Maybe this has been dome to death on here before, but I find it very interesting. Is morality objectively 'true' or is it relative, either to each individual person's opinion or to each culture? or perhaps some other option? What reasons are there to support your position?
Announcement
Collapse
Philosophy 201 Guidelines
Cogito ergo sum
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
Here in the Philosophy forum we will talk about all the "why" questions. We'll have conversations about the way in which philosophy and theology and religion interact with each other. Metaphysics, ontology, origins, truth? They're all fair game so jump right in and have some fun! But remember...play nice!
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Is Morality Objective or Relative?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostMaybe this has been dome to death on here before, but I find it very interesting. Is morality objectively 'true' or is it relative, either to each individual person's opinion or to each culture? or perhaps some other option? What reasons are there to support your position?
Example: Objectively wrongful death is considered universal in all cultures, but subjectively wrongful death is open to large range of interpretation, circumstances, cultural differences. One culture, society, religion or church may consider capital punishment as wrongful death. Other cultures, laws, societies, religions and churches may consider it justified as punishment for a crime.Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-26-2016, 03:53 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostMaybe this has been dome to death on here before, but I find it very interesting. Is morality objectively 'true' or is it relative, either to each individual person's opinion or to each culture? or perhaps some other option? What reasons are there to support your position?
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostMaybe this has been dome to death on here before, but I find it very interesting. Is morality objectively 'true' or is it relative, either to each individual person's opinion or to each culture? or perhaps some other option? What reasons are there to support your position?
Comment
-
The problem with the apologist concept concerning the existence of 'objective morality' is that it is ambiguous, undefined, vague and foggy idea concerning the belief that there exists an absolute objective morality associated with God. It is related to an old outdated argument put forth by Thomas Aquinas. The contrary has been a subjective morality where everything goes and personal preference rules, which in reality does not exist in any culture or society. Personal preference to follow or violate morals and ethics is always an option in every culture, society, religion or church regardless of what one asserts or beliefs. Fallible humans are indeed fallible and perfectly capable of breaking the rules when they choose to do so by personal preference.
Reality kind of trumps any of the delusion of illusions that 'objective morality,' is definable concept to deal with the real word.Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-27-2016, 11:14 AM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostThe problem with the apologist concept concerning the existence of 'objective morality' is that it is ambiguous, undefined, vague and foggy idea concerning the belief that there exists an absolute objective morality associated with God. It is related to an old outdated argument put forth by Thomas Aquinas. The contrary has been a subjective morality where everything goes and personal preference rules, which in reality does not exist in any culture or society. Personal preference to follow or violate morals and ethics is always an option in every culture, society, religion or church regardless of what one asserts or beliefs. Fallible humans are indeed fallible and perfectly capable of breaking the rules when they choose to do so by personal preference.
Reality kind of trumps any of the delusion of illusions that 'objective morality,' is definable concept to deal with the real word.[/QUOTE]
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostNeither objective nor subjective. By definition morality represents human codes, social norms and standards of behavior and ethics. It has consistent objective aspects shown to consistent from culture to culture throughout history, and subjective aspects relating how each culture defines and interprets its morals and ethics differently. Morality and ethics has been objectively shown to evolve over time and change.
Example: Objectively wrongful death is considered universal in all cultures, but subjectively wrongful death is open to large range of interpretation, circumstances, cultural differences. One culture, society, religion or church may consider capital punishment as wrongful death. Other cultures, laws, societies, religions and churches may consider it justified as punishment for a crime.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI prefer to think of morality in terms of normative versus descriptive morality. Nazi Germany had its own morality, which included shunning, informing on etc certain undesirable groups. It's arguable that, even tho they had a 'morality' in the descriptive sense, they might have been wrong in certain ways in a normative sense.I'm not here anymore.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostThree points: First, objective morality is not an "apologist position" (although it can be adopted by apologists). There are objectivists (in the ethical, not the Randian sense) who are atheist. Second, objectivism should not be conflated with moral absolutism. They are not necessarily the same. Third, just because people are free to do as they prefer, whether in conformity to a moral code or not, doesn't mean there is not an objective standard of morality. Morality entails the possibility of immorality. Otherwise, we'd all be automata carrying out a morality program.
Reality kind of trumps any of the delusion of illusions that 'objective morality,' is definable concept to deal with the real word.
I am not conflating objective morality with moral absolutism. I did not mention this concept, but I will address this in a separate post now that you brought it up. Your comment on auto mata was also not addressed in my post, but I will address it if you provide a clarification.
I still hold that there is no such thing as 'subjective morality' as opposed to 'objective morality as theists propose to make the differetniation.Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-27-2016, 05:01 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Jim B. View PostI prefer to think of morality in terms of normative versus descriptive morality. Nazi Germany had its own morality, which included shunning, informing on etc certain undesirable groups. It's arguable that, even tho they had a 'morality' in the descriptive sense, they might have been wrong in certain ways in a normative sense.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostYour broadening the discussion so first I would like to get back to the concept of 'objective morality' as opposed to 'subjective morality' believed by many theists since Thomas Aquinas.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostShuny, why do you ask questions about what you already know the answer to? You know that many would say that the law of God is objective to and independent of humankind. As opposed to the subjective opinions of men. But you already knew this.
JimB is trying a watered down version.Last edited by shunyadragon; 06-27-2016, 06:54 PM.Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:
go with the flow the river knows . . .
Frank
I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.
Comment
-
Originally posted by shunyadragon View PostI understand your view clearly, and of course we disagree. There is nothing in the Bible about objective morality.Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostIf the law of God is not objective to mankind then what is it?
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
|
172 responses
597 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seer
04-15-2024, 11:55 AM
|
||
Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
|
21 responses
138 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by shunyadragon
03-25-2024, 10:59 PM
|
Comment