Morality or Obedience?

[Sparko]

I believe that you continuously confuse objective with absolute seer. A moral, a rule of behavior, can be objectively true, do to it's effect to the good of humanity, and yet not be absolute in the sense that it has some kind of reality in and of itself. The universe is not a being, it is neither just nor unjust. Justice is left up to us to figure out.

it's "due to" not "do to" and "objectively true" means true in reality to everyone, not subject to opinion or personal preferences. Absolute has to to with something being without uncertainty. In this case you are the one confusing the terms.

[JimL]

it's "due to" not "do to" and "objectively true" means true in reality to everyone, not subject to opinion or personal preferences. Absolute has to to with something being without uncertainty. In this case you are the one confusing the terms.

Yes, thank you, I didn't word that very clearly. What I meant to say is that a moral rule is objective in the sense that it can be true in reality to everyone, without having any absolute reality of its own.

[element771]

Yes, thank you, I didn't word that very clearly. What I meant to say is that a moral rule is objective in the sense that it can be true in reality to everyone, without having any absolute reality of its own.

So if torturing animals was morally acceptable and that was true, in reality, to everyone, that would be morally good?

[JimL]

You just don't see it Jim, the general good, whatever that is, is a subjective goal.

Nope. Ultimately, that which is in the best interests of human society is in the best interests of human society regardless of the varied subjective individual opinions people may have.

[seer]

Nope. Ultimately, that which is in the best interests of human society is in the best interests of human society regardless of the varied subjective individual opinions people may have.

No Jim, the best interest of humanity (in general) is a subjective goal. Why not the best interest of the tribe? Or race? Or political party? Or ruling elite?

[element771]

Nope. Ultimately, that which is in the best interests of human society is in the best interests of human society regardless of the varied subjective individual opinions people may have.

This is circular. You say that which is best for human society is best for human society. You are trying to figure out what is best for human society, that is the problem.

What if everyone agrees that torturing animals is in the best interests of human society?

[seer]

This is circular. You say that which is best for human society is best for human society. You are trying to figure out what is best for human society, that is the problem.

What if everyone agrees that torturing animals is in the best interests of human society?

Well the Maoists and Stalinists thought that what was in the best interest of their societies was to slaughter or imprison millions of dissidents, thereby ensuring social cohesion. And it pretty much worked.

[JimL]

So if torturing animals was morally acceptable and that was true, in reality, to everyone, that would be morally good?

Why would torturing animals for no good reason have anything to do with the best interests of human beings or human society?

[Sparko]

Yes, thank you, I didn't word that very clearly. What I meant to say is that a moral rule is objective in the sense that it can be true in reality to everyone, without having any absolute reality of its own.

You are still misusing absolute. The way you just used it, an objective truth that was really true to everyone would be absolutely really true.

"Trump was elected President of the United States in 2016" is objectively true. And it is absolutely really true.

[element771]

Why would torturing animals for no good reason have anything to do with the best interests of human beings or human society?

Its a thought experiment to show that you would have to accept the premise using your own criteria.

[JimL]

This is circular. You say that which is best for human society is best for human society. You are trying to figure out what is best for human society, that is the problem.

What if everyone agrees that torturing animals is in the best interests of human society?

That which is in best interests of humanity is ultimately objective, not subjective, that's why. We could all be in agreement, and still be wrong. Of course being reasoned beings that isn't likely to be the case.

[Charles]

Well the Maoists and Stalinists thought that what was in the best interest of their societies was to slaughter or imprison millions of dissidents, thereby ensuring social cohesion. And it pretty much worked.

It did not work in moral terms. However, you seem to always refuse to answer questions regarding your own world view and keep pointing to the exacts same points about other peoples views over and over and over and over. No matter how much they clarify or even if the agree with your description but disagree with your conclusion.

Your idea that god should somehow guarantee a just world and serve as a foundation for ethics still suffers from the fact that you cannot prove God exists. You cannot show why or how it follows that god is just if he exists. And history, including very recent history, is full of examples of religious people causing so much pain and suffering in the name for the "just" god.

[element771]

That which is in best interests of humanity is ultimately objective, not subjective, that's why. We could all be in agreement, and still be wrong. Of course being reasoned beings that isn't likely to be the case.

I think that this is the point that everyone is trying to get at.

If there are objective moral standards, then people who live by them could not be wrong.

**edited**

I came back to make an additional point but Sparko made it for me.

[Sparko]

That which is in best interests of humanity is ultimately objective, not subjective, that's why. We could all be in agreement, and still be wrong. Of course being reasoned beings that isn't likely to be the case.

That's not what "objective" means. An objective truth would be just as true if an alien knew it.

[JimL]

That's not what "objective" means. An objective truth would be just as true if an alien knew it.

Yes, and I didn't say anything to the contrary. That which is in the best interests of human society is objectively true, not subjective opinion, and it would be objectively true even to an alien.