Llyricist

As soon as you posted this, you betrayed your belief that you can somehow read another's mind without even comprehending what has been said to you.
I've already explained where I think morals come from and why they APPEAR to be somewhat universal, and therefore why a jury COULD come to an agreement, yet you doggedly try to press this preconception of yours over and over, though as tiresome as it is, I will not allow an argument ad nauseum to appear to have the last word.... I've stared down better than you

Normal

If I am to understand your position, you believe that if a group of people agree on a certain set of moral principals, they should have authority within that group of imposing those principals.

If that is the case you have contradicted yourself numerous times.

Llyricist

That is the case. And I will have to insist that you at least provide one example of me contradicting myself.

Normal

So what do you call a group of people who set up a standard that exists independantly of another person's subjective moral standard? Calling a "foot" a "foot" because it is the standard is very far removed from condemning someone for killing another person because a group of people feel it is wrong. You wouldn't resonably compare "foot" to "yard" as being a better system for measurment because you have no rational basis for doing so. A foot is one way to measure matter, yard is another. One is not "better" or "more complete", which is what you (or a group of people) imply by imposing a moral system.

Wrong again, obviously killing is not a problem for all humans, it is only agreed upon by the majority. Although that goes no where to explain why it is agreed upon (I'll get to your explaination in a second). Effectively by imposing a moral system on other people within the group, you are saying a foot is better then a yard, ie. it is "wrong" to use a yard as a system for measurement. What is your rational basis for doing this?

So a dictatorial (ie. singular, non-majority) ruler/government imposed an objective standard on everyone, and then you claim that no person has the authority to do this, or at least it should be agreed upon by the majority.

If no two people agree on the degree of wrongness, how is anyone justified in condemning it? For any argument you need a rational basis for explaining your position. What is your rational basis for argument when someone has "unjustified" reasons for killing someone?

So there are no authoritative standards, but there's a justice system. If you agree with the justice system, which you obviously do, you are impling that there are authoritative standards, because that is exactly what the justice system does: imposes objective standards of morality.

This goes nowhere to explain the jump from "it is wrong for me to kill someone" to "it is wrong for someone else to kill someone". Society is based around this concept, the legal authority personifies it, so explain how anyone is justified in making that jump. Saying "a lot of people agree on it" is fine, but it doesn't explain why these people have the right to condemn someone outside of their intersubjective stance on morality. What is the basis for condemning someone outside of the system, what argument could you use to show that your (or the group's) system of morality is better?

Note: In answering the above questions, "I'm right because all these people agree with me" is not a rational basis for argument.

JGL53

I proudly adhere to a subjective, contingent morality. So sue me.

Llyricist

Have you heard the word inter-subjective?? this still is Not "objective", at least not in the way theists use the word. As in separate from what people think.
Sorry your analogy falls flat, the foot can be compared to "Murder is wrong" and the yard can be compared to "Three murders are three times as wrong"
You are still seriously confusing the idea of "standard" and what the standard is for.

Again apples and oranges, this is merely the difference between how the moral standards came about, and how the justice system works NOW in the USA.
Theists have such a problem always seeing things as timeless and changeless (sigh)

Well They do agree it was wrong, I guess they just have to come to a concensus about what degree, or maybe the charge is dictated by the DA and they have to come to a consensus about that particular charge. And the justification comes from whatever system of justice is set up, whether it be democratic, oligarchic, or dictatorial... PERIOD.

What does this mean??

You are doing it again, please stop putting words in my mouth, I said MY OPINIONS were not authoritative. That the authority resides in the justice system...

Do you have a comprehension problem? seriously, I'll try to be nicer if so.

It imposes intersubjective standards of morality, and as I pointed out above, I did not contradict myself here.

I explained that in my origins post, I do not intend to repeat it again, if you would like it fleshed out more, Read Howard's post over in the EoG forum in that thread I know you showed up in..... it pretty much agrees with what I think., if you have a problem with anything he said, I will be happy to defend it. An No I am not saying I am right because he agrees with me, just saying that his words express my opinion well enough for me not to need to repeat it.

Normal

But it is sepearte from what people think if some people do not adhere to this "intersubjective" standard, which is obviously the case as there are "criminals". How do you argue with these criminals to show them that they are 'wrong'?

Only if you equate the length of matter with the degree of "wrongness", which if you do, I would question your rationality.

No, I'm not, I think you misunderstood the analogy. If some person thinks killing is wrong, and some person thinks killing is right, it is as if one of these people is using the "foot" as a measurement tool and the other is using a "yard". In this case, how would you argue that your system is the "right" one?

a) Don't assume I'm a theist
b) This argument is analogous to "All these people agree with me so I'm correct", I'm not even really talking about the system as it is, I'm talking about you, one on one with someone who thinks killing is "right", how do you argue your case?

Ok, again, the system is a personification of this attitude: Killing is "wrong". All I'm asking is that you argue for it.

When someone kills someone with "unjustified" means, how do you argue with him to show he is in the wrong? What makes his reasons "unjustified"? How do you compare his system with yours to show that his is "wrong" and yours is "right"?

I'm not talking about YOUR OPINIONS, I'm talking about the intersubjective opinions being the authority for people who don't share the intersubjective system.

Hey, I'm just trying to understand your position, no need for the repeated ad hominems.

Intersubjective and objective are practically synonymous with someone who has a subjective moral system that doesn't line up with the intersubjective system.

If your wondering where this line of questioning is suppose to lead to, I'm trying to show there is no rational basis for a single system of morality, and that you are incorrect to impose your own values unless you assume an objective moral standard.

Don't bother to reply with "BUT THESE AREN'T MY OPINIONS, I'M NOT THE ONE IN AUTHORITY", because I don't care about what is imposing these laws, I care about the individual basis for thinking that someone who is not you is doing "wrong".

Llyricist

For one thing, most criminals know what they did was wrong, but did the act anyway because of some perceived benefit outweighing the risks. (talking about major crimes here, don't bother bringing up speeding or what have you, that just proves how subjective it all is)

some of those that don't consider what they did to be wrong are called sociopaths, and no one can rationally convince them of the fact that they did wrong, they lack the genetic code that is part and partial with the evolutionary basis for the major moral issues.

The others are generally called psychopaths, they have a chemical imbalance which keeps them from perceiving the world the way most people do, again no amount of arguing will make any difference

If I ever came across a person that wasn't either a sociopath or psychopath that truly believed that murder or stealing was NEVER wrong. I'd be tempted to give you my life savings LOL
Seriously though, I may be tempted to use the God gambit on sociopaths, since they lack any natural tendency to value other people at all, and that's all it really takes to have a personal ethical standard of some sort. It would take their own selfish desires for an afterlife with virgins or something to convince them to do right. Unfortunately, that same gambit is too often misused for things like flying airplanes into buildings.

Quite frankly it is short sighted and irrational for people NOT to value other people in their society, so your argument seems quite backwards to me, So let me put the question back to you to demonstrate how the basic major morals are actually Irrational.

All your talk about convincing people who don't share the intersubjective morality is a bunch of air. It is irrelevent, sociopaths and psychopaths are locked up or born again, or at times, become leaders of their country (and therefore the arbiters of their subjective mores)

I stated my ideas about the rational origins of morals, if that isn't convincing, then I will defer to someone more eloquent at saying the same thing.

I didn't ad hominem you, you misrepresented my words or put words in my mouth repeatedly, I truly thought you may have had a problem, if not, then I do NOT apologise for being rough on you, because then you were being deliberately disingenuous, and it is not ad hominem when the personal critique bears directly on the discussion at hand.

Jobar

Normal, we are trying to tell you that there exists no absolutely objective morality- because if there were such a thing then everyone would agree on it. We can use our intersubjective agreements and observations of what makes a workable society to establish *authoritative* morality, and even call this morality 'objective' in a less-than-absolute sense- say, if 99% of the populace agreed with it. But you aren't looking for that- because such small-o objectivity is not Absolute Objectivity.

If you want to prove that absolutely objective morality exists, it's very easy. Just name us one simple moral imperative which everyone will agree to. (We've seen that 'thou shalt not kill' is not absolute, so you need to look elsewhere.)

Oh, and I want to apologize to Joe for allowing this thread to be carted off the way it was. Yes it's still interesting, but if I had come in on it earlier I would have split off the moralizing and insisted that the thread concentrate on answering the topic question. We mods are human, and can't always be online!

Normal

Do you really believe everyone who steals thinks it is wrong? And if they don't think it's wrong, they are a "pyschopath"? You stated before "rarely would two people agree on what would constitute justification", and you don't feel this poses a problem?

I'm not even talking about just the major moral issues, I'm talking about any moral issue, and how you can possibly justify your position over someone else's moral system.