|
Let me start by saying that the 'definition' the OP gives is very weak. It neither explains why we need 'morals' nor does it state how they are created. Both of these questions are essential in finding an agreement on what we are talking in the first place.
Second i want to state that there is no such thing as objectivity. Let me elaborate that based on a simple and topic related example: cannibalism.
Our humanistic point of view tells us that cannibalism is evil because killing (not even gonna start on murdering) and eating another human being takes away essentiel (human) rights from said person. The reason for this is the value we give to individual in our society. Everyone should at least in theory be allowed to do whatever he or she wants.
In some tribes on the other hand cannibalism is part of the day to day live. Their culture favors the survival of the group over the individual and that is exactly what can be achieved through cannibalism as it keeps the population in check, healthy and also preserves the environment which they highly depend on since they don't have to look for excessive amounts of food there.
As shown you can't really say something is absolutely good or absolutely evil without considering the background.
Some people in this thread expressed that they belief that morals aren't necessary. This is a very nearsighted perspective. Humans are the only species that is not only capable to cause it's own demise and take half the solar system with it but also stupid enough to actually do it when left unchecked. So in my opinion morals - however weak they may be - are a necessity to ensure the possibility of survival on the long run.
|
The concept of, "Right," and, "Wrong," are literally some of the most subjective stuff in the world.
If they weren't, maybe the countries of the world wouldn't be such shit shows.
|
|
|
Maybe I'm a little slow but.......
Morality can't be quantified.
and
I think therefore I am subjective?
Whoa... or maybe just No...
|
On May 11 2011 18:40 Rabiator wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 15:45 VIB wrote:On May 11 2011 15:35 Pleiades wrote:
I have a moral nihilistic view of the world, so subjective for me. That does not mean I don't value anything at all. I just have my own set of values, and I try not to value it above others' values. 100% agree. Morals are an illusion created by people to feel better to themselves. Same as god. People are just afraid that without these pre-set unquestionable rules. The world would collapse. So they make stuff up. Fact is: laws are just a representation for the morals of a society and selfish nihilistic people are protected by them as well. So go on and explain why you wouldnt die the instant there wasnt a law against killing people and someone else didnt like your face. Thus morals are NECESSARY and nihilists are just selfish idiots who dont care to be part of a community.
What you fail to understand is laws will exist regardless of morals. Because there's social, economic and political needs for laws. Morals are not necessary for laws.
You don't need to be afraid of a moralless world. We live in a moralless world, and we have laws.
|
On May 11 2011 15:52 VIB wrote:
At the end of the day. Morals are not an absolute truth. They are a consequence of economy and politics. And change through history as the need for new morals arise.
A few centuries ago. Slavery was moral. Because there were economical-political reasons for it. As the economy changed, nowadays slavery is immoral. Likewise, nowadays assigning monopoly property laws to intellectual material is moral, because theres economic interest. As that economic interest is changing. In the future, copyright laws that forbid sharing of creative work will be immoral. Morals will always change to adjust to economics and politics.
Morals is just an illusion invented by men.
Couldn't had said it better. Nailed it
|
Completely subjective, you can't say someone's morals are good or bad, as they're only relative to your own morals.
|
Morality is subjective, I don't see how you could debate an objective moral code?
|
United States207 Posts
Moral or metaphysical laws clearly aren't binding. Those who act "immorally" (ie murder, rape, and other actions of ill repute) can and do get away with it, living happy lives with their ill-gotten gains. So clearly moral laws on this plane of existence aren't binding (or in that sense, objective, because can't see what a moral law is because there is no enforcement.)
Some people think they get enforced in the afterlife, but it is rather trivial to show all the world religions are false (I'll leave this exercise up to the reader).
Even beyond that, we can sidestep that issue. Religions (for the most part) claim god is the author of moral laws. But let's not kid ourselves, might doesn't make right. Just because God has the ability to enforce a law and I don't, doesn't make his position suddenly privileged to mine.
So that leaves us with each of us coming up with our own moral laws. Our own set of preferences for how others act, that we hope are enforced. As a society we amalgamate our preferences into a set of a laws, but the laws don't always accord with any given individual's moral sense.
Frankly I don't see why anyone gets frustrated with this idea. Moral laws are subjective, but so what? That doesn't mean someone else who I disagree with get's equal weight in their opinion. My opinions are all that matter. The opinions of other people only matter in the sense that they might prevent a law from passing that accords with my sense of rightness.
|
Subjective, there is no universal moral code for a reason.
|
Aha interesting discussion.
I would say it is subjective because morals is not something predefined given to us by birth, it is something we learn during the course of our lives. Morality depends upon where you are from, who your parents were, what books you read and all that good stuff.
For example:
If someone was born on the street he would think it was ok to steal so he could get something to eat, but the shopkeeper would think it immoral to steal because he would lose profit.
Every person has a defined set of moral values that they built up during their lives, but if those values are distinct from what society has decided in the letter of the law they simply won't do it out of fear of punishment. Some do it anyway and serve as examples to all those who would think it morally right, thereby causing them to question their values.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
|
United States207 Posts
On May 11 2011 19:24 Phenny wrote:
Completely subjective, you can't say someone's morals are good or bad, as they're only relative to your own morals.
See this is just playing a language game. If the other person assumes that when I say "Your morals are bad" I mean they don't accord with some sort of objective standard, they are missing what I'm saying.
What I'm saying (because there are no magical objective standards) is that "I dislike your opinions." To me, that makes them bad. If I like, or agree with them, I say "I think they are good."
And what do you mean I "can't say". I just said it. Okay well I typed it. That's sort of the whole point I guess.
|
United States207 Posts
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
What if I disagree with god? Say, for example, god happens to hate gay people. And I like them. I dunno if your god hates gays, pick another opinion I happen to disagree with if he doesn't.
Now, let's pretend you are right. So he made me? So what? So he can punish me for disagreeing with me, so what? That makes him the ultimate arbiter? I don't think so. I'm the only person who can decide if I agree with him.
Morality is, after all, internal. The only person who can change how you feel about your own actions and the actions of others, is yourself.
|
It's subjective. Moral depends of culture, education and social interaction. Even then Moral can be changed with personal experience. So what's right to me might not be right for someone in the next door.
Also. Moral can't be defined by things that are 'Right' and things that are 'Wrong'. There is an huge amount of points in between. The so called 'shades of grey'. And those are very occasion specific. So you can't simply say "When this guy from this country does something at that time of the day then he is RIGHT". So....subjective.
|
On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life.
Exactly the point, we are stating our opinions, just like you are stating yours. I'm not going to argue whether you are right or wrong, as I don't mind people believing in religion.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On May 11 2011 19:50 starcraft2leverage wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life. What if I disagree with god? Say, for example, god happens to hate gay people. And I like them. I dunno if your god hates gays, pick another opinion I happen to disagree with if he doesn't. Now, let's pretend you are right. So he made me? So what? So he can punish me for disagreeing with me, so what? That makes him the ultimate arbiter? I don't think so. I'm the only person who can decide if I agree with him. Morality is, after all, internal. The only person who can change how you feel about your own actions and the actions of others, is yourself.
Your point is valid - indeed, each person's morality is his own. My morality is based off of what God has shown me so far from reading his Word, the bible. Yet - had I not read his Word, my set of morality would be significantly different. Each person's morality is dependent and formed according to his experiences.
So my point is that: God is real and he is the ultimate judge. His morality should be ours as well, but if you choose to reject him, then your morality will be of your own genesis and you become your own Boss.
|
On May 11 2011 18:59 MindRush wrote:
Moral qualities always change, dependant on society, time of history and other situations. It is a function dependant on many variables.
ex: 200 years ago it was BOTH moral and legal to own slaves
go back a cpl hundred years, and then it was accepted for nobles to do whatever to common folks. this included killing at their will, raping, abusing, etc.
and this can go on and on ......
Actually it was never moral for nobles to do whatever they wanted with common folks. Killing and raping peasants was always considered immoral thing to do, it was just mostly not punished.
As for slaves see my previous post in this thread. Evolution of human morality is basically extending core biological moral values we have (and which are objective) to bigger and bigger groups of people as we realize that the division between "us" and "them" is mostly arbitrary. Slaves were others thus the scope of morality of that time did not apply to them. It is not really that the morality changed much compared to 200 years ago, its more that the arbitrary divisions of groups of people were removed or weakened and we apply the same morality to bigger number of people. I would like to note that when talking about morality I mean that the core is objective, but a lot of mostly arbitrary historical rules that people include in morality are a different matter.
Also it was never moral to own slaves, it was just legal and not considered immoral, so it was morally neutral.
And one more thing the objective vs subjective debate is kind of strange. Shouldn't it be absolute vs relative ? In the previous post I swallowed the hook, but now that I am thinking about it, what does OP actually mean by that ?
|
Morality is subjective as well as common sense. And both are changing with time.
|
United Arab Emirates1141 Posts
On May 11 2011 19:57 Pleiades wrote:Show nested quote +On May 11 2011 19:47 JesusOurSaviour wrote:
Hmmm... Everyone's just stating their own opinion in response to OP's question, so I guess I'll state God's point of view in the most succinct manner.
What is right? Loving the Creator and loving mankind is right. What's wrong? Not loving God and fellow mankind. Why? God created you, in the image of Him he created you. He love, he created you to rule the world under his authority, to rule over all of the earth, over all animals. He created us to be fruitful and multiply, to enjoy the fruits he has provided for us, to work and to enjoy awesome things like relationships, marriage, family, children, jokes, music, art, science etc.
So who is the giver of morality? God. He isn't human and he doesn't get affected by human sin and failures. He is the judge who will judge justly unlike some of the junk that goes on in our courts (though law and order is essential to our societies).
Let's say we enter God's law court on judgement day. Will we be acquitted? Well it all comes down to whether you've obeyed his laws as he is the Creator of the universe and the giver of law. Love God and Love mankind - that is summary of God's will for us in this life. Exactly the point, we are stating our opinions, just like you are stating yours. I'm not going to argue whether you are right or wrong, as I don't mind people believing in religion.
You are a gentleman Pleiades 
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
