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
See more
See less

Objective Morality (Once More Into The Breach)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
    If you will never understand it, then I guess it serves no purpose for me to try to explain it to you. Apparently, you are closed to the possibility of understanding
    Right, I see no logical reason why you would hold a moral standard that you, can not or do not, often live up to? When you could just as easily adopt a lower standard that is much more consistent with your nature as you find it. Why the higher ideals that are often difficult or near impossible to live up to? Why embrace guilt, shame and a sense of failure when you don't have too? Cultural expectations?
    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 carpedm9587 View Post
      No - it's not. You, of course, continue to return to the need for a "objective" and "universal" true north. But the moral code for a society is the moral compass for that society. The individual moral code is the moral compass for that individual. The religious moral code is the moral compass for that religion.
      That makes no sense, a real compass needs a single truth north, not a dozen true norths.


      I'm still waiting for you to demonstrate why a universal/absolute is necessary/possible, and that one actually exists.
      Carp, I could never prove or demonstrate the color red to a man born blind. Sin has twisted your reasoning powers, blinded you to God's reality and law. "The Heavens declare the Glory of God" that should be evident to you, but your cognitive abilities have been stunted:"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
      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 Post
        That makes no sense, a real compass needs a single truth north, not a dozen true norths.
        Again, because you need this "absolute" and "universal" - that is what you see and what you assert. The compass, in the real world, actually doesn't point to "due north," it points to "magnetic north," which periodically needs to be adjusted to align with "true north." But that doesn't change the fact that there IS a north poll, which is why the compass analogy is limited.

        So a better analogy would be if compasses always pointed to "home." Each person has their own compass, and it takes them home. As a result, the collective community has a compass that generally takes them back to the place they live. The commonality is what drives the community, the individuality is what takes people to their own home. The analogy can be widened to nations, and even the species as a whole (though you'd have to leave earth for THAT compass to "take you home." It doesn't work so well for religiously-themed moral codes, which are not geographically-based.

        Originally posted by seer View Post
        Carp, I could never prove or demonstrate the color red to a man born blind. Sin has twisted your reasoning powers, blinded you to God's reality and law. "The Heavens declare the Glory of God" that should be evident to you, but your cognitive abilities have been stunted:"The natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned."
        That's a pretty weak argument, Seer, but a convenient one. When you don't have an argument, simply claim there is no way for the other person to understand. I don't accept that level of argumentation from any of my student - or from my children - I'm certainly not going to accept it from you. But if it's the best you can do...
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • Originally posted by seer View Post
          Right, I see no logical reason why you would hold a moral standard that you, can not or do not, often live up to? When you could just as easily adopt a lower standard that is much more consistent with your nature as you find it. Why the higher ideals that are often difficult or near impossible to live up to? Why embrace guilt, shame and a sense of failure when you don't have too? Cultural expectations?
          Why does a man set his sights on a job he may not be able to attain...
          Or a musician on fame that may remain out of their grasp...
          Or the athlete on the gold medal that may forever be out of reach...
          Or the overweight person on the fit physique that may forever illude him...
          Or the poor person on the riches that may never materialize...

          A person can only become as good as the goal(s) he or she sets for himself or herself. If you want to be the best you can be, you don't compromise your goals just because you may not attain them. Likewise, you do not compromise your moral code just because you occasionally slip up. You hold to your ideals and continually renew your commitment to achieve them.

          If you do not understand that - I do not know how to explain it to you further. It is, for me, an essential part of my humanity. I would hope it would be an essential part of all our humanities. It is reasonable to do so - though it is not a life choice that can simply be explained by reason.
          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

          Comment


          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
            Again, because you need this "absolute" and "universal" - that is what you see and what you assert. The compass, in the real world, actually doesn't point to "due north," it points to "magnetic north," which periodically needs to be adjusted to align with "true north." But that doesn't change the fact that there IS a north poll, which is why the compass analogy is limited.
            Whether true north or magnetic north the point remains, there is no such objective point for our moral compass to point.

            So a better analogy would be if compasses always pointed to "home." Each person has their own compass, and it takes them home. As a result, the collective community has a compass that generally takes them back to the place they live. The commonality is what drives the community, the individuality is what takes people to their own home. The analogy can be widened to nations, and even the species as a whole (though you'd have to leave earth for THAT compass to "take you home." It doesn't work so well for religiously-themed moral codes, which are not geographically-based.
            This is not how a compass works. Perhaps you shouldn't use the compass analogy.

            That's a pretty weak argument, Seer, but a convenient one. When you don't have an argument, simply claim there is no way for the other person to understand. I don't accept that level of argumentation from any of my student - or from my children - I'm certainly not going to accept it from you. But if it's the best you can do...
            Carp, that is my worldview - that is what scripture teaches. Should I reject my worldview for yours? Should I assume that you are rational on this issue? Why? Should I assume that you are an honest broker concerning these spiritual questions when my worldview informs me that you decidedly are not?
            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 carpedm9587 View Post
              A person can only become as good as the goal(s) he or she sets for himself or herself. If you want to be the best you can be, you don't compromise your goals just because you may not attain them. Likewise, you do not compromise your moral code just because you occasionally slip up. You hold to your ideals and continually renew your commitment to achieve them.
              But that is the point, you could be perfectly moral by just lowering your standards - and claim victory. And it would not be a compromise if you met the lower goals that you set. After all it is you setting them. I can see the logic striving for a gold medal for the pride of winning. There is an objective goal. But morality is different, there is no objective goal.
              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 Post
                Whether true north or magnetic north the point remains, there is no such objective point for our moral compass to point.
                I've already acnowledged that, Seer. This amounts to yet another "but it's not objective!" objection.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                This is not how a compass works. Perhaps you shouldn't use the compass analogy.
                As I said - the compass analogy was flawed because it is based on a single, existent point in space. So I adjusted the "compass" to better reflect how a subjective moral compass works. If you cannot make the mental adjustment to understand what is being said, then why don't you just try substituting "GPS programmed for home" for "compass." Really, Seer, there are times I think you intentionally do everything you can to NOT understand.

                Originally posted by seer View Post
                Carp, that is my worldview - that is what scripture teaches. Should I reject my worldview for yours? Should I assume that you are rational on this issue? Why? Should I assume that you are an honest broker concerning these spiritual questions when my worldview informs me that you decidedly are not?
                No, Seer, you should hang on to your worldview. But you highlight one of the reasons I no longer have that worldview. It is too riddled with "escape clauses." I found that, too often, when I was challenged on a particular point and could not explain it, I resorted to "you cannot understand it because you are blinded by sin," or "it's in God's hands," or "who am I to judge God?" After a while, I found myself feeling disengenuous. Someone once challenged me by asking, "if you cannot adequately explain your worldview, how do you know you have the right one?"

                I found I could not answer that question. Later I had a personal experience that taught me a profound lesson in self-deception, and that challenge came back to me. It started me on a road that, though it was intended to clear the deck and make me MORE open to the god I loved, ultimately led me to the beliefs I have now. Trust me - no one was more surprised than I.

                I find your response dissatisfying, Seer. I know it is your belief, and it is apparently the best you can do at this point. It simply does nothing for me on any plane - intellectually, morally, or emotively.

                I think it also signals the end of this particular thread. Where can one go when the only response is "you couldn't possibly understand?"
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by seer View Post
                  But that is the point, you could be perfectly moral by just lowering your standards - and claim victory. And it would not be a compromise if you met the lower goals that you set. After all it is you setting them. I can see the logic striving for a gold medal for the pride of winning. There is an objective goal. But morality is different, there is no objective goal.
                  No - I would not. And if you can make that statement, then you apparently haven't understood anything I've said to this point. A subjective moral framework cannot be whimsically changed to satisfy an urge. That would render it exactly what you continually accuse it of: whimsy, invention, random, etc. A moral framework is rooted in cultural/personal/familial experiences, and (if mature) is tested by adult reason. It is not simply changed because it is "inconvenient."

                  An athlete seeking the "gold" will fail to do so if they lower their overall workout standards because sometimes they skip or eat something they probably shouldn't. Likewise, randomly deciding "lying is good" because I occasionally do it is not a rational act - it doesn't change the rationality for seeing "lying" as a moral ill. It doesn't change the impact lying has on trust - on relationships - and on the functional fabric of our community. It is these realities that make lying a "moral wrong." A moral code that is adjusted to the "best we can consistently do" is not a moral code. It is not about what we "ought" do - it is about what we "do" do.
                  The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                  I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                    No - I would not. And if you can make that statement, then you apparently haven't understood anything I've said to this point. A subjective moral framework cannot be whimsically changed to satisfy an urge. That would render it exactly what you continually accuse it of: whimsy, invention, random, etc. A moral framework is rooted in cultural/personal/familial experiences, and (if mature) is tested by adult reason. It is not simply changed because it is "inconvenient."
                    So basically you are trying to live up to what the culture defines as moral. And no, lowering your standard would not at all be random, just the opposite - it would be the most logical thing you could do - aligning your moral ideals to your nature as it is. That is another thing, why do so many atheists find nature (even their nature) so troubling as it is?


                    An athlete seeking the "gold" will fail to do so if they lower their overall workout standards because sometimes they skip or eat something they probably shouldn't. Likewise, randomly deciding "lying is good" because I occasionally do it is not a rational act - it doesn't change the rationality for seeing "lying" as a moral ill. It doesn't change the impact lying has on trust - on relationships - and on the functional fabric of our community. It is these realities that make lying a "moral wrong." A moral code that is adjusted to the "best we can consistently do" is not a moral code. It is not about what we "ought" do - it is about what we "do" do.
                    So basically you don't lie to live up to the ideals of others and the community. Got it...
                    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 carpedm9587 View Post
                      As I said - the compass analogy was flawed because it is based on a single, existent point in space. So I adjusted the "compass" to better reflect how a subjective moral compass works. If you cannot make the mental adjustment to understand what is being said, then why don't you just try substituting "GPS programmed for home" for "compass." Really, Seer, there are times I think you intentionally do everything you can to NOT understand.
                      No your analogy wasn't flawed, it was useless.



                      No, Seer, you should hang on to your worldview. But you highlight one of the reasons I no longer have that worldview. It is too riddled with "escape clauses." I found that, too often, when I was challenged on a particular point and could not explain it, I resorted to "you cannot understand it because you are blinded by sin," or "it's in God's hands," or "who am I to judge God?" After a while, I found myself feeling disengenuous. Someone once challenged me by asking, "if you cannot adequately explain your worldview, how do you know you have the right one?"
                      You have not asked me anything I can not explain from my worldview - yet. And you can not just dismiss my point here as an escape clause, it actually is what we believe. And some things are in God's hands, we are not privy to everything. And no, a man with severely limited knowledge can not judge an all knowing God. On what possible basis could one do that?


                      I found I could not answer that question. Later I had a personal experience that taught me a profound lesson in self-deception, and that challenge came back to me. It started me on a road that, though it was intended to clear the deck and make me MORE open to the god I loved, ultimately led me to the beliefs I have now. Trust me - no one was more surprised than I.

                      I find your response dissatisfying, Seer. I know it is your belief, and it is apparently the best you can do at this point. It simply does nothing for me on any plane - intellectually, morally, or emotively.

                      I think it also signals the end of this particular thread. Where can one go when the only response is "you couldn't possibly understand?"
                      And that is the best you can do at this point Carp, and remember I was an agnostic, if not an atheist, until my later 30s.
                      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 Post
                        No your analogy wasn't flawed, it was useless.
                        To you, apparently. Not sure how the adjustment to "point to home" was confusing to you, but the GPS analogy is definitely better. In fact, I'll probably use that going forward. It's pretty accurately descriptive.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        You have not asked me anything I can not explain from my worldview - yet. And you can not just dismiss my point here as an escape clause, it actually is what we believe.
                        You do have a propensity for putting things in binary terms. You paint a false dichotomy, Seer. I did not question whether this was honestly your belief. I said it is an escape clause. It can be both.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        And some things are in God's hands, we are not privy to everything. And no, a man with severely limited knowledge can not judge an all knowing God. On what possible basis could one do that?
                        When a proposition about this being defies reason. If there is a god, and this god gave me reasoning faculties, I think it is reasonable to assume I am intended to use them. When someone proposes something about this being that runs ocunter to simple reason, it is rational to say, "that does not make sense" and look for something that does. When the nonsensical is dismissed as "it's a mystery" or "God knows," that is an escape clause.

                        Originally posted by seer View Post
                        And that is the best you can do at this point Carp, and remember I was an agnostic, if not an atheist, until my later 30s.
                        I'm not sure what "that" refers to in your first sentence. And I was Christian until my later thirties. Why is this relevant?
                        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by seer View Post
                          So basically you are trying to live up to what the culture defines as moral.
                          No. And, at this point, I have to wonder if you are intentionally misunderstanding most of what I am saying. The phenomenon is chronic in your posts. I keep coming back to, what exactly is your agenda here?

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          And no, lowering your standard would not at all be random, just the opposite - it would be the most logical thing you could do - aligning your moral ideals to your nature as it is.
                          Then your definition of "morality" differs from mine. That is the only thing I can conclude.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          That is another thing, why do so many atheists find nature (even their nature) so troubling as it is?
                          I have no idea what you are referring to.

                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          So basically you don't lie to live up to the ideals of others and the community. Got it...
                          No.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                            You do have a propensity for putting things in binary terms. You paint a false dichotomy, Seer. I did not question whether this was honestly your belief. I said it is an escape clause. It can be both.
                            But the intent is not to use it as an escape clause. You calling it an escape clause does nothing to change what the worldview actually is.

                            When a proposition about this being defies reason. If there is a god, and this god gave me reasoning faculties, I think it is reasonable to assume I am intended to use them. When someone proposes something about this being that runs ocunter to simple reason, it is rational to say, "that does not make sense" and look for something that does. When the nonsensical is dismissed as "it's a mystery" or "God knows," that is an escape clause.
                            I will ask again, if you have a disagreement with such a being on what basis could you logically object? It can not be your reason because reason is only as good as the facts available. And on most these questions you would not have all the relevant facts - where an all knowing being would.

                            I'm not sure what "that" refers to in your first sentence. And I was Christian until my later thirties. Why is this relevant?
                            The point is we went in opposite directions, you leaving the faith and me coming into it - if none of that is relevant why did you being up your deconversion in the first place?
                            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 carpedm9587 View Post
                              No. And, at this point, I have to wonder if you are intentionally misunderstanding most of what I am saying. The phenomenon is chronic in your posts. I keep coming back to, what exactly is your agenda here?
                              Why do you keep answering me? I'm just trying to gleen where these high ideals of yours come from. Culture (which would include family) or do you invent them?


                              Then your definition of "morality" differs from mine. That is the only thing I can conclude.
                              But I'm not the moral relativist, you are.


                              I have no idea what you are referring to.
                              Because your moral ideals are in conflict with many of your natural desires, selfishness, lust, etc...


                              No.
                              Ok, so it's not culture, then what is it?
                              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 Post
                                Why do you keep answering me?
                                Because I've been working under the assumption you actually want to understand the worldview. But I am beginning to rethink the wisdom of continuing. That does not appear to be your objective.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                I'm just trying to gleen where these high ideals of yours come from. Culture (which would include family) or do you invent them?
                                At this point - this has been answered multiple times. I see nothing to gain by repeating myself yet again. And your repeated use of "invent" when I have explained why that word is not a good fit is beginning to suggest to me that I am being trolled, and falling for it.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                But I'm not the moral relativist, you are.
                                And, as best I can tell, your question suggests you do not use the same definition of "morality" that I do - subjective OR objective, absolute OR relative, individual OR universal. No one, as far as I know, defines the term as "the best I can do."

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Because your moral ideals are in conflict with many of your natural desires, selfishness, lust, etc...
                                Yes - they are.

                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Ok, so it's not culture, then what is it?
                                At this point - this has been answered multiple times. I see nothing to gain by repeating myself yet again.
                                Last edited by carpedm9587; 12-14-2017, 07:51 AM.
                                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by shunyadragon, 03-01-2024, 09:40 AM
                                161 responses
                                513 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by seer, 02-15-2024, 11:24 AM
                                88 responses
                                354 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by Diogenes, 01-22-2024, 07:37 PM
                                21 responses
                                133 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X