Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Theli · 07-26-2003, 05:16 AM

Regarding the OP, to stay on topic, I do agree that the objective morality teached in the bible, the one that can be put into 10 commandments doesn't exist. The immorality of (for instance) a murder has a huge amount variables at any given situation, so an absolute "X is wrong" morality is ofcourse flawed and oversimplified.
If this god did exist, and wanted us to be moral he would either have made it easier or made us a hell of alot smarter, so we would be able to consider all possible outcomes before making a choice.

B. H. Manners · 07-26-2003, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by James Hamlin
I think Eric does not understand what is meant by "Absolute Morality". It does not mean, "the best morality", or, "the best moral philosophy". The meaning is changed when one uses it as an adjective, as in, "He is absolutely moral." Absolute morality is a moral standard that is in effect for every human being, making certain actions always wrong and other actions always right, leaving no middle ground. Absolute Morality is often used by theists as evidence for a deity. Unfortunately for them, it is, in fact, a conclusion drawn from the presupposition of the existence of a deity, and not an observed piece of evidence initially independent of a deity.

The idea of "Absolute Morality" is preposterous. Morality is abstract. It exists within our minds; it is dependent upon consiousness. Therefore, morality is subjective. Unless one point of reference is deemed "absolute" (an obvious contradiction) and superior to all others, morality is purely subjective. Morality does not exist independently, nor absolutely.

Even if one granted that morality came from God, it would still be "subjective"-------it is God's personal opinion of what should be right or wrong.

James Hamlin · 07-27-2003, 02:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli
Some sort of standard must exist, or we would not be able to moraly judge actions at all. Most people believe murder is wrong, right? How did such a belief become such a norm as it is today if there is no standard?

A final question... if morality is subjective, then what is it based on? If you refer to it as an opinion, then where does this opinion come from?

True, a standard must exist to judge actions. Must that standard be absolute? I judge actions based on my own perception of what is moral. Morality is opinion. Where does my opinion of what color is best come from? The same place my opinion of what is moral comes from-my mind.

You may be suggesting that this relativistic worldview undermines order and government, promoting anarchy. I would disagree. I believe that a logical argument can be made for a system of laws which protect the rights of all without subscription to a specific morality. Such a system would leave the greatest freedom for individuals to choose and live by their own moral system. But this is really beside the point. An argument for Absolute Morality must stand up on its own and not depend on how unattractive a subjective morality may or may not be.

What evidence is there that an Absolute moral standard exists?

Spenser · 07-28-2003, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Theli
Some sort of standard must exist, or we would not be able to moraly judge actions at all. Most people believe murder is wrong, right? How did such a belief become such a norm as it is today if there is no standard?

A final question... if morality is subjective, then what is it based on? If you refer to it as an opinion, then where does this opinion come from?

Theli,

I believe James Hamlin answered this well. Why can't a consensus of subjective moralities be seen as a standard? Since this thread is the continuation of on older one I will quote a few of my older posts:

Quote:

I live in a material world. I have morality, I know morality exists. I do things because I think they are good or bad. Just because something is intangible, doesn't make it supernatural. The better my morals, the more they agree with the rest of the people around me, the better off in life I'll probably be, the less likely I'll be confronted by harm or danger, the more likely I'll be able to find a mate. These are perfectly good reasons for how morality can exist in a materialistic world.

Quote:

The more rape you see around you the more likely YOU are to get raped. If you think it is wrong for others to get raped, and others think it is wrong for others and YOU to get raped, rape lessons in the amount of occurrences in society. You now live in a society in which YOU are not as likely to get raped because others view rape as wrong as well. This agreed upon moral from your society will be gladly accepted from other people in other societies who do not want to get raped. This type of moral strengthens the society making this society more likely to survive into the future over societies that don't condemn rape and hence the thinking that rape is wrong has gone through the process of natural selection. When a consensus of subjective moralities were instilled upon their society (perhaps in the form of a law) the society strengthened, appealed to others and that original moral consensus continued to grow. All because we don't want to get raped ourselves...

Quote:

Cut & Pasted from Richard C. Vitzthum, on this site
Moral concepts, they say, are not reducible to natural process and physical law. In contrast, the reductionist, convinced that all life is the product of natural selection, sees morality as fundamentally the result of evolutionary survival. Social cooperation, love of one's mate, offspring, relatives, or tribe, repugnance to the murder of one's own species, and the like, are the reverse side of the coin of virtues like social competition, hatred of one's enemies, successful prosecution of war and the killing of one's own species, and the like. They are essentially the residue of human experience on the face of the planet, as are the invention of gods, of creation myths, of apocalyptic destructions of the world, and so on. Furthermore, the reductionist equates moral discrimination with sense discrimination. That is, the ability to sense a difference between heat and cold, light and dark, acid and alkaline is indistinguishable from the ability to decide whether this thing or place or experience is better or worse than that thing, place, or experience. Physical sensing and moral judgment have from the start been simultaneous and identical processes, and even the most refined and abstruse moral reasoning is rooted in the slime and grit of earth's natural history. Human beings are moral to the core, not because a deity has commanded them to be or because they've chosen to be but because natural selection has forced them to be

Hopefully that helps...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-26-2003, 05:16 AM	#31
Theli Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Sweden Posts: 2,567	Regarding the OP, to stay on topic, I do agree that the objective morality teached in the bible, the one that can be put into 10 commandments doesn't exist. The immorality of (for instance) a murder has a huge amount variables at any given situation, so an absolute "X is wrong" morality is ofcourse flawed and oversimplified. If this god did exist, and wanted us to be moral he would either have made it easier or made us a hell of alot smarter, so we would be able to consider all possible outcomes before making a choice.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.