you.  There is something bigger. And I say the Bible offers us the bigger  part.

It offers us an objective set of morals: Do not bear false witness, do  not covet, do not commit adultery. These things don't change because of  your opinion in the matter, your situation, or even your own  preferences.  They are solely based on the character of God, which has never changed.  So, the moral standard doesn't change either. That means, its always  wrong to bear false witness, to covet, or to commit adultery. The problem with the secular worldview on morality is that its based in a subjective manner.

My question to you is, in the example of a massive catastrophe in the  economy I gave earlier, when an armed man comes toward you and you are  taking some food home to your family, who would you rather that person  be? A person who who believes stealing is wrong and that God is  watching them, or the secularist who points the gun at you because they  see a need and changes his ethics to suit the moment? 

I just cannot see any case where the secular worldview on morality can point to an absolute that doesn't stem from within a person. And since it always stems from within the person, its going to be subjective.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Obviously everyone knows where I get my strict set of ethics and morals from. But, thats not exactly what I want to talk about per say. I do not want this to dissolve into a "lets start grabbing random verses from the Bible" thread.



Read: "I hate it when you quote the bible at me, because it's hard to make myself look right when the book I supposedly follow says such stupid things."


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 23, 2011)

Oh dear.  This is going to be an interesting thread.  If I wasn't writing a paper for my ethics course right now I'd probably dive right into this guaranteed trainwreck.

I'll come back when the red log blows.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Smelge said:


> Read: "I hate it when you quote the bible at me, because it's hard to make myself look right when the book I supposedly follow says such stupid things."



No, I don't want this to become a typing shouting match. Already had enough of that today. Don't think we need more of that. I want to keep this in conversation form. No flaming, baiting or insulting. 

And I don't want it derailed. Thats the main reason. For its hard to explain a Bible passage without using other Bible passages, which then leads to questions and comments on those passages and so on. And then the original topic is long gone.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

The standard for secular moral good is intent, lessening damage, and causing no harm to others. Utilitarian if you will. There is a standard though, and it is doing the most good and causing no one harm or ill intent through your actions or inaction. So yes, there is objective secular morality, it's something I myself stand for, strive for, and live for. I adhere to the idea that there are strict unchanging universal morals that are the basis of all human moral and ethical constructs.

In the secular world, stealing, lying, murder, rape, and causing harm to others is wrong, morally and ethically wrong.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

The major flaw in your argument is that you're assuming all secular morality to be the same thing and completely unobjective. You are completely disregarding the cultural powerhouse of Kant and his deontology, a theory which demands objective action while going beyond humans and culture. 

First of all Kant's theory claims that morality is acted on as a duty rather than through personal gain or emotion. Doing good may make you feel good, but in the end no matter what you feel you will do the right thing because it is right. 
Kant wrote his theory as a response to utilitarianism, which is highly subject to emotions and pleasure. Unlike with utilitarianism Kant's theory has values and moral rules which are unquestioned, much like biblical laws such as "do not kill" 

With Kant, the issue is not subject to human whim but must meet his 3 precepts for something to be moral. It can not use a person as a means to an end (that cuts out murder, stealing, etc.) it must be able to be universalized, and they can't contradict with other morals.

So Kant offers a secular objective morality without god at its base, and what's more with the precepts one should be able to be faced with a new moral challenge and answer it rather than guess based on past rules. Is dowloading music illegal? With the bible one must interpret and come to a conclusion on if it is stealing and if it fits the rules given. With Kantian logic, one would see that if it is universalized (everyone does it), the music industry folds. 

If I were carrying food and a man with a gun was after me, I'd hope he was a Kantian.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Oh dear god, a thread on morals from someone who has never taken any college classes on the subject.

Rukh morals originate in our emotions and empathy, because alot of people empathetic they understand harming others hurts them.
At the very basic level a primitive civilization, "huh if I break my wife's arm, she cries, I shouldn't do that."


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 23, 2011)

The best hope this thread has is for a quiet death before it hits page 2. The mods are already circling. I'll be off with Bobskunk if you need me. :V


----------



## Xipoid (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> My question to you is, in the example of a massive catastrophe in the  economy I gave earlier, when an armed man comes toward you and you are  taking some food home to your family, who would you rather that person  be? A person who who believes stealing is wrong and that God is  watching them, or the secularist who points the gun at you because they  see a need and changes his ethics to suit the moment?



I'd much prefer the secular person. If a God-fearing man can rob me, then he is clearly changing his ethics to fit the moment otherwise he wouldn't be robbing me. The secular man is no less deluded or desperate, but he will at least be consistent and *say so*. I fear the man that can preach one thing and do the opposite, but I do not fear the one who lives his own gospel.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I just cannot see any case where the secular worldview on morality can point to an absolute that doesn't stem from within a person. And since it always stems from within the person, its going to be subjective.



Well... that's kind of the point. Secularist morals don't try to uphold an absolute/objective system nor prescribe one. Also, there's hidden premises in your statement that subjective morality is wrong or improper, and that absolute morality is inherently better.





If you want my personal opinion, I believe that human morality is completely and entirely derived from mirror neurons, emotion, empathy, and all things associated. Not to just be lame and quote a book from someone far more qualified on the subject, we come from tribes that amassed into larger and larger tribes. The genesis of this has to do with early humans realizing they could accomplish more as a team than as independent competitors. I feel that our evolution tended in this direction because social structures are clearly a good damn idea. If those early humans (dare I say, secular "cavemen") hadn't started to develop morals, I think we'd still be wild animals roaming the fields for food and sex. They had no overarching absolute morality to work with as far as I know.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Fay V said:


> The major flaw in your argument is that you're assuming all secular morality to be the same thing and completely unobjective. You are completely disregarding the cultural powerhouse of Kant and his deontology, a theory which demands objective action while going beyond humans and culture.
> 
> First of all Kant's theory claims that morality is acted on as a duty rather than through personal gain or emotion. Doing good may make you feel good, but in the end no matter what you feel you will do the right thing because it is right.
> Kant wrote his theory as a response to utilitarianism, which is highly subject to emotions and pleasure. Unlike with utilitarianism Kant's theory has values and moral rules which are unquestioned, much like biblical laws such as "do not kill"
> ...


Kant and other philosophers do offer extremely valid secular models of objective morality. Of which should not be ignored or waved off casually. Objective morality can and does exist without god, there is no absolute reason why objective morality cannot exist without a deity to impose it. If such morality is truly objective, it would exist even int he absence of a deity or despite the differences of deities.

Also Rukh, I think you are mistaking Divine Comand Theory for Objective Morality, the two of which are not the same.



Xipoid said:


> If you want my personal opinion, I believe that  human morality is completely and entirely derived from mirror neurons,  emotion, empathy, and all things associated. Not to just be lame and  quote a book from someone far more qualified on the subject, we come  from tribes that amassed into larger and larger tribes. The genesis of  this has to do with early humans realizing they could accomplish more as  a team than as independent competitors. I feel that our evolution  tended in this direction because social structures are clearly a good  damn idea. If those early humans (dare I say, secular "cavemen") hadn't  started to develop morals, I think we'd still be wild animals roaming  the fields for food and sex. They had no overarching absolute morality  to work with as far as I know.


So the upholding of a stable society and social contract? I can get behind this too. Evolutionary speaking this makes sense.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh your homework for the night is to read Kant's work and write a report of what you learned from him in the morning.
You will be tested over this, and class is dismissed children


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 23, 2011)

Yeah I do want to say this at least.  Rukh seems to think non-Biblical/religious sources of morality are all subjective and relativist, that there is no standard that can possibly exist outside of the Bible (which is teleological ethics, and partially deontological in that there are maxims such as the ten commandments but they are followed because they were given rather than followed because it would be nice if everyone acted the same way- "do unto others..." notwithstanding)

Two of the main objective ethical systems are Utilitarianism and Deontology, with utilitarianism, an act can be determined as "good" if it creates happiness, and is a metric for choosing between two decisions/outcomes based on greater good/lesser evil, when such a decision comes to that.  Intent isn't taken into account.  With Deontology, intent is very important but outcome is not- if your good action was put to a universal standard (such as it is never okay to steal) it would make for a great society if everyone followed it, it's okay.  Just like if your bad action was put to a universal standard with something like lying (it is always okay to lie), just like Fay said, if followed universally it would be so bad as to stop making sense entirely.

Also, if stealing food is wrong, and letting your family starve is wrong, what do you do when your situation conflicts to the point where you have to choose one or the other?  If I was being robbed for my FOOD, I would say "you clearly need this more than I do."  You make this dumb distinction in your last paragraph between "dude who won't steal from you because he believes God will punish him for it" and "dude who doesn't believe in god who just does whatever, dude!  NO GODS NO MASTERS, GO GATORS GO GATORS! *shoots gun into air*" asserting that secular ethics are all inconsistent and cannot possibly be held to any standard.

Fuck that noise.



Xipoid said:


> Well... that's kind of the point. Secularist morals don't try to uphold an absolute/objective system nor prescribe one. Also, there's hidden premises in your statement that subjective morality is wrong or improper, and that absolute morality is inherently better.



If you mean "do not force one system upon others" then sure.  But even student relativists who don't want to defend their stances will eventually have something they'd say "that's just wrong" to- however, relativism doesn't allow for right or wrong, so that implies they aren't really a relativist.  A relativist believes that either on an individual level, the only truly wrong action is to judge others as not being wrong even though they're acting in accordance with their own beliefs at the time (which ends up being right because who's to say judging is wrong, etc. etc.) or the inanity of technically running afoul of it if you eventually say "that thing I did a while ago and thought I was right, turns out I think I was wrong!" violates ethical subjectivism.  Cultural relativism is the same way, except the only standard is whether it accords with the norms of society- according to this system, the civil rights era protests and sit ins were wrong because they were at odds with the values of the culture at the time, but became right because eventually they won (to a certain extent.)

The only really good argument for relativism is that there truly are no inherent ethical standards and that society and individuals are very different from one another, and even from themselves over time, but that's more of an argument to the effect that "relativism isn't completely without merit" than "relativism is a good ethical standard to uphold."  Subjective morality is kind of wrong for a number of reasons, in my personal opinion.  It's just Rukh's idea of their absolute morality is bananas.  It's still just fukken ridiculous again to hear this "secularists will just rape and murder without God's Word because there's nothing to tell them how to act" argument.  It's so hair-pullingly stupid.  You're tearing me APAART, Rukh!


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 23, 2011)

Serious-post:

There are no objective morals and ethics, just those which have been developed to best serve a society.

Though SOME PEOPLE like to equate religious texts and the word of God as the origin of moral behavior, this simply isn't the case.  Consider early humanity in all it's primitive glory.  You deal with a hunting and gathering society which congregates itself into tribes.  Why?  Because human beings are social creatures and ones which can understand basic concepts of problem solving and working together.  Simple morality such as "I'm not going to kill arbitrarily" comes from the idea that it is not beneficial to oneself, nor the community to kill its own members.

Today we continue to evolve our ethics and morals based on what is most beneficial to society at the time as well as what strikes towards our own personal levels of compassion for our fellow human beings.  Our morals are based upon populist ideas and usually these gain steam through campaigns and understanding of what we perceive as basic human rights.  Religious influence has been a part of this, but it certainly isn't the origin.

Also your question is leading us on.  You assume that a God-fearing man is incapable of sin, or pointing a gun at a man in order to steal food from a secular family man.  I need only have you watch some choice Martin Scorsese films in order to see how much fear in God keeps people from acting in morally questionable fashions.


----------



## Xipoid (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> So the upholding of a stable society and social contract? I can get behind this too. Evolutionary speaking this makes sense.



Sure does. I'm giving you a thumbs up now to indicate we are ready to go; however, you cannot see it.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> Kant and other philosophers do offer extremely valid secular models of objective morality. Of which should not be ignored or waved off casually. Objective morality can and does exist without god, there is no absolute reason why objective morality cannot exist without a deity to impose it. If such morality is truly objective, it would exist even int he absence of a deity or despite the differences of deities.
> 
> 
> So the upholding of a stable society and social contract? I can get behind this too. Evolutionary speaking this makes sense.


For more information on this, please read Plato's "Meno"


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 23, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Yeah I do want to say this at least.  Rukh seems to think non-Biblical/religious sources of morality are all subjective and relativist, that there is no standard that can possibly exist outside of the Bible (which is teleological ethics, and partially deontological in that there are maxims such as the ten commandments but they are followed because they were given rather than followed because it would be nice if everyone acted the same way- "do unto others..." notwithstanding)
> 
> Two of the main objective ethical systems are Utilitarianism and Deontology, with utilitarianism, an act can be determined as "good" if it creates happiness, and is a metric for choosing between two decisions/outcomes based on greater good/lesser evil, when such a decision comes to that.  Intent isn't taken into account.  With Deontology, intent is very important but outcome is not- if your good action was put to a universal standard (such as it is never okay to steal) it would make for a great society if everyone followed it, it's okay.  Just like if your bad action was put to a universal standard with something like lying (it is always okay to lie), just like Fay said, if followed universally it would be so bad as to stop making sense entirely.
> 
> ...


The problem with Rukh is his skull is made out of quark-gluon plasma.
Meaning every time somebody presents any new information to him his thoughts are, "I wonder how many times I can prove them wrong, and if failing that plagiarize stuff other people wrote as a argument."


Honestly this whole thread is a waste, cause we know if anybody comes up with a argument bullet proof he'll just google something and copypaste.


----------



## Aetius (Oct 23, 2011)

Human Morality is a curse that was brought onto us that could easily be removed by the guidance of Juche.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 23, 2011)

I suggest that Rukh reads Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged.

Because that's completely batshit mental too.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem with Rukh is his skull is made out of quark-gluon plasma.
> Meaning every time somebody presents any new information to him his thoughts are, "I wonder how many times I can prove them wrong, and if failing that plagiarize stuff other people wrote as a argument."
> 
> 
> Honestly this whole thread is a waste, cause we know if anybody comes up with a argument bullet proof he'll just google something and copypaste.



Play nice. Ruhk had the good grace to make this not about religion and has been civil. Don't start shit. That goes for everyone.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 23, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> The problem with Rukh is his skull is made out of quark-gluon plasma.
> Meaning every time somebody presents any new information to him his thoughts are, "I wonder how many times I can prove them wrong, and if failing that plagiarize stuff other people wrote as a argument."
> 
> 
> Honestly this whole thread is a waste, cause we know if anybody comes up with a argument bullet proof he'll just google something and copypaste.



Actually the point of this entire thread was mainly for a discussion, not an argument. I'd even stretch it as far as a debate.

I don't really know much of the arguments however I'm extremely interested in reading both sides and I'd be super pissed if it just delved into mindless flaming because this is actually a thought provoking topic.


----------



## Folgrimeo (Oct 23, 2011)

...I thought God changed between the Old Testament and New Testament. Lewis Black said so.

Anyway, in my I'm-going-to-get-kicked-so-hard-when-I-try-it-in-real-life view, I'd rather assume that most people (until proven otherwise) have morals consistent with mine. Stealing is bad, drugs are bad, etc. Which means the guy will tell me to put the food back, except I wouldn't have taken the food in the first place. Seems when I examine hypothetical moral situations, I always end up dying or dead.


----------



## Smelge (Oct 23, 2011)

Just like to ask what an opinon is though.

Is it like a slightly larger Shallot?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 23, 2011)

Folgrimeo said:


> ...I thought God changed between the Old Testament and New Testament. Lewis Black said so.



Doesn't stop some people from ignoring "Whatever you neglected to do unto one of these least of these, you neglected to do unto Me!" or many other passages along those lines that, aside from the divine element, most atheists can certainly get behind and instead fixate on the OT over the NT, specifically Leviticus (and Exodus for a bit of nihilism,) and Paul's writings over MMLJ.

In a way, that kind of cherry picking is ethically subjective, even though it has the cheap veneer of "my beliefs are supported by my Holy Text!" to shield criticism.

EDIT: haha I just noticed the title while writing this post too.  Typo nitpicking is lame, though, Smelge; stick to addressing whatever substance there is to address.  Grammar Nazism is fluff in lieu of better arguments.


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> If you mean "do not force one system upon others" then sure.  But even student relativists who don't want to defend their stances will eventually have something they'd say "that's just wrong" to- however, relativism doesn't allow for right or wrong, so that implies they aren't really a relativist.  A relativist believes that either on an individual level, the only truly wrong action is to judge others as not being wrong even though they're acting in accordance with their own beliefs at the time (which ends up being right because who's to say judging is wrong, etc. etc.) or the inanity of technically running afoul of it if you eventually say "that thing I did a while ago and thought I was right, turns out I think I was wrong!" violates ethical subjectivism.  Cultural relativism is the same way, except the only standard is whether it accords with the norms of society- according to this system, the civil rights era protests and sit ins were wrong because they were at odds with the values of the culture at the time, but became right because eventually they won (to a certain extent.)
> 
> The only really good argument for relativism is that there truly are no inherent ethical standards and that society and individuals are very different from one another, and even from themselves over time, but that's more of an argument to the effect that "relativism isn't completely without merit" than "relativism is a good ethical standard to uphold."  Subjective morality is kind of wrong for a number of reasons, in my personal opinion.  It's just Rukh's idea of their absolute morality is bananas.  It's still just fukken ridiculous again to hear this "secularists will just rape and murder without God's Word because there's nothing to tell them how to act" argument.  It's so hair-pullingly stupid.  You're tearing me APAART, Rukh!


This is it. And even if a relativist claims that morality is relative the objectionist can counter claim that the relative morals we see in the actions of different cultures are not different morals, but merely different applications of deeper objective morals. So despite the apparent differences in morality spanning cultures the underlying fundamental morality is the same and unshakable.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> The standard for secular moral good is intent, lessening damage, and causing no harm to others. Utilitarian if you will. There is a standard though, and it is doing the most good and causing no one harm or ill intent through your actions or inaction. So yes, there is objective secular morality, it's something I myself stand for, strive for, and live for. I adhere to the idea that there are strict unchanging universal morals that are the basis of all human moral and ethical constructs.
> 
> In the secular world, stealing, lying, murder, rape, and causing harm to others is wrong, morally and ethically wrong.



Where does this basis stem from? That's what I am getting at. Where did you get this objective standard from if you didn't get it from your opinion or experiences. 

Are you saying that this objective standard comes from society? If so, what justifies the idea that that society is the proper place      to obtain a standard of morality?

If you say that this standard comes from society, which society? Which society has the right moral system when they contradict      each other?

How is having a moral standard based on societal norms      not ultimately subjective, considering that societies are made up of individuals with subjective moral views?

And, how is that not begging the question by saying society deems what is right and wrong because society determines what is right and wrong?



Fay V said:


> The major flaw in your argument is that you're assuming all secular morality to be the same thing and completely unobjective. You are completely disregarding the cultural powerhouse of Kant and his deontology, a theory which demands objective action while going beyond humans and culture.
> 
> First of all Kant's theory claims that morality is acted on as a duty rather than through personal gain or emotion. Doing good may make you feel good, but in the end no matter what you feel you will do the right thing because it is right.
> Kant wrote his theory as a response to utilitarianism, which is highly subject to emotions and pleasure. Unlike with utilitarianism Kant's theory has values and moral rules which are unquestioned, much like biblical laws such as "do not kill"
> ...


 
Explain how Kan't subjective opinion on this 3 points is universal. As I stated in my example, is robbing becomes the social norm, how can one say its wrong? By what standard is someone using to say it is wrong? They can't look to society, cause society is saying that is okay. Is it instinct?



Xipoid said:


> I'd much prefer the secular person. If a God-fearing man can rob me, then he is clearly changing his ethics to fit the moment otherwise he wouldn't be robbing me. The secular man is no less deluded or desperate, but he will at least be consistent and *say so*. I fear the man that can preach one thing and do the opposite, but I do not fear the one who lives his own gospel.


You bring up a good point, that many Christians do change their ethics when it suits their wants and needs. You saw my disdain in the other thread when people do that. Just because they believe in God, that doesn't mean everything they do is right. That is why I speak hard against those who do these things and claim they follow the Way. Now can you see why I am harder on those who already make the claim that they believe? They are without excuse.






Xipoid said:


> Well... that's kind of the point. Secularist morals don't try to uphold an absolute/objective system nor prescribe one. Also, there's hidden premises in your statement that subjective morality is wrong or improper, and that absolute morality is inherently better.


Subjective morality isn't wrong per say, but Absolute morals trump personal morals any day of the week. Thats what I am saying. Opinions don't affect whether something is right or wrong.



Xipoid said:


> If you want my personal opinion, I believe that human morality is completely and entirely derived from mirror neurons, emotion, empathy, and all things associated. Not to just be lame and quote a book from someone far more qualified on the subject, we come from tribes that amassed into larger and larger tribes. The genesis of this has to do with early humans realizing they could accomplish more as a team than as independent competitors. I feel that our evolution tended in this direction because social structures are clearly a good damn idea. If those early humans (dare I say, secular "cavemen") hadn't started to develop morals, I think we'd still be wild animals roaming the fields for food and sex. They had no overarching absolute morality to work with as far as I know.


So, its just instinct then? 
If its just instinct, which is      brain-programmed behavior then how are they morals and not simply brain patterns to which you merely attach moral values to them?



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> Serious-post:
> Though SOME PEOPLE like to equate religious texts and the word of God as  the origin of moral behavior, this simply isn't the case.



Alright, time for a jaw dropper here. I agree with this quoted statement. Moral behavior didn't begin with the Word. Christianity does not claim that the Gospel has made the world a better by bringing us turbo-charged ethical information. That is a common fallacy that many people make.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 23, 2011)

No the moral act must be able to be universalized. So "if everyone did it" basically. The action itself is not good because it is universal. it can only be moral if it is able to be universalized without society failing. 
If everyone murdered, we'd all be dead, if everyone stole then no one could be trusted. 

This is extremely simplistic mind you. I don't have the time to tutor all of kant's theory. 
Also remember the first precept. You can not use a person as a means to an end. So it doesn't matter that society has stealing as the norm, society is using people as a means and is wrong.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Oct 23, 2011)

Well, that's a rather confrontational post, and it doesn't seem to indicate in any way that you're actually interested in our opinions on the matter.  It sounds like preaching to me.  But I would expect nothing different.

Let me just say that the kind of moral relativism that I follow relies on the assumption that people live by base instincts, and very few are able to overcome these.  When someone commits an atrocity or makes a huge mistake, they are not likely to admit that it was an atrocity or a mistake.  You can either believe that this is because they're evil (which is the route most religions take), or you can believe that because the scale of the thing they've committed is so huge, it would literally destroy them psychologically to admit that they've done it.  So we all want to protect ourselves, and so when bad things happen, we attempt to justify them.  Many people become experts at this, and we end up with the Pol Pots and CeauÅŸescus of the world.
In the end, what does the latter option suggest?  Well, it means that there's no such thing as good or evil, yes.  It means that no matter what, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and lay down the hammer of judgment until all the facts are in, and no matter what, we should seek to understand instead of to hate.  Then we won't make as many mistakes in laying out punishments.  It means that instead of relying on a strict set of immutable rules that someone came up with 2000 years ago, we should use our brains and reasoning to discover what's 'moral' and what's not, and try to advance our society with what we've learned.  The commandments and all that were a decent start, but I think we can do better if we fine-tune them based on what we know now.
Yes, I think the ultimate goal of morality is to preserve society and make everyone's lives easier.  And I think that's a far more worthwhile goal than the promise of some kind of paradise after we all die.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Alright, time for a jaw dropper here. I agree with this quoted statement. Moral behavior didn't begin with the Word. Christianity does not claim that the Gospel has made the world a better by bringing us turbo-charged ethical information. That is a common fallacy that many people make.



I didn't say the Gospel or mentioned Christianity.

This goes for ALL religious texts.


----------



## Conker (Oct 23, 2011)

If the world is made of shades of grey, why is religion so black and white? Surely dividing everything up into a binary pair of "good/bad" can't be good...

But, it cannot be a coincidence that the "objective" morals found in the Bible are also the morals that are required for any given society to function without breaking into complete anarchy. When Moses told his followers "thou shalt not kill" everyone nodded in agreement, and I'm sure a few choice people thought "no shit Sherlock", but the problem is "thou shalt not kill unless these X circumstances occur in a Y order and..." wouldn't have fit on that stone tablet. 

Then there's that whole "who's to say that God is objective?" can of worms :V


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Where does this basis stem from? That's what I am getting at. Where did you get this objective standard from if you didn't get it from your opinion or experiences.


It does not stem. Objective morals ARE the basis of our moral actions, duties, and ethics. The objective standard exists universally beyond personal opinion, beyond individual experience, and is not derived from social norms. Secular objective morals are not determined on the whim of people, but are fundamental, universal, unchanging, and concrete. So no, I am not saying secular objective morality comes from society or a specific society. I'm saying it's objective. Keep in mind that the very definition of objective is not being based on personal (or in this case societal) opinion, thought, belief, prejudice, feelings, or interpretations. It exists as absolute moral fact beyond personal whim and beyond societal and cultural differences.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And, how is that not begging the question by saying society deems what is right and wrong because society determines what is right and wrong?


I can play devil's advocate too you know. For instance let's examine Divine command theory, the belief that things are moral or immoral based off of God's will and decrees. This would be that things are right and wrong because god determines and deems them that, but cannot god change his mind? Does God, an omnipotent being not have the power to change his mind and therefore the basis of your morality? If god does have the power to choose morality on whim, then your morality is not objective at all, but it relative to his mood and your claims or perceptions of his will.


----------



## Xipoid (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, its just instinct then?
> If its just instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior then how are they morals and not simply brain patterns to which you merely attach moral values to them?



Who said they were either? I don't see a need to define morality as one or the other. They are what they are in the scope you are creating. In fact, what differs between the two things you have mentioned?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> This is it. And even if a relativist claims that morality is relative the objectionist can counter claim that the relative morals we see in the actions of different cultures are not different morals, but merely different applications of deeper objective morals. So despite the apparent differences in morality spanning cultures the underlying fundamental morality is the same and unshakable.



The student relativist strawman applied to secular people is a lingering and terrible one, on that note.  "But what about THOSE FUCKERS in another culture that eat babies!!  Because you're not a religious person, that means you're a relativist and you will just say 'well to them it's okay to eat babies and I cannot criticise that!'"  Yeah, hi, I believe eating babies is universally terrible, and if there are people eating babies it's horrible, and on a cultural level it's even worse.  I'd say that's terrible and hope it changes, but I can't exactly impose my will on those baby eaters, can I?  And if I was to do so, how would I do that?  Strongly worded letters?  Petitions for trade embargo?  Go in there with bombs and guns and kill everyone until they stop it?  What I can do is vow not to eat babies, and speak out against baby eating, and if there are baby eaters around me, condemn them terribly.  Chances are there would be some sort of law against that thing here, too, because culturally, I doubt the United States has much tolerance for baby eating.

Same goes for racism, sexism, torture, rape, honor killing, genital mutilation..  Nevermind that in most cultures those things are frowned upon at least publicly (goddamn hicks in this college use the n word all the time so there's an example of subcultural acceptance that I reject), I also wouldn't want the baby eaters judging others because they don't eat babies.  While I feel the baby eaters are objectively wrong, and they feel they're objectively right, I also wouldn't feel the need to "respect that culture" with that other strawman of endless hippie tolerance.  That's the kind of thing that one white nationalist fuckface used: "get out nazi" "oh i thought you liberals were supposed to be TOLERANT"  Respecting other cultures has more to do with a rejection of xenophobia, when the problem with other cultures was driven more by difference than anything objectionable.  It's why "the modern chinese culture of lax health/safety regulations, terrible wages and labor exploitation, and the diminishing of value of human life" is not in violation of cultural tolerance, as I'd find any culture including my own offensive for those parts, while "the modern chinese culture of silly music and weird food and goofy clothing styles and wacky medicinal beliefs" (as an example that can apply to most cultures in shallow judgement) does violate cultural tolerance.  I'm not even going to get into this view as it relates to Islam, especially when the unfounded fear of "they want to come in and subject us to Sharia law!" is met with "we must get them before we get us and kill their leaders and convert them" almost justifies any actual reaction on the part of Muslims while making neither stance correct.

Kinda like how you can object to the harvesting of endangered species for ingredients for traditional medicines without objecting to traditional medicines itself.  I think it's hooey and at least some practitioners know it too and happily make a living as snake oil salesmen.  If it doesn't cause any adverse effects to patient or source, I'm fine with it, even though I'd rather it not happen in the first place.  If it causes adverse effects to patient or source, I'm not fine with it- but what can I do?  Being unable to personally do something about something terrible happening does not mean tacitly endorsing it or even tolerating it- this is what people like Rukh assert.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 23, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Objective morality: Pretty much says that these morals are based outside of ourselves. *Not tied to our opinions, cultures, or personal preferences.*


Whatchu readin' Bible for then?


----------



## Deo (Oct 23, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> In the end, what does the latter option suggest?  Well, it means that there's no such thing as good or evil, yes.  It means that no matter what, we shouldn't jump to conclusions and lay down the hammer of judgment until all the facts are in, and no matter what, we should seek to understand instead of to hate.  Then we won't make as many mistakes in laying out punishments.  It means that instead of relying on a strict set of immutable rules that someone came up with 2000 years ago, we should use our brains and reasoning to discover what's 'moral' and what's not, and try to advance our society with what we've learned.  The commandments and all that were a decent start, but I think we can do better if we fine-tune them based on what we know now.
> Yes, I think the ultimate goal of morality is to preserve society and make everyone's lives easier.  And I think that's a far more worthwhile goal than the promise of some kind of paradise after we all die.



I don't think in terms of good and evil so much as right and wrong. Good and evil suggests supernatural traits to actions whereas right and wrong suggests that there is actions that are right and bring goodness with them and actions or inaction that is wrong and bring about some manner of harm. And I have to disagree with your also on relativism, but that is only because I adhere to strict moral objectivism.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 23, 2011)

Deo said:


> It does not stem. Objective morals ARE the basis of our moral actions, duties, and ethics. The objective standard exists universally beyond personal opinion, beyond individual experience, and is not derived from social norms. Secular objective morals are not determined on the whim of people, but are fundamental, universal, unchanging, and concrete. So no, I am not saying secular objective morality comes from society or a specific society. I'm saying it's objective. Keep in mind that the very definition of objective is not being based on personal (or in this case societal) opinion, thought, belief, prejudice, feelings, or interpretations. It exists as absolute moral fact beyond personal whim and beyond societal and cultural differences.


That doesn't answer where the morals came from. Its all good saying there are objective morals, but where did they come from? If not from society, then from instinct?



Deo said:


> I can play devil's advocate too you know. For instance let's examine Divine command theory, the belief that things are moral or immoral based off of God's will and decrees. This would be that things are right and wrong because god determines and deems them that, but cannot god change his mind? Does God, an omnipotent being not have the power to change his mind and therefore the basis of your morality? If god does have the power to choose morality on whim, then your morality is not objective at all, but it relative to his mood and your claims or perceptions of his will.


*I am trying to keep this a quick as possible response because I don't want this to be a rabbit trail. Its not that I don't want to answer, its I don't want the thread derailed. PM me for derailing type questions so we can keep this on topic.*

You make the assumption that God can act outside of His nature and choose not to be God by changing. God doesn't act outside of His nature. He wouldn't be God if He did.




Xipoid said:


> Who said they were either? I don't see a need to  define morality as one or the other. They are what they are in the scope  you are creating. In fact, what differs between the two things you have  mentioned?


Uhm the fact that peoples brain patterns are different. Wouldnâ€™t that mean that different peopleâ€™s brains  	would produce different moral values? That's assuming Morality stems from instinct.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 24, 2011)

So God is subjective/relative?  Because if there is no consistent standard to compare action and intent to, and going by behaviors even across the period of the OT alone God acts wildly different, then God is arbitrary and capricious.

How is that any different from your "secular punk with a gun" example, in that whatever he thinks/feels/is changes to suit his current whims?  Haha.

EDIT: also I feel morality/ethics stem more from reason than from instinct, or even emotion- though emotion can play an important part.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

Deo said:


> This is it. And even if a relativist claims that morality is relative the objectionist can counter claim that the relative morals we see in the actions of different cultures are not different morals, but merely different applications of deeper objective morals. So despite the apparent differences in morality spanning cultures the underlying fundamental morality is the same and unshakable.


 
That is my feelings on the subject.  We have differences between cultures, but they are all systems that have been ultimately developed from a universal set of moral imperatives evolutionarily ingrained in everyone's subconscious as a result of just being a social species.


----------



## Bliss (Oct 24, 2011)

I follow objective morals if they are good ones.

Hahaha.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That doesn't answer where the morals came from. Its all good saying there are objective morals, but where did they come from? If not from society, then from instinct?
> 
> 
> *I am trying to keep this a quick as possible response because I don't want this to be a rabbit trail. Its not that I don't want to answer, its I don't want the thread derailed. PM me for derailing type questions so we can keep this on topic.*
> ...



Um...do you know how brains work? because people's brain patterns are different but it doesn't give a big difference in behavior. Also more importantly the differences are minor while the structure is incredibly similar.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 24, 2011)

The thing I think that is missed the most here, is that the world doesn't have to be black and white, good or bad - The fact is, objective morality doesn't exist, and 'objective/subjective' are really not  terms that should be applied to morality. 

If you're Christian, and think your bible teaches you morality, then even if you follow to the very word of that book - It's still subjective. 

To make a list of actual objective morals, it would take beyond a human life span I imagen, because you'd have to take in - For example, 'killing another person' - So that becomes, 'No killing other people, unless they're trying to kill you', which becomes, 'No killing other people, unless they're trying to kill you, but it was your fault for killing that guys wife', and on and on and on. 

Point being: it's pretty much impossible to come up with every scenario to which you can blanket with "good" or "bad" morality, and that's a fundamental problem with the whole argument - At least, in the case of killing people.

And in some bad attempt to explain the origin of morality, my best guess would be that for the most part - Somewhere deep in the brain is an instinct, I guess you'd call it, that intends to drive you towards preserving your species or society by whatever means necessary. Few peoples brains don't have this factor, or have other mental issues causing distress in this instinct and thus can vary wildly (some schizophrenics for example, can go into a hallucinagenetic state that makes them believe everyone around them is trying to harm them - Thus the instinct to preserve society is overrun by the instinct to preserve oneself, by whatever means necessary). 

Either way, I believe that ^ to be more logical than any Christian-based explanation & morality system to what I've come across.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 24, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> So God is subjective/relative?  Because if there is no consistent standard to compare action and intent to, and going by behaviors even across the period of the OT alone God acts wildly different, then God is arbitrary and capricious.
> 
> How is that any different from your "secular punk with a gun" example, in that whatever he thinks/feels/is changes to suit his current whims?  Haha.


Can this be answered without making a rabbit trail? 



Bobskunk said:


> EDIT: also I feel morality/ethics stem more from reason than from instinct, or even emotion- though emotion can play an important part.


Wouldnâ€™t that mean that different peopleâ€™s brains   would produce different moral values? If so, then how are their morals objective and not subjective?




Fay V said:


> Um...do you know how brains work? because people's  brain patterns are different but it doesn't give a big difference in  behavior. Also more importantly the differences are minor while the  structure is incredibly similar.


Okay, since instinct is  is brain programmed behavior then then how would you really know if anything is right  	or wrong?

And then the question becomes  how does one neuro-chemical state of the brain  	that leads to another neuro-chemical state produce proper moral truths?


----------



## Xipoid (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Uhm the fact that peoples brain patterns are different. Wouldnâ€™t that mean that different peopleâ€™s brains would produce different moral values? That's assuming Morality stems from instinct.



Yes... and that would be the definition of subjective... wait a minute.




			
				GodLessons.com said:
			
		

> If you say that your morals are derived from instinct, which is brain-programmed behavior, then wouldnâ€™t that mean that different peopleâ€™s brains would produce different moral values?






Rukh_Whitefang said:


> So, its just instinct then?
> If its just instinct, which is      brain-programmed behavior then how are they morals and not simply brain patterns to which you merely attach moral values to them?




I thought all those extra spaces in your text looked suspicious. I wash my hands of this discussion.


----------



## Deo (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> That doesn't answer where the morals came from. Its all good saying there are objective morals, but where did they come from? If not from society, then from instinct?


You need the morals to come from something? Nope. To be blunt with you if your god does not need a source explaining his existence, then my morality is allowed to exist without a source as well. Morality exists, and has always existed, objective morality is beyond human constructs and is not dependent on a source for it's existence.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> *I am trying to keep this a quick as possible response because I don't want this to be a rabbit trail. Its not that I don't want to answer, its I don't want the thread derailed. PM me for derailing type questions so we can keep this on topic.*
> 
> You make the assumption that God can act outside of His nature and choose not to be God by changing. God doesn't act outside of His nature. He wouldn't be God if He did.


This assumes that God is too impotent to change his nature. If a mere man can change his nature, cannot a god? Also I think they'll forgive the topic since it's still discussing objective morality and thus the topic of the thread.



Xipoid said:


> I thought all those extra spaces in your text  looked suspicious. I wash my hands of this discussion.


Rukh,  come one now, no copying and pasting. That's plagiarism and theft and is  morally wrong. Please don't break moral codes in the thread about  morality!


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

Xipoid said:


> Yes... and that would be the definition of subjective... wait a minute.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


well there you go, he doesn't want to discuss, he wants to win.


----------



## Deo (Oct 24, 2011)

Fay V said:


> well there you go, he doesn't want to discuss, he wants to win.


I'm sure he realizes that plagriasing and stealing the words and intellectual property of other people is morally wrong and will not do it again. Since he's an upright moral guy, amirite? So come on Rukh, no more of that or I'm betting the mods will kill this thread and I rather like the discussion so that would bum me out.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 24, 2011)

I'm proposing Rukh changes his sig from "Judah speaks through me" to "Google speaks through me."


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 24, 2011)

Deo said:


> The standard for secular moral good is intent, lessening damage, and causing no harm to others. Utilitarian if you will. There is a standard though, and it is doing the most good and causing no one harm or ill intent through your actions or inaction. So yes, there is objective secular morality, it's something I myself stand for, strive for, and live for. I adhere to the idea that there are strict unchanging universal morals that are the basis of all human moral and ethical constructs.
> 
> In the secular world, stealing, lying, murder, rape, and causing harm to others is wrong, morally and ethically wrong.



They're only wrong because powerful government authorities say they're wrong. If those same authorities said thievery was right and we would all be subject to judgment, would you steal or face the consequences of breaking the law?


----------



## Littlerock (Oct 24, 2011)

_WHAT A TWEEST_


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> They're only wrong because powerful government authorities say they're wrong. If those same authorities said thievery was right and we would all be subject to judgment, would you steal or face the consequences of breaking the law?



Law=/= morality


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 24, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> They're only wrong because powerful government authorities say they're wrong. If those same authorities said thievery was right and we would all be subject to judgment, would you steal or face the consequences of breaking the law?



Why does this sound like you replaced government with god :v

"They're only wrong because god said they're wrong. If god said thievery was right, ad we were all subject to judgment, would you steal or face the consequences of breaking God's word?"

Nice :v


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> They're only wrong because powerful government authorities say they're wrong. If those same authorities said thievery was right and we would all be subject to judgment, would you steal or face the consequences of breaking the law?


 
Nobody has argued that morality is rooted in the legal system, and your strawman conflating the two amounts to a shitpost.

Not to mention that making "not stealing" illegal is nonsensical on its face, it's impossible for anyone to literally be _constantly_ stealing things so as to comply with the law.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 24, 2011)

Deo said:


> You need the morals to come from something? Nope. To be blunt with you if your god does not need a source explaining his existence, then my morality is allowed to exist without a source as well. Morality exists, and has always existed, objective morality is beyond human constructs and is not dependent on a source for it's existence.



So, now we go to logic is beyond human comprehension even though logic was created by people? That's your argument, that human logic isn't subject to human logic?

How does that work?



Deo said:


> This assumes that God is too impotent to change his nature. If a mere man can change his nature, cannot a god? Also I think they'll forgive the topic since it's still discussing objective morality and thus the topic of the thread.


Okay, Man cannot change his nature. A man cannot run faster than a cheetah, a man cannot just jump of a building and fly. Man is constrained to his nature. In fact, man can't act outside of their nature. The same is for God. Cannot cannot do something that makes Him not God. Basically that's the question can God make a rock so big He can't move it.

Thats not even logical. God's omnipotence isn't something that is separated from who He is.  Basically what I am saying is God cannot do something that would violate His own Nature. If He did something that violates His own nature, then it would be a self contradiction, and therefore not be true. But truth cannot be self contradictory and neither is God. God cannot act outside of being God. 




Deo said:


> Rukh,  come one now, no copying and pasting. That's plagiarism and theft and is  morally wrong. Please don't break moral codes in the thread about  morality!


 Thats if its stolen, And the fact is its free information to use, Matt Slick, gives permission to do so. So, that being said, if the author gives permission how is it theft?


Fay V said:


> well there you go, he doesn't want to discuss, he wants to win.


No, I do want to discus, I want to get some answers, What is the basis for morality? Where does it come from? And if it just exists, doesn't it defeat itself because now one is making the claim that human logic is above logic itself? Kinda self defeating there isn't it? "I can use logic to prove you wrong, but you can't use logic against me because human logic itself is above logic."


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 24, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> They're only wrong because powerful government authorities say they're wrong. If those same authorities said thievery was right and we would all be subject to judgment, would you steal or face the consequences of breaking the law?


 
are you really trying to argue this



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Thats if its stolen, And the fact is its free information to use, Matt Slick, gives permission to do so. So, that being said, if the author gives permission how is it theft?


 
the part where you copy and paste it and act as if it's something you're writing yourself.

"the following argument comes from someone else, because i don't want to bother making my own arguments:" vs "..."

just like tracing, or not having sources cited in an academic paper (oh wait, what would you know of that.......)


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I want to get answers, What is the basis for morality? Where does it come from? And if it just exists, doesn't it defeat itself because now one is making the claim that human logic is above logic itself? Kinda self defeating there isn't it? "I can use logic to prove you wrong, but you can't use logic against me because human logic itself is above logic."



Uhmmm... if you put it  that way... as a teacher of mine says, "that debate has brought food to the table of many families".
You won't be getting a definitive answer for now, that's for sure (unless I'm completely wrong, my knowledge of ethics isn't extensive). What you'll get is many interesting views on the matter depending of the person's stand.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

If you do not cite your sources it is intellectual theft, and is wrong. 

If you wanted to discuss you would be striving to understand the point of the other person and bringing up the actual issues you have. If you just search google for arguments you are seeking to understand nothing and only want to work so far as to say the other person is wrong. 
You want to win, you want to prove people wrong, you you are playing with words and setting up systems. 
Why does it depend on logic is morality just exists? Does god's existence depend on human logic? How is god's existence not self defeating, but morality existing is? 

You are not discussing ruhk, you are blowing hot air. You are not adding to understanding and striving toward truth, you are just trying to be right.


----------



## DarrylWolf (Oct 24, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Nobody has argued that morality is rooted in the legal system, and your strawman conflating the two amounts to a shitpost.
> 
> Not to mention that making "not stealing" illegal is nonsensical on its face, it's impossible for anyone to literally be _constantly_ stealing things so as to comply with the law.



But law can sometimes become morality and when it does truly terrible things happen. What if there was a law saying that people of a certain ethnicity had to go live in communal houses far from their families and anyone could take their possessions? There was such a law- it was Executive Order 9066 and it basically amounted to a shameless land-grab of Japanese-American owned land, businesses, and possessions all because the US government thought there was a dangerous underground of immigrants who would destroy America from within. That the Japanese expatriates were loyal to America meant nothing to the whites who wanted their land and praised 9066's passage. Looking back, it was immoral and unjust to take land from one set of Americans because they came from a different country. However, during the war, one could not hate Japan enough so it was justified to take land belonging to immigrants from that country. So to help the war effort, morality- or in this case patriotism equalled the law, even if the law itself was immoral


----------



## Deo (Oct 24, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> They're only wrong because powerful government authorities say they're wrong. If those same authorities said thievery was right and we would all be subject to judgment, would you steal or face the consequences of breaking the law?


No. They are wrong because they are wrong. Government, laws, authority, and punishment play no role in objective morality.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Thats if its stolen, And the fact is its free information to use, Matt Slick, gives permission to do so. So, that being said, if the author gives permission how is it theft?


 
Matt Slick may have given permission, but you are still presenting as earnest questions that which are in fact just stumbling blocks you throw out for us to waste our time with.  Your goal (and Matt's as well, in all likelihood) is to exhaust the opposition by firing off a list of prefabricated questions without care for the actual thoughtful responses they receive, and then claim "victory".  You are not arguing in good faith.



DarrylWolf said:


> But law can sometimes become morality and when it does truly terrible things happen. What if there was a law saying that people of a certain ethnicity had to go live in communal houses far from their families and anyone could take their possessions? There was such a law- it was Executive Order 9066 and it basically amounted to a shameless land-grab of Japanese-American owned land, businesses, and possessions all because the US government thought there was a dangerous underground of immigrants who would destroy America from within. That the Japanese expatriates were loyal to America meant nothing to the whites who wanted their land and praised 9066's passage. Looking back, it was immoral and unjust to take land from one set of Americans because they came from a different country. However, during the war, one could not hate Japan enough so it was justified to take land belonging to immigrants from that country. So to help the war effort, morality- or in this case patriotism equalled the law, even if the law itself was immoral


 
You said it yourself, the law was immoral.  You could have stopped right there.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

shit I didn't mean to make a double post out of this, sorry mods


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> But law can sometimes become morality and when it does truly terrible things happen. What if there was a law saying that people of a certain ethnicity had to go live in communal houses far from their families and anyone could take their possessions? There was such a law- it was Executive Order 9066 and it basically amounted to a shameless land-grab of Japanese-American owned land, businesses, and possessions all because the US government thought there was a dangerous underground of immigrants who would destroy America from within. That the Japanese expatriates were loyal to America meant nothing to the whites who wanted their land and praised 9066's passage. Looking back, it was immoral and unjust to take land from one set of Americans because they came from a different country. However, during the war, one could not hate Japan enough so it was justified to take land belonging to immigrants from that country. So to help the war effort, morality- or in this case patriotism equalled the law, even if the law itself was immoral


just because it is legal, just because it is accepted, does not mean it is moral


----------



## Deo (Oct 24, 2011)

DarrylWolf said:


> But law can sometimes become morality and when it does truly terrible things happen.


No. Laws and morality are separate. It's like comparing apples to oranges. Laws can come from morality, like the laws protecting human rights, but morality NEVER is derived from law.



DarrylWolf said:


> the law itself was immoral


You answered your own question. Laws can be immoral. Actions of governments and authoratative powers can be immoral, can be corrupt, can be wrong, and can cause great harm. But just because they hold power does not mean they can dictate what is moral, morality *transcends* government and cannot be dictated.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 24, 2011)

Fay V said:


> If you do not cite your sources it is intellectual theft, and is wrong.
> 
> If you wanted to discuss you would be striving to understand the point of the other person and bringing up the actual issues you have. If you just search google for arguments you are seeking to understand nothing and only want to work so far as to say the other person is wrong.
> You want to win, you want to prove people wrong, you you are playing with words and setting up systems.
> Why does it depend on logic is morality just exists? Does god's existence depend on human logic? How is god's existence not self defeating, but morality existing is?



Again, its not theft when the auther makes no mention or indication that they have to source his or her work. The entire site I use, was made for Christians to use.

Did I say I was here to prove anything? Look at the title of the thread, My stance, it says my stance. You seemed to have missed that entirely.

And where is the logical jump that says If I use another Christians framework, that it means I don't want to discuss? If asking legit questions means I want to win, then I can't help you. Its not about winning or losing, I wanted to see the responses so I could gauge what people said. Is it so bad, that I had a plan in place to use depending on where the conversation went? 

I am honestly interested in what faf had to say. Deo surprised me in the fact that she says morality just exists. I honestly haven't heard that one before. Don't run into very many atheists with that viewpoint, its intrigues me.




Fay V said:


> You are not discussing ruhk, you are blowing hot air. You are not adding  to understanding and striving toward truth, you are just trying to be  right.


Ah, the opinions have come in. Sounds like to me you are saying because I am not striving toward letting to of my stance that I am not "striving towards truth." It is my stance that I already have found truth Fay.

That doesn't mean I wasn't interested to see what faf had to say about morality itself. So, if you're just going to insult me by saying I wasn't here to actually discuss, well, there is nothing I can do frankly. That's your personal opinion.



Lobar said:


> Matt Slick may have given permission, but you are  still presenting as earnest questions that which are in fact just  stumbling blocks you throw out for us to waste our time with.  Your goal  (and Matt's as well, in all likelihood) is to exhaust the opposition by  firing off a list of prefabricated questions without care for the  actual thoughtful responses they receive, and then claim "victory".  You  are not arguing in good faith.



I don't see it as a waste of time. It was a systematic approach using a set of questions.  And I did and do care about the actual responses, if I didn't I could have just linked spammed you and gotten no response at all from anyone. And what good what that have done?
The goal wasn't to change peoples minds or claim "victory" as you say. Like I told Fay, I was generally interested in what this place had to say on the subject. I wanted to see what people here think the basis for morality is, where it comes from and so on. If you can't see that as "good faith" then Like I told Fay, I cannot do anything for you.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> Thats if its stolen, And the fact is its free information to use, Matt Slick, gives permission to do so. So, that being said, if the author gives permission how is it theft?


So you guys remember what I said about people who make mistakes and try to justify them rather than face the cognitive dissonance?

Come on, Rukh.  If you're not going to take this seriously, why the hell should the rest of us?  Borrowing ideas is fine, but it's dishonest to not let us know that the ideas you're spouting are borrowed.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, its not theft when the auther makes no mention or indication that they have to source his or her work. The entire site I use, was made for Christians to use.





Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Thats if its stolen, And the fact is its  free information to use, Matt Slick, gives permission to do so. So, that  being said, if the author gives permission how is it theft?



The point is to cite your sources when you're using them. Regardless if the author of said source said it's okay to use - People shouldn't have to track down who you're copy-pasting, when you're presenting it as your own thought-out argument.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh: "It is my stance that I've found truth"
That's really pedantic of you. Try to sound more humble, please.
And no, it has nothing to do with your religion, it's your attitude, plain and simple.


----------



## Deo (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo surprised me in the fact that she says morality just exists. I honestly haven't heard that one before. Don't run into very many atheists with that viewpoint, its intrigues me.


Morality exists yep. That is my standpoint. I don't see how it's all that shocking though. Sorta like saying toes exist, or the oceans exist, _they just do._

And Rukh, I think we'd be fine with it if you just didn't do it again. Plagiarism is just not cool, especially in a discussion context like this where we don't want to hear Mr. Slick's opinion, we want to hear YOUR opinion.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Again, its not theft when the auther makes no mention or indication that they have to source his or her work. The entire site I use, was made for Christians to use.



They shouldn't have to tell you.  It's common god damn courtesy to give credit to an idea that's not originally yours, especially when you take that idea and copy it verbatim.

Also not citing your source and then having us later find out that you're just doing nothing but providing us copypasta with very little if any of your own words makes us think that you're incapable of holding a discussion because you yourself don't hold any opinions of your own and instead rely on other people to make your arguments for you.  It's extremely detrimental to your argument and that of your character if you feel that there is absolutely no way you can effectively communicate with other people without first seeing what someone else has to say about it so you don't have to think too hard about why you think the way you do.


----------



## Deo (Oct 24, 2011)

Guys, I think he knows he messed up, can we continue the conversation?


Fay, maybe you could flesh out more on Deontology for us if you'd be so kind?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 24, 2011)

So this is now "Matt Slick's Opinion on subjective and objective morals" thread. 

I like it.

Re-reading Deo's post, about morality just existing - I could jive with that too. 

Morality isn't subjective, objective, black or white. It just -is-.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 24, 2011)

M. Le Renard said:


> So you guys remember what I said about people who make mistakes and try to justify them rather than face the cognitive dissonance?
> 
> Come on, Rukh.  If you're not going to take this seriously, why the hell should the rest of us?  Borrowing ideas is fine, but it's dishonest to not let us know that the ideas you're spouting are borrowed.



Whats with the assumption that I wasn't taking this seriously? And frankly, can you blame me for not giving a link? The moment I link a Christian website, the discussion is over. You know that. It then dissolves into a "That's a biased Christian website, you can't use that." If I gave the site, not that it means much now, how well do you think this discussion would have gone? I wasn't being dishonest, I saw no reason to lay my cards out onto the table so to speak. You want the site? I use CARM all the time for research and study. 



Lastdirewolf said:


> The point is to cite your sources when you're using them. Regardless if the author of said source said it's okay to use - People shouldn't have to track down who you're copy-pasting, when you're presenting it as your own thought-out argument.


 Look to my above post, how well would it have gone if I just linked a Christian website right off the bat? The questions still stand as pertinent questions. 



AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Rukh: "It is my stance that I've found truth"
> That's really pedantic of you. Try to sound more humble, please.
> And no, it has nothing to do with your religion, it's your attitude, plain and simple.


If I say I believe I have found the truth, then I am not being honest. I am just being politically correct. Saying I just believe makes it a personal truth and not an absolute truth, I don't do that.




Deo said:


> Morality exists yep. That is my standpoint. I don't  see how it's all that shocking though. Sorta like saying toes exist, or  the oceans exist, _they just do._
> 
> And Rukh, I think we'd be fine with it if you just didn't do it again.  Plagiarism is just not cool, especially in a discussion context like  this where we don't want to hear Mr. Slick's opinion, we want to hear  YOUR opinion.



That's not what I was shocked by, I was shocked when you said, morality just is, with no explanation at all. Like I said, I haven't run into that before.

And what I put down in this thread is my opinion. Just because someone else said it doesn't mean I can't agree with it. Like I said, I had a plan, which I used, got my answer from the one person I was interested in hearing from.

 I have kept it quite civil in here, but if everyone is just going to rail on the fact I used a Christian website as my basis for the thread, then, I can give you my full opinion, not held back, not held in check, of what I really think of atheism and the secular worldview. But frankly, that wouldn't do the discussion any good now would it?

That choice is yours people. Either we can continue this, in a conversational tone, or, I can switch and go to a tone that isn't conversational and we can watch what happens. Either way, I am fine with whatever you choose.

With that, I am going to sleep, as its late, and I work tomorrow.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 24, 2011)

Also, not to say what you did wasn't bad enough, if you'd just said "wow yeah I did that, I can see the issue you might have with it, I'm sorry and won't do it again" I don't think there would be much of a deal.

Instead, you're saying "I don't see how it is a problem, it is okay to me, also the author said it's okay so it's okay!"  Sure, maybe I can see the author saying "use these but don't attribute them to me because talking points don't work nearly as well when they're obviously talking points" but that doesn't mean taking ideas and presenting them in a discussion that _you initiated_ is right to do, or in good faith.  Then again, it's not like people who do rely on talking points to "win" and claim they're interested in debate and discussion usually act in good faith.

How SUBJECTIVE of you, Rukh.

EDIT: okay sure no reason to hammer on this but Rukh not actually interested in what we have to say.  If you just want a conversation or debate, you wouldn't be saying "Is it so bad, that I had a plan in place to use depending on where the conversation went?"


----------



## Bliss (Oct 24, 2011)

Fay V said:


> You want to win, you want to prove people wrong, you you are playing with words and setting up systems.


Is fun!



M. Le Renard said:


> Come on, Rukh.  If you're not going to take this seriously, why the hell should the rest of us?


I try _really_ heard to not to take this seriously.

I learnt my philosophy from Kreia. :V


----------



## Deo (Oct 24, 2011)

Guys seriously. Rukh dissapointed me too, I honestly expected more of him, but let's not al gang up on him and lynch him for his mistake. I'm sure he now recognizes that what he did seems like lying to us, and I'm sure since lying is wrong and he respects our feelings that he won't do it again.

So morality.
DireWolf, I'm glad you can agree with me. It's honestly difficult for me to articulate my thoughts on the 'origin' of morality, because in all honesty I don't know. But I think that it just exists and may have always existed. Again I don't claim to know the truth of the world or morality. I jut think that objective morals exist and it is our moral duty to do good and to prevent bad whenever it is in our power to do so.


----------



## M. LeRenard (Oct 24, 2011)

Kind of leaves me with a bad taste in my mouth, but anyway....

Talk of 'objective' morality isn't a very specific terminology.  When we say 'universal', I'm assuming that means only amongst humans.  In which case, yes, of course there are universal morals amongst humans.  I'll bet there are universal morals amongst dolphins, too.  But I would seriously question if those morals would be exactly the same.  And in terms of the actual universe, if there are universal morals in that sense, none of us humans here are following them very well, because they seem to be based entirely on neutrality.  If murder was a universal evil, for example, natural disasters probably wouldn't occur.  So these things are just plain obvious.
Hence why I tend to think that it makes more sense to make our own rules.  And I happen to believe that we've been doing that since the dawn of the species, in which case, if a law is ever called 'perfect', we're stunting our own ability to grow as moral beings.  And this is true even if you strictly adhere only to religious morality, because, after all, you're interpreting those laws as you see fit to interpret them.  It's impossible not to.  So if it turns out your interpretation is incorrect, if the law is absolute and objective, then you're not following it.
So I'd say a subjective view of morality is in general the better approach, because then you won't run the risk of getting stuck in dogma and tradition.

Edit:





			
				Rukh_Whitefang said:
			
		

> And frankly, can you blame me for not giving a link?


Cut the bullshit, for your own sake.


----------



## Deo (Oct 24, 2011)

Okay, I'll be a bit more open about myself and my family since this thread seems to be so angry and maybe this will help deflate the situation. 

I was raised to follow a strict moral and ethical code. Our family is "old blood" and takes such things and personal honor very seriously. So ever since I was a child I've grown up with fortitude over morality. It's something that is very important to me. And it often hurts because one of the first insults many people casually throw at me when they know I'm an atheist is "How can you be moral?" And indeed that really does hurt me. It's sort of like saying "how can you be of your lineage and family blood?" "How can you be your father's first born?" It's not just insulting or degrading of me having the human ability to be moral, but it hurts because I prize myself on being an upright moral citizen, it's one of the foundations of my personal character and my self image.

My family has a motto, "_Semper sine metus. Semper fortis. Surgam._" Which is Latin for "_Always without fear. Always with courage. I rise_". And it's a motto that is dear to me, something given to me and entrusted to me by my forefathers. To me morality is not something to talk about and then forget, it is part of daily action and personal responsibility.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Look to my above post, how well would it  have gone if I just linked a Christian website right off the bat? The  questions still stand as pertinent questions.



It would've gone down all the same, because you posted a thread titled "_*MY*_ opinion" and then just mash together other peoples talking points on the subject. 

Do you not think even a little bit ill of yourself if one the first  things people do when you make a post, is to Google it? I know you post  other peoples things, or have several times in the past, in guise of  your own thoughts without sources, but don't you think it's time  to...stop doing that?

I mean... we're in a _morality_ thread, that _you_ created.

I hate to be a part of some pseudo-lynch mob, but seriously, I wanted to  back off until I saw this post; you're almost always coming off as (or  caught being) a liar, a hypocrite, or something worse - I think it's  time you changed your tactics, and just for relevance, maybe your moral  system.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 24, 2011)

Just FYI, I haven't read hardly any of this thread. Can you blame me? You've shitted it up quite marvelously.

So here's what I say: there's no such thing as an objective morality. Period. There are morals that are pretty consistent among everyone, but it's not because it's a sort of universal constant, it's because we and our ancestors have shaped ourselves and the people around us to live up to a certain standard. These come from age-old experience (sometimes obsolete) and from the limitations we enforce upon ourselves (like "law").

Ultimately though, a person's morality is unique, even among those who are religious (there will always be parts of any belief system that you will favor over others). It is derived from how they are raised, what they experience, what society instructs, etc. There are many many variables that come into play with this.

Personally, I feel like I have very strong morals. There are some actions that I just cannot take, they are unnatural, and witnessing them perpetrated by others tends to upset me. I believe in working hard, being selfless, always respecting others, giving everyone a chance before judging them, and lots of other stuff. These are all subjective though, I know that they are entirely bound to myself and myself alone. There will be other people who may have similar morals, but their's will never really match my own.

But, whatever, I'm sure this post will be skipped over.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 24, 2011)

If there is any universal morality, I believe it lives within the concept of the social contract.

The idea that as a member of society you personally will not act out against your neighbor under the expectation that your neighbor won't act out against you.

Of course the social contract deals primarily with the politics of a community and the idea of where we hold ourselves to limits of freedom for personal safety, but the greater sense of a communal good being accomplished through working together and not expecting oneself to be personally wronged would be the basis of a universal morality developed through thousands of years of human civilization.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh, you know this thread was intended as "this is what I believe, agree with it or you're wrong"

You're not even interested in whatever everyone else is saying, you just use it as a framework upon which to hang your prepared arguments.

This is a waste of everyone's time so long as Rukh is the OP and is trying to lead the "discussion."

EDIT: holy shit the earl of lemongrab is the greatest character in the universe, this is an objective fact


----------



## Lobar (Oct 24, 2011)

Rukh appears to have gone to bed, but I know there were other people here that wanted to discuss their own views of the subject so let's try not to clog the thread up discussing Rukh's history of intellectual dishonesty while he isn't even here anymore.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 24, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> EDIT: holy shit the earl of lemongrab is the greatest character in the universe, this is an objective fact



THREE HOURS DUNGEON!


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

Term_the_Schmuck said:


> If there is any universal morality, I believe it lives within the concept of the social contract.
> 
> The idea that as a member of society you personally will not act out against your neighbor under the expectation that your neighbor won't act out against you.
> 
> Of course the social contract deals primarily with the politics of a community and the idea of where we hold ourselves to limits of freedom for personal safety, but the greater sense of a communal good being accomplished through working together and not expecting oneself to be personally wronged would be the basis of a universal morality developed through thousands of years of human civilization.


That's not really objective, not as I understand it. With social contract, so far as I understand, the people are still biased for the society. For instance the group may still find taboos to be immoral, but for no logical reason. Social contract is biased to what to group decides is best. 

I am defining objective as based on facts, and unbiased.

Utilitarianism is also slightly subjective, in practice. In theory utilitarianism is based in fact and the mathematic equations to produce the most good or pleasure, depending on what form of utilitarianism you are choosing. In practice however people have been shown to allow their emotions to bias their math, giving more weight to an option which personally makes them feel better. 

The reason I bring up Kant's deontology as an objective moral theory is it completely rejects human emotion and personal pleasure is at no point brought up in the equation. in order for an action to be moral it must follow 3 steps. I'll go into it more since deo asked nicely.

1. A rational being is an end to themselves and thus can not be used as a means to an end. You can't use people. You can not sacrifice someone or steal from them. Use them as a stepping stone for something. 

2. An action must be universalized. This does not mean that it applies to everyone at that moment, but rather it means that, if it did apply to everyone, the society would still need to function. 
So If murder a morally correct action? Well if everyone murdered someone then society would fall apart, so no it's bad. Is speeding wrong? well if everyone is speeding then the roads are more dangerous but society does not fail (so far as montana can tell anyway) So it is not immoral to speed. 
3. The maxims can't contradict. You can't say that it is morally wrong to kill, but it is morally right to cook someone alive. 

If a person goes against these they are no longer considered moral agents (thus murderers can get the death penalty)

These rules are not subject to emotions or how people feel.
Now Kantianism is not perfect. There are plenty of criticisms. For instance if one uses themselves as a means to an end do they lose moral status?
There's also more grey areas such as animal rights. 

One could say that the second is open to emotion. Who is to say what is better, but the qualifier could simple be "does it lead to societal death?" So I may personally feel that perfume in rabbit eyes is bad, but it's not morally wrong because it doesn't lead to societal death. On the other hand ignoring health codes is morally wrong, because it leads to bacteria and widespread infection, which leads to death. 
Death is objective. You have a lot of relative ideas on what a better society is, but if a society is dead one could objectively say it was not good.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 24, 2011)

Animals aren't considered rational beings by Deontological criteria, therefore Kant didn't think they factored into moral concerns.  Utilitarianism, in general, does.  Mill didn't think so, but Bentham did
Using one's self as a means to an end (say, suicide to end own suffering) is also immoral and degrades self respect.

Maxims do contradict in some situations anyway, like the "murderer at the door" dilemma that Kant himself described, which basically gives a dilemma between lying and being wrong, or allowing a murderer to go after a hiding friend- what about "acting to assist a murderer/wrongdoer"?  Some arguments are to act to stop the murderer after telling the truth, but..  I don't know, the complete disregard for outcomes rubs me the wrong way just as not examining intent bothers me about Utilitarianism (let alone an act of good intentions with one expected outcome going completely wrong becoming immoral..)

Part of the weakness of Deontology is that it doesn't work as well if everyone doesn't also follow it, even though part of its theory is along the lines of being the change you want to see in the world, to do one's part in bringing about the ideal society.

For its faults and imperfections, I can still see how the *cat*egorical im*purr*ative makes sense in theory but is very difficult and sometimes very negative in practice.  Like other theories such as communism and free-market libertarianism, I feel that they would work but are based on flawed assumptions of the actors involved.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 24, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> It would've gone down all the same, because you posted a thread titled "_*MY*_ opinion" and then just mash together other peoples talking points on the subject.



 Exactly. Quoting other articles isn't the problem - it's the quoting them _as if he had written them himself_.

Hell, Roose's link-bombingposting is ten times more ethical than what Rukh is pulling - at least Roose doesn't claim his posted links as his _own _words.



Lastdirewolf said:


> I mean... we're in a morality thread, that you created.



The phrase "telling lies for God" springs to mind for some reason...


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 24, 2011)

Fay V said:


> That's not really objective, not as I understand it. With social contract, so far as I understand, the people are still biased for the society. For instance the group may still find taboos to be immoral, but for no logical reason. Social contract is biased to what to group decides is best.



I think there's some confusion here.  I'm taking the phrase of "universal morality" as being a set bit of morals which can be applied to a wide range of societies with very little, if any deviation from them.  In this sense, I don't see that it necessarily has to be objective, but can be a subjective bit of moral theory which most, if not all individuals partake in, which transcends things like ideology, race, creed, etc.

Am I applying this phrase incorrectly?  Are universal and objective mutually exclusive?


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Animals aren't considered rational beings by Deontological criteria, therefore Kant didn't think they factored into moral concerns.  Utilitarianism, in general, does.  Mill didn't think so, but Bentham did
> Using one's self as a means to an end (say, suicide to end own suffering) is also immoral and degrades self respect.
> 
> Maxims do contradict in some situations anyway, like the "murderer at the door" dilemma that Kant himself described, which basically gives a dilemma between lying and being wrong, or allowing a murderer to go after a hiding friend- what about "acting to assist a murderer/wrongdoer"?  Some arguments are to act to stop the murderer after telling the truth, but..  I don't know, the complete disregard for outcomes rubs me the wrong way just as not examining intent bothers me about Utilitarianism (let alone an act of good intentions with one expected outcome going completely wrong becoming immoral..)
> ...



I don't have my books with me, but I do believe in terms of Kant animals rights is a grey area because they are not moral agents. So it's more up for grabs, there's nothing really for or against it in terms of Kant's writings. Mostly I think Kantians just say "it's probably better not to beat animals" but yeah. 
The "means to an end" issue I was thinking of is more like...donating a kidney. You are using yourself and your health. 

I was unaware the bentham considered animals as moral agents. I know that Singer does, but he's contemporary.

Anyway the clincher is that I don't think people can be a pure kantian. It goes against our nature a bit. In terms of social contract I do think that is far more effective in terms of morals. This is why I like studying neuroethics. It's fascinating to pinpoint what is in the brain, in our nature, and what is pure creation from people.



Term_the_Schmuck said:


> I think there's some confusion here.   I'm taking the phrase of "universal morality" as being a set bit of  morals which can be applied to a wide range of societies with very  little, if any deviation from them.  In this sense, I don't see that it  necessarily has to be objective, but can be a subjective bit of moral  theory which most, if not all individuals partake in, which transcends  things like ideology, race, creed, etc.
> 
> Am I applying this phrase incorrectly?  Are universal and objective mutually exclusive?


ah I read your post wrong. I thought people were mixing objective with universal. No I agree, a universal moral theory is one that is widespread and applies to everyone. 
my bad.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 24, 2011)

Well I don't think he considered them as moral/rational agents, but he recognized their capacity for suffering as reason enough to consider them worthy of regard and protection.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Well I don't think he considered them as moral/rational agents, but he recognized their capacity for suffering as reason enough to consider them worthy of regard and protection.


Right right. it's not a big issue. It's just sort of grey ish.
as opposed to skinner who does give animals moral agency and utilitarian equations have to take them into account.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 24, 2011)

I warned you. I warned you about threads, bros. And pious fraud.




Fay V said:


> I don't have my books with me, but I do believe in terms of Kant animals rights is a grey area because they are not moral agents. So it's more up for grabs, there's nothing really for or against it in terms of Kant's writings. Mostly I think Kantians just say "it's probably better not to beat animals" but yeah.



There are a couple good arguments that can be made on animal abuse with utilitarianism, such as beating an animal renders it useless or worse violent, and if an animal was useless before and was being abused because it was, then it should be disposed of properly and not abused because doing so is a waste of time, and so on.

 Unless we're talking about beating an animal for personal pleasure which as entirely different kettle of fish and would be addressed as a potential sign of mental illness.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 24, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I warned you. I warned you about threads, bros. And pious fraud.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think it depends on the utilitarianism. I dunno for Bentham since he wasn't really a believer in human rights..., I don't believe Mill gives a damn, though I can see how his theory could be twisted either way. neither of these guys are my bread and butter though. I just know Mill was about higher pleasures.
a contemporary philosopher, Skinner, gives Animals moral agency. Which means they have as much value as you. So in a case like "is factory farming okay" the answer is no, because it hurts the cows. Most other theories don't address the greyer areas of animal care, like using mice and rats for cancer research.


----------



## Conker (Oct 24, 2011)

Here's my question: who gives a shit? What's the point of labeling one set of morals "objective" and one set "subjective" when most people follow a smattering of both? If you look in the Bible and list every rule there as "objective", how many of those will you find ingrained in the laws of a normal first world society? Subtract out the ones that force you to praise God, and you're left with the common sense shit like "don't kill" "don't steal" "don't rape" "don't bear false witness" and the like. Hey, those are shit I end up not doing regardless of my religion! Why? Because even if I disregard the idea of an objective moral, I still know those things are wrong to do, and if I did them, I'd end up in some sort of trouble. 

And we need the "subjective morals" just as much as we need the obvious "objective" ones. The Bible doesn't say "don't post furry porn on your friend's Facebook" so thankfully subjective morality is there to tell me that doing so would be stupid, rude, and just generally offensive. 

Both are needed, assigning terms to either is foolish when they are all just "morals", so I don't see the point of this argument other than "RELIGION IS RIGHT AND ATHEISTS ARE HEATHENS" or some shit.


----------



## Aleu (Oct 24, 2011)

Alright, now that I'm in a better mindset to actually think, I can put my two cents in.

First off, I'm simultaneously disappointed...yet unsurprised that Rukh had plagiarized. I really expected better and thus I become a tiny percentage more cynical.

Now, onto my opinion. I would rather trust someone who does not follow religious morals but rather their own over someone who does. Too many times, I've heard of someone who has killed their children, or raped someone, or had someone raped, or burned someone alive and had it justified because of religion. "X deity told me to do it", "They deserved it because they offend my religion" and so on or so forth. What furthers my distrust is usually the question (as Deo had mentioned earlier) "If you don't believe in God, how do you not commit x crimes?" It's like people like these would willingly commit crimes if they themselves did not believe, regardless of laws because "Oh, who cares? I can't get punished because there's no God to do so". Personally, I see that religious people like the examples are the ones that lack morality. They have to have others tell them what is bad and they can't do it or else.

As for where morality comes from for those without religion, hell I don't even know. I'm not intelligent enough to give an opinion on that. If I ever had a class on any of that, sure I'd give my input. But I didn't, so I won't.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 24, 2011)

Aleu said:


> Alright, now that I'm in a better mindset to actually think, I can put my two cents in.
> 
> First off, I'm simultaneously disappointed...yet unsurprised that Rukh had plagiarized. I really expected better and thus I become a tiny percentage more cynical.


 
I'm more amused he managed to completely derail HIS OWN THREAD with it. That takes some talent, right there.



Fay V said:


> I think it depends on the utilitarianism. I dunno for Bentham since he wasn't really a believer in human rights..., I don't believe Mill gives a damn, though I can see how his theory could be twisted either way. neither of these guys are my bread and butter though. I just know Mill was about higher pleasures.
> a contemporary philosopher, Skinner, gives Animals moral agency. Which means they have as much value as you. So in a case like "is factory farming okay" the answer is no, because it hurts the cows. Most other theories don't address the greyer areas of animal care, like using mice and rats for cancer research.


 
Ah, right. I forgot about skinner. I guess it really depends on which philosopher you go through for it...


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Oct 25, 2011)

Conker said:


> Here's my question: who gives a shit?



People who claim to follow objective morals so they can pretend they don't need to ever consider if they are actually right, and that everyone who does not follow them is a horrible monster.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 25, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> I'm more amused he managed to completely derail HIS OWN THREAD with it. That takes some talent, right there.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, right. I forgot about skinner. I guess it really depends on which philosopher you go through for it...



it seems as if much of it is just what you want to focus on and where you set the parameters. Personally I agree with Mill that there should be a difference between higher and lower pleasures, but I think people take that too far just in terms of life goals, but that's not here nor there. 
Skinner is just the same, but with moral agency given to animals. Personally I'm not against moral agency in animals. I think that the fact they can feel pain is enough to consider them. However I think moral agency is a sliding scale, the more you are capable of, the more moral agency you are given. So in cases like lab rats. It's better to sacrifice 100 rats to save 100 humans. 

The idea gets interesting when transhumanism is brought up. I had someone challenge me on it, because as far as I am concerned the +1 human would be better capable of handling moral responsibilities, so humans would be "worth less" morally. I actually agree with this, though it's an uncomfortable thought.


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2011)

There are no absolutes, OP, especially in the realm of morality.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 25, 2011)

Azure said:


> There are no absolutes, OP, especially in the realm of morality.



Isn't saying that "there are no absolutes" an absolute?


----------



## Corto (Oct 25, 2011)

You're absolutely right.


----------



## Azure (Oct 25, 2011)

That is absolutely enough of that. And good point Fay, I just think it is that way with morals, and even if there were, well they aren't a healthy way to solve anything.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 25, 2011)

Azure said:


> That is absolutely enough of that. And good point Fay, I just think it is that way with morals, and even if there were, well they aren't a healthy way to solve anything.


No I agree, I just couldn't resist pointing out the relativist's paradox. I don't think working with absolutes gets anywhere, or at least not if you're not willing to constantly test those absolutes. 
Much like science. You can have a theory and you can be pretty sure it's correct, but you'll never prove it right, just further prove all the times that it does work. 

With my seeking truth comment with ruhk. He complained about me being against his christian ideals or whatever blah blah ruhk, but that wasn't actually the case. I'm happy to discuss with christians about metaphysics and morality, because it is always seeking the truth in terms of socrates. It isn't that I don't believe it doesn't exist, or refuse to acknowledge that someone has found it. It is that as soon as you stop testing it will no longer really be the truth. 
It's a bit like if a kid learns "water is wet" and nothing else. Technically it is true, but it is not the whole truth and it's better for the kid to learn all about ice, and water vapor, the boiling and freezing point, water pressure and h20

I think that applies to every discussion and every intellectual pursuit.


----------



## HyBroMcYenapants (Oct 25, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Isn't saying that "there are no absolutes" an absolute?


Son of a...


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 25, 2011)

ITT: "You all have no morals unless you are Christian". :V


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 25, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> ITT: "You all have no morals unless you are Christian". :V



That is literally what Rukh thinks.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Isn't saying that "there are no absolutes" an absolute?


What about saying, "there are no absolutes, except the speed of light"....
Wait.. fuck.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 25, 2011)

K amoralism FTW. Get paid more, laid more, and evade empathy. WHoo.


----------



## Deo (Oct 25, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> That is literally what Rukh thinks.


Actually, what he said was that morality exists and is objective. He did say that the objective standard was god, but he also said that since god made man in his image all people are instilled with morality and even stated that atheists can be moral.

Let's talk morality and not "THIS THREAD WAS STARTED BY RUKH!!!"
Because, guys, I ASKED him to start this thread because I thought we could put on our big boy pants and discuss this reasonably. Both sides are disappointing me horribly. (Not that any of you have an obligation to me at all though.) One side is dishonest about sources, the other is centered on personal attacks. For goodness sakes get your heads out of your asses and let's actually discuss objective vs subjective morality rather than stomp our feet and whine.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 25, 2011)

And I am back.  Yes I have read through the pages that have been made since I have been here. For anyone who thinks this is "Rukh trying to win" I will be blunt, that is childish behavior. I have questions and I am interested in reading people responses. If I wasn't, I wouldn't have started the thread.

Since some in here say that morality comes from within (instinct) I ask how that isn't subjective? 
Some say incest is wrong, others don't. Some say polygamy is wrong, others don't.

You are answering those questions based on how you feel about them. You use your emotions in this. How is that not subjective? 

Basing moral issues on personal emotions and opinions doesn't make it objective. Or can you tell me how it does?

The same goes for those who say that society is what dictates morality. Society cannot all agree on what is right and wrong. 

This then leads people to saying that morality isn't black and white. Can I have proof of this? Other than your personal opinion. Why? Your personal opinion is just a bunch of chemical reactions going off in your brain. What reason can you give to tell someone to trust your brains chemical reactions over someone elses?

Is is always morally wrong to commit incest? Is is always morally wrong to commit adultery? Is is morally wrong to practice polygamy? I could ask more questions, but I think you get it. If you answer no to any of those, then you are saying morality is relative to the person. Which means there is no objective morality.

The main problem that I see is that those who have  a secular view on morality is that they can't define morality. The best you can to is give me is your own subjective morals. Its your personal opinion that (insert here) is wrong. I want something you can give me that makes it stand on its own without opinion.


Like I said before, objective morals are based outside of yourself. They are not tied to your personal feelings, emotions, or opinions.

For those that say there is objective morality, is there such thing as absolute morality? Is is always wrong to commit adultery? Is it always wrong to commit incest?

Again, answering no implies that either A) there are no absolute morals, which then throws objective morality into the air. Meaning morality is relative to the person. Which then would bring the conversation into the topic of relativism.  B) you are injecting your personal subjective opinion into something you said was objective and outside of yourself, meaning you have now turned to subjective morality as your view.

Now, because faith has been hit on a couple times, let me get briefly into that. First I will say that I am not saying if you are not a Christian you don't have morals. And I am not suggesting that just because someone claims to be a Christian means they are morally good.There are plenty of atheists who have good morals. The problem lies in my view with those who hold to secular worldviews cannot explain where they get their objective morals from. I will be honest, I haven't got a straight answer form anyone of morality that has a secular worldview. Each person has a different explanation. My question is, who's is right? Give me a reason to believe one person's chemical reactions in their brains over someone elses? 

My questions boil down to one basically, can you give me a reason to trust your personal moral judgements when collectively you cannot give a straight answer on morality?

Deo, I have some questions just for you, since you say there are objective morals that do stand outside of a person. Can you go further into detail on this?


----------



## Deo (Oct 25, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> The main problem that anyone who holds a secular view on morality is  that they can't define morality. The best you can to is give me your own  subjective morals. Its your personal opinion that (insert here) is  wrong. I want something you can give me that makes it stand on its own  without opinion.


But there are secular objective morals too. There are fundemental unchanging moral codes and duties of what is right and what is wrong that do not cater to personal emotion, desire, or culture/society. They exist beyond our ability to personally alter them and transcend our personal desires. It is our duty to do good and be moral and to hold ourselves to these objective moral standards. We cannot bend morality on whim, we cannot change it to suit our wishes, it exists and we must conform to it. Many times I have wanted to do something, or wanted something, and truthfully it would be so easy to rationalize it or bend my personal morals to do so, however that is not being moral and I refrain. The individual must rise to meet the standards of morality, you insist that secular people only use subjective morals and you insist that we tailor morals to our situations and desires, but this is not true. I stand firm with a strong moral back bone and I will through word and deed prove that a secular person can hold true and steadfastly to objective morals. If you disagree then please explain how it is impossible for a secular person to have objective morality, how they are unable to graps such a concept or be firm in their ethical behavior. Is it a lack of willpower? Are they simply _less than_? I'm curious as to how I seem to have a moral failing despite all evidence to the contrary.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Deo, I have some questions just for you, since you say there are objective morals that do stand outside of a person. Can you go further into detail on this?


There are objective morals that are fundamental, unchanging, universal and apply to all people. There is always right and wrong. I'm not sure what more detail you want, uh, can you be more specific in your question?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 25, 2011)

Deo said:


> But there are secular objective morals too. There are fundemental unchanging moral codes and duties of what is right and what is wrong that do not cater to personal emotion, desire, or culture/society. They exist beyond our ability to personally alter them and transcend our personal desires. It is our duty to do good and be moral and to hold ourselves to these objective moral standards. We cannot bend morality on whim, we cannot change it to suit our wishes, it exists and we must conform to it. Many times I have wanted to do something, or wanted something, and truthfully it would be so easy to rationalize it or bend my personal morals to do so, however that is not being moral and I refrain. The individual must rise to meet the standards of morality, you insist that secular people only use subjective morals and you insist that we tailor morals to our situations and desires, but this is not true. I stand firm with a strong moral back bone and I will through word and deed prove that a secular person can hold true and steadfastly to objective morals. If you disagree then please explain how it is impossible for a secular person to have objective morality, how they are unable to graps such a concept or be firm in their ethical behavior. Is it a lack of willpower? Are they simply _less than_? I'm curious as to how I seem to have a moral failing despite all evidence to the contrary.



Alright, now I have more to go on.

First, I wasn't saying you have a moral failing. I could have sworn I said that those who have a secular worldview can have good moral views. But, from my experience, many do not (insert comment that many Christians don't either) Frankly Deo, I don't see many people like yourself that hold themselves to a high level of morality that refuse to change their views to suit their needs.

Anyways, what are the fundamental unchanging morals? If they are unchanging and absolute as you seem to imply (correctly I might add), why can't people agree on them? I have found this interesting that people say there are absolute morals, but nobody can agree on what they are. The other question is, can you give me a reason to how there are unchanging fundamental morals that don't change?




Deo said:


> There are objective morals that are fundamental, unchanging, universal and apply to all people. There is always right and wrong. I'm not sure what more detail you want, uh, can you be more specific in your question?



Are you saying that morality will always be black and white, even if we ourselves can't see it? If so, thats something I agree with. That just because we can't see it, doesn't mean there is a grey area. Since there are morals that are outside of ourselves and don't change, don't they have to have an explanation to why? Logically speaking. If not, why not?

Edit: Can you go into detail on why those who like yourself that say there is this moral law that transcends humanity, cannot keep this moral law? I mean, myself included, what person can we speak of that actually was able to hold and follow this moral law? I know I know I fall short, no matter how much I try. Why is this? Why is there this moral law that is outside of humanity that no human can really keep?


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 25, 2011)

Deo said:


> Actually, what he said was that morality exists and is objective. He did say that the objective standard was god, but he also said that since god made man in his image all people are instilled with morality and even stated that atheists can be moral.
> 
> Let's talk morality and not "THIS THREAD WAS STARTED BY RUKH!!!"
> Because, guys, I ASKED him to start this thread because I thought we could put on our big boy pants and discuss this reasonably. Both sides are disappointing me horribly. (Not that any of you have an obligation to me at all though.) One side is dishonest about sources, the other is centered on personal attacks. For goodness sakes get your heads out of your asses and let's actually discuss objective vs subjective morality rather than stomp our feet and whine.





Spoiler: big long dumb angry post about Rukh, not about ethics.  Probably skipworthy.



Please don't try to say Rukh is being honest at any level with this thread.  This is one of their usual FA journal type rants thinly presented as an opportunity for rational, open-minded discussion.  Instead, Rukh is not interested in hearing anything, and is only interested in posting how Christianity is right and everything else is wrong.  The dishonesty about talking point sources (again, put forward as if they were making the argument) is secondary to this.  You yourself know how Rukh can act, you even posted in their latest FA journal.

If you got "atheists can be moral" as anything but an underhanded compliment from their discussion, then you're missing half of the original post where secular is equated with subjective, and subjective is equated with stealing, lying and cheating not being wrong.  Rukh then goes on to say it is dangerous and does (necessarily!) lead to lawlessness.  Moreover, they equate someone saying "there are objective standards upon which morality can be judged" with them having to accept "there is a god."  The example at the bottom is even "do you hope the armed man someone who believes stealing is wrong and believes in god, or a secular person who is already pointing a gun at you and will just change their ethics to say they are right."  With so much talk about how atheists cannot possibly believe in right or wrong and therefore are not only capable but eager to commit dastardly crimes, the tone has been set and the well has been poisoned even before anyone else even posted.

It's less "THIS THREAD WAS STARTED BY SOMEONE WE AREN'T VERY FOND OF" and more "this thread is just more judgment upon non-Christians wrapped in the disguise of philosophical discussion."  If Rukh's usual tactics are Creationism, this is Intelligent Design- the same thing with the same ends in mind, but hidden so they'd be more palatable.  You really thought it would be a good idea to encourage Rukh to make this thread, knowing how Rukh has established such a pattern of behavior, knowing how it usually turns out?

"Yeah, Rukh did a bad thing, but you guys are all just equally bad!"  Yeesh.  That's like watching a friend of yours call someone else a dumb faggot piece of shit, then encouraging your friend to apologize and yelling at that other kid for taking umbrage at being told "I'm really, really sorry...  that you're a dumb faggot piece of shit."  Maybe I and others rolled our eyes at seeing Rukh post this thread, but we made an effort to put our "big boy pants" on and play along, only to be suckered again.  Even Rukh's past misdeeds have gone unmentioned- it's basically been "Oh, it's Rukh again," "Wow Rukh really is lazily copying and pasting shit from 'how to beat those smelly athiests dot com' as a response to our earnest efforts at discussion," and "looks like my negative opinion of Rukh is further reinforced and justified."  Getting annoyed at this repeated intellectual dishonesty makes us disappointing?  Or should we just say "Oh, Rukh can't help it, this is just how they are!" and play nicely with someone who can barely hide their contempt for us?  Or you, for that matter, because calling Rukh on their tactics amounts to having our heads up our asses and stomping feet and whining.  I mean, really. :V

The genesis of this thread boils down to non-Christian, secular ethics are worthless and lead to lawless violence and rape, and that only Christian beliefs have any given means of preventing such awful behavior.  Unless Rukh is prevented from posting in this thread again or another thread is made, it will just continue along these lines.  I'm all for honest debate and discussion but I do not believe discussions started in bad faith, like this one, should be humored or legitimized.  If rejecting someone for repeatedly showing a complete lack of respect for differing viewpoints makes one as wrong as Rukh, you're more than welcome to think that.

In some ways, I'd almost wish Rukh was more like Roose Hurro in that he'd rather have you read someone else make his arguments for him- easier to not waste time with someone dumping out loads of chaff in order to tie others up with loads of relevant or irrelevant information.  After all, if you spend 5 minutes linking or pasting loads of stuff for "your enemy" to tear away at for 5 hours, that is victory.  And that's what Rukh means by "tipping their hand."  With Roose, people stop spending so much time arguing with his 20 "interesting and relevant" links because they realize what's going on.  So long as Rukh's marks were unaware of this preset script essentially written to distract and frustrate atheists and serve as a MAD magazine style "snappy comebacks" list, they were happy to engage and waste time.

Anyway, I just had to get that off my chest, especially after you admitted to encouraging this madness and called shame on everyone else.  I mean, jeez, what were you expecting?  A new thread free of Rukh's baggage might lead to some productive discussion on this very worthy topic of ethical systems.  As it stands, this thread is tainted to the point of requiring purification.  I'd call for _Exterminatus_ but new thread + lock this one could work too.



Peace out, maybe there will be a better thread later.  In the meantime I will follow my secular relativist ethical "standards" and decide that eating stolen babies is the right thing to do tonight, with a side of random and senseless drug-fueled violence for entertainment.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 25, 2011)

Hey Rukh, there's actually a joke for this.
"A christian walks into Hooters and sees other Christians and thinks to himself, 'look at these unsaved souls'"

Just cause someone is christian doesn't mean they have "high morals".


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> Just cause someone is christian doesn't mean they have "high morals".



Which is why I noted that there are Christians who don't have high morals.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Which is why I noted that there are Christians who don't have high morals.


But all in all worldwide you can't really say that christians have the highest morals, because there are a ton of christians with low morals, just like there's atheists with low morals, or how there are atheists with high morals.  All in all it really depends on the person, if the person outright doesn't care at all what the bible says about behaving morally then you can't really say that person has higher morals than a non-christian.

For example if a woman was forced into prostitution and was forced drugs so they can't run away without having serious withdrawals.  Lets say for argument sake there's two women in this situation, one is atheist, the other is christian.  They are both forced into prostitution and jacked up on drugs to the level that if they run they'll be arrested for drug abuse and/or die from withdrawals.
Would you say the christian is acting more morally?


----------



## Commiecomrade (Oct 26, 2011)

CannonFodder said:


> For example if a woman was forced into prostitution and was forced drugs so they can't run away without having serious withdrawals.  Lets say for argument sake there's two women in this situation, one is atheist, the other is christian.  They are both forced into prostitution and jacked up on drugs to the level that if they run they'll be arrested for drug abuse and/or die from withdrawals.
> Would you say the christian is acting more morally?



I would say that you depressed the hell out of me with that hypothetical.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 26, 2011)

I'm curious what the discussing type think. So riddle me this honorable forums members. 
How much does intent count versus action? 

So a man is drowning in a river and will drown. You run up and rescue him. However it turns out you have saved the life of a notorious serial killer who has murdered 12 people and will murder again. 
Was the action good because of intent, or bad because you may have allowed the man to kill another 12 people.


----------



## Aden (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm curious what the discussing type think. So riddle me this honorable forums members.
> How much does intent count versus action?
> 
> So a man is drowning in a river and will drown. You run up and rescue him. However it turns out you have saved the life of a notorious serial killer who has murdered 12 people and will murder again.
> Was the action good because of intent, or bad because you may have allowed the man to kill another 12 people.



Unfortunately this scenario doesn't do well at isolating "intent" because there is a lack of knowledge interfering with the situation. Of course the action was "good", he was saving the life of a fellow human being. It's not like you're gonna quiz someone on their personal ethics while they're drowning so you can decide whether or not to save them.


----------



## Bobskunk (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm curious what the discussing type think. So riddle me this honorable forums members.
> How much does intent count versus action?
> 
> So a man is drowning in a river and will drown. You run up and rescue him. However it turns out you have saved the life of a notorious serial killer who has murdered 12 people and will murder again.
> Was the action good because of intent, or bad because you may have allowed the man to kill another 12 people.



Utilitarian: your action was bad IF your murderer continues to murder.  if they don't, it was good.  (this uncertainty is one of the criticisms of utilitarianism)
Kantian: your action was good if you felt it was the right thing to do: if everybody rescued others from drowning (assuming that they are able and wouldn't end up drowning themselves) then there would be fewer deaths from drowning and that would be quite lovely.  outcome does not matter.  however if your intent was to go, "look at how good i will be for rescuing this dude!  i will be on all the headlines" then no, you were not acting out of duty but instead out of shallow want

Fun, huh?

(fuck I couldn't resist addressing this)


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

So rukh, who would you say in that situation is being more moral?  I'm waiting.



Commiecomrade said:


> I would say that you depressed the hell out of me with that hypothetical.


It does happen, do you really think prostitutes want to do that, they literally have no choice.
For example here in waco there was a headline about a prostitution ring be busted, but it was at baylor and the reason why it was started in the first place was the tuition rates were so high they couldn't afford college.  And the people were demonized as "those darn gays are godless", but it's baylor.  Think about it, one of the most gay discriminatory colleges in the USA, with the prostitution ring the students could get their freak on and still claim to be, "good upstanding christians", cause, "god hates gays" and "oral isn't sex" mentality.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> How much does intent count versus action?



Well... I'd say it's not simple. 
On one hoof, you have morally gray actions in which either result is not "good". Like that hypothetical problem of being torn between sacrificing a pony to save many others or letting others die to save that one pony. Technically, your intention is good in either case, but the outcome is not a good one and would be typical of an action performed with a "bad" intention. Or for a more down-to-earth one, either having to kill a criminal so that he doens't hurt more ponies or letting him live because he's a pony too, inspite of the fact he may keep damaging society. Granted, the existence of plastic bullets and tasers kinda mitigates this... but that's a little too convenient.
Or what about those who do horrible or "wrong" things with "good" intentions in mind? Like the aforementioned Mother Teresa. Or killing in self-defense.

Every case is particular, and either factor must be considered accordingly... generally though, actions tend to prevail. Thinking back, actions DO tend to prevail (in practical life and in judicial systems). Could you propose something more ambiguous, Fay?


----------



## Onnes (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm curious what the discussing type think. So riddle me this honorable forums members.
> How much does intent count versus action?
> 
> So a man is drowning in a river and will drown. You run up and rescue him. However it turns out you have saved the life of a notorious serial killer who has murdered 12 people and will murder again.
> Was the action good because of intent, or bad because you may have allowed the man to kill another 12 people.



Given that people are not omniscient, intent has to be a factor. The alternative could render immoral those who try to the best of their ability to be moral. (And I do mean to the best of their ability, if you are judging based on results then some knowledge and skill are necessary for moral behavior.)

In the example given, the rescuer has no practical way of knowing that they have saved a serial killer. Given that serial killers are a small minority of the population, it was only reasonable to act as if the drowning man was not a serial killer. To generalize, we would rather have people attempt to rescue those they see drowning than hesitate because they might be serial killers, given that they most likely won't be serial killers.


----------



## CannonFodder (Oct 26, 2011)

I got another one Rukh, what about how extremists in Iraq were tying bombs to their kids and telling them to go say hi to the US soldiers.
If morality was objective then those little children committed murder and suicide.
And since Iraq is a predominately muslim country that means the child wasn't saved, therefor if you were right the child would not only have committed murder and suicide, but would be in hell as well.


----------



## Deo (Oct 26, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Alright, now I have more to go on.
> 
> First, I wasn't saying you have a moral failing. I could have sworn I said that those who have a secular worldview can have good moral views. But, from my experience, many do not (insert comment that many Christians don't either) Frankly Deo, I don't see many people like yourself that hold themselves to a high level of morality that refuse to change their views to suit their needs.
> 
> Anyways, what are the fundamental unchanging morals? If they are unchanging and absolute as you seem to imply (correctly I might add), why can't people agree on them? I have found this interesting that people say there are absolute morals, but nobody can agree on what they are. The other question is, can you give me a reason to how there are unchanging fundamental morals that don't change?


It is wrong to harm another person, or intend to harm another person out of malice, pleasure, or inaction. It is wrong to inflict pain or suffering. It is wrong to use people as means and not grant them basic human rights.
These are my moral absolutes. Derived from these you get everything else. At least this is my opinion. Again, I'm not very educated on the matter. I cannot quote Kant. I honestly have not read much on deontology, I cannot form an argument without some holes in it. But I can give you this. My sincere word, that there are fundamental moral facts that are objective and unchanging. I cannot make people agree with me, I can't force everyone's mind. But I think that most people would agree with me. I think that what I've given as moral fact would stir in everyone as right. Is there a person among us who thinks that being malicious in intent and causing harm to others is morally right? So you say people cannot agree on what is absolute moral fact, and I say you're wrong. I say that either consciously or subconsciously we know not cause harm.




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Are you saying that morality will always be black and white, even if we ourselves can't see it? If so, thats something I agree with. That just because we can't see it, doesn't mean there is a grey area. Since there are morals that are outside of ourselves and don't change, don't they have to have an explanation to why? Logically speaking. If not, why not?


I don't see how truth needs to be explained. It just *is*. 



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Edit: Can you go into detail on why those who like yourself that say there is this moral law that transcends humanity, cannot keep this moral law? I mean, myself included, what person can we speak of that actually was able to hold and follow this moral law? I know I know I fall short, no matter how much I try. Why is this? Why is there this moral law that is outside of humanity that no human can really keep?


Why people cannot be moral? People have free will. Moral actions can be hard on a person, and they may not like the burden or the duty that morality bears. People make mistakes too, and honest mistakes not meant to cause harm, but we all make mistakes. And there are other reasons too. Mental illness for one. But I think that humans CAN keep the moral law. If we strive to do kindness, we work to right wrongs, we live in peace, we do what is in our power to do, and we cause no one harm we are living up to moral duties. We are _excelling _in our moral duties. Rukh, you place humans low and view them as monsters inside of men, as sinners. I do not. I view everyone as people, they can be capricious, but deep down are good matured, kind, good honest people, with hearts and hopes and dreams and lives. I revel in humanity! You speak as if humanity cannot be moral, but I see humanity being moral and good everyday. I see it in the eyes of child as they smile at a dutiful parent. I see it in the kindness of helping a stranger pick up their pens. I see it in the gestures and small talk at the bus stop. You seem to look for the dark aspects of humanity, but I urge you not to wallow there. Look instead to the bright parts, for which people are unendingly capable of good.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 26, 2011)

Fair enough, would any of you change your answers if you knew he was a serial killer? I don't want to say a specific name because I don't want to play the niggling word game where "well Hannibal Lecter wasn't all bad..." So we will use Killer X. Killer X has killed 12 people. You know what killer X looks like. You know it is Killer X that is drowning and assume you will never see him again so you can't say (I save him and take him to jail) 

Would it be ethical to save the man? You do not know if he will or will not kill after you save him.


Edit: to go with what Deo is saying, people can not be completely moral because people are not pure rational beings. Our actions and decisions are incredibly influenced by small factors and basic emotions. This does not mean that the morals themselves are subjective, this means that people are imperfect. 

For instance the good samaritan experiment was a psychological experiment that tested the morals of various religious people as well as atheists. The subjects were asked to meet someone across campus for a very important meeting. On the way was a person on the side of the sidewalk appearing to be in distress. This was a plant, but this was unknown to the subjects. To the subjects it simply appeared there was a person in need of help. The study found that there was absolutely no different between atheists and the religious. It turns out the defining factor was time. If a person was late they would tend to ignore the person in need. If they had time they would help. This shows us that it isn't that Christians or atheists have better morals, or that the lack of "objective" morals are what keep people from acting morally, but rather human factors. 

These sort of tests have been repeated where various morality groups are tested, but the only factor that seems to matter is environmental. This was true for my own research, where people answered moral questions, but despite field of study, religion, gender, or anything, the only thing that seemed to effect answers were the number of emotional words in the question. 

This type of response corresponds with Joshua Greene's research. Greene did FMRI studies on subjects that showed a person must overcome an emotional reaction before considering a rational response. The subjects were asked moral questions, and the FmRI readings showed the emotional areas light up first. Not only that but to give a rational over emotional answer took more time, consistently. Several neuroscience studies show how emotions are prominent in the moral decision making process. The research from gazzaniga puts the nail in the coffin in terms of rational human beings. 
Gazzaniga is know for his "split brain" research. His work involved patients that had the corpus collosum split, severing the connection between brain hemispheres. What his research showed was that the left brain tends to be the ration and "verbal" side, controlling speech. However the right side is capable and does make decisions, but the decisions are subconscious and emotional rather than rational. The left side attempts to rationalize a decision that has already been made. 
This means people consistently subconsciously make decisions and when they think on it, the left brain will work to give it a rational explanation. So you may believe that you made your choice on the most rational basis, but in the end there is no guarantee it was not entirely emotional and you are rationalizing after the fact. 
Human beings as they are now can not be purely rational. So while the morals are objective and beyond humans, it is impossible to achieve without fundamentally changing the brain. 
It's similar to Christians striving to be like Christ. I am sure followers are aware they can not attain Christ-like perfection, but they will always strive for it. 

How does the irrational secular moralist strive to be more moral? Personally I think that Aristotle had the answer. It is a matter of living virtuously. While one can not be perfect, to be firm, and unchanging, always attempting to live as morally as possible and changing actions to be more moral will train the person to slowly be more moral. Living with those values will eventually, hopefully, make them a subconscious reaction.


----------



## Deo (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Would it be ethical to save the man? You do not know if he will or will not kill after you save him.


Save him. It is within your power to save a man's life, and despite his possible actions in the future it is your moral duty to save him from drowning.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Fair enough, would any of you change your answers if you knew he was a serial killer? I don't want to say a specific name because I don't want to play the niggling word game where "well Hannibal Lecter wasn't all bad..." So we will use Killer X. Killer X has killed 12 people. You know what killer X looks like. You know it is Killer X that is drowning and assume you will never see him again so you can't say (I save him and take him to jail)
> 
> Would it be ethical to save the man? You do not know if he will or will not kill after you save him.



Save him.

Morally, I can't just watch a person die/drown, it doesn't mater who they are, especially if I don't see real risk in trying to help them (i.e., if someone's getting shot, I'd probably take a more passive role so that I would not get shot myself). It probably helps that I don't believe anyone _deserves_ to die.

Can't tell you much more than that. I'm pretty sure there'd be many people who, if this situation actually occurred, would hate my guts for it. Whatever.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Fair enough, would any of you change your answers if you knew he was a serial killer? I don't want to say a specific name because I don't want to play the niggling word game where "well Hannibal Lecter wasn't all bad..." So we will use Killer X. Killer X has killed 12 people. You know what killer X looks like. You know it is Killer X that is drowning and assume you will never see him again so you can't say (I save him and take him to jail)
> 
> Would it be ethical to save the man? You do not know if he will or will not kill after you save him.



If he's a serial killer then I am assuming that he has either not been caught or has escaped from custody. I'd only save him if I believed I could then subdue him until the police arrive--heck, he might even kill me if he still had the strength. Otherwise, I'm simply calling the authorities since little good can come from me intervening; I personally judge his death or capture to both be better outcomes than him going free, given his crimes.


----------



## Deo (Oct 26, 2011)

Onnes said:


> If he's a serial killer then I am assuming that he has either not been caught or has escaped from custody. I'd only save him if I believed I could then subdue him until the police arrive--heck, he might even kill me if he still had the strength. Otherwise, I'm simply calling the authorities since little good can come from me intervening; I personally judge his death or capture to both be better outcomes than him going free, given his crimes.


But you don't know if he will kill again, you cannot know his future actions. If he would have not killed again, you still would have let him die. Letting him die would be murder through inaction.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 26, 2011)

Aden said:


> Unfortunately this scenario doesn't do well at isolating "intent" because there is a lack of knowledge interfering with the situation. Of course the action was "good", he was saving the life of a fellow human being. It's not like you're gonna quiz someone on their personal ethics while they're drowning so you can decide whether or not to save them.


 
The lack of knowledge is precisely why intentions can differ from outcomes in the first place.  If everyone had perfect foresight as to the full circumstances and consequences of their actions, every action anyone ever takes would always have the intended result.

edit: I think intentions may be all that matters, morality-wise, but there's also a duty to reasonably contemplate whether a plan of action is likely to actually effect the intended result and what the adverse effects it might cause would be.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 26, 2011)

Deo said:


> But you don't know if he will kill again, you cannot know his future actions. If he would have not killed again, you still would have let him die. Letting him die would be murder through inaction.



But I know his past actions, and in this scenario I know that were I to help him, he would go free. They call them serial killers for a reason.

EDIT: Also, murder by inaction always sounds rather silly. Every time you spend money on booze instead of charity, you risk murder by inaction.


----------



## Xaerun (Oct 26, 2011)

Bobskunk said:


> Utilitarian: your action was bad IF your murderer continues to murder.  if they don't, it was good.  (this uncertainty is one of the criticisms of utilitarianism)
> Kantian: your action was good if you felt it was the right thing to do: if everybody rescued others from drowning (assuming that they are able and wouldn't end up drowning themselves) then there would be fewer deaths from drowning and that would be quite lovely.  outcome does not matter.  however if your intent was to go, "look at how good i will be for rescuing this dude!  i will be on all the headlines" then no, you were not acting out of duty but instead out of shallow want
> 
> Fun, huh?
> ...



I love Kant/Kant's deontology etc and wish he was alive so I could have his babies (no homo intent)


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 26, 2011)

My intentions would be "good" but the outcome certainly wouldn't correspond to my intentions. 
Kind of like the problem of the "save 1 vs save many", only this time, the one pony is not in "equal terms" with those who will die if I save him/her, for he/she plans on doing bad things. 
In a practical sense (and most ponies would agree with these), the innocent victims shall prevail and I shall leave that pony drown. On the other hoof, he's not any less of a pony than his victims. Moreso, prejudice keeps telling me that "the scum" of society deserves to be treated as such; reason, however, tells me that every pony is in equal terms with everypony...

There's no helping it; either way, the outcome is morally wrong depending on the stand-point, only we feel letting the killer drown is less serious a matter (and nopony would feel pity for doing so), since he was going to commit something unethical already and, "therefore", deserves a spoonful of his own medicine. 
So, considering only the outcome, neither saving killer nor letting killer drown are an ethical things to do.

I'll cop out and say I'm happy I'm not in the situation... seriously though... I'll take an approach more in common with emotional reactions and let him drown, however equally (?) wrong it is; in cases like those, it's clear where my empathy lies. This all requires careful thought, though, an either stance is "justifiable" depending on one's approach.


----------



## Azure (Oct 26, 2011)

Xaerun said:


> I love Kant/Kant's deontology etc and wish he was  alive so I could have his babies (no homo intent)


You are filled with homo intent.


----------



## Xenke (Oct 26, 2011)

Commie Bat said:


> I wouldn't save him.   He has already proved that he can and will kill.  So after I save him, what will stop him from doing it again?
> 
> *Yes I know it's the choice most people wouldn't take*, though that's how I feel.



You'd be surprised.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 26, 2011)

Xaerun said:


> I love Kant/Kant's deontology etc and wish he was alive so I could have his babies (no homo intent)


I'm pretty sure I would piss  him off. 
my love of Kant is hit and miss. I actually adore his metaphysics. I am a fan of Hume but Kant brings it home so I can say "yes, this!" however every time I must read Kant's work I begin by glaring angrily at the page and end with looking for a drink of mead. With the ethics I am a metaethicist, so my official stance is "I'm really immoral, now look at this neat study"

as for the man, I would save him I am not responsible for his actions afterward, he is. He may go kill but he may also go cure cancer. I dunno how i'd really act in such a situation, but I strive to save a drowning man, even if he is a killer, because it is not my place to take a life. 

Thank the great Derigable that I don't live in hypothetical land.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> as for the stallion, I would save him I am not responsible for his actions afterward, he is. He may go kill but he may also go cure cancer. I dunno how i'd really act in such a situation, but I strive to save a drowning stallion, even if he is a killer, because it is not my place to take a life.



I thought you said one was sure he was going to kill again... ?
If I'm not, then I'll take your stance.


----------



## Vega (Oct 26, 2011)

EDIT:  Never mind, my opinion doesn't really matter on this subject.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 26, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> I thought you said one was sure he was going to kill again... ?
> If I'm not, then I'll take your stance.


No specifically you have no idea. Like with all people you can't really tell how they'll act after an event.


----------



## Xaerun (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> I'm pretty sure I would piss  him off.
> my love of Kant is hit and miss. I actually adore his metaphysics. I am a fan of Hume but Kant brings it home so I can say "yes, this!" however every time I must read Kant's work I begin by glaring angrily at the page and end with looking for a drink of mead. With the ethics I am a metaethicist, so my official stance is "I'm really immoral, now look at this neat study"
> 
> as for the man, I would save him I am not responsible for his actions afterward, he is. He may go kill but he may also go cure cancer. I dunno how i'd really act in such a situation, but I strive to save a drowning man, even if he is a killer, because it is not my place to take a life.
> ...



Didn't he at some point imply or outright state the Chinese aren't capable of rational thought? He was a pretty mean guy.
*EDIT*: Hoo boy.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 26, 2011)

Xaerun said:


> Didn't he at some point imply or outright state the Chinese aren't capable of rational thought? He was a pretty mean pony.



I also heard he declared the white man to be the only one capable of rational thought. Could you confirm this, Fay, please? Just out of curiosity.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 26, 2011)

Xaerun said:


> Didn't he at some point imply or outright state the Chinese aren't capable of rational thought? He was a pretty mean guy.
> *EDIT*: Hoo boy.


 


AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> I also heard he declared the white man to be the only one capable of rational thought. Could you confirm this, Fay, please? Just out of curiosity.


Almost every philosopher was stupidly racist of sexist. Aristotle was a victim of his time and certain that women were incapable of rational thought or being truly virtuous. Plato's opinion as far as I am aware was "I don't really care, if they are capable then they can do whatever" which is astoundingly forward for the greeks. 

I dunno the specifics for Kant, I wouldn't be surprised at all. In the end I don't think he could confidently say that anyone was rational. 

Buuut yeah. The funny thing is Kant inadvertently helped to end at least one racial prejudice. Kant was a pretty smart guy, even if he had his issues, and he was known for being smart. At the time people tried to measure intelligence by measure the skull. The scientists that did this would fill the brain cavity with pellets or something, whatever, point is that more space meant more intelligent. So the studies would indicate that whites were more intelligent than other races because the skull cavities seemed bigger (however the study was biased. they used male white skulls, but females from other races. So naturally the female skulls were smaller) So when Kant died the scientists were a twitter! Now we shall see what true intelligence is! Kant was a small dude, with a small head, the scientists balked when he didn't have some huge brain space...and then they all realized that was a really stupid idea and all the study bias came out. 

Anyway yeah. Hume is the one that annoys me most. His big thing was empiricism. We can not know what we have not observed and learned. He made the comment that the white people were obviously superior as they have accomplished great feats of civilization that non-whites have not. A little known philosopher came out against the famous Hume and said "well what about the pyramids, and this, this, this ,this ,this...etc" and pointed out the magnificent achievements of past non-white societies. Hume basically said "yes well...whites are still better". I am over exaggerating the paraphrase, but it was disappointing to first have that moment where historical icon became human.


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Buuut yeah. The funny thing is Kant inadvertently helped to end at least one racial prejudice. Kant was a pretty smart pony, even if he had his issues, and he was known for being smart. At the time ponies tried to measure intelligence by measure the skull. The scientists that did this would fill the brain cavity with pellets or something, whatever, point is that more space meant more intelligent. So the studies would indicate that whites were more intelligent than other races because the skull cavities seemed bigger (however the study was biased. they used male white skulls, but females from other races. So naturally the female skulls were smaller) So when Kant died the scientists were a twitter! Now we shall see what true intelligence is! Kant was a small dude, with a small head, the scientists balked when he didn't have some huge brain space...and then they all realized that was a really stupid idea and all the study bias came out.
> 
> Anyway yeah. Hume is the one that annoys me most. His big thing was empiricism. We can not know what we have not observed and learned. He made the comment that the white ponies were obviously superior as they have accomplished great feats of civilization that non-whites have not. A little known philosopher came out against the famous Hume and said "well what about the pyramids, and this, this, this ,this ,this...etc" and pointed out the magnificent achievements of past non-white societies. Hume basically said "yes well...whites are still better". I am over exaggerating the paraphrase, but it was disappointing to first have that moment where historical icon became pony.



Oh the irony.

Didn't Hume go a step further and said we couldn't possibly establish causal relations even after seeing them with our own eyes? Or didn't he also say something along the lines of causal relations being necessary? If so... the hypocrisy may be even bigger.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 26, 2011)

AristÃ³crates Carranza said:


> Oh the irony.
> 
> Didn't Hume go a step further and said we couldn't possibly establish causal relations even after seeing them with our own eyes? Or didn't he also say something along the lines of causal relations being necessary? If so... the hypocrisy may be even bigger.



Hume actually gave up on philosophy. We couldn't establish causal relationships and much of our knowledge is based in induction which is flawed. So while Hume is known for empiricism in epistemology, he actually burned his books and retired. Basically he said "well fuck that I'm going to the pub" then did. I have a slightly scorched copy of Hume lying around because I helped TA the metaphysics class. :3


----------



## Ariosto (Oct 26, 2011)

So that means he actually could actually outdrink Hegel?*

*From the "Bruce" sketch in _Monty Python_.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 26, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since some in here say that morality comes from within (instinct) I ask how that isn't subjective?
> 
> Some say incest is wrong, others don't. Some say polygamy is wrong, others don't.
> 
> ...



I was the one who said morality comes from instincts towards the betterment of society/helping your species. Most people have this instinct, very few don't, and that's usually do to mental health issues (as mentioned before).

Incest is wrong, because you're either A) hurting someone (or yourself), or B) failing to help your species. Your instincts aren't to breed with your own family. 

Polygamy is more of a societial issue than moral issue - I personally couldn't give a rats ass, but it's neither instinctual and probably isn't towards the betterment of your species.

I was also the one to say morality isn't black and white. My proof comes from the fact that you can't create a solitary/universal 'moral rule' as long as those few people who exist in society that mess everything up. Your Christianity might say "Thou shalt not kill", but that can go against instinct, and betterment (i.e. unreasonable). As well, those words hold no exception at all (for various reasons). On the flipside, it'd be pretty much impossible to create a list of scenarios that it might or might not be okay to kill someone.

Again with the incest, polygamy, and adultery. The first two, same as above - Adultery...Has different contexts. There is the court-room one, where adultery is a bad thing, secretive, abusive, or used as a reason to get divorced, etc. Outside of court, it's an explanatory word akin to 'swinging' - It just has a negative connotation. 

I said no to all three, and I 

The main problem I see here, is your necessity to define morality. 

It makes me think that if you actually realized god didn't exist, that you'd be an even whackier job that is no longer held back by an unseen force that isn't there. 

I've heard some Christians (I am hoping) accidentally admit to this, but hopefully not YOU - That they'd be booze hounds, sex fiends, potentially even murderers and rapists, if it weren't for their belief in their god. They feel they have someone always watching them, and someone they must atone to when they die; so they never do these things. It's a frightening thought, and actually removes some of the anti-theism from me, because I want these idiots to believe in a god so they won't become horrible people. 

Do you think you'd be all that different of a person if you came to terms with god not existing? Perhaps the daily little things in your life would change (no prayers, no bible-reading, etc.), but would you stop loving cars? Stop loving your neighbours, friends, family, or others? Or would you continue to do these things, because it's what you love, and it's good/good for you?

Back onto the other topic, if objective morals are based outside of people...Then where are they based? How do we interact with them, know them, or are sure we're interpreting them correctly? 

Now, I know you'd insert god into that equation, but in order to do that, you'd have to show us he exists. Obviously, that's not a reasonable position to be in, because this is intended to be just your opinion about it, but just realize we're not starting from step one on this issue (proving god) - We're leaping past a whole bunch of stuff.

On the last note, I don't believe objective morality exists, and I am also not too sure on subjective morality either - Like I said before, I don't think they're terms that should be applied to morality. I'm not entirely sure if you could trust my judgments, at least in your current state of mind, because I do believe there are certain scenarios that go against your so-called objective morals, but would have to be done.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 26, 2011)

Onnes said:


> If he's a serial killer then I am assuming that he has either not been caught or has escaped from custody. I'd only save him if I believed I could then subdue him until the police arrive--heck, he might even kill me if he still had the strength. Otherwise, I'm simply calling the authorities since little good can come from me intervening; I personally judge his death or capture to both be better outcomes than him going free, given his crimes.



But that's assuming that he was shown in papers and on the news. If he was, most would let him drown, few wouldn't because they know that they aren't the law and save him.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 26, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Incest is wrong, because you're either A) hurting someone (or yourself), or B) failing to help your species. Your instincts aren't to breed with your own family.
> 
> Polygamy is more of a societial issue than moral issue - I personally couldn't give a rats ass, but it's neither instinctual and probably isn't towards the betterment of your species.



Sorry, but I have to call this out as post hoc rationalizing of societal taboos.  Who actually thinks of "the good of the human species" when pursuing sex outside of hypothetical post-apocolyptic scenarios?

True, incestous relationships are likely to have complications of sexual ethics related to authority statuses within the family, but that's neither unique to nor necessarily present in incest, it's a seperate, stand-alone issue.  The only major moral dilemma incest itself introduces is the dramatically increased chance that any offspring would have rare genetic disorders.  That is a real moral concern, and we have a biological aversion to having sex with people we grew up around for that very reason, but if steps are taken to prevent the chance of having offspring in the first place, it ceases to be an issue.

Polygamy doesn't even have its own unique moral issues.  As long as everyone gives informed consent, there is no moral issue, which you are already appear to be aware of by not giving a rat's ass.  From a purely moral standpoint, there is no defined "correct" form of relationship.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 26, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Sorry, but I have to call this out as post hoc rationalizing of societal taboos.  Who actually thinks of "the good of the human species" when pursuing sex outside of hypothetical post-apocolyptic scenarios?
> 
> True, incestous relationships are likely to have complications of sexual ethics related to authority statuses within the family, but that's neither unique to nor necessarily present in incest, it's a seperate, stand-alone issue.  The only major moral dilemma incest itself introduces is the dramatically increased chance that any offspring would have rare genetic disorders.  That is a real moral concern, and we have a biological aversion to having sex with people we grew up around for that very reason, but if steps are taken to prevent the chance of having offspring in the first place, it ceases to be an issue.
> 
> Polygamy doesn't even have its own unique moral issues.  As long as everyone gives informed consent, there is no moral issue, which you are already appear to be aware of by not giving a rat's ass.  From a purely moral standpoint, there is no defined "correct" form of relationship.




Sexual morality will always be one of those things that vary from culture to Culture. In some Muslim countries and Mormon faith, a man can have as many wives as he can financially have. In other Religious areas, Polygamy is looked down upon. 

In older times, Incest was to keep a noble lineage strong within the family so that the dynasty could continue. Some places had limits to who you could marry, and rarer if there were no males on the Brother's side of the family, you have to resort to marrying your own brother. Genetic deformities will always be a cost of it, and it can be a legitamate reason not to allow incest, but it will be one of those culture taboos.


----------



## Onnes (Oct 26, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> But that's assuming that he was shown in papers and on the news. If he was, most would let him drown, few wouldn't because they know that they aren't the law and save him.



I believe the assumption in that scenario is that you absolutely know the guy is a serial killer. The difference in actions is really a matter of whether you go for deontological or consequentialist ethics. In the consequentialist case, you have to consider the eventual results of your actions, which in this case include the possibility that you allow a serial killer to kill again. You don't divest yourself of responsibility after you save him.


----------



## Duality Jack (Oct 26, 2011)

My morals are simple "So long as no one or nothing gets hurt besides yourself do whatever the fuck you want"


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 26, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Sexual morality will always be one of those things that vary from culture to Culture. In some Muslim countries and Mormon faith, a man can have as many wives as he can financially have. In other Religious areas, Polygamy is looked down upon.


 
Strictly speaking, polygamy was the main form of marriage for the majority of history. And those tended to be purely for political benefit to unite tribes or other groups. IIRC, The idea of marrying for romantic love didn't appear until after the victorian era- during which you had your wife for home life and mistresses for romance, and the nuclear family was quite rare until after the television was invented.


----------



## Ozriel (Oct 26, 2011)

Mojotech said:


> Strictly speaking, polygamy was the main form of marriage for the majority of history. And those tended to be purely for political benefit to unite tribes or other groups. IIRC, The idea of marrying for romantic love didn't appear until after the victorian era- during which you had your wife for home life and mistresses for romance, and the nuclear family was quite rare until after the television was invented.



Don't forget the country family...with everyone living under one roof.


----------



## Conker (Oct 26, 2011)

Fay V said:


> How much does intent count versus action?


I believe that depends on which end you are on. If you did an action that you intended to be good, but ultimately was bad, well you can rationalize it that you intended good to happen. Sucks that your plan backfired, but you really wanted things to work out well! If you are on the receiving end, who gives a fuck what the intent was? Now more shit went wrong and you have to deal with that.

I'm one to err on the side of effect and not cause though.


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Oct 27, 2011)

Zeke Shadowfyre said:


> Don't forget the country family...with everyone living under one roof.



Goodnight John boy.


----------



## Heimdal (Oct 27, 2011)

Wow. Just noticed this train wreck discussion now. I don't know, I didn't read anything past the first page and a half, but this all reminds me of my childhood... when I was learning 'common sense'. I think that's linked to explaining morality; accepted morality follows the most rational approach.

Mankind recognizes that working together to achieve a goal, for the mutual benefit of all involved, is more efficient than shanking someone and taking what you need until next time (or until you get shanked.) A terrible thing is only acceptable if the only other options are worse. Robbing someone is morally wrong because it is generally among the least efficient ways to become successful, alone and as a group. (Getting rich off the backs of others is inefficient, in terms of morality, because your gain is from other people's loss.) This is an issue of common sense, not "cuz God sez so!"

OP wrecked my brain. Deo and Fay made way more sense than I am, I'm sure. I don't even understand how OP could have such a weak view of how morals function without them being still in kindergarten. I have little against religious people, but this sort of thing always makes me think. Some spout that religion is the basis for all the most important guiding morals. This sorta implies that the only thing stopping them from murdering me and wearing my face is that some imaginary being told them not to. It feels so unstable to me. Does it not make more sense that the basis for guiding morals be in determining what is the most beneficial to the most people?


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 27, 2011)

Deo said:


> I say that either consciously or subconsciously we know not cause harm.


And yet we don't, a lot. Thats why I say people can't consistently act moral. But, my definition of morals is *more* than just actions. 



Deo said:


> I don't see how truth needs to be explained. It just *is*.


Why not? Or rather, why people explain it? 




Deo said:


> Why people cannot be moral? People have free will. Moral actions can be hard on a person, and they may not like the burden or the duty that morality bears. People make mistakes too, and honest mistakes not meant to cause harm, but we all make mistakes. And there are other reasons too. Mental illness for one. But I think that humans CAN keep the moral law. If we strive to do kindness, we work to right wrongs, we live in peace, we do what is in our power to do, and we cause no one harm we are living up to moral duties. We are _excelling _in our moral duties. Rukh, you place humans low and view them as monsters inside of men, as sinners. I do not. I view everyone as people, they can be capricious, but deep down are good matured, kind, good honest people, with hearts and hopes and dreams and lives. I revel in humanity! You speak as if humanity cannot be moral, but I see humanity being moral and good everyday. I see it in the eyes of child as they smile at a dutiful parent. I see it in the kindness of helping a stranger pick up their pens. I see it in the gestures and small talk at the bus stop. You seem to look for the dark aspects of humanity, but I urge you not to wallow there. Look instead to the bright parts, for which people are unendingly capable of good.


Acting morally goes beyond actions. Its thoughts as well. Thats how high the bar is. Grudgingly doing the right thing even if you don't want to, thats not good morals. You only kid yourself. Your thoughts count just as much as your actions. If you help someone pick up say a box they dropped, and in your head your calling them an idiot, you were not acting morally good. I don't look on the outside, I look at the inside. Thats why I say we can't keep the moral law.
Everyone says adultery is wrong. But most are just looking at the action, I say it starts in the head. The moment you ogled at someone (I hope people know the difference between looking at someone and ogling) you have acted morally wrong. Most people say its morally wrong to just stand there and curse at someone. Again, I say it starts in the head. Someone cuts you off on the highway and you curse at them with your thoughts, you just acted morally wrong. You thinking or saying something in your head that is morally wrong, is wrong. Are you going to tell me that humanity as a whole can keep the absolute moral law when we can't even keep our minds in check?

Our definitions while at first seem similar, but when looked at closer, I think you look just at ones actions while I look at their heart.



Heimdal said:


> Some spout that religion is the basis for all  the most important guiding morals. This sorta implies that the only  thing stopping them from murdering me and wearing my face is that some  imaginary being told them not to. It feels so unstable to me. Does it  not make more sense that the basis for guiding morals be in determining  what is the most beneficial to the most people?


I never stated religion gave us morals. In fact, I said in here earlier that it didn't. Common misconception that I see all the time.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 27, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And yet we don't, a lot. Thats why I say people can't consistently act moral. But, my definition of morals is *more* than just actions.
> 
> 
> Why not? Or rather, why people explain it?
> ...



I think you're putting words in her mouth a bit. To be fair we can not tell what a person is thinking. So we do our best with what we see, which is actions. Deo can't claim that people are thinking good, but you also can't claim the good people in her examples are not thinking the right thoughts. But I'll let deo defend her views and go with mine.

Christians strive to be like christ right? Which is more than action. It takes action and thought to meet the objective good. However people are failing. They have free will and free thought and will never get to the point where a bad thought does not enter their head because they are human, not divine. Still, bad thoughts do not make a good action worthless. If a person thinks someone is an idiot but helps anyway, that is a better action than just not doing anything. 
Imagine a good christian man. He is kind, compassionate, and lives right according to the bible. If he has a single bad thought one morning does that make him evil? no, if just makes him imperfect. If I asked you to pick a good christian you would show me someone that behaves correctly in his actions (I assume) then also explain that thoughts go with it, because you can't show me his thoughts. 
It's the same for a secular absolute morality. People strive for the absolute good and fail.
Personally I also think thought goes with action. Action always follows thought, so if you allow your mind to have the most nasty thoughts possible, your actions will soon follow. to be a good person you need to have good thoughts. 

This is a point where I actually disagree with Kant. To Kant a moral action has worth if it is acted on for duty, rather than just according to duty. For instance, a man really wants to rise prices a lot in his store and make more money, but he doesn't because that is cheating his customers and that is wrong. This is a right action, he may have wanted something wrong but did the correct action because it was right. 
If he had decided not to cheat his customers because he is afraid he'd get caught, then the action was not moral, even if he did the right thing it was for the wrong reason. Now that all seems well and good, but the way Kant sees it, if a person is naturally inclined to be good, and just does good, there is no moral worth there, because they aren't acting on duty, they're just doing the right thing because they think that way. 
He's been criticized for that. In theory with Kant the only way to be good is to understand the good thing, come to despise it, then do it anyway. 

Though Kant's ideas do back up this idea that the ultimate right thing involves both action and thought, which people are not perfect at. He talks about how there are two different minds, the divine mind, and human mind. The divine mind knows what is good, and always acts on the good, because it desires to do good. Thought and action coincide. 
For Kant a human mind is one we all have, and it is one that does not always desire the good for the sake of goodness. That is why we fail, we let our other thoughts go, we desire other things, we are not perfect and divine.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 27, 2011)

I doubt Christ walked around complaining that nobody acted like him though :v


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 28, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Christians strive to be like christ right? Which is more than action. It takes action and thought to meet the objective good. However people are failing. They have free will and free thought and will never get to the point where a bad thought does not enter their head because they are human, not divine. Still, bad thoughts do not make a good action worthless. If a person thinks someone is an idiot but helps anyway, that is a better action than just not doing anything.
> Imagine a good christian man. He is kind, compassionate, and lives right according to the bible. If he has a single bad thought one morning does that make him evil? no, if just makes him imperfect. If I asked you to pick a good christian you would show me someone that behaves correctly in his actions (I assume) then also explain that thoughts go with it, because you can't show me his thoughts.
> It's the same for a secular absolute morality. People strive for the absolute good and fail.
> Personally I also think thought goes with action. Action always follows thought, so if you allow your mind to have the most nasty thoughts possible, your actions will soon follow. to be a good person you need to have good thoughts.



Since this was brought up, I will speak on the Christian side of this. For one, there is a huge difference between being tempted and having morally bad thoughts. Martin Luther says it really well. "You can't stop the birds from flying overhead, but you can stop them from nesting in your hair." Remember, it says that Jesus Himself was tempted. And He lived a perfect life. Clearly for a Christian there is a distinction. So, a bad thought is acting on temptation, even if its still all in your head.

And, a definition of religious people who appeared living right are the Pharisees of the New Testament. Jesus referred to them as whitewashed tombs. They looked good on the outside but on the inside they were rotten. This implies that there is importance on the motive behind actions. And just because you acted good, doesn't make it good, because you could have done it for the wrong reason. Good actions does not make someone good. I notice that people seem to imply one good action amends a bad one. And this is simply not the case. The transcendent moral law is perfect. It doesn't negotiate. It stands and says "This is the mark."



Lastdirewolf said:


> I doubt Christ walked around complaining that nobody acted like him though :v



He rebuked people plenty. The religious leaders of the day are an example of who He rebuked all the time.

And He had plenty to say about morals. Clearly defining that it all starts in the mind.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 28, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> I doubt Christ walked around complaining that nobody acted like him though :v



Well, according to the Bible Jesus cursed a fig tree because it didn't have any fruit for him to eat... _despite the fact that it was not the season for figs!_ (One would have expected _any _ adult resident of first-century Judea to know when figs were in season, let alone the "Son of God", but anyway...)

I'm not sure that cursing fig trees was the kind of Christ-like example for morality Christians are expected to follow


----------



## Fay V (Oct 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Since this was brought up, I will speak on the Christian side of this. For one, there is a huge difference between being tempted and having morally bad thoughts. Martin Luther says it really well. "You can't stop the birds from flying overhead, but you can stop them from nesting in your hair." Remember, it says that Jesus Himself was tempted. And He lived a perfect life. Clearly for a Christian there is a distinction. So, a bad thought is acting on temptation, even if its still all in your head.
> 
> And, a definition of religious people who appeared living right are the Pharisees of the New Testament. Jesus referred to them as whitewashed tombs. They looked good on the outside but on the inside they were rotten. This implies that there is importance on the motive behind actions. And just because you acted good, doesn't make it good, because you could have done it for the wrong reason. Good actions does not make someone good. I notice that people seem to imply one good action amends a bad one. And this is simply not the case. The transcendent moral law is perfect. It doesn't negotiate. It stands and says "This is the mark."
> 
> ...



Do you believe there is any person on this earth that does not have bad thoughts? I don't mean just tempted, as you say, even jesus was tempted, I want to know if you believe that there is a perfect person on this earth that can practice both perfect thought and action. Obviously if you have good thoughts good actions follow, though you can't say the reverse for the reasons that you stated. 
If there is no perfect christian, then the same would apply to the objective secular theory. People fail to be a perfect christian because they are human. People fail to meet the objective secular goal for the same reason. 

Honestly there really isn't that much of a difference. Look at the responses about intent. most people clearly stated that it is intent that matters, not the action. So it is the intent to save a man that makes the action good, not the action of saving the serial killer. There really is little difference between a religious objective theory and a secular objective theory. The difference that I see is that God has been removed from one, and there is the belief that people can be good on their own without a divine guide.

This is exactly the point that Kant was trying to make. It is not that he was atheist, the man was a christian. He wasn't trying to remake morality and shock the world. The attempt was simply to show how to be an objectively moral person.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 28, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> He rebuked people plenty. The religious leaders of the day are an example of who He rebuked all the time.
> 
> And He had plenty to say about morals. Clearly defining that it all starts in the mind.



You took the time to carefully reply to my minimal comment and not the big one above :c


----------



## Lobar (Oct 28, 2011)

I'm vehemently against the idea that thoughts in and of themselves can be moral or immoral.  It's how they translate into actions that matters.  It doesn't matter if someone willfully engages in a private fantasy about doing something terrible to someone else, as long as they never act on it in reality, it's morally neutral.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Oct 28, 2011)

Lobar said:


> I'm vehemently against the idea that thoughts in and of themselves can be moral or immoral.  It's how they translate into actions that matters.  It doesn't matter if someone willfully engages in a private fantasy about doing something terrible to someone else, as long as they never act on it in reality, it's morally neutral.


 
Corollary: Good thoughts that are not acted upon are also neutral, since they do not result in any benefit to anyone.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 29, 2011)

Alas, I don't have the time to read 7 pages of arguments, but the OP sounds interesting so I'll find the time to go back & read all the responses later.

That said, I did want to offer my response to the OP:

Although I am a Christian myself, I wasn't always one.  Even though my morality was from a secular viewpoint, I did come to accept that there were universal things that are right and universal things that are wrong.  I didn't come to believe in them because I believed in the gods (I was polytheist prior to accepting Christ) but because I saw the simple logic inherent in the so-called Golden Rule "Do onto others as you'd have them do onto you" (or something very much along those lines.)  At the time, I didn't know that happened to be one of Jesus' teachings.  I don't even know where I first heard of the concept, but I saw it in action every day.  Dishonest and immoral people may advance for a time through underhanded means, but eventually they're almost always brought down... usually as a direct result of their immoral actions.

Criminals are usually caught, eventually.  This is especially true if they start with petty crimes, get away with them and become more and more bold in their actions.  Someone who starts out snatching purses from unlocked cars usually ends up getting caught when they're attempting a much worse crime.  Better to walk away from an unlocked car, or better yet tell the owner of the car (if you know who they are) that the left the purse in there in the first place.  Yeah, you're passing up making a quick buck from a crime that's virtually impossible for police to solve... but that means you are less likely to become tempted to perform much worse crimes down the road.

Liars are trapped by their own lies.  I've seen this play out more times than I can count.  Small, white lies need to be covered by more audacious lies when the truth is revealed.  Eventually, no lie can cover up what the truth is.  Better to say "actually, I think you're right; I was mistaken" when the truth exposes a white lie, or better yet not tell the lie in the first place.  A reputation for honesty is worth a lot, especially these days.  A reputation for dishonesty means no one will believe you, even when you're telling the truth.

Those are just two examples.  That's not even to mention the many, many other ways that one person can wrong another.  Getting ahead by unethical means always earns someone many, many enemies.  In time, that comes back to bite them in the ass.

So even if you don't believe in God or the gods or Karma or anything supernatural whatsoever, anyone can see from experience what happens to unethical people.  Do they get ahead in the short-term?  Frequently, yeah.  Do they stay ahead in the long-term?  Frequently, no.  There are exceptions, but with a long list of enemies who'd happily pull them down, anyone who gets ahead through dishonest means is always a single mistake away from utter disaster.  No matter what my beliefs are, I'd rather life an ethical lifestyle than have to worry about pulled down by any of a number of people I've screwed over during the course of my life.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 29, 2011)

Telnac said:


> Do they get ahead in the short-term?  Frequently, yeah.  Do they stay ahead in the long-term?  Frequently, no.


 
Given the state of our economy and political process, this is an unproven assumption now more than ever.

edit: The golden rule also isn't unique to Jesus, and in fact predates him, but I'm sure you knew that already.


----------



## Telnac (Oct 29, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Given the state of our economy and political process, this is an unproven assumption now more than ever.
> 
> edit: The golden rule also isn't unique to Jesus, and in fact predates him, but I'm sure you knew that already.


Oh, yes.  Jesus' main point when he talked about the Golden Rule was that it & the First Commandment sum up all of the Commandments and the hundreds of laws written in the OT.  Although many Christians think that Jesus was the originator of the Golden Rule, when you read the actual text it's pretty clear that although Jesus certainly championed it, it had already been around for a looong time.


----------



## Rukh_Whitefang (Oct 29, 2011)

Fay V said:


> Do you believe there is any person on this earth that does not have bad thoughts? I don't mean just tempted, as you say, even jesus was tempted, I want to know if you believe that there is a perfect person on this earth that can practice both perfect thought and action. Obviously if you have good thoughts good actions follow, though you can't say the reverse for the reasons that you stated.
> If there is no perfect christian, then the same would apply to the objective secular theory. People fail to be a perfect christian because they are human. People fail to meet the objective secular goal for the same reason.



There is no person on earth who can meet the standard that has been placed by this moral law that exists outside of humanity (other than Christ). No one can be perfect. With that in mind Fay, whats the point for this perfection based moral law existing in the first place? Why is there a standard to which we can never achieve? Add to that, why is the standard for acting morally perfection? Secondly, since this moral law exists outside of humanity, how did something which is perfect come into place that affects humanity of such a large scale?


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is no person on earth who can meet the standard that has been placed by this moral law that exists outside of humanity (other than Christ). No one can be perfect. With that in mind Fay, whats the point for this perfection based moral law existing in the first place? Why is there a standard to which we can never achieve? Add to that, why is the standard for acting morally perfection? Secondly, since this moral law exists outside of humanity, how did something which is perfect come into place that affects humanity of such a large scale?



This Jesus-level moral standard doesn't exist to humanity, if you want to put it this way, because it's outside our perception, and we're relying on subjective ways of getting the complete standard.


----------



## Fay V (Oct 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is no person on earth who can meet the standard that has been placed by this moral law that exists outside of humanity (other than Christ). No one can be perfect. With that in mind Fay, whats the point for this perfection based moral law existing in the first place? Why is there a standard to which we can never achieve? Add to that, why is the standard for acting morally perfection? Secondly, since this moral law exists outside of humanity, how did something which is perfect come into place that affects humanity of such a large scale?


The perfection commentary was that I was trying to get you to understand while using something you already understand. Only Jesus can be perfectly moral because jesus is perfect. Everyone else just tries their best. 
Now you ask what the point is if we can't meet it. It's the same point as any high standard, and I'm sure it's the same for christians. Surely you are not so prideful to think that you can be as perfect as the son of god, so why bother being christian if you can never meet that standard? Because while god expects you to try for that standard, he doesn't expect you to achieve it. Otherwise everyone would burn in hell because they could reach perfection. 
well it's the same idea. Being a perfectly moral person is impossible. Humans are small and flawed. In order to be perfectly moral we would have to be omniscient. However one can always strive to improve and there is reward in itself for living a moral life. That is a difference for the secular moralist. It isn't a matter of attempting to achieve heaven in the afterlife, but rather to be moral for the sake of it and create a heaven on earth. Good begets good and if you strive to be a good moral person your life will reflect that. 
As for how morality came into existence. It simply is. The day you explain how a perfect god came into existence, I will explain how morality came to be.


----------



## Deo (Oct 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> And yet we don't, a lot. Thats why I say  people can't consistently act moral. But, my definition of morals is *more* than just actions.


Yes  morality is more than just action. But I cannot read minds, so I give  the benefit of the doubt and make the assumption that everyone is doing  good out of the desire to do good or for similar reasons. And I honestly  think that. People are good, they think good thoughts, they do good  things, they want to be happy and they want others to be happy. People  can't consistently act moral because people are people, and people make  mistakes or misjudgments. I do not hold this against them. 




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Why not? Or rather, why people explain it?


Why?  Why do people explain morality? It's human nature to learn and expand  our knowledge and to describe and explain everything we can. We're  curious creatures that seek to know and understand, a drive that has  pushed us and molded us as a species.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Acting morally goes beyond actions. Its  thoughts as well. Thats how high the bar is. Grudgingly doing the right  thing even if you don't want to, thats not good morals. You only kid  yourself. Your thoughts count just as much as your actions. If you help  someone pick up say a box they dropped, and in your head your calling  them an idiot, you were not acting morally good.


First off, I'm not the ThoughtPolice. I don't like thoughtcrime and it seems you're a bit too far down the *1984*  rabbit hole for my personal tastes. Rukh, I don't know what all people  are thinking at every moment of every day. I do not have this knowledge  or information. But I'm not going to damn people based on personal  doubt. So what if I don't know for a fact that the good samaritan is  acting out of his good nature with good intentions and thoughts? Even if  I don't know for certain I'm willing to forgo that. I don't need to  know his thoughts to know that his actions impact the physical world in  which we all inhabit in a positive way. That is what I do know. And that  is what I can appreciate and be grateful for. His thoughts do not  concern me. I think people are innately good and I think that doing good  also implies that they are thinking good. I really can't imagine a  person whose actions are so grossly different from their thoughts. I  can't imagine the volunteer worker at the animal shelter thinking about  kicking puppies or strangling orphans while they do good deeds. If this  is how you think the world works I think you may be paranoid. 




Rukh_Whitefang said:


> I don't look on the outside, I look at the inside. Thats why I say we can't keep the moral law.


Wait. You can read minds? You can read the minds of every human being at the same time? So you "look at the inside"?
See  Rukh, you CAN'T look at the inside. You don't know. You're making  negative assumptions about people based on things you don't know and  preconceptions. Again, you don't look at the inside, because you do not  have this ability to do so. You cannot read minds, you are not privy to  the information inscribed on the human heart, and you DO NOT KNOW. Since  you lack this knowledge you can do either of two things: you can make  the assumption that everyone is immoral because you think that they  maybe possibly could be might be thinking nasty thoughts maybe *OR* you could accept that you don't know their thoughts and assume that they do good with good intentions.

Example  time. There's a murder, and you think that maybe Person A did it. Even  though Person A's actions and deeds point directly to the opposite being  likely. So you have no evidence, no way of possibly knowing, and no  proof outside of a gut feeling. Do you assume they are guilty based on  no evidence? Do you judge them? Damn them?
No, because _*you don't know.*_
And  now, I know that admitting that we don't know is hard for some people.  But it's the honest truth when it comes to the thoughts of others. We  don't know, and therefore we should not make slanderous or negative  assumptions about other people's thoughts.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everyone says adultery is wrong. But most are just looking at the  action, I say it starts in the head. The moment you ogled at someone (I  hope people know the difference between looking at someone and ogling)  you have acted morally wrong. Most people say its morally wrong to just  stand there and curse at someone. Again, I say it starts in the head.  Someone cuts you off on the highway and you curse at them with your  thoughts, you just acted morally wrong. You thinking or saying something  in your head that is morally wrong, is wrong. Are you going to tell me  that humanity as a whole can keep the absolute moral law when we can't  even keep our minds in check?


No Rukh, all you know is that  you personally cannot keep your mind in check. You do not know about the  other 7 billion minds on this planet. All you KNOW is yourself. That's  the only thing each of us has, as autonomous individuals the only  thoughts we know are our own. So you can't make blanket statements  damning humanity because you assume that everyone's mind works exactly  like yours. That's rather egotistical.

So beyond the fact that we  don't know if other people are committing these thought crimes Rukh,  you seem to be placing moral as equal to perfect. This is not true.  People strive to be moral, in the the effort they achieve it. They are  never perfect, but in that drive, that effort, that sweet and tears and  strain towards becoming better people they are acting morally. They will  fall, they will make mistakes, they will never be perfect. But human  beings were never meant to be perfect. It is not possible for us. And I  think it's horribly wrong of us to impose the impossible as something  everyone should attain. I think it's wrong to demand people be something  that they can never be. It's wrong to knowingly place expectations upon  people and burden them with something that we know they cannot achieve.  It'd be similar to demanding that a legless man pole vault, and he may  try and struggle valiantly (as we all struggle to be moral) but in the  end he can't jump that and we can't be perfect. Our mistakes may be  immoral, but that doesn't mean that people are completely immoral simply  because they err. Imperfection does not mean that mankind is forever  immoral. People TRY and that's partially what counts. They make  mistakes, but more often people don't make moral mistakes, people will  impress you if you open your eyes. Everyday people are acting morally,  every single day people all across this world are doing what is right  and being benevolent. And that matters Rukh, that matters more than if  they oogle someone one time, it matters that they strive to be moral.



Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Our  definitions while at first seem similar, but when looked at closer, I  think you look just at ones actions while I look at their heart.


*spits out coffee*
Are  you assuming you know what I'm thinking? Please don't put words in my  mouth. I think the heart matters also in morality not just actions, but  Rukh, unlike you I seem to be comfortable in the fact that I don't know  the inner cockles of people's hearts or their thoughts. I don't know,  and I am okay with that. And I will not damn a person or humanity as a  whole based on something I do not know.





Lobar said:


> I'm vehemently against the idea that thoughts in and of themselves can be moral or immoral.  It's how they translate into actions that matters.  It doesn't matter if someone willfully engages in a private fantasy about doing something terrible to someone else, as long as they never act on it in reality, it's morally neutral.


I'm against the idea that thoughts can be held against a person, when the fact of the matter is we do not know what anyone else except for ourselves is thinking.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Oct 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> Everyone says adultery is wrong.



Who is this everyone? Do you even know what adultery is, exactly?


----------



## Deo (Oct 29, 2011)

Rukh_Whitefang said:


> There is no person on earth who can meet the standard that has been placed by this moral law that exists outside of humanity (other than Christ). No one can be perfect. With that in mind Fay, whats the point for this perfection based moral law existing in the first place? Why is there a standard to which we can never achieve? Add to that, why is the standard for acting morally perfection? Secondly, since this moral law exists outside of humanity, how did something which is perfect come into place that affects humanity of such a large scale?


I'd rather not use historical/fictional characters that pertain only to one religion as the base standard for my morality. Using such makes the standard morality not standard and not applicable to everyone or all religions and thus not universally objective (not objective at all since it's based on one man and his personal opinions, actions, words as ascribed to him in a three thousand year old heavily re-translated book). And no, I do not think that "the standard for acting morally" is perfection. Humans cannot be perfect. Demanding perfection out of people that you are _consciously aware are incapable of such_ is either callous and uncaring of human nature or malicious. The burden of perfection is not one humanity was ever meant to bear. You cannot expect perfection. You can't demand the impossible from mortal beings. You cannot demand that fish stop swimming and you cannot demand that people cease to err. It's a demand that is illogical at best and cruel/damaging at worst.

And I say that people can achieve morality. We do so every day. This is why society functions so smoothly. I see the moral actions in the smile of a clerk in teh grocery store, of the kind words of a stranger, in the way a bus driver tells me the right bus to get on, in the way that nice young man held the door open for me this morning, and in all the other countless actions of 7 billion people that I was not around to bear witness to.


----------



## Mayfurr (Oct 30, 2011)

Deo said:


> Humans cannot be perfect. Demanding perfection out of people that you are consciously aware are incapable of such is either callous and uncaring of human nature or malicious. The burden of perfection is not one humanity was ever meant to bear. You cannot expect perfection. You can't demand the impossible from mortal beings. You cannot demand that fish stop swimming and you cannot demand that people cease to err. *It's a demand that is illogical at best and cruel/damaging at worst.*



Which is why I suspect Christians in general and those like Rukh in particular play this particular card so frequently. As one former-preacher-turned-atheist put it in a review of a C. S. Lewis book that dealt with this topic: _" 'Mere Christianity' boils down to the same old sermon: you are a sinner and you know it, don't you feel bad? Then, when you are properly ashamed you will realize the beauty of the plan of salvation that this deity has revealed through the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ..."_

In other words, Christianity first cuts you then offers you a Band-Aid.



Deo said:


> And I say that people can achieve morality. We do so every day. This is why society functions so smoothly. I see the moral actions in the smile of a clerk in teh grocery store, of the kind words of a stranger, in the way a bus driver tells me the right bus to get on, in the way that nice young man held the door open for me this morning, and in all the other countless actions of 7 billion people that I was not around to bear witness to.



Agreed.


----------



## Lobar (Oct 31, 2011)

Mayfurr said:


> In other words, Christianity first cuts you then offers you a Band-Aid.


 
A band-aid we had to obtain from a _human sacrifice_, don't you feel really guilty now for not taking it?


----------



## Deo (Oct 31, 2011)

I hope Rukh returns. I answered his questions and I'm curious about his response.


----------



## Hakar Kerarmor (Nov 1, 2011)

Deo said:


> I hope Rukh returns. I answered his questions and I'm curious about his response.



"I'm right and you're wrong because the bible says so."


----------



## Lobar (Nov 7, 2011)

Bumping this one more time because QualiaSoup just posted a new video that knocks it out of the park today:

[yt]sN-yLH4bXAI[/yt]

edit: and it's the third part of a continuing series on secular morality, here you can find part 1 and part 2.


----------



## Smart_Cookie (Nov 7, 2011)

Lastdirewolf said:


> Who is this everyone? Do you even know what adultery is, exactly?


 
The problem here is, "Adultery" is a complete weasel word. It's a rather vague term with a lot of baggage to begin with, and in this case it's a buzzword used to make most people agree when they wouldn't agree with his actual meaning. Most people think "Cheating on your spouse." - Fundamentalists think adultery is, basically, "Having a sex drive at all.".

Standard fundamentalist dishonesty really.


----------



## Duality Jack (Nov 7, 2011)

Lobar said:


> Bumping this one more time because QualiaSoup just posted a new video that knocks it out of the park today:
> 
> [yt]sN-yLH4bXAI[/yt]
> 
> edit: and it's the third part of a continuing series on secular morality, here you can find part 1 and part 2.


 I like. I find it interesting, and relevant to my perspective. I like it when things support my already standing opinions. Ego buffs are fun.


----------

