|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 11, 2007 15:16:33 GMT -4
I voted "neither true or false" because I disagree with the way the question was worded. I believe morality is subjective even if God does exist because our interpretation of God is subjective. If we can't agree on which God is the real God, or which translation of which book is the correct one, then we aren't all going to interpret his words the same way.
If God wants morals to be objective He needs to speak more clearly and more often. Leaving it open to interpretation makes everything about religion subjective.
Laws help to guide us but everyone has their on individual morals.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 11, 2007 16:23:38 GMT -4
So what you are saying is that you feel the existence or non-existence of God has no bearing at all on whether morals are subjective or objective? I guess I can see that point of view. Would you say then that if God exists and really does enforce moral behavior through punishment or reward (heaven or hell) in the afterlife that morals are still subjective?
And if God does exist, then even though our interpretations of Him are still subjective one person's individual interpretation could be said to be right or wrong in so far as it conforms to the reality.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 11, 2007 18:39:54 GMT -4
How is this obvious? Why are their opinions more important than, well say mine? if, for the sake of argument, we preclude Jesus being who he claimed, and so relegate him to ordinary man who said a lot of things, what makes what he said so worthy? In fact many of the things he said were all but impossible to keep too. (hands up those that have held onto their anger at a fellow human, or looked lustfully at them. Come on you can be honest.) Is it simply because many people consider what he said to be wise? Isn't that just a subjective view enforced by popularity? Why isn't Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus' moral code just as valid? Or is that because most people consider him to have been insane? Surely that is a subjective thing as well.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2007 20:46:31 GMT -4
Okay, let me rephrase that.
It was obvious to me. It ain't to you.
I'll touch upon the rest of your post later.
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 11, 2007 22:59:36 GMT -4
Would you say then that if God exists and really does enforce moral behavior through punishment or reward (heaven or hell) in the afterlife that morals are still subjective? It might be objective to Him but until he makes it absolutely clear to us what He considers "moral" all we have to go by is our own subjective interpretation of His words (or our own judgment if we don't follow a religion). I think it would be extremely unfair of Him to punish us for things that we didn't know were immoral. We aren't mind-readers... especially of God's mind.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2007 23:40:07 GMT -4
How is this obvious? Why are their opinions more important than, well say mine? if, for the sake of argument, we preclude Jesus being who he claimed, and so relegate him to ordinary man who said a lot of things, what makes what he said so worthy? In fact many of the things he said were all but impossible to keep too. (hands up those that have held onto their anger at a fellow human, or looked lustfully at them. Come on you can be honest.) Is it simply because many people consider what he said to be wise? Isn't that just a subjective view enforced by popularity? Why isn't Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus Germanicus' moral code just as valid? Or is that because most people consider him to have been insane? Surely that is a subjective thing as well. I don't know you personally so I can't comment on whether Ghandhi or Jesus' opinions are more important than yours. I'll go out on a limb though and guess that they were, unless you can provide me with more insight into your intelligence and compassion. I believe Jesus was an 'ordinary' man anyway. Many of the things he said are not impossible to follow. All of them might be. Many people might consider what he said might be considered wise for a good reason. Caligula, actually started his rule fairly decently. He abolished the sales tax, upped the rates to the praetorian, put on lots of circus shows and beast hunts, and recalled exiles among other things. Then he suffered some sickness and came out of it a tyrant. He put men to death without trial (something all Romans had a right to) and imposed new taxes and wasted away money reserves. He humiliated the Senate and made bad decisions in foreign policy. Eventually everybody got fed up with him and after many attempts on his life, he was murdered by his Guards. I don't find anything in his moral character that compares with the gentlemen I mentioned. No one today that I know of admires Caligula's morality or conduct. And yes, I guess judging his morality is indeed subjective. But the evidence of his behavior strongly suggests that he is not in the same class as Jesus, or Gandhi. Of course, you may disagree. It is interesting that viewing morality as subjective, suggests that their is no absolute morality. I guess that means we have to do the best at striving to improve our character throughout our evolution.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 11, 2007 23:50:15 GMT -4
Would you say then that if God exists and really does enforce moral behavior through punishment or reward (heaven or hell) in the afterlife that morals are still subjective? See you did go there Jason, kinda. This thread is assuming God doesn't exist. But for the sake of the game - if He did exist, and enforced moral behavior like you propose then I assume He would be objective about morality, but to us it would be subjective because we are taking a long time to figure out what right and wrong is. Mankind has a habit of not doing the right thing even when they know the difference between right and wrong. Even with all the religious people belonging to all the religions in the world, we still don't get it.
|
|
|
Post by PhantomWolf on Jul 12, 2007 1:01:50 GMT -4
But the evidence of his behavior strongly suggests that he is not in the same class as Jesus, or Gandhi. Of course, you may disagree.
I think you missed my point. Surely saying that the morality set by Jesus' is more important than that set by, say David Koresh, is purely subjective depending on who you agree with. Some might say that Jesus' Morality was too far overboard and restrictive, that it prevented people from doing things they should be allowed and that it was unobtainable anyway. As such they may consider it worthless. By saying that you think it is important, all you are doing is proving that such is subjective and that in your subjective opinion it is, though in other people's opinion, it might not be anything of the sort.
|
|
|
Post by PeterB on Jul 12, 2007 3:21:01 GMT -4
So if societies don't function without good morals, does that mean that they are objective? I don't think so. More a case of there being rules which people consciously choose to ignore for some reason or other. Good question. Powerful people sometimes choose to live by their own rules, because they believe their power provides them with a degree of immunity from the consequences of breaching the rules society lives by. If this is borne out by events, then they get away with it, and don't care about the consequences. Sometimes it doesn't work out that way, and, for example, Paris Hilton gets to spend time in jail. If I was in that position, would I care? With the education and upbringing I've had, yes I would care. But many people in that situation haven't cared. Many businessmen in 19th century Britain and America thought that it was God's will that they were on top of the heap, and as a result they felt they were perfectly justified in treating their employees how they liked. Other businessmen had a different attitude - they used their wealth to provide their employees with good housing and education, thinking either that it was a Christian thing to do, or that it made good business sense. How this all fits in with your original question, I'm not sure...
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 12, 2007 11:54:24 GMT -4
I think it would be extremely unfair of Him to punish us for things that we didn't know were immoral. We aren't mind-readers... especially of God's mind. I agree - I don't think God will punish anyone for things they didn't know were immoral. However, I also believe that everyone has some idea of what really is or isn't moral - "you can feel it in your heart" is how Ginnie spoke of it earlier. Through time and hard deeds people can learn to ignore this moral sense, but it was there to some degree in everyone to begin with. Talk with just about anyone guilty with a crime and they will generally agree that what they are accused of was wrong, but that they have an excuse as to why they were justified (if they don't claim outright innocence). Ishmael earlier said "I'm not sure why 'I want something' isn't good enough, but people seem to be ashamed of such obvious self-interest." I think it's the operation of that moral sense I'm talking about. They feel a need to justify their actions because they know that "I want something" doesn't make a choice moral. I am the only one (so far, at least) who voted "false" on this poll. The reason is that I believe good and evil are absolutes, regardless of whether God exists or not. Some things really are moral and other things really are immoral, and no one's opinion, including God's, changes that. As a religious person God is important to me as a moral guide, but I don't believe that God "made up" what good and evil are and assigned behaviors or actions to one or the other at random. He is our ultimate guide to what is and is not moral not because He's the one who made up the rules, but because He knows the rules so much better than we do - He can forsee the actual consequences of any action and therefore determine if it will ultimately do good or evil. But He has largely left things up to us. Though He prefers that we do good He will not force us to do so. He wishes us to learn to do good because it is the right thing to do, not because we expect an immediate award or fear an immediate punishment. He has left us guideance as to what choices are correct, but guideance that is in many cases of doubtful validity and open to interpretation. He wants us to use our own moral sense and our own intellects to come as close as we can to behaving morally, without having Him standing visibly over our shoulders grading us. If God handed down all of His commandments from on high with a great, thundering voice that everyone could hear, and Angels with flaming swords appeared to scold us at every wrong turn, He would be effectively removing our chance to learn what is right and wrong from our own experience. Much suffering and evil could be avoided in this way, but as we cannot be punished for chosing evil when we didn't know it was evil, neither can we be rewarded for chosing good when we had no other choice. Who did decide what was good and evil if God didn't? And wouldn't such a being be "the real God"? Nobody decided. Like an atheist's take on the physical laws of the universe, I believe nobody decided, that's just the way things work, and they could not have worked any differently.
|
|
|
Post by gillianren on Jul 12, 2007 15:17:07 GMT -4
I disagree that good and evil are absolutes. However, I really doubt I could give any examples that you would admit are examples of it, since I also doubt that I could point out to you that what I feel in my heart to be good is different from what you feel in your heart to be good and have you agree with that, either. There are no absolutes in morals. Morals change. Try asking my possibly four-greats Uncle Robert if he thought leading an army to uphold slavery (and, incidentally, treating his own inherited slaves pretty cruelly, by all accounts) was right in his heart.
|
|
Jason
Pluto
May all your hits be crits
Posts: 5,579
|
Post by Jason on Jul 12, 2007 16:20:49 GMT -4
I would say that circumstances and our perception of morals change, but that good and evil remain absolutes. We merely get closer or further away from the reailty of what is good or evil.
Was your Uncle Roberts defending slavery or was he defending an entire way of life that happened to include slavery?
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 12, 2007 16:30:40 GMT -4
But the evidence of his behavior strongly suggests that he is not in the same class as Jesus, or Gandhi. Of course, you may disagree.I think you missed my point. Surely saying that the morality set by Jesus' is more important than that set by, say David Koresh, is purely subjective depending on who you agree with. Some might say that Jesus' Morality was too far overboard and restrictive, that it prevented people from doing things they should be allowed and that it was unobtainable anyway. As such they may consider it worthless. By saying that you think it is important, all you are doing is proving that such is subjective and that in your subjective opinion it is, though in other people's opinion, it might not be anything of the sort. Wheeh! I'm should put on my Philosophy hat to answer those points...but I won't. But I can't really argue with any of them. If we are assuming that morals are subjective, then all your points are valid.
|
|
|
Post by Ginnie on Jul 12, 2007 16:41:31 GMT -4
I disagree that good and evil are absolutes. There are no absolutes in morals. Morals change. . I'd have to say that I don't know if good and evil are absolutes. Absolute Morality could be 'made' by God perhaps, or maybe one of Plato's 'forms'. You said that over time morality changes. Subjective morality would, but absolute morality wouldn't change. It's just that society hasn't learned all the 'rules' of the Absolute Morality. If morality is subjective we have to evolve mentally, not just physically, so that our morality reaches a more perfect state. I feel like my mind is getting twisted into knots! ;D
|
|
|
Post by LunarOrbit on Jul 12, 2007 23:11:57 GMT -4
I don't think Good and Evil are absolute either. Is it Good or Evil if a bomb intended for a Taliban stronghold also takes an innocent life?
I believe there are shades of grey... the decision to drop that bomb may have been done with Good intentions but somewhat less than Good results. How does God look at it when it comes time to judge the pilot who dropped the bomb? Does he only look at the Good intentions and ignore the loss of innocent life, or does he punish the pilot for making a mistake?
I'd like to believe that our moral and immoral actions are tallied up when we reach the entrance to heaven, and if the total is on the plus side we are let in.
|
|