tk

Well, go ahead, but you lose anyway, because you're already in a thousand pieces.

One can have his own little moral code without imposing the moral code on others. This is how it's possible for morality to be subjective.

I see many attempts here on II to persuade theists that there's no God. Personally, I don't have a problem with Christians, Muslims, etc. practising their beliefs, as long as they acknowledge that theseg beliefs are based on faith, and are not proven "Ultimate Truths". That's subjective morality for you.

If morality is objective... then which morality is the true morality? Can you prove it? So far the only `proofs' of objective morality are based on circular arguments, preconceived notions stamped with the word "Reason", and plain vacuous "Einstein's wrong"/"Newton's wrong"/"Darwin's wrong" assertions which are elaborated to make them look erudite.

The presence of many possible moralities can be tempered with a system of laws. Laws are useful as practical devices to prevent people with differing beliefs from treading on one another's toes. (Though, laws have also been used for imposing one's morality on other people.)

dshimel

The Golden Rule is as close to "universal morality" as we can get. Every society I'm aware of has at some level been aware of the idea that it is generally a good idea to treat your equals the way you want to be treated. Unfortunatly too many societies have had far too many classes in which it is okay to treat a lower class in a way you would not like to be treated.

That you can't. You can't make someone think that eating meat is wrong if they think it isn't wrong. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. You can prohibit certain activities, but that won't make anyone think the activity is morally wrong.

Even if you do not think it is morally worng, society can still ban certain types of behavior. Also, I am only required to treat you morally if you have done nothing to deserve immoral treatment. By violating my moral code, I'm released from abiding by my moral code.

But how do you know she is wrong. If you believe there is some discoverable objective morality, how do you know that she does not have a better understanding of the objective morality than you do? You can't prove you are correct. She can't prove she is correct. You each just "know" you are closer to the one real objective moral code.

I think you are both just fooling yourselves. She decides she won't eat meat. Fine for her. You decide you will eat meat. Fine for you. You each have created a subjective moral code for your own behavior, snd fortunatly, neither of these violates the law.

long winded fool

Touché

Careful. Didn't the early Church force people into their morality? Sometimes with physical threats, but even emotionally forcing someone is forcing them. They could force their morality on others and they did, so the question becomes, "should they have?"; ultimately a yes or no question only answerable if you believe in objective morality.

People of every society have also been aware of and followed the morality of self-preservation. "Do unto others before they do unto you." In actual fact, this and Crowley's "Do what thou wilt," are far more common moralities than the golden rule. Why should we take this small, relatively new moral philosophy and assign it the title of "universal morality?" Why not the morality of "survival of the fittest?" It's far older and far more widespread. Why should we convert to your golden rule morality? And what right do you have if you are morally subjective to stop me from hurting other people if that's my morals? None. I have the right to hurt whomever I want because I believe my morality is objective and better than anyone else's. It is obvious that you disagree with this mentality, but do you see that, by doing so, you are admitting to being morally objective? You may not think that you have all the answers, but you clearly "know" the difference between "right and wrong," and declaring right and wrong makes you morally objective and intolerant. Two qualities I personally find to be both honest and courageous.

Interesting that you mention laws. Say there is a society of morally subjective people who preach absolute tolerance for our fellow man (and woman.) Say that children come home from school with dead animals and ask their parents how to go about sacrificing to Lucifer. Say you go outside in the morning with your seven-year-old daughter to see your neighbor making love to his cow. Or to his seven-year-old daughter and your daughter's best friend. Say that your neighbor doesn't believe in cleaning and his house stinks up the neighborhood so bad you can't even sleep. After enough complaints, the people of the society convene a meeting. They decide they're still tolerant, but they need to make rules. Democracy is born. So the majority agree on what rules will be enforced and approach the minority. "We've decided that if you don't conform to our laws, and therefore our ideas of morality, then you need to remove your ass from the premises." Thus, the morally subjective and tolerant people have become objective and intolerant. Laws are all about intolerance and are made by morally objective people. "We may not know what the absolute moral good is, but we KNOW that these certain things are absolutely bad." Everyone is morally objective.

tk

long winded fool keeps trying to prove that objective morality exists, by posting lots of drivel.

What does it mean for someone to be an objective person? It doesn't mean that the person strictly follows a particular code of moral conduct. It means that the person makes decisions based on hard facts. A fundamentalist of a religion may stand zealously by his faith; to say that such a person is objective is complete rubbish.

The majority who "know" that it's wrong to make love to cows aren't objective, they're just intolerant.

One can believe in the idea of objective morality and yet be subjective.

long winded fool

Of course, by implication, the same goes for the majority intolerant of an adult making love to children. And those who "know" it's wrong to for a person to never clean their house in a suburban neighborhood to the point where it becomes a health hazard. Aren't they are just as intolerant and non-objective as those against sex with cows in public?

Sorry. I guess when I was saying "objective morality" I could have been clearer and said absolute morality and when I referred to "subjective morality" I really meant relative morality. That was the context of the op, so I assumed everyone understood this. While it is impossible to be a moral relativist, this has nothing to do with whether or not a person is rationally objective. This isn't about people who look at hard facts or people who believe whatever they want. This doesn't matter if morality is relative. Everyone objective or subjective has equal right to his or her morality if all morality is relative. Relative morality isn't right or wrong, it's relative to the person. This is perfect tolerance and I'm afraid this is ridiculous, (see my former posts.) Absolute morality is intolerance and is the morality of every living thing that ever existed capable of any kind of abstract thought. It's possible to be tolerant of minor things that go against your personal morality if you are unable to convince someone else they are in the wrong, but there are always those absolutes that you will never tolerate as long as there's breath in your body.

Keep in mind, I'm not trying to prove that everyone agrees on the "absolutes," I'm showing that everyone is and should be intolerant and therefore believes and should believe in moral absolutes. "Sufficiently right" morality should always be forced over "sufficiently wrong" morality. This is what laws are for. True morality may not be absolute with regard to being obvious to every human being, but even if everyone realizes this no one can really be tolerant of morality which conflicts with his own. Even the most rational, emotionally detached person will force his morals on someone else and think he's in the right. Even the most enlightened person has moral absolutes.

B. H. Manners

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dshimel
[B]Lions are not capable of rational thought, and therefore are not moral agents. They behave without regard for the concepts of right and wrong.

Lions may or may not be rational creatures, but they will look out for their self interest. growl/chop/chop/growl