Objective morality vs subjective morality

[Yazata]

Some people will add 2 and 2 together and get 5, that doesn't change the objective truth, which is that 2 + 2 = 4.

I think that it's possible to mathematically prove that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words the conclusion follows from the logical properties of the natural numbers and of the addition operation.

Is it possible to prove moral principles in an analogous way? What should we use as premises in the proof?

The existence of objective moral values is different from perception of objective moral values.

Imagine that the human race ceases to exist, that a supernova fries the earth or something. Would the principles of human morality still exist in some kind of unactualized abstract state?

It seems to me that even if the answer is 'no', it doesn't necessarily imply that everyone is free to define whatever morality they like. Even if no morality exists independently of human beings, it still might be a fact that all human beings are born with the same moral principles. Or perhaps more likely, that they are born with a tendency to embrace moral rules that recognize and protect principles like reciprocity/fairness and avoidance of predation within the social group.

That's objectivity of a sort, even if it's weaker than the moral ontology that you seem to be favoring.

 

[Lori_7]

God without religion is silent on morality.

god without religion is law, which is objective.

 

[spidergoat]

How does one know the will of god without a revelation/ communication?

 

[Gustav]

a very nice post, yazata

Social insects like ants on the other hand are probably just about 100% morality (group interest) with very little self-interest.

you might enjoy this.....

Ever since our ancestors, the macrotermitine termites, achieved ten-kilogram weight and larger brains during their rapid evolution through the late Tertiary Period, and learned to write with pheromonal script, termitic scholarship has elevated and refined ethical philosophy. It is now possible to express the imperatives of moral behavior with precision. These imperatives are self-evident and universal. They are the very essence of termitry. They include the love of darkness and of the deep, saprophytic, basidiomycetic penetralia of the soil; the centrality of colony life amidst the richness of war and trade with other colonies, the sanctity of the physiological caste system; and the evil of personal rights (the colony is ALL!); our deep love for the royal siblings allowed to reproduce; the joy of chemical song; the aesthetic pleasure and deep social satisfaction of eating feces from nestmates' anuses after the shedding of our skins; and the ecstasy of cannibalism and surrender of our own bodies when we are sick or injured (it is more blessed to be eaten than to eat). (Edward O. Wilson)

 

[wynn]

So religion was not the objective source of their stance. Point proven.

That would be so if religion was all about uniformity, regardless of circumstance, time, place, intellect, spiritual attainment and commitment ...

 

[spidergoat]

If it isn't uniform, then you cannot call it objective.

 

[Lori_7]

How does one know the will of god without a revelation/ communication?

GOOD FUCKING QUESTION!
:bravo:


communion with god. i think that we can become the perfect genetic manifestation of god's will actually. like jesus. the bible says jesus is the fulfillment of god's law.

 

[spidergoat]

Still not objective, since revelations are all different, that's why there isn't one universal religion.

 

[Lori_7]

Still not objective, since revelations are all different, that's why there isn't one universal religion.

but if there's only one god, everyone would be in communion with the same thing.

not religion. more like biology and behavioral science in action. communion would render religion obsolete. we wouldn't need religion or governments or anything else to tell us what to do, we would inherently know what to do, and we would all be on the same page; the right page. it's the difference between controlling what's wrong with us and correcting what's wrong with us.

 

[spidergoat]

Then either there is more than one god, or he is just fucking with us. Can you explain how there can be any objective morality derived from either god or religion?

 

[Lori_7]

Then either there is more than one god, or he is just fucking with us. Can you explain how there can be any objective morality derived from either god or religion?

i've told you that i think the father (god) is law. the laws that govern what happens.

laws are objective. not man's laws but scientific laws, and we're all subject to those.

 

[spidergoat]

How do you derive morality from natural laws? We all know that immoral acts are not contrary to natural law, since they happen.

 

[Emil]

It may be defined as human conduct in so far as it is freely subordinated to the ideal of what is right and fitting.

Every people, even the most uncivilized and uncultured, has its own morality or sum of prescriptions which govern its moral conduct. Nature had so provided that each man establishes for himself a code of moral concepts and principles which are applicable to the details of practical life...

My question is: why theists need a list of moral and why they need punishment or reward to respect these rules?

 

[Lori_7]

How do you derive morality from natural laws? We all know that immoral acts are not contrary to natural law, since they happen.

when everything else is subject, why wouldn't behavior be as well? as self-fulfilling prophecies and with the wages of sin being death, there's a correction built into the law, and i think that it will ultimately and naturally be bred out of us. our behavior has consequences. our thoughts have consequences. i don't understand why you think those things are exempt from the forces that control the universe, and that control creation. what is more impactive than our behavior?

 

[spidergoat]

So, there is no guide to morality other than long-term consequences? That's a unique thing to say for a believer.

 

[Lori_7]

So, there is no guide to morality other than long-term consequences? That's a unique thing to say for a believer.

i don't know why that would be. if i'm not mistaken the bible refers to that as fruit.

 

[spidergoat]

But that has nothing do to with guiding a person to making moral choices.

 

[Mind Over Matter]

I think that it's possible to mathematically prove that 2 + 2 = 4. In other words the conclusion follows from the logical properties of the natural numbers and of the addition operation.

Truth is conformity of mental images and ideas with what is "out there." If two people see a dog, one might say, "That is a dog," while the other says, "That is a cat." The first statement is true because it conforms to reality; the other is false because it does not. Such realism is the normal human reaction to reality, the natural position of the human mind and indispensable for avoiding skepticism.

How could saying "there is no such thing as absolute truth" be absolutely true? It is a contradiction in terms.

Is it possible to prove moral principles in an analogous way? What should we use as premises in the proof?

Yazapata, I have two simple questions for you. The situation is this: You are walking in a park, You see a young girl being attacked by several men. She is screaming for help. You have a cell phone and can easily call 911 with no threat of harm to you. 1. Do you know it is absolutely morally right and good for you to want to try to help this girl in this situation? Do you know it is absolutely, morally wrong and evil for you to say effectively, "I see no reason to call 911 or 999 for her"? If your direct answer to these two questions is "no";then add the fact to this hypothetical event, that the young girl is your daughter. Does that change your answers? Is your position that you do not know that it would be absolutely, objectively, morally wrong and evil for someone to kill billions of people because they wanted to?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

That's false.

Is it possible to clearly distinguish between objective and subjective morality?

Yes, it is. Definition is a good start.

An absolute, objective moral order is one which must be ordained by an All-Knowing, All-Powerful, All-loving Creator God who created all that exists. This order is not subjective according to individual human opinions. Black is black and white is white, but there are circumstances that have various factors, some of which are black and others that are white. People call them grey and find it difficult to look at each factor and weigh each correctly to understand what should be done. If people look at only grey for a long time, many times they forget the black and white and throw up their hands in despair saying "who can know?" and sometimes stop trying to know what is right and wrong. They take the easy way out.

A non-absolute morallity is one based solely on personal opinions.
My question concerning the park and the attackers and the girl was ment to get you to acknowledge (focus on what you really know) that you know it is objectively right to care about people and that since we all have a responsibility to try and help people in need when we can, you should have decided to help her because there is an objective Law that is above mankind that tells you it is wrong for you not to care or to not try. Do you know it is absolutely right and good for you to do all you can to help the girl in my scenario?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

This does not hold for Buddhism, which is, in effect, atheist, but maintains that there is objective morality (there is a regularity of the Dharma).

Like the pantheistic Brahmin, Buddha did not acknowledge his dependence on the gods. They were like men, subject to decay and rebirth. The god of today might be reborn in the future in some inferior condition, while a man of great virtue might succeed in raising himself in his next birth to the rank of a god in heaven. The very gods, then, no less than men, had need of that perfect wisdom that leads to Nirvana, and hence it was idle to pray or sacrifice to them in the hope of obtaining the boon which they themselves did not possess. They were inferior to Buddha, since he had already attained to Nirvana. In like manner, they who followed Buddha's footsteps had no need of worshipping the gods by prayers and offerings.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03028b.htm

A feature of Buddhism is that Buddhism is a non-theistic religion. Later Mahayana Buddhism virtually made the Buddha himself into a god, but the existence of God and even the existence of an immortal soul are either denied or irrelevant in Buddhism.

Buddha himself specifically denied the existence of a conscious God. (Buddhism, Bradley S Clough, in Jacob Neuser ed. God, Cleveland: Pilgrim Press, 1997, p 57).