Normal

Inevitable moral reality is begging the question of what makes them inevitable. I never said morality was irrelevant, it is very subjectively relevant.

Claiming objective morality is again, begging the question. Morality is surely immaterial and cannot exist in a material worldview if it is truly objective. At best the materialist can claim intersubjective agreement is the best explanation of what morality should entail. This may be a sufficient explanation for most people.

Morality is itself based on the nature of each individual. Claiming one system of morality to be irrational, taken this into account, is begging the question. What makes your system rational and another irrational?

They conflict with naturalism only if you interpet them to. Naturalism may hunt "the god of the gaps", but is that the only god there is?

Jobar

I notice that theo, after posting intensively, left the boards rather abruptly; his last post was on June 27.

Did anyone see any statements by him that some RL situation was about to make him withdraw from II? I have read his last dozen or so posts, and seen nothing of the sort.

Theophilus, if you are still lurking but not posting- if you come back, please continue this thread. I also urge you to let us know if you cannot post here for any lengthy time, after being a daily presence. Withdrawing so abruptly is not helping your cause, you know. J.

What? Gloating? Me? Oh, no, of course not.

Vorkosigan

Quite true. But it sounds to me that your "objective" morality is really just a rhetorical club designed to get everyone to adopt your moral position. Anyway, in 90% of cases, we needn't interfere with the behavior of others. In most remaining cases, we can negotiate somehow. Society is built so that people of different beliefs can co-exist. It is not better if everyone is marching in moral lockstep.

Vorkosigan

Normal

I really don't mean to sound like I'm promoting some kind of objective morality club. I have a lot of questions about morals, and my stance on what the truth is about morals varies all the time.

The one consistant thing I've noticed is that it's dependant on the nature of the person, and arguing/enforcing one moral position over another requires more then rational argument.

ComestibleVenom

And it is also relevant to the larger organization of human society. Objective moral influences beyond the domain of the human individual are thus evident with or without a real god.

As I have shown above, this assertion is false, it is you who is begging questions. Moral realities certainly can exist within the material world, independent of human consensus. (Although human consensus would be a sufficient condition for asserting the objective relevance of morality since humans and their interactions are physical.)

It may indeed be morally rational to have irrationally differing moral systems in different proportions. Moral reality is complex, and a purely subjective interpretation is forever doomed to illusions.


Wrong. Theories like god who's structure cannot be exposed and examined are fundamentally in tension with naturalism.

Look, if it is your intention to argue that God IS in fact compatible with naturalism, I suggest you start another thread to defend this prima face absurdity.

Normal

Are those objective, or just the agreed upon best guess?

Moral realities do exist, but you were claiming objective moral realities would exist, which means they would exist if humans existed or not. That begs the question in a material worldview.

That has interesting implications for both our interpretations, doesn't it?

Tell that to pantheists.

I just said a god theory need not necessarily be incompatible.

Jobar

I see from another thread that theophilus has returned, so let's bump this up. Theo, any comment?

Spenser

Why is it so hard for some to swallow the fact that subjective morality is adequate enough to account for the way the world is today? In another thread I started I challenged anyone to produce a standard of absolute morality to which I am still convinced there is none.

Like I read above, objective morality suggests that good and evil exist even if man doesn't. How so? I brought up the point that male lions taking over a pride generally kill existing cubs, and because these are animals this is not seen as immoral (not by theists, that is for sure). Yet, if humans didn't exist on the planet all that would be left are animals and seemingly they can kill each others cubs and do as they please with no moral ramifications.

Human Arrogance is the reason any of us feel the need to suggest an objective morality that only applies to our species yet somehow would exist if we didn't. The fact that there is so much variation in morality in individuals should make it overwhelmingly obvious that morality is nothing more than subjective. Even if you have a hard time swallowing how such a thing could give 'meaning' to the human experience, that doesn't dismiss it as reality nor give any justification for inserting into the equation the word God or a particular God for that matter.

The subjectivity of morality is most apparent when you dare anyone who claims an absolute morality to demonstrate how the standard applies to:

abortion, euthanasia, censorship, pornography, prostitution, drugs, eating at the Olive Garden, Etc.

Or at least explain how if such an absolute exists in Xianity, why so many Xians are on so many sides of the issues.

Face it, we don't all think the same things are right and wrong...

ComestibleVenom

I think that the notion of 'subjective' morality is very misleading. Morality may not be some abstract written in stone law, but that doesn't mean that moral behavior has no objective inter-personal ramifications and causes.

Quite the contrary, because morality is not an ineffable thing of the spirit world, we are obliged to consider how we morally relate to the world, and how our subjective standards may not indeed be paramount.

Spenser

I believe what you classify; morals as having objective inter-personal ramifications and causes as nothing more than two sets of subjective moralities coming into contact. Society itself being built upon consensus sets of subjective morals which change through time. Because groups of people agree upon certain morals doesn't make them objective (having actual existence or reality) anywhere except maybe those peoples minds. There is no morality outside of minds. Suggesting so is an assertion which warrants evidence...