This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
There exist objective moral truths
I do believe there exist objective moral truths, such as, "a person being punished for something they did not do is wrong."
But, there exist counter arguments and positions which believe there are no objective moral truths, because ethical knowledge is usually subjective or relative which means they cannot be consider objective. Such as non-cognitivism and emotivism
Obviously the process to figure out what is objectively moral would be a difficult one, but can it be done? Consensually, empirically?
Are there objective moral truths? What are they?!?!
Closing Statement from Nicholas Lukowiak
Dear future interested reader,
IF there is anything to take from this closed debate, it is the fact one must define their terms and defend them in order to be 'right'. This creates monumental problems when debating with other people. So, try to stick with the most recognizable or common context of terms.
As far as being 'objective' I propose there is no way around being first subjective. While many believe since we are automatically subjective, we can never not be subjective. I see much error in this way of thinking, but appreciate the challenge of figuring out why. I believe in process/procedure in alignment with all of the universe. There is nothing that exist without evolving... Change in decay, [re]production, or [re]acting... Therefore, to assume there exist an 'objective truth' and then believing we can never know the exact nature of such... Seems counter-intuitive and only productive in a form of absurdity. The sciences are very successful building off of what is considered objective;by means of community, consistency and consensus.
Morality is individual. Ethics is the subject of morality. A moral decision is a personal one, not a communal thing. Although communities can dictate an individual's morals... The moral is still the individuals'.
I believe there are objective moral truths.
No one can make an argument genocide is proper or punishing an innocent is amazing! These thoughts are innately wrong for a reason... We are naturally endowed with wanting to seek social acceptance, and that involves questioning what we accept with how others treat us socially. If you, yourself, do not enjoy being harmed, what makes you think another would? What human doesn't want the basic needs of life?
What made people not want to accept my position is the immediate condition of the world... Well, the world, cultures, work in giant cultural cycles... Figuring them out helps.
Keywords: Prosocial selection and evolutionary psychology
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
russell lester
Casey Christofaris 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Morality is indeed situational, but that doesn't mean morality cannot be weighed and measured based on situations.
Casey Christofaris 10+
Mark Meijer 100+
To quote from one of your comments: "Consensus, community and consistency (not necessarily science) can dictate objective moral truths..."
How do you suppose that those subjective factors can "dictate" anything objective? How do you suppose that anything objective requires to be dictated at all? I guess I'm just confused about what you mean by objective. I would say objective means irrespective of context, point of view, interpretation, opinion, belief, fancy, etc. And to me that is the same as absolute.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
If my definitions continue to cause frustration. Please comment further. There has to be a difference or else there is no point in having two words. Upon researching more debates I found a lot of people tie them together or straight out confuse them. Which was a topic a few weeks ago on here.
All the best
Mark Meijer 100+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Define objective in the dictionary. And objectivity, absolute.
They're different
Now take objective. Unbiased and impersonal.
What degree of unbiased inspection do you desire? If you are talking like Peter, like objectivity is divine knowledge... Well then okay that's the same as absolute knowledge...
Now we limit to human unbiased perspectives... We can see theory grow into reality... The positivist image of science...
My point is, there is truth, it can be found, it's very difficult to find, but it exist. Plato's forms. Aristotle categories. And synonyms do exist.
Mark Meijer 100+
You are trying to create some kind of middle ground between absolute truth and relative perspectives. You think consensus reality is not subjective. You think if only enough people had a similar opinion, similarly biased perspectives, then it's objective. Well, you're hardly the only one who thinks that way, but I flat out reject that premise.
There's a very simple reason why we haven't been able to establish any consistent overlap between all the different human perspectives yet in all these thousands of years of so-called civilization. It's because there is no consistency to be found. But even so, even if you managed to distill some kind of basic, minimal, morality that is common to all, there would be nothing objective (impartial, impersonal, unbiased) about it. Because it is still only based on subjective, partial, personal, biased perspectives.
You don't get truth by adding all the filters you can find, you get only muddle and murk. Truth is the absence of filters, it's what is independent of perspective. And there is no morality there whatsoever.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
To be objective is to understand how one is already biased. This is what science does... Which is why I stated you needed communities (a lot of perspectives), consistency (a lot of overlap), and consensus (a lot of research).... In order to be better equipped to be objective. Indeed, we may never be perfectly 'objective' - which again, you're confusing for absolute (which I continue to entertain, although this debate is based on a lot of maybes...)... But as far as creating knowledge which can be used to create further understandings about the universe and nature... It appears we are quite successful at doing such.
.
If everyone had the 'biased' idea we should all treat others how we would like to be treated, it is no longer 'biased' - it becomes a consistency in which anyone can observe and see as true... Then when many see it, a community, can discuss the consensus. The golden rule is an obj. moral truth... However, I made another point in this conversation to separate ethics and morality as topics. How the moral is used/applied is not universal, does not mean the moral is not universal.
So yes, ultimately I will say "you cannot be objective without first being subjective" there is no way to get to objectivity without subjectivity. It's impossible.
So why try and create rhetoric neglecting such realities?
You gain truth by a lot of procedures, there is no grand unified theory of truth - you got coherence, pragmatic and correspondence theories at the top of the epistemological community debate...
Peculiar final words... For one to look through murk and mud, one usually proceeds to filter...
Consider my method of inspection 'fuzzy' and non-atomistic. If we are to continue to debating... please do research into the differences between absolutes and objectives... We have two words...
Casey Christofaris 10+
" And so I am unwilling to hide from your holiness that nothing except my knowledge that mathematicians have not agreed with one another in their researches moved to think out a different scheme of drawing up the movements of the spheres of the world. For in the first place mathematicians are so uncertain about the movements of the sun and moon that they can neither demonstrate nor observe the unchanging magnitude of the {iiip} revolving year. Then in setting up the solar and lunar movements and those of the five wandering stars, they do not employ the same principles, assumptions, or demonstrations for the revolutions and apparent movements."
" Moveover, they have not been able to discover or to infer the chief point of all, i.e, the form of the world and the certain commensurability of its parts. But they are in exactly the same fix as someone taking from different places hands, feet, head, and other limbs---- shaped very beautifully but not with reference to one body and without correspondence to one another ---so that such parts made up a monster rather then a man."
Copernicus continues on to talk about the movement of orbital circles, something the human race has been in for a very long time.
What you and Mark are in an Ad infinitum or an argument that argues in circles, But we can end the circle discovers because we know how they work. For every action creates and equal but opposite reaction. This can also be seen as duality, and balance or peace, the yin-yang.
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Matt Farncomb
Peter Law 30+
:-)
Matt Farncomb
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
I do believe 'God' exist - in you/myself, as an energy in the universe, and perhaps even a conscious omni-being...
But hardly does the nature of God dictate we cannot understand objective truths... If anything God would have knowledge of the absolute moral truths; xe would know what is right and wrong for EVERY living organism and not just humans...
Well, I kind of don't care about how ants treat ants, I care about humans treat humans and that can be looked at objectively - not absolutely. Consensus, community and consistency (not necessarily science) can dictate objective moral truths...
(Did you read 'some' of the conversation before you posted?)
Peter Law 30+
If we are talking Abrahamic God, then we must allow for the effects of sin on an originally-perfect creation. The original creation would have firmly entrenched morals, installed by God. Today we have a bit of a pig's breakfast as we seek to superimpose our preferences on Gods perfect morals.
Any other god; I am not qualified to say.
:-)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Gods have always existed because the answers to our questions have always existed, we just did not have the understanding at the time.
God provided or became the answer without needing the understanding." ~Dennis Hollinger
We had the questions, we have the answers, and we can put the puzzle together as humans for the understanding. I think though if you look hard to occam's razor existence you will find that on every level of existence all that's ever been going on from the beginning of time is trying to figure it out on some fundamental level
walter crockett
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Otherwise, no big deal!
Please any further inquiry (if you feel there are in fact no obj. moral truths), continue to comment!
Scot Wilcox 10+
Obey No1kinobe 50+
If the creators do have an idea of what human morality should be, its not clear we know what this is. Religious beliefs conflict in many areas. Most masks worshipping the right god top of the list. But we don't know which construct of god and the associated morality is other correct one. So it comes back to humans try work it out.
If there are creator gods, why are their moral ideas the best ones. Is it simply divine command, so if they support slavery, or genocide, or homophobia, or racism, murdetrering aduleters, or non believers, do we just go along with that.
You need to make all sorts of assumptions before a god given morality makes sense.
Scot Wilcox 10+
Casey Christofaris 10+
Rai Requena
Colton Cutchens
James Tolliver
walter crockett
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Nadine Hafez 500+
In my opinion, there is no full or complete objectivity on any given issue or field, ethics and morals included. I do however believe that after a contextual agreement on what counts for moral and what doesn't, a certain level of order and justice can be achieved and maintained in a largely objective manner.
I actually tend to follow the classical trend of philosophy and advocate the use of evaluation in approaching political philosophy. It seems to me that sometimes the sole utilization of objectivity - as is the case in the behavioral method in political science - proves more problematic than beneficial in the implementation and maintenance of justice in the modern state of law.
Thank you for bringing up the topic; I find it particularly interesting.
walter crockett
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Although we are the results of our history, our history does not dictate our current life styles and cultures.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Could I even draw the conclusion that you perceive your moral values as the correct ones?
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Could you add Sam Harris Talk to the description, I think it would be useful.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sam_harris_science_can_show_what_s_right.html
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Jimmy Strobl 30+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
What science 'does' we do need; consensus, consistency... Yes, these are great, what we do not need is the ego part. The experimental philosophy and not the communities of stuck up academics.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
So, yes. Sam Harris is biased but the research he's doing is as far away from biased morality that I've seen.
Objectiveness can not come from one person or even a consensus form all of mankind. It can only come from the scientific method.
I claim as he does that morality is about suffering, or rather the lack of it. this can (hopefully) be proved in a not so distant future. But even if it is proved, like evolution or gravity or quantum mechanics is proved there will still be those who claim that it is not so, that their feelings tell them otherwise...
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Well, again, I was more directing to Harris' overall 'phantom theme' of his discussion. It is a new age atheist conception of 'science' and not a very general and universal understanding. In fact, just like 'religion' new age atheist (or neoatheist) overstate the word 'science' just as casually... This is the actual bias I am talking about...
Science (like math, art, history, social studies, etc) is a subject, and nothing more. A subject requires consensus, consistency and community in order to strive... Those are the essential parts to making a method able to have objective results - not some loose definition of science. All the subjects we use/practice have this group-method... Although our western science does the best to understand said method... I would still argue we overestimate our abilities to be objective, far too often.. It's beyond having an ego to believe there is one method to finding answers... It's arrogance and ignorance.
The fact is, Sam Harris does as well as any new age religious hipster does with explaining morals, because... he has a community of new age atheist supporting his thoughts, blindly. They do not see how they are in fact behaving religiously when they dictate their irreligion. Science is a subject and depending on the sub-subject depends on the method used... So, when there is a science of morals (too late ethics, is the subject), then we can further discuss how science can craft morals, until then, it's a new doctrine to me to suggest a vague idea of scientific method can create morals.
Ethics is a subject/topic and philosophy is primary - while it has become a subject over time... everyone has personal philosophies and grouped philosophies (society, cultures, religions, etc)... morals are personal and ethics is the discussion (grouped concerned).
Philosophy can dictate morals, not science.
Jimmy Strobl 30+
You may consider him to be a phenomenon just because he attracts great attention. But I'd like to make the point that "his" whole community is mostly looking for errors in his logic, that's a major difference that you don't see in other "religions".
Never heard of a "neoatheist", funny term.
Science is a subject based on math (the only true language) and observation (the only means we have of attaining information). Yes, science requires community (without a community, people, nothing could be studied), but what brings it forward is the lack of consistency and consensus. Every scientific theory has at some early point been suggested by one or a few that did not have consensus and did not want consistency, that is what brings it forward.
I understand that you're not one to be an early adopter of new ways of thinking, you seem to believe that the old philosophies hold the universal understanding. I consider them to hold much wisdom, but they can only propel us so far.
"Until then" I will support this idea with critical thinking, hoping to aid it to be either proved or "disproved", both are good as they would widen our understanding.
Philosophy can guide science to dictate morals.
(I hope you don't take any of this as ad hominem, you know I like you right?)
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Math is relative... What it applies to is up to theory to make practical... Hard science uses the best math theory to advance... That is all. Well not all, but the general conception, we are still advancing in math... How can we really know if we are advanced in anything else? Check out the top 10 question physicist cannot answer... They oddly seem mystic...
It's not a matter of old v. new - it's a matter of looking at both and seeing where they overlap.
Without philosophy there would be no science, and the question of ethics/morals is ancient ... far more literature in philosophy (and religion) than 'science' any day. Perhaps investigating all of their doctrines will dictate overlap and demonstrate consistency, into every community. Difficult for the new age atheist, as they already impress the idea 'religion is bad' - well, that right there, is arrogantly ignorant... And makes looking at history objectively more difficult, indeed looking at the world objectively, becomes more difficult.
(Always in good faith of conversation, of course!)
Matt Farncomb
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Matt Farncomb
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Religion - dogmas, social/cultural norms, metaphysical/philosophic concerns, appealing to authority, and (but not limited to) methods of indoctrination.
Can you see where the context of religion can alter an entire conversation?
Religion being an ample part of any society... Of course it teaches morals. The fundamentalist religions may teach contradictory morality; do one to others, unless they are not the same religion.... But, no matter, they dictate what you reference as basic moralities...
Well, without the dictation, definition or expression of a moral, we will never know if our actions are moral or immoral. So, yes, religion teaches morals as well as ethics.
To add: although ancient societies (Egypt and Sumeria) had laws, they still said breaking them would violate the Gods will, and the king was person in charge of punishing those who disobeyed the Gods... So, religion has and will always dictate morals.
Matt Farncomb
Concerning your main point, it seems that I have misunderstood you. I thought you were saying that religion has a monopoly on morality, but correct me if I'm wrong, it seems you are saying that it can act as a guide for one to follow. I'd certainly agree with that and I'd also add that religion is certainly not alone in this domain. Many branches of philosophy offer up moral guidance according to a set of core principles, for example the Star Trek philosophy for Trekkies...(seriously). Also, I would like to further accentuate the point that much of human morality is innate and we don't necessarily need any kind of philosophy, religious or otherwise, to be moral.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
I think we will always need some sort of philosophic articulation in order to grasp what is good ethically and not... I see no way out of philosophy. It's just going to happen.
Tracy Oniya
Tracy Oniya
Objective: the quality of being true even outside of individual or group feelings, imaginings, or interpretations. (This is what Science excels at.)
Moral: Intentions, decisions, and actions whose effect is "good"/beneficial.
Truth: Accurate representation of the functions of Reality. (Again, Science excels at this)
(My Arguement follows..)
walter crockett
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Joshua Kloppers
If there are objective moral truths I think that the most fundamental of them is that you should do whats best for the species. Murder is very rarely for the benefit of the species as a whole. Lying, theft and any type of deceptive practice is generally bad for the race as a whole.
Any idea's on this concept?
Dan F 50+
A unique result of the biological evolution specific to our species is our human cultural evolution. Very interestingly, as clearly indicated in this debate, cultural evolution has a "life" with its own independent standings of ideas, beliefs, etc., which exist concurrently without the constraints applicable to the life products of biological evolution. The survival of ideas, beliefs, etc., are not without selection, but of a less predictable inheritance and longevity.
To contemplate the existence of objective moral truths constitutes just how mind boggling the natural world is and has become throughout our human history. Is it not this aspect of life that has made our existence all the more precious?
The concept an objective moral truth is subject to a process that can be highly selective, or predictable given the discipline of knowledge, the constraints of liberty, or cost of honesty, etc.
I think Sam Harris on an earlier TED Talk addressed this issue square on. There is no need to get mystical about the development of our rich, diverse cultural evolution. It is rooted in us.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Check out: [cog] psych of religion
Painting the overall picture that individually we all act 'religious' in nature - we function with groups as a condition of survival; part of surviving which involves finding 'happiness' and 'knowledge' among groups - in a sense - or rather, our sub- and unconscious brain dictates requirements our immediate conscious is not aware of...
It's merely a conflict of verbal context. I call it religious, another may call it natural. But, calling it ''natural' is an existential cop out... The term, religious, makes you think. How do I act religious, normally, do I? In what ways? No matter the conflict, what is clear is that without metacognition (reflection, retrospection, etc) of cognition, there is a lot more room to follow the group; band-wagon.
As much as I detest the new age atheism... Sam Harris is a brilliant contemporary philosopher. Dawkins' memes are so revolutionary... But, his philosophy is so 'neoatheist' it corrupts his own practical usage of the idea... I argue greatly, new age atheism has created an underground religion; a disorganized group, but none the less having doctrine, argument, metaphysical position... to establish their head in the room of religious debate... Indeed, no need to get mystical; it is important that a human follows the herd (we need to), but also, while making sure each human understands that exact nature of thought...
I don't think mysticism will die, it's a consistency. Science believe in the 'Big Bang' or at least that's the best theory and it makes the most sense to use... Couldn't of something else happened? The Big Bang, says the entire universe, yet we do not know the actual 'size' of universe... It's a theory, for a reason. Yet many say "it is the truth" - seems mystical to call a theory the best 'truth' thus the TRUTH, no?
We learned too much about the universe before we figured out...
Dan F 50+
Sociobiology restricts its insights to the observable natural and physical world and is the reason biologist often consider themselves naturalist. I think you may be misreading my use of the word natural. I'm using it in terms of our human evolutionary history.
From this point of view our concurrent cultural evolution opened the doors to an increasing awareness of ourselves enabling a free will to be more creative in how to better get along more civilly, comfort one another in tough times, etc. This expanding capacity motivated stories and ideas to adopt, as for example your question about objective moral truths, in that effort. A subjective realm, but one of collective appeal and group benefit potentially aiding in our survival as a species.
I do note a distinction between the mysteries of the testable and the conjectured real world truths and unknowns and the handed down traditional organized political/religious/educational belief systems through the years with their own more self serving impetus.
Atheist are organized? Are you sure? Just so you know, I don't worship anything not even science, but I do seek to better acknowledge it.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
The rest, is great writing and we will agree more often than not.
And yes, I am sure atheist are more disorganized than not, but they still have organized features... In politics and scientific communities especially.
Atheism is a term people use for themselves to put themselves in the minority category, but at the same time, will realize what atheism means to them personally is more often a religious naturalist ideology - nature is my religion - sort of thing.
To me, clearly dictating that spirituality is impossible to ignore, as we are all prone to being 'religious' in some sense.
E G 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
I sense sarcasm? Or is the translation is just not done well?
Because obviously there are obj. moral truths. You like to be fed right? You wouldn't enjoy to stop being fed, correct?
E G 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Are you extending ethics to animals? Should we teach other animals the same way as people? Definitely, but to what degree? - These are ethical questions. Society makes the conclusions. And we can argue which society today is [un]ethical among smaller groups and individuals.
But 'morals' are individual to everyone. So I do believe there are morals that every individual shares existentially, or superficially - but, essentially mutual moral beliefs - in extension, truth AND knowledge, that EVERYone, in general, as being a human being - shares, knows and practices.
Just because every society (country, nation, bodies of nations...) behaves differently with another society... independently, and amongst themselves... Does not mean every different society cannot have overlapping moral values that permeate the cultures.
Do we know what an absolute truth is?
I would say to that, extremely few... But, with science, consensus and surveys... We will eventually understand what it takes to be truly absolute with truth and knowledge.
- there is a definitive difference between the two ideas: absolute and objective.
- read the other post E G
- hope it translates okay...
But, basically - Yes, we can know, because we can look at history and see how ancient societies knew what was an objective moral truth - and how they practiced their ethical systems with others...
It's just hard to see/consider obj. moral truths today... But they exist. It's beyond logic, because logic isn't good with the metaphysical concerns philosophy anticipates. The *idea* of fuzzy logic - 'knowing what is not true, will make truth' - That's a great way to go about finding metaphysical answers to ethics and morals... without the faith
E G 10+
Well , then what about this empirical truth :
' no human has the same perception like another one ' --- we will eventually reach consensus , that's right , but does it change something ?..... we have different perceptions , we don't know the same thing in the same way , in fact the existence of 'the same thing' is pure human convention ......... can you argue for something being objevtive in this situation ?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
The basic needs; food, shelter, water...
To deny these things directly to another human being is wrong, always. There is no reason to deny another a meal or warmth if there is an abundance of both...
For example: While America consumes 2/3 (two-thirds) of the world's resources, I feel this statistic alone dictates clear unethical behavior that a nation can practice, culturally.
So while I, you and the next person can agree American culture is pretty wasteful... I would find it amazing for someone to disagree if they have ever actually took time to investigate the matter. Yes, we can have the same perspectives. Just because there are different elements and particulars involved, doesn't mean the answers will be entirely different - everyone needs to eat, sleep and drink water...
Besides from the example: we can just figure that out, by an experiment... Try not eating, being warm and drinking a little water for a few days...
E G 10+
- his need to eat or mine ? ...or maybe the common elements of the need to eat at both of us ?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
We all need to eat, no matter the dimensions of how, what, where, when, who, why.... The bottom line, we all need to eat - that is an objective truth..
Now, what sane, reasonable and truthful person can say... "Denying another to eat is right" Just not happening - no matter the circumstance. It is morally wrong to deny another to eat...
Perhaps there will be circumstances where not letting someone eat, will be good... But, we should strongly consider what moments would have to be arisen, to be so objective about how to treat another... What would make it justifiable to deny another food?
E G 10+
'The bottom line, we all need to eat - that is an objective truth'
My counter argument : what does the need of eat is ?
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
E G 10+
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Even those who are fed through life support systems in hospitals are getting nutrition, indirectly eating.
Jerry Kelly
Wilbert Hunt
Agree or not, the Rule exists. It's call the Golden Rule, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." This Rule reaches its pinnacle in this statement: "As you sow, you reap."
The rule is no respecter of person, can't be bargained with, and is amoral. It doesn't tell you what to sow but assures you that it will be returned to you. It doesn't even identify what's right or what's wrong, only that for every action there's a reaction, and for every sowing there's a reaping--leaving what to sow to us.
Doubt might arise as to whether such a Rule actually exists. I'm certain of it, but because cause and effect are modified by time, rarely do we see the connection between one and the other, unless we do, leading many to disbelieve in the existence of such a Rule.
If the scales of Justice aren't satisfied in this life, rest assured the scales will be balanced in a future life or future lives.
Andy Hood
Your example is not necessarily universal in everybody's eyes.
Consider the teacher getting a painful stone in the back of the head while writing on the board, asking "who threw that?" and getting no answer. In the interests of maintaining discipline which will be better for all the kids in the long run he might hold the whole class behind for detention. Is this morally wrong? Certainly many kids will feel hard done by... but you could argue that it's the right action nonetheless.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
It is hard to pinpoint when a choice is objectively good or bad in response to an action or actions... But, your example does not suggest there is no obj. moral truths, but that finding them is difficult in some situations. There are social-dilemmas with morals, but none that disregard morals as being objective, but instead fuzzy or foggy to establish illumination.
Richard Gono
We don't live in the conditions we used to live in. Of course if we would live in a time where we were a tribal species, the objective morality could suit us our whole life.
But we have come a long way, and things changed and i don't really think that "going back to the roots" will help us as a species.
But i absolutely agree with your point. We as a species NEED to study morals and ways we can affect them. We have a natural way to alter them, we just don't really know how. We should look for a way to educate and teach morals in an early age, so that the next generations would be better suited for the life in the modern age. I even think it is our responsibility, as is the responsibility of any parent to raise a "good" kid.
But the evlutionary mechanisms as you put it, aren't up to the task anymore, the society changes too fast. The morals we are born with, the objective, "true" morals, will get outdated eventually. Of course, we can use them as a reference, but the natural state of things is not always the best suited one, when change happens.
Todd Westervelt
Faith is not blind: that there are tautologies in mathematics, I believe, is evidence of God. Arthur Benjamin wrote that “Another special quality of mathematics... is its ability to achieve absolute certainty. Once the definitions and rules of the game (the rules of logic) are established, you can reach indisputable conclusions. For example, mathematics can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there are infinitely many prime numbers and that the Pythagorean theorem ... is absolutely true, now and forever. It can also ‘prove the impossible’, form easy statements, such as ‘The sum of two even numbers is never an odd number, to harder ones such as ‘The digits of pi... will never repeat.... A mathematical theorem is true forever.
Philosophy provides evidence of God. The idea of absolute ethics (standards of conduct based upon principles of what is right and wrong), as a process, is evidence of God. Mihalyi Csikzentmihalyi, in Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience (1991), wrote about the fallacy of cultural relativism as a means to understanding and enhancing the quality of life.
Optimal experience is a form of energy…. Energy is power, but power is only a means. The goals to which it is applied can make life either richer or more painful…. The Marquis de Sade perfected the infliction of pain into a form of pleasure, and in fact, cruelty is a universal source of enjoyment for people who have not developed sophisticated skills…. [FLOW] is good only in that it has the potential to make life more rich, intense, and meaningful; it is good because it increases the strength and complexity of the self
So, subjective and objective, inductive and deductive are all a part of this search for truth. Perhaps truth is in the being of the Personal Creator and he creates life for us to live truth as a process rather than as an ethical rule, those ethical rules are merely outcomes of the process.
Todd Westervelt
1. To say that there are absolute truths is to say that there is objective (something that is provable beyond human experience) goodness and objective badness.
2. Mortmer Adler wrote "that it is unreal to think about science and philosophy as
the line that divides knowledge from mere opinion in such a way that it puts mathematics, investigative science, and history on one side of that line and everything else on the other. This amounts to denying the legitimacy of the claim made by philosophy to give us knowledge of reality and provide us with truths that are, perhaps, more fundamental and important than those we learn from science."
3. We must also assume that induction and deduction are not mutually exclusive and that there is a sliding scale between the two - we rarely if ever think one way over the other.
4. Pure induction in religion and philosophy is merely superstition.
5. Pure deduction in science is merely narrow mindedness and dos not fulfill the purpose of science: to find truth.
6. If there is a personal God that created us with the purpose of relationship with him at least in the working out of our relationship with others around us, all is good - remember that the world may be unsafe but still be good.
8. If there is bad in the world one might ask how a good God allows this - can one imagine any sense of free will (free will, like deductive and inductive thinking, is not mutually exclusive. Some persons have more than others) or the richness of experience in THIS life having the potential that it does without bad?
PART 1 - SEE PART TWO FOR CONCLUSION
Jason Sebring
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Morality is personal. Ethics is the subject of morality. Objective is the opposite of subjective. There are no absolutes with human beings - there are only things that are good enough to be believed that way = objectivism, pragmatism and a dash of empiricism. How old are you by the way?
Yes, you are right, the whole world doesn't act the same. Their are so many different things involved with the subjects and details of ethics, yeah, definitely got me there.. But, they are the most ancient things worried about in all the history of philosophy... We can look at all of these things in history and actually KNOW what is not good. I didn't really like the Scientology remark.
So, if there is a religion that preaches that* Sign me up. Definitely love to meet once a week and talk. Would be excited.
I don't know you, but if you're offended. Read the other arguments here to me, and we can continue debating. I just felt the Scientology remark was distasteful, sorry, it was low. . . They're worse than a cult.
Remember my side: personal values of how to treat others can be objectively recognized; 1. exist naturally and 2. are common sense. (It's not a new or original side) Platinum rule for instance. Golden is culturally impractical.
Jason Sebring
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+
Henry Woeltjen 10+
Even in nature...a food chain exists that must fall in line...create balance...and then achieve stability. When a certain animal gets out of control...it can destroy other species and in turn kill other species in a domino effect.
Humans thrive when cooperation is the focus. When humans work together they can live longer, be happier, and generally evolve socially at a much faster rate.
So yeah we can say morals are subjective....but the environment we live in forces us down a very specific path. If you are born as a psychopath...how long do you expect to live? If you are born as a cunning...cooperative leader of people...how much farther will you go in life...how much happier will you be with true friends and followers.
Well...it took kings a while to figure out that killing their own people wasn't necessarily the way to go. Kings realized that they needed to treat the people well..because the people were the backbone of any countries stability and long-term control.
Morals are definitely not subjective.
Racism - Negative
Killing Others - Negative
Abuse of Others - Negative
These things cause pain...and will in turn create negative energy (revenge, family may get revenge, karma). I do believe it works this way. Karma is not some magic force that guides wrongdoers into ultimate demise. Karma is just cause and effect.
As early as 350 BC people spoke of happiness and human potential.
I don't think we should remove culture....we should learn to live together...and not believe the same things. We can have respect for eachother...live how we want...and progress as a unit.
Nicholas Lukowiak 50+