Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 0:44:09 GMT -4
I have two, hopefully simple, questions: (1) What do you mean by morality, and (2), what do you mean by subjective? I take morality to mean something along the lines of answering the question "What should I do?" Essentially correct, although it's much more interesting if you're dealing with something beyond brushing your teeth. There is something intrinsicly moral about maintianing one's body, so brushing one's teeth is moral. It appears very subjective to us because what one's teeth look like is something most other people won't necessarily be interested in, but there is a moral element. And yes, by "objective morality" I do basically mean something independent of human opinion.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 0:45:28 GMT -4
Belief in God is subjective and morals derived from God are subjective, unless you can prove the existence of that particular God. So the question then is, are there any objective morals that are not dervied from the existence of a particular God?
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 0:47:16 GMT -4
You can say that there could hypothetically exist some platonic religious condition that allows everyone to know exactly that God exists and that he has an unmistakable moral code for us to follow. But if you're going to invent platonic conditions, then skip God and just invent a platonic moral code that is similarly self-evident. Actually I believe in both.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 1:04:28 GMT -4
Quote:They all have different ideas on morality. None are better or worse than any of the other ones. So a religion that says you will actually gain points with God by blowing up children to forward your religious causes is no worse than a religion that says God would be horrified if you blew up children for any purpose?024: And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and the silver, and the garment, and the wedge of gold, and his sons, and his daughters, and his oxen, and his asses, and his sheep, and his tent, and all that he had: and they brought them unto the valley of Achor. 025: And Joshua said, Why hast thou troubled us? the LORD shall trouble thee this day. And all Israel stoned him with stones, and burned them with fire, after they had stoned them with stones. 026: And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day. So the LORD turned from the fierceness of his anger. Wherefore the name of that place was called, The valley of Achor, unto this day.Yeah, the OT God was a nice guy too. Stoning and burning a family - kids and all- plus their livestock. It is in passages like this that clues you in that the OT God is not really God at all. Maybe someone can justify his actions? In context, what Achan had done was hide some of the 'Lord's Treasure' in his tent. Is this divine justice? Or mythology? A) That example doesn't actually involve blowing anyone up. :)And Christianity today doesn't stone anyone. B) Achan's disobediance had resulted in the deaths of 36 other people earlier in the chapter, and he confessed to Joshua what he had done, probably knowing full well what would happen. His execution was essentially a civil matter - he broke the law, so he paid the penalty. It wasn't God who killed him, but his peers. C) Mankind's circumstances change over time. The Israelites were given the Law of Moses with its strict provisions and numerous death penalties because they could not abide a higher law. There was no point in God giving laws to them like "love your enemies, bless them that cures you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them that despitefully use you" that they could not obey. In New Testament times the higher law was given, and though many still have trouble obeying it even today some can and do.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 1:45:40 GMT -4
Actually I believe in both.
But neither exists. So if you're going to wish one into existence, simply wish B into existence rather than wishing into existence A such that A produces B. Right conduct can derive from God, but it need not.
|
|
|
Post by Joe Durnavich on Oct 9, 2007 8:40:29 GMT -4
Essentially correct, although it's much more interesting if you're dealing with something beyond brushing your teeth.
Perhaps, but don't overlook the effort and time it took for your parents to train you to brush your teeth and perhaps even longer to learn the value of maintaining dental hygiene. Morality is a guide to human action. I picked a mundane example because it is these types of issues that you face most commonly in life, and hence, these types of issues best characterize the purpose and function of morality. Moral guidance is efficient when it can cover as many of the most-likely-to-occur cases that arise in day-to-day life. True, that leaves you puzzling out the exceptional or hard cases, but that is the tradeoff with any form of generalizing.
Think of morality as techniques for living. There is something intrinsicly moral about maintianing one's body, so brushing one's teeth is moral.
It sounds like your view is that a moral action is one that is consistent with one listed in a secret book that God has listing all moral conduct.
In computer programming, there are all sorts of individuals and groups that develop and promote various software development techniques. My former boss called them "the methodology guys." Your life today, as it stands right now, will make many, many demands on you and the decisions and actions you make today will have consequences. Do you agree that there is a need for "methodology guys," or methods and techniques to help guide your way through day-to-day life? Is this not the function of morality?
It appears very subjective to us because what one's teeth look like is something most other people won't necessarily be interested in, but there is a moral element. And yes, by "objective morality" I do basically mean something independent of human opinion.
But dental science is hardly "subjective" (whatever that means). How I treat my teeth will make a difference. (Trust me, after several root canals and several thousand dollars in dental expenses, I finally understand that my mere opinion has little value in this matter.)
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 11:16:46 GMT -4
Actually I believe in both.But neither exists. You can't prove that either. Aside from the impossibility in disproving God's existence I don't even know how you would begin to demonstrate that there is no universal moral law. You could easily demonstrate that many people don't believe in a universal moral law, but that would mean just as much as demonstrating that many people believe the Earth is flat or that Apollo was hoaxed - it has no bearing on the reality or unreality of the issue.
|
|
Al Johnston
"Cheer up!" they said, "It could be worse!" So I did, and it was.
Posts: 1,453
|
Post by Al Johnston on Oct 9, 2007 11:22:48 GMT -4
There is something intrinsicly moral about maintianing one's body, so brushing one's teeth is moral. Not necessarily: some ascetic sects regarded any care for bodily affairs as tantamount to Gluttony.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 11:27:27 GMT -4
It sounds like your view is that a moral action is one that is consistent with one listed in a secret book that God has listing all moral conduct. No, that's not the case. My personal beliefs are that Morality is a basic feature of the universe, much like the physical laws. God is aware of how the universe works to a much greater extent than we are, and so knows much better than we do what is and is not moral behavior. He has provided guidance to us in determining the basic principles of how morality works, and we would be wise to accept this guidance not because God will ultimately punish those who do not act morally, but because the nature of the universe ultimately prevents those who do not act morally from prospering. Rather than seeing God as the ultimate source of morality I see Him more as a parental figure - someone who has greater experience and wisdom than us when it comes to learning how the universe works and who is willing to help us learn. I'm not sure. Forgive me, but I'm not sure what you're getting at here. These "methodology guys" are guys who advocate one or the other method of attacking programming problems, right? Do you mean that various moral philosophers, both religious and irreligious, should be compared to these? Exactly - it may seem subjective, because it's primely a personal matter but it's not really. There is an objective truth involved, and consequences that are beyond your immediate control that will follow your actions.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 11:40:39 GMT -4
There is something intrinsicly moral about maintianing one's body, so brushing one's teeth is moral. Not necessarily: some ascetic sects regarded any care for bodily affairs as tantamount to Gluttony. And those sects are wrong. Negelecting the body is as much a moral evil as gluttony. Moderation is nearly always the best course.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 11:41:12 GMT -4
Aside from the impossibility in disproving God's existence I don't even know how you would begin to demonstrate that there is no universal moral law.
That's because it's epistemologically impossible to do. If you say there is one, you have the burden of proof. A lot of really smart people, both in and out of religion, have tried and failed to prove the self-existence of a universal moral truth against which to discern right conduct. Religion establishes a moral imperative, but it's valid only to believers within the framework of the religion, and is therefore by nature subjective.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 11:42:53 GMT -4
Unless those beleivers turn out to have been correct in the end, in which case what appeared to be subjective was actually a reflection of a real, objective truth.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 11:59:16 GMT -4
My personal beliefs are that Morality is a basic feature of the universe, much like the physical laws.
Does morality exist apart from God, or does morality derive from God?
He has provided guidance to us in determining the basic principles of how morality works...
But he has given different guidance to different people at the same time, and to different people at different times. And there is no self-existent manifestation of this moral truth (so that it can be seen as such); it comes to us in human language through various people who claim to speak for God, whose speaking and writing are still constant sources of interpretation and disagreement. The customary means of acquiring an assurance of this great moral truth is a subjective manifestation of its validity, which (according to your statements) may be different for me than for you.
How does that differ from any of the subjective formulations of moral philosophy?
Do you mean that various moral philosophers, both religious and irreligious, should be compared to these?
I believe he's talking about the one-size-fits-all approach to programming. There's a new book out by the author of Code Complete that shows the fallacy of believing one can assure success by rote adoption of a methodology. Similarly the approach to ethics that says there's a one-size-fits-all way of deciding what's right and wrong hasn't really worked. It doesn't solve the hard moral questions, and its proponents have universally failed to show that their ethical "methodology" is self-existent and not just a well-dressed subjective belief. It was struck as a knee-jerk response to the divine right of kings, and it worked for long enough to get America started, and then fell by the wayside as ultimately unworkable.
There is an objective truth involved, and consequences that are beyond your immediate control that will follow your actions.
No, I think that's the opposite of what Joe is trying to say. Some people go their whole lives without brushing their teeth and never have a cavity. Good for them. Other people learn by subjective experience with the consequences of poor hygeine that hygeine matters. Root canals are subjectively painful experiences. You rationally suppose that by altering your earlier neglectful behavior, you can avoid those consequences in the future. Moral philosophy is precisely about putting a framework to that that everyone can appreciate.
Ethics are primarily about how we behave around others, so a better example might be other aspects of hygeine such as bathing. If you have to suffer through someone else's body odor, and you recognize that you and he are commensurate beings, then you recognize that you might have a responsibility in society not to inflict your body odor on other people. Hence the imperative to hygeine. And that's not a global human value; but it is generally valid in America.
Moral philosophy is all about how to create, formulate, discuss, and defend those moral imperatives in a way that identifies whether a responsibility exists that compels action. And religion plays a very key role in that philosophy, but not necessarily in the way adherents to the religion want. Out of all the branches of secular study, moral philosophy is the kindest to religion.
|
|
|
Post by JayUtah on Oct 9, 2007 12:04:38 GMT -4
Unless those beleivers turn out to have been correct in the end...
Hence my "beautific vision" comment earlier. That's a Christian term not necessarily used in LDS theology; it's the notion that when you die, you instantly acquire a full and complete knowledge of God and of the whole scheme of things: right and wrong, sin and virtue, etc. If I recall correctly, that's part of Mormon belief.
Beautific vision in the end doesn't help when the decisions are being made, so it's irrelevant to ethics. It's just another handwave at the unachievable platonic virtue. People often find out too late that their behavior has had intended consequences, but that's only useful as a moral compass if there is an opportunity to incorporate those learned lessons in future decision-making that avoids the consequence.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Oct 9, 2007 12:30:39 GMT -4
My personal beliefs are that Morality is a basic feature of the universe, much like the physical laws.Does morality exist apart from God, or does morality derive from God? By my beliefs - apart from God. That's why I'm the only one who voted "false" on this poll. Morality is simply how the universe works, and God didn't decide "this is going to be moral and this isn't". In fact not even God can transform wrong into right and vice versa. It is true that he has given different guidance at different times, but what is and is nor moral has not changed. There are shades of right and wrong. Not all crimes are of the same severity, and some good acts are better than others. Over time man's capacity to behave morally has varied along with mankind itself. Sometimes God has given advice that only gives a good result, and not the best result, because He knows what is within our capacity to perform at different times. Isn't there? In LDS theology, all humans are gifted with what we term "the Light of Christ" but in secular terms it's called a conscience. A person's conscience is effectively a manifestation of the universal moral truth. It is immediately assailed by the pressures of a person's environment and temperament, and some people learn in time to ignore it completely, but it is there. Yes the manifestation may take a different form. Does that mean it is not valid? Much like the various theories of how the physical laws work, the ultimate test will be which one proves most correct in the end. By saying "I believe in an absolute moral law" that doesn't necessarily mean I beleive it's a simple and uses a "one-size-fits-all" approach, or in other words that individual circumstances don't matter at all.
|
|