# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  Objective Moral Values

## ShoutGrace

_Objective Moral Values_



Do objective moral values exist?

- - - - - If you believe so, what reasons do you have for believing in the existence of objective moral values?

- - - - - If you believe that objective moral values do not exist, what is your reasoning for that belief?

If objective moral values _do_ exist, what are the necessary implications of that fact, if any? 

If objective moral values _do not_ exist, what are the necessary implications of that fact, if any?

----------


## subterranean

This is a little bit tough since what makes something morally right/wrong is based on the person's/individual belief whether something is morally right/wrong. But there are those situations where two, three, or more, hold the same belief, and agreed that something is morally right/wrong. This would result in somekind of social agreement, that there's indeed something called objective moral values. The word "objective" may only refers to those two or three people (not the entire world), and hence the implication would only effect those who hold the agreement. This is also, I think, one of the main reasons why conflicts in society occured. And personally, I'm not sure whether there's objective moral values that apply for everyone throughout the world. 

I'm babbling.., I should get lunch soon  :Smile:

----------


## Themis

I'll just hope this is the topic you were talking about ...  :Wink: 

Generally, about the "objective moral values", I'll fetch _my_ natural law again. It's definition is a "set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings". 
I do not think something can be built into the "structure of the universe" but I do believe that some objective moral values exist.
In the 19th century a certain branch of study ("historische Rechtsschule") was created by Friedrich C. von Savigny that thought that law was not merely created by the legislator but was allpresent in the minds of the people. 
I think that's true. Something that the majority of people can agree on can be such a fundamental rule. It's not without fault but it seems to be that it's the only way to gather what an 'objective moral value' is. For example, killing an other person was prohibited throughout the world, not by every single nation but by a majority of them, I believe.
Reasons for believing this, I cannot give. It seems logical to me.

----------


## apple jiang

maybe I agree with subterranean,human beings are so subjective,the moral value of something depends on the different situation of every individual,maybe there are many single persons have the same experances or similar opinions and there minds will be together,when they encounter the same problem ,their answer is accordant,and then they think it is objective.all the criterions are just the things most of the people agree,if all the people think someting is right then it can be authority.in reverse,if just few people are fond of something,they will be considered as odds.homosexuality for example(at least in the past).

----------


## mono

I must agree with subterranean (nice to see you around the forum more  :Wink: ), themis, and apple jiang.
Perhaps objective morals exist, though not in my opinion. Humans, by nature, cannot avoid the inevitable subjectivity, as everything depends far too much on perception of the objective, if it indeed exists, itself. The formation of morals, as I have seen, depends vastly more on an individual's childhood; many behaviors and decision-making practices, for a great part, appear reliant on modeling from people in childhood (such as parents). From what I see, an individual's morals and values may take shape from an individual's culture, as well; a person from less industrialized parts of the world, for example, may place a different value on automobiles than citizens of more industrialized regions.
Very interesting question, nonetheless - worth pondering.  :Nod:

----------


## ShoutGrace

> This is a little bit tough since what makes something morally right/wrong is based on the person's/individual belief whether something is morally right/wrong.


This is precisely the question, *subterranean*, and I suppose you may have answered it here. I am asking if there are things that are morally wrong or right regardless of whether anyone considers them as such or not. Is there such a thing as objective morality?




> And personally, I'm not sure whether there's objective moral values that apply for everyone throughout the world.


Well, I suppose that uncertainty is an option as well. 




> It's definition is a "set of principles which govern human interactions, which are built into the structure of the universe, as opposed to being imposed by human beings".


That may indeed provide a suitable definition for one aspect of the theoretical moral values that I am talking about.




> I do not think something can be built into the "structure of the universe"


I agree that the wording there is awfully delicate. It seems to purposefully take no cognizance of any kind of supernatural entities. 




> Something that the majority of people can agree on can be such a fundamental rule. It's not without fault but it seems to be that it's the only way to gather what an 'objective moral value' is.


That depends on certain things, doesn’t it?




> For example, killing an other person was prohibited throughout the world, not by every single nation but by a majority of them, I believe.


Would it be morally acceptable for a country to decide on the whole that murder was fine and that no laws were to acknowledge it?




> Reasons for believing this, I cannot give. It seems logical to me.


It seems logical to me, as well. But I believe that objective moral values exist and that they can be ascertained. Barring the existence of objective moral values, I still find the need to regulate society and keep people from harm _logical_, in the old ‘propagate the species’ vein. But I do not find it ultimately binding on any deeper or truer scale.




> maybe I agree with subterranean,human beings are so subjective,the moral value of something depends on the different situation of every individual,


Are there no moral values that are constant regardless of temporal, spacial, or individual concerns? Is murder (killing a person with premeditated malice) consistently wrong?




> all the criterions are just the things most of the people agree,


I think that you may be hitting on something key here, *apple jiang*. I wouldn’t want to misappropriate your idea, though. Can you explain this a little bit more?




> if all the people think someting is right then it can be authority.


That is most certainly true, I think. Is this how the Law started, *Themis*? I am talking about way back when.




> I must agree with subterranean (nice to see you around the forum more ),


Isn’t it wonderful to have her back?

Naturally, *mono*, you present difficult points. Due to my own deficiencies, your posts are always the hardest ones for me to grasp and understand. Next time could you try to dumb it down a little bit?  :Wink:  




> The formation of morals, as I have seen, depends vastly more on an individual's childhood; many behaviors and decision-making practices, for a great part, appear reliant on modeling from people in childhood (such as parents). From what I see, an individual's morals and values may take shape from an individual's culture, as well;


*mono*, I think that you are here describing the apprehension of morals and values. I agree with you, the ‘formation of morals’ is often done gradually, over time, and is somewhat dependent on external social conditions.

I don’t think that this phenomena speaks to the objectivity of those moral values, however.

----------


## Themis

> That depends on certain things, doesnt it?


Everything depends on 'certain things' which is why I wrote that"it can be such a fundamental rule". Meaning it could be, but it could very well be the wrong approach too. I obviously haven't made myself clear, I apologize for that. I meant to be vague since I have no other way to suggest right now but not _that_ vague.  :Wink: 





> Would it be morally acceptable for a country to decide on the whole that murder was fine and that no laws were to acknowledge it?


That is one of the problems with this theory. I have no real answer for that. Within said country it would be morally acceptable. For outsiders it would not because in general people have agreed not to kill each other. I would say that it is most unacceptable 'morally' but would have to be accepted otherwise.





> That is most certainly true, I think. Is this how the Law started, *Themis*? I am talking about way back when.


It would be nice to think it was that way. I've learned how written law "started" but material has been surprisingly non-existent regarding the origins of law. Personally, I think it was more a "This is the law because I say so!" kind of way.

----------


## apple jiang

> Are there no moral values that are constant regardless of temporal, spacial, or individual concerns?


well,it's a little hard for me for my 理智tells me I can't be 极端的，yet I'm always thinking about the origin of human beings' civilization,for I think moral value is part of it.



> Is murder (killing a person with premeditated malice) consistently wrong?


under the effect of Chinese traditional spirit of knight-errant ，this is not consistently wrong(maybe the person who is murdered is badly evil),but,is Chinese traditional spirit of knight-errant one aspact of the rules of moral values?is it objective?I'm wondering...



> I think that you may be hitting on something key here, *apple jiang*. I wouldnt want to misappropriate your idea, though. Can you explain this a little bit more?


as a matter of fact, I was thinking of how it could be formed,did it exist at the beginning of the world?what can be the definition of truth? authority doesn't exist ,it is just the product of people's feeling of adscription and fear.



> That is most certainly true, I think.


thank you ,ShoutGrace.

----------


## bhekti

I think moral value has an objectivity. That's why we can talk about it now. Now since it is something we can talk about, it is subject to subjectivity, to a relativity.

----------


## bhekti

> ... I'm always thinking about the origin of human beings' civilization,for I think moral value is part of it.
> 
> as a matter of fact, I was thinking of how it could be formed,did it exist at the beginning of the world?what can be the definition of truth? authority doesn't exist ,it is just the product of people's feeling of adscription and fear.



I think i agree with apple jiang here. Morality is a part of civilization. Here's my idea:

In the beginning is a knowledge. (actually the story doesn't begin here). The knowledge makes Man self-conscious. The consciousness tells Man that they are in the condition of _not knowing_. This is a surprise because at the same time they have the knowledge that they are in the position of not knowing. From this Man realizes a binary reality (knowing - not knowing, conscious - not conscious, true - false, good - evil, real - unreal, positive - negative....etc). The Man, knowing that they are not knowing while they have the capability of knowing, feels terribly annoyed and wants to change the situation. They do not want the "not-". The Man wants to master only one out of the binary, that is, the positive one. Feeling terribly annoyed, Man begin to fix situation. So begin the civilization. One of the fruits of civilization is the concept of value, differentiating the valuable and the not-valuable. The differentiation is based on Man's basic need, that is, to appease the terribly annoying feeling. What strengthens the terrible feeling is not supposed to exist in their minds. So they begin to control knowledge by constructing language. For example, the scientific method, which produced the binary scientific - unscientific and morality, which produced the binary moral - immoral.

----------


## Themis

> I think moral value has an objectivity. That's why we can talk about it now. Now since it is something we can talk about, it is subject to subjectivity, to a relativity.


Err ... I need to say something highly unprofessional now and probably disqualify myself from further discussions: _Huh?_ Sorry but could you rephrase that?

----------


## mono

> Naturally, mono, you present difficult points. Due to my own deficiencies, your posts are always the hardest ones for me to grasp and understand. Next time could you try to dumb it down a little bit?


O, contraire! Often times, I have difficulty keeping up with you, too.  :FRlol: 



> Originally Posted by mono
> 
> The formation of morals, as I have seen, depends vastly more on an individual's childhood; many behaviors and decision-making practices, for a great part, appear reliant on modeling from people in childhood (such as parents). From what I see, an individual's morals and values may take shape from an individual's culture, as well;
> 
> 
> mono, I think that you are here describing the apprehension of morals and values. I agree with you, the formation of morals is often done gradually, over time, and is somewhat dependent on external social conditions.
> 
> I dont think that this phenomena speaks to the objectivity of those moral values, however.


Indeed, I would like to think that most morals develop throughout one's life, depending on his/her childhood, culture, religion, spirituality, etc. Of course, if you want to consider the possibly-existing objectivity of morals, the objectivity, as odd as it sounds, seems subjective in itself. Just as an individual may feel that his/her actions seem most just and correct believes that entirely and 'objectively' to himself/herself; others always may disagree, depending on their 'objectivity' of morals.
The difference between even two people's morals does not even have to rely on up-bringing, culture, and the like; to me, there even seems a 'nature' side of morality's formation (not only 'nurture'). My two brothers and I, for example, though we experienced nearly the same up-bringing, *very* often disagree on moral and ethical issues.  :Biggrin: 



> In the beginning is a knowledge. (actually the story doesn't begin here). The knowledge makes Man self-conscious. The consciousness tells Man that they are in the condition of not knowing. This is a surprise because at the same time they have the knowledge that they are in the position of not knowing. From this Man realizes a binary reality (knowing - not knowing, conscious - not conscious, true - false, good - evil, real - unreal, positive - negative....etc). The Man, knowing that they are not knowing while they have the capability of knowing, feels terribly annoyed and wants to change the situation. They do not want the "not-". The Man wants to master only one out of the binary, that is, the positive one. Feeling terribly annoyed, Man begin to fix situation. So begin the civilization. One of the fruits of civilization is the concept of value, differentiating the valuable and the not-valuable. The differentiation is based on Man's basic need, that is, to appease the terribly annoying feeling. What strengthens the terrible feeling is not supposed to exist in their minds. So they begin to control knowledge by constructing language. For example, the scientific method, which produced the binary scientific - unscientific and morality, which produced the binary moral - immoral.


This seems very interesting, bhekti, and I fully agree with you, after considering the argument offered.
When I think of the fact, many morals begin with 'yes - no,' 'good - bad,' and 'true - false' teachings and guides, sometimes taught, others learned through individual behavior. Do you think it seems correct to say that all formation of morals begin with such dichotomies, especially before the concepts of 'maybe,' 'neither bad nor good,' and 'perhaps' take form?

----------


## holograph

I like bhekti's post. very interesting ideas. I am not sure on this topic, but what I believe to be true (ah, the subjective), and I may repeat some things for which I must apologize, is that what is "moral" is fully dependant on the individual, hence it is subjective. Morality is an individual experience, one that the individual ascertains and changes throughout one's life. A sense of morality en masse can become an objective reality, and has become to a degree, but it is fully based on perception. This perception is molded by DNA, upbringing, life experience etc. and may change many times. When I was younger I believed that it was perfectly moral to uphold the death sentence for prisoners. Now I disagree. My perception changed. And hence, my morals changed.

----------


## bhekti

> Err ... I need to say something highly unprofessional now and probably disqualify myself from further discussions: _Huh?_ Sorry but could you rephrase that?


  :FRlol:  ... yes I have made myself unclear. And that's a professional act from you Themis to ask for clarification  :Nod:  

What I mean to say is, moral value exists objectively *as well as* subjectively. It exists objectively because it can be detected (is it the right word?) or explained or communicated. So there is such a thing called moral value. And, it exists subjectively because it is subject to human minds that can furnish different opinion about it.

----------


## bhekti

> .... Do you think it seems correct to say that all formation of morals begin with such dichotomies, especially before the concepts of 'maybe,' 'neither bad nor good,' and 'perhaps' take form?



Actually that is one of the questions I ask myself, mono. And, I still feel.... well, I dunno. I don't like dichotomies. I like to embrace and be embraced. Hmm...

However, there is something drifting in my mind. It whispers that perhaps all formations of morals begin with a "yes". Even to the concepts of "maybe" or "neither good nor bad" or "perhaps" begin with a "yes", an approvement.

----------


## Themis

> What I mean to say is, moral value exists objectively *as well as* subjectively. It exists objectively because it can be detected (is it the right word?) or explained or communicated. So there is such a thing called moral value. And, it exists subjectively because it is subject to human minds that can furnish different opinion about it.


Right, I may have understood what you mean now. But one thing still remains for me: What you said about the objetiveness of moral values doesn't seem to fit because it can only be detected or explained by human minds. And you just said that it exists subjectively because people aren't objective but subjective. 
Am I going down the wrong lane here?

----------


## bhekti

[QUOTE=Themis]Right, I may have understood what you mean now. But one thing still remains for me: What you said about the objetiveness of moral values doesn't seem to fit because it can only be detected or explained by human minds. And you just said that it exists subjectively because people aren't objective but subjective. ...QUOTE]

Ow I think that's because the way I understand the word "objective" (being an object) and "subjective" (being turned to subject's) is perhaps different from the way you do. For a thing to be objective, as I understand, is (simply) to be there or to exist. Superman, for example, is an objective thing. Therefore I'd say, "Superman exists" or "There is superman". People's subjectivity, another example, is objective. There is people's subjectivity.

Now when we are talking about moral value, we talk about something which is there, exists, in other word, objective. But, the talking about moral value by us people puts moral value as a subjective thing since we people are subjects.

Take a case: 

X says, "moral value does not exist" Now, in my opinion, objectively moral value does exist for X, that is at least in X's statement. Now, the X's statement means to deny the existence of moral value. That is the subjective existence of moral value for X, its being denied. (If I am to say something about X, I'll say X is a careless person)

Do we see each other now?

----------


## ShoutGrace

> Originally Posted by ShoutGrace
> 
> Would it be morally acceptable for a country to decide on the whole that murder was fine and that no laws were to acknowledge it?
> 
> 
> 
> That is one of the problems with this theory. I have no real answer for that. Within said country it would be morally acceptable. For outsiders it would not because in general people have agreed not to kill each other. I would say that it is most unacceptable 'morally' but would have to be accepted otherwise.


So is murder objectively wrong trans-socially and trans-culturally? Your words suggest both possible answers.





> Just as an individual may feel that his/her actions seem most just and correct believes that entirely and 'objectively' to himself/herself; others always may disagree, depending on their 'objectivity' of morals.


So are there no morals that are valid regardless of others apprehension or acknowledgement? If two people disagree on whether or not, say, murder (just to be consistent) is right or wrong, can not murder be either right or wrong? 




> When I was younger I believed that it was perfectly moral to uphold the death sentence for prisoners. Now I disagree. My perception changed. And hence, my morals changed.


But is it possible that the death sentence is either morally acceptable or unacceptable, whether anybody acts that way or not? 





> It exists objectively because it can be detected (is it the right word?) or explained or communicated. So there is such a thing called moral value. And, it exists subjectively because it is subject to human minds that can furnish different opinion about it.


So, even while taking into account the fact that people may come to a cross purposes concerning the moral value, or may not even be able to apprehend it at all, it still exists objectively?




> That is the subjective existence of moral value for X, its being denied.


Okay. So the moral value exists apart from Xs mind, but is given a subjectivity whilst X is considering it?

----------


## mono

> Originally Posted by c'est moi
> 
> Just as an individual may feel that his/her actions seem most just and correct believes that entirely and 'objectively' to himself/herself; others always may disagree, depending on their 'objectivity' of morals.
> 
> 
> So are there no morals that are valid regardless of others apprehension or acknowledgement? If two people disagree on whether or not, say, murder (just to be consistent) is right or wrong, can not murder be either right or wrong?


Hmmm, interesting questions. Regardless of others' apprehension and/or acknowledgement, I do not necessarily think they subtract to a person's moral validity, though he/she may feel praised or insulted for his/her morals and ethics (in terms of agreement, disagreement, or partial). Again, whether entirely Absolute Objective Morals exist (I capitalized the terms purposely  :Wink: ), I cannot claim for sure (considering more of an existential aspect to the discussion), yet either opinion seems highly debatable and controversial. Whatever one considers his/her inherent morals and ethics, however, seems 'objective' to the individual, though, as we all see and experience everyday, one's morals far differ from another's, for better or worse.
I love the analogy you provided. Fortunately, according to most people's beliefs, murder does seem very wrong in accordance with their morals, and, no doubt, religion/spirituality, culture, up-bringing, etc. plays a large role. To some individual's, however, thankfully a minority of people, murder seems okay in some instances. We can expand this even further by knowing that some people, for example, call capital punishment murder that seems equivalent to the person executed (as Gandhi wrote 'an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind'); hence, with some exceptions, what some may call murder, others find justified according to their morals.

----------


## Thorwench

Most philosophers think moral values are objective, born out of reason (Kant), utility (Mill, Bentham, in a sense Peter Singer as a modern philosopher) or society (Marx). Of course you could ask if society is something subjective and then, wouldnt moral values be too? However, although society has subjective features (such as public opinion, self-perception of groups/nations etc.) it is, as an entity, objective. I agree with Marx here. That killing is morally wrong must be true of every society, since the individuals making it up need to be protected, otherwise this society falls apart. However, in a society of no significant private ownership the rule that stealing is wrong wouldnt make much sense. I think it is an indication that moral values depend on society (and on human beings whose nature it is to live in societies, i.e. its genetic) that certain modes of killing, like in war or by the death sentence, require justification. And attempts are always made, like in psychological warfare, to give them. Reasons are put forward to justify these killings which wouldnt be necessary if the prohibition of killing would be subjective or individually random. It should not be forgotten either that objectiveness doesnt mean you have to act on it. There is what Aristotle called acrasia (the weekness of will) or other motives that overrun the sense and the acceptance of wrongness.

----------


## bhekti

> ...So, even while taking into account the fact that people may come to a cross purposes concerning the moral value, or may not even be able to apprehend it at all, it still exists objectively?


As I see, we are now talking about moral value and there is nobody who totally can't apprehend it. This proves that there _is_ moral value. In other words, yes, moral value exists objectively.




> ...Okay. So the moral value exists apart from Xs mind, but is given a subjectivity whilst X is considering it?


Yes. And in X's case, the subjectivity of moral value is its being negated. 

However, I don't believe that there is in reality such a person as X. When somebody in this life says that he/she does not believe in the existence of moral value, he/she is actually talking about something else which is quite apart from the case of the existence of moral value.

PS: Hmm..with this conception on objectivity and subjectivity in my mind, the sentence "do objective moral values exist?" ceases to be a question. The sentence itself proves the objective existence of moral values.

----------


## holograph

ah, guys. there is no such thing as an objective moral value. all moral values are subjective because man is subjective and ideas are subjective. morals are feelings and perceptions, which are the meaning of subjectivism. there is nothing to argue here.

there are no morals flying in the universe waiting to be caught and put into a jar. a moral is a personal perception on what is right and what is wrong. yes, society may create these moral ideals, and society can be objective. what is moral for an individual is how the individual defines himself. there are no moral givens. killing, lying, stealing, hating, loving, are all subjective ideas. punto final.

----------


## bhekti

> ah, guys. there is no such thing as an objective moral value. all moral values are subjective because man is subjective and ideas are subjective. ...


That is to include you idea as well, yes?

----------


## ShoutGrace

> there is nothing to argue here.


Actually, I think there is.





> there are no morals flying in the universe waiting to be caught and put into a jar.


I'll agree with you that that is, in all likelihood, true in a literal sense.




> there are no moral givens. killing, lying, stealing, hating, loving, are all subjective ideas.



That depends on who you ask.

To quote the signature of one who hasn't been around for some time now:

_"There ain't no sin and there ain't no virtue. There's just stuff people do."_

Steinbeck's character took that bent. The atheist philosopher Michael Ruse said:

_"Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth, and morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction - any deeper meaning is illusory"._

Some people disagree with that idea.

----------


## jon1jt

> ah, guys. there is no such thing as an objective moral value. all moral values are subjective because man is subjective and ideas are subjective. morals are feelings and perceptions, which are the meaning of subjectivism. there is nothing to argue here.
> 
> there are no morals flying in the universe waiting to be caught and put into a jar. a moral is a personal perception on what is right and what is wrong. yes, society may create these moral ideals, and society can be objective. what is moral for an individual is how the individual defines himself. there are no moral givens. killing, lying, stealing, hating, loving, are all subjective ideas. punto final.


Well said, Holograph. I think it was the pre-Socratic, Protagoras, who once declared that "Man is the measure of all things." And so man is, still.  :Biggrin:  But then Plato introduced his concept of "Forms" and the Western world was on it's way to being Christianized (i.e. Saved). Nietzsche was right blaming Plato and Socrates for ushering in the philosophical foundations for "slave morality." Aquinas invoked Aristotle, so you can add him to the list of moralizing masters. I could never quite grasp why people hotly dispute this silly topic, as if the moralist has some 4th dimensional view from which it can see truth. But, the religious mind thrives on the insanity of morality in the same spirit it thrives on the idea of "God." You mentioned that "society can be objective,' but it's "inter-subjective" in that morality is shared among and affirmed by members who comprise a community; e.g. "Christians," "Muslims," "Buddhists," "Human Rights Watch," "Greenpeace," and so on. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is predicated on this very notion of inter-subjectivity---it's an idea with the force of law in some communities, which leads us back to the subjectivity of acceptance and application.  :Wink:

----------


## ShoutGrace

..........

----------


## Regit

> You mentioned that "society can be objective,' but it's "inter-subjective" in that morality is shared among and affirmed by members who comprise a community; e.g. "Christians," "Muslims," "Buddhists," "Human Rights Watch," "Greenpeace," and so on.


Maybe the difference between objective morality and "inter-subjective" morality is the difference between "Christians" and "Greenpeace", which you have so forgetten or ignored with a careless example. Inter-subjective morality comes from common individual moralities, yes; but what causes those commonalities, mere chance? Ah, perhaps you know it is not as clear as you said it is. Notice "maybe"; 'tis only a call for a better explanation, much better.




> it's an idea with the force of law in some communities, which leads us back to the subjectivity of acceptance and application.


 What communities are those? What communities built their legal systems upon the idea of inter-subjective morality? I thought legal systems were built upon only *morality*; and it is us who are debating as to the nature of that morality, a debate not clearly won or lost. What if the "force of law" in some communities were "with" the idea of supernatural moralities? Where would that lead us, back to the supernaturalness of "acceptance" and "application"? Notice "what if"; just another call for a better explanation. Ah, perhaps it really is not as clear as you said it is.

----------


## jon1jt

> Maybe the difference between objective morality and "inter-subjective" morality is the difference between "Christians" and "Greenpeace", which you have so forgetten or ignored with a careless example.


Oh no, I was being very careful when I gave that example. 




> What communities are those? What communities built their legal systems upon the idea of inter-subjective morality? *I thought legal systems were built upon only morality; and it is us  who are debating as to the nature of that morality,* a debate not clearly won or lost. What if the "force of law" in some communities were "with" the idea of *supernatural*  moralities? Where would that lead us, back to the *supernaturalness*  of "acceptance" and "application"? Notice "what if"; just another call for a better explanation. Ah, perhaps it really is not as clear as you said it is.


ALL communities build their codes of behavior upon the idea of inter-subjective morality. Legal systems are built according to notions of truth--- that is, an identifiable belief system that develops over time. We call it custom because the community has upheld patterns of behavior it deems acceptable and rallies around as 'required' forms. The "we," then, are products, mere representatives of those communities which we are naturally part of. For example, you may be a member of some community that accepts the term "supernatural" as something identifiable, tangible, that others will accept as a meaningful idea and respond accordingly in a dialogue format such is this. Whereas the community I am part of considers all things deemed supernatural to be vulgar. And once that little word is injected into the mix, we begin to speak past each other, not with each other, and the dialogue, hence, ceases. So I'm very happy that you put it in 'what if' terms.  :Biggrin:  Some communities _are_  built on supernatural ideas and such corresponding codes of behavior are invariably more prescriptive and acceptance and application normative. I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say, "supernaturalness of acceptance and application." This is a typical example of the devoid nature of this term.

----------


## PeterL

> ah, guys. there is no such thing as an objective moral value. all moral values are subjective because man is subjective and ideas are subjective. morals are feelings and perceptions, which are the meaning of subjectivism. there is nothing to argue here.


In a general way you are right, but this isn't, or shouldn't be, a discussion of objectivity but a discussion of moral values. Let us assume that we agree on the meanings of the concepts and words in this matter.




> there are no morals flying in the universe waiting to be caught and put into a jar. a moral is a personal perception on what is right and what is wrong. yes, society may create these moral ideals, and society can be objective. what is moral for an individual is how the individual defines himself. there are no moral givens. killing, lying, stealing, hating, loving, are all subjective ideas. punto final.


I would contend that moral principles are derived from biological needs. All living things desire to survive. Depriving any living thing of its survival is morally wrong to the thing that is deprived, but that must be weighed against the survival of the thing that did the depriving. I agree that there is subjectivity in all moral decisions, but the principles that underlies the moral decisions are objective and not relative.

Which definition of society do you use that allows society to be objective?

----------


## holograph

> That is to include you idea as well, yes?


yes, it does. "i think therefore i am" is bull****. my idea is just as subjective as your moral value.  :Biggrin:

----------


## holograph

well, in my personal [subjective, of course] view, human beings have no morals to begin with. [have you read lord of the flies?]. man needs food, water, and sex [heh] to survive. other than that, morals are just the icing on the cake. morals are not a necessity but a way for humans to organize themselves in a more coherent manner. a biological necessity is, for example, the acquisition of a higher redblod cell count when living at higher altitudes etc. if you havent noticed, human beings hava not evolved to be moral. put man into a desert and he becomes the same animal he was thousands of years ago. therefore, your arguement is null. morals are, furthermore, a a personal experience as i said earlier. for fundamentalists it is moral to kill in the name of god. for buddhists killing anythign is a grave offense.

but hey, if you find a box of morality for me to have with my milk for breakfast, by all means share some with me. or maybe this is just a crazy rant by a 17 yr old. or is it? eh?

----------


## PeterL

> well, in my personal [subjective, of course] view, human beings have no morals to begin with. [have you read lord of the flies?]. man needs food, water, and sex [heh] to survive. other than that, morals are just the icing on the cake. morals are not a necessity but a way for humans to organize themselves in a more coherent manner. a biological necessity is, for example, the acquisition of a higher redblod cell count when living at higher altitudes etc. if you havent noticed, human beings hava not evolved to be moral. put man into a desert and he becomes the same animal he was thousands of years ago. therefore, your arguement is null. morals are, furthermore, a a personal experience as i said earlier.



I still contend that the principles that underlie moral values are based on those same fundamental needs that you mention. Humans are animals, and morals codify that into rules that lead to the most people surviving to pass their DNA on to offspring.




> for fundamentalists it is moral to kill in the name of god. for buddhists killing anythign is a grave offense.


I was going to let this slide, but I just wrote eleven bad Haikus, so I have to do something to put that behind me. Fundamentalists come in all shapes, types, and sizes. Making such a broad comment about all people who are termed fundamentalist shows great ignorance. There are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Buddhists, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Shintoists, fundamentalist Moslems, fundamentalist Sikhs, fundamentalist Jains, etc. I am quite certain that no fundamentalist Jain would even consider killing anything in the name of any god. Most fundamentalists of most religions would find killing in the name of their god(s) repugent, and that includes most fundamentalist Moslems. I think that you meant to type Jains rather than Buddhists. While Buddhism discourages killing, killing is not absolutely forbidden, while Jains practice ahimsa, which is not harming any living thing, and that practice is fundamental to Jainism.

----------


## holograph

i was only trying to create an analogy peter. nothing more. and my statement was far from being politically correct. but thank you for the info, honestly. and i agree with you on that one. this was purely exemplary.

oh, and your quote i like very much, and live by.

----------


## Regit

> Oh no, I was being very careful when I gave that example.


 So the moral motivation of Greenpeace is as valuable in your eyes as that of Christianity? Perhaps you were careful in other aspects but missed the negative implication of your statement. Or perhaps such implication is necessary to your cause in this debate and you overlook the offence delibrately?




> ALL communities build their codes of behavior upon the idea of inter-subjective morality. We call it custom because the community has upheld patterns of behavior it deems acceptable and rallies around as 'required' forms. The "we," then, are products, mere representatives of those communities which we are naturally part of.


 Yes, and we're back to the Durkheim debate: the social-construct of knowledge. Though I have defended this view before, you must admit that, as I found, this will inevitably end up as the argument of Belief, or Faith, and, so long as there are willing parties, it will never end. Maybe we should try really considering the opposite argument and get somewhere. Unless you're here only to win  :Wink: 




> For example, you may be a member of some community that accepts the term "supernatural" as something identifiable, tangible, that others will accept as a meaningful idea and respond accordingly in a dialogue format such is this. Whereas the community I am part of considers all things deemed supernatural to be vulgar. And once that little word is injected into the mix, we begin to speak past each other, not with each other, and the dialogue, hence, ceases.


 Are you suggesting that if we were of different believes, we would not be able to have any valuable dialogues together about our believes? If I considered "supernatural" a tangible value, and you did not, that would prevent any civil interaction between us; and the same would apply to our communities? If that is so, then how do all these different communities interact since, according to you, they are different communities due to their difference in "customs"? How do you explain the similarities in "customs" between communities that never interact in their entire history?




> So I'm very happy that you put it in 'what if' terms.


Don't worry; for the sake of good debate, I would not want you to speak past me, hence must myself behave accordingly.  :Smile: 




> I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say, "supernaturalness of acceptance and application." This is a typical example of the devoid nature of this term.


My apologies; I was simply replacing a word with another word in order to make a different point, that someone of the opposite belief could also use your argument of that post with the same sufficiency.

A question from my first post lingers: Inter-subjective morality comes from common individual moralities, yes; but what causes those commonalities, mere chance? Is there really nothing moral before the very first subjective morality was formed?

----------


## PeterL

> i was only trying to create an analogy peter. nothing more. and my statement was far from being politically correct. but thank you for the info, honestly. and i agree with you on that one. this was purely exemplary.


The matter of biological necessity related to morality is not an analogy; it is a direct connection. 

Whether one is politically correct, depends on whose politics one observes.

Regardless of what you are writing, having the data correct is always a good idea. That's the only way that you being seventen has anything to do with anything else. You haven't had enough time to acquire all of the evidence that you will need.

----------


## penelopea

moral implies ego ,ergo subjective .
Implication is also subject to subjectivity .
Who would have it any other way unless they could be a stone

----------


## holograph

> The matter of biological necessity related to morality is not an analogy; it is a direct connection. Whether one is politically, depends on whose politics one observes.
> 
> Regardless of what you are writing, having the data correct is always a good idea. That's the only way that you being seventen has anything to do with anything else. You haven't had enough time to acquire all of the evidence that you will need.


heh. usually, when i do not tell others i am 17 i earn more respect than when i tell them my age. [peter, another thing i believe is that pure wisdom is not something acquired with age, which is what people tell themselves to make aging a more graceful process.] yes, data is important [i know that first hand from working in a science laboratory for over a year now]. nothing beats nice stats. but my personal perceptions and convictions will only be highlighted by the data that i acquire. i understand that throughout life my convictions and understandings will change, but in truth the more knowledge that one acquires, the less on truly understands, and the more confused one becomes. sometimes an internal truth values more than one acquired from statistics and "hard" facts. your enlightening me that jains in fact is the group i refer to, and "fundamentalist" was a bad word choice still does not change my core understanding of anything nor does it change my idea. i dont have much time to research in response to my comments, but perhaps next time ill consider thinking a little more. but why? hehe your commetn just underlined that objective morals DO NOT EXIST.  :FRlol:  but perhaps your facts aren't as straight as you think them to be---NO branch of classic buddhism condones killing. NONE. buddhism and killing are antithetical.

----------


## PeterL

> heh. usually, when i do not tell others i am 17 i earn more respect than when i tell them my age. [peter, another thing i believe is that pure wisdom is not something acquired with age, which is what people tell themselves to make aging a more graceful process.] yes, data is important [i know that first hand from working in a science laboratory for over a year now]. nothing beats nice stats. but my personal perceptions and convictions will only be highlighted by the data that i acquire. i understand that throughout life my convictions and understandings will change, but in truth the more knowledge that one acquires, the less on truly understands, and the more confused one becomes. sometimes an internal truth values more than one acquired from statistics and "hard" facts. your enlightening me that jains in fact is the group i refer to, and "fundamentalist" was a bad word choice still does not change my core understanding of anything nor does it change my idea. i dont have much time to research in response to my comments, but perhaps next time ill consider thinking a little more. but why? hehe your commetn just underlined that objective morals DO NOT EXIST.  but perhaps your facts aren't as straight as you think them to be---NO branch of classic buddhism condones killing. NONE. buddhism and killing are antithetical.


While it is true that "NO branch of classic buddhism condones killing," many Buddhists have been involved in killing in a big way. 

While data may not change the essence of your personality or character, it probably will affect how you express it and details of that essence.

----------


## Regit

> another thing i believe is that pure wisdom is not something acquired with age.


"Pure wisdom"? What's that?

----------


## jon1jt

> "Pure wisdom"? What's that?



"Pure wisdom" is the understanding that god is dead!...didn't you know? Just kidding Reg.  :Smile:  Come on, lighten up guys! It's time for a little philosophical humor, what do you say? 

Descartes walks into a bar and the bartender asks if he wants a drink. Descartes answers, "I think not!" and then he disappears.  :Confused:   :FRlol:  Now which one of you philosopher kings will admit you didn't get my darn funny joke?!  :FRlol:

----------


## holograph

haha. thanks jon.  :Santasmile:  

but just to answer your question reg, "pure wisdom" is innate wisdom that is possessed before birth (not by all, unfortuntely, or we would all be better individuals). now, reg, if you possessed it, you would know what it was.  :Brow: 

and well said peter.  :Cool:

----------


## jon1jt

A priori knowledge is pure wisdom because it's untainted by real experience.

----------


## Regit

> "pure wisdom" is innate wisdom that is possessed before birth (not by all, unfortuntely, or we would all be better individuals).


Perhaps a little explanation is called for? Unless you really think that the above definition is satisfactory, in which case I am sorry I asked for it.

----------


## jon1jt

:Confused:  


> So the moral motivation of Greenpeace is as valuable in your eyes as that of Christianity? Perhaps you were careful in other aspects but missed the negative implication of your statement. Or perhaps such implication is necessary to your cause in this debate and you overlook the offence delibrately?


The moral motivation of any man, woman, or organization is as valuable in my eyes as that of any organized religion. Why? Because Greenpeace is concerned about this world, the one here and now that endures, the one we can measure and project into our children's children's future. Do I owe a heightened care not to offend when I do not intend to offend? Or if I did, why should it matter to a god-loving Christian? She goes on believing in God and I go on believing that the moral motivation of Greenpeace matters more so. If a god-loving Christian told me that the project of Greenpeace was not as important as the Church, I would say "Phooey!" and that would be the end of it. 




> Yes, and we're back to the Durkheim debate: the social-construct of knowledge. Though I have defended this view before, you must admit that, as I found, this will inevitably end up as the argument of *Belief, or Faith,* and, so long as there are willing parties, it will never end. Maybe we should try really considering the opposite argument and get somewhere. Unless you're here only to win


You say "faith" but what does faith have to do with Objective moral values? 
Please explain. 




> Are you suggesting that if we were of different believes, we would not be able to have any valuable dialogues together about our believes? If I considered "supernatural" a tangible value, and you did not, that would prevent any civil interaction between us; and the same would apply to our communities? If that is so, then how do all these different communities interact since, according to you, they are different communities due to their difference in "customs"? How do you explain the similarities in "customs" between communities that never interact in their entire history?


I am suggesting that at the end of the day we can only have a valuable dialogue IF god and doctrine is left out of it. I am infinitely grateful for Thomas Jefferson's penning that line about a "wall of separation between church and state." I think too that that wall must exist between secularists and religious folks for civilizations to endure. Sure, there are dialogues between Jews and Christians, Jews and Muslims, Christians and Secularists, but we all know there are doctrinal limits and practices that one side or the other openly rejects. These thresholds are final barriers. It is my (humble) opinion that much of the so-called 'dialogue' that goes on between sectarian leaders has more to do with the exultation of their ego than the _actual_  desire to mend fences. 




> A question from my first post lingers: Inter-subjective morality comes from common individual moralities, yes; but what causes those commonalities, mere chance? Is there really nothing moral before the very first subjective morality was formed?


This is a silly proposition. You are searching desperately for a root cause and you're not going to get it here. Some mentioned biological and social influences, but the idea of pinpointing what brings these forces together is speculative. Only a person with a fourth dimension view would be able to answer it. Nice theories exist and some have even been tested and proven. There's that Nature-Nurture debate too. I wonder when that'll be resolved. There are moralities, there is no Morality. Morality is built into the structure of human consciousness, and that's as good as it gets. We know this because we observe it. We also see that moralities overlap, intersect, and oftentimes conflict. Some human beings are hell bent on ridding the world of all evil; a noble cause, no doubt. But that means that some one or some group will eventually have to decide what's evil and who's evil. We've had some very clever statements made by major leaders. The "Evil empire" and the "Axis of evil," but who wants to give supreme moral authority to those knuckle heads?  :Biggrin:  

You use this word "chance."  :Rage:  I don't know whether there is deus ex machina or not. I think William James was on to something when he spoke about common rules being governed according to what is practical for society to live peacefully (in it's hopelessly semi-anarchical state  :Confused:  )---that is, what people can live with and without at given points, suggesting an elasticity, a relativism toward values, which harks back to "Man is the measure of all things." Perhaps the ties that bind individuals/communities is, at least in part, practically determined, but I'm not sure. You asked, "How do you explain the similarities in "customs" between communities that never interact in their entire history?" We are part of the same species, so I'm not all that surprised we possess common beliefs and aspirations. We are finite beings as well, so it's inevitable we're going to agree on some stuff. It's the space between individuals, individuals and communities, communities and communities, that divides the whole exponentially. But, in my mind, there never was a seamless whole, ever. Or if there was we weren't built with the capacity to see the _whole in itself_.  :Biggrin:  Sure, we have our erudite concepts and nimble statutory advancements. Universal human rights law is an attempt to streamline diversity via massive unification of customs. But limits are inevitable because, again, there is no final arbiter of objective moral values "beyond" generally agreed statements of justice---and even there problems exist. 

I leave you with some Jim Morrison philosophy on the fate of the world: "I don't know what's going to happen man, but I'm going to have my kicks before the whole s##thouse goes up in flames, alright!"

----------


## holograph

very very well said jon.  :Banana:  i couldn't have said it better.

reg, i use "pure wisdom" in the same sense as you use "truth" or "Morals" except in this case, "pure wisdom" exists. it is wisdom that does not result from experience. ie you open your eyes and you see the light. bam. wisdom yatta yatta. i joke, but pure wisdom surely exists. it can even be seen in those little worms we call newborn babies.  :Nod:  experience is often correlated with wisdom, and that is where filial piety and respect for the "elders" stems from. but [i believe] that wisdom is wisdom. you either have it or you dont. you cannot acquire it if it was not there in the first place.
you can channel it or uncover it in some rare cases but usually if you are born an idiot you die an even bigger idiot. and we would like to feel like we deserve respect just because we are older and were around longer. but the fact is, that is an undeserved assumption of wisdom.  :Wink:

----------


## Regit

> Why? Because Greenpeace is concerned about this world, the one here and now that endures, the one we can measure and project into our children's children's future.


 Yes, and that is the subjective moral value that you are arguing, I got it. Yet...




> The moral motivation of any man, woman, or organization is as valuable in my eyes as that of any organized religion.


 Thus, subjectively, I assume that you would put a group terrorists in the same list, since they also have intersubjective morality that is, subjectively, just as valuable in your eyes. I mean, they really believe that they are helping the world, don't they?




> Do I owe a heightened care not to offend when I do not intend to offend?


 Of course you do, it is a public place. The lack of intention alone is not enough but reasonable precaution must be taken, otherwise you will have to respond to people offended by your words. If, to you, a lack of intention to offend is enough to disregard any offence, then any ignorance would also be a good enough excuse to do wrong. The investigation of every offence starts with actus reus. The first question is: did you offend?




> If a god-loving Christian told me that the project of Greenpeace was not as important as the Church, I would say "Phooey!" and that would be the end of it.


 So much for a meaningful dialogue. I myself would ask 'why?' and listen to what they have to say.




> You say "faith" but what does faith have to do with Objective moral values? 
> Please explain.


 Very simple: If God made us, he also made our morality, hence, making it objective. Heard of the 10 Commandments? Good.




> I am suggesting that at the end of the day we can only have a valuable dialogue IF god _and_ doctrine is left out of it.


 So this is a display of any kind of opinions, is it? I find it hard to work without doctrines I'm afraid. In conversations where people base their arguments on loose terms such as "pure wisdom", whose implication have not yet been seen or read by myself then, naturally, I have to ask many more questions before knowing how to respond. The lack of research or an academic foundation makes for a pointless and confusing conversation. 




> It is my (humble) opinion that much of the so-called 'dialogue' that goes on between sectarian leaders has more to do with the exultation of their ego than the _actual_ desire to mend fences.


 Yes, and it will remain your (humble) opinion.




> You are searching desperately for a root cause and you're not going to get it here.


 Believe me, I'm not searching for anything here but a civilised debate and an exchange of honest opinions. This may come as a surprise but I do read, and do value the works of renown scholars much more than just any opinions that I come by.




> Some mentioned biological and social influences, but the idea of pinpointing what brings these forces together is speculative.


 So we're both speculating you say. If the idea behind your argument is speculative, so must your argument be. In the same spirit, I can't prove God to you! So you will deem my argument speculative. Where are you going with this? Sometimes 'I don't know' just doesn't convince that well.




> Only a person with a fourth dimension view would be able to answer it.


I'm not gonna pretend I know what that means. Are you talking about time travel?




> We've had some very clever statements made by major leaders. The "Evil empire" and the "Axis of evil," but who wants to give supreme moral authority to those knuckle heads?


They are politicians and their statements have many aims and are not purely for theoretical purposes. It's silly to compare them to religious doctrines or philosophical doctrines, unless your purpose is to confuse or to take a cheap jab at the world leaders.




> "I don't know what's going to happen man, but I'm going to have my kicks before the whole s##thouse goes up in flames, alright!"


 well, it does sum up your argument. 
And I will leave you with something slightly different: 

"So God created man
in his own image
in the image of God
created he him;
male and female
created he them."
-Genesis 1 27
Now please, speculate.

----------


## Maerlook

I am a little hesitant to enter into this debate; the topic has been well covered. There seems to be a duality to this debate. This duality I think is the product of a duality in the topic. I do not think that it is fair to force a theory of morality into one generic box and expect it to describe a plural universe. 
In current moral theory, two categories exist: Negative moral law and positive moral law.
In the discussion, so far the focus seems to be on negative moral law, a restriction on action due to its perceived value. Positive moral law is the call to action based on its perceived value, and it does not seem to have played a significant part. 
In dealing with negative moral law, I would have to say that it is a creation of society in order to maintain peace and prosperity. The reason for this judgment is that negative moral law is useless without society. If I am alone (without society) in the forest and I see food on the ground, I pick it up and eat it. Because society establishes the right to define and restrict ownership, society keeps me from taking ownership of the item. If I alone do not take ownership of the food, it is not a moral injunction that keeps me from it but a personal preference even if I know that another gathered the food he would have to have some kind on agreement with me for me to steal from him. In the case of murder, a little clarity is required. Murder implies wrongful killing of another person (otherwise, it is just killing). Killing in most societies is subject to moral scrutiny but not moral prohibition. In other words, a society reserves the right to determine whether a killing is moral. Without such a judge or examination how is it possible to know that, you had actually murdered a person. With out some sort of social contract or understanding there is no way to know what constitutes a just killing. The only way a negative moral law can be universal is if you presuppose a deity or something of the like, who has already created not only the universe but society (the relationship to it/him/her constitutes that society).
Positive moral law on the other hand does not seem to require a society. If I were to believe that I should treat others, as I would like to be treated, it does not require that I have an understanding with the person I come across. I simply act accordingly and am on my way. Even if the behavior I would like is a little odd to the customs of the other, I would be considered odd not immoral. If I determine that it is moral to save life whenever possible it does not require a deity exist for it to be moral. What if anything is a positive moral law contingent on? A positive moral law would have to be contingent on the existence of a single moral actor and that is all. 

Does this mean that positive moral laws are objective? I don't think there is any way to prove that they are, however I can not find any reason why they would not be. If positive moral laws are objective, which ones are true becomes the next question. 

I am loosing out to sleep, so if any of this does not make sense let me know and I will clarify at a later time.

----------


## Regit

> In current moral theory, two categories exist: Negative moral law and positive moral law.


What "current moral theory" is that? May I please have a source? I'd love to read up on it myself. 




> In the discussion, so far *the focus seems to be on negative moral law,* a restriction on action due to its perceived value.


How so? Please explain. Which arguments have so far focused only on this "negative moral law"? Please specify.




> Murder implies wrongful killing of another person (otherwise, it is just killing). Killing in most societies is subject to moral scrutiny but not moral prohibition.


Murder, in "most societies", is the *unlawful* killing of a *reasonable* creature *under peace*, with *intention* to kill or create grevious bodily harm. Your term "wrongful", if looked at with leniency, might cover the "under peace" and even the "reasonable creature" part; it does NOT, however, cover "unlawful killing" or "intention to kill or create grevious bodily harm." In most legal systems, especially those of the Common Wealth countries, a defence for murder can include 'volutary manslaughter' and 'involuntary manslaughter', both areas covering many offences each of which involves "killing". Thus, under the laws of society, which you have paid special attention to here, killing IS prohibited. And the legislative brach of government reflects moral values of society, making "killing" morally prohibited. If you speak of moral only in general terms, please leave "law" out of it.




> Does this mean that positive moral laws are objective? I don't think there is any way to prove that they are, however I can not find any reason why they would not be.


 So what's your answer? Remember the main question: "Do objective moral values exist?"? You say you can't prove 'it does', nor can you prove 'it does not'; so is this another 'I don't know'?

----------


## Maerlook

> What "current moral theory" is that? May I please have a source? I'd love to read up on it myself.


I know this is a little out of sequence, but when I speak of moral law, I am not speaking of legislation. I mean a body of moral assessments made in a particular theory or society. Kantian moral law is not that body of legislation which is influenced by Kant but the structure or moral thought presented by Kant. I apologize for the ambiguity. 

Regarding the positive and negative moral law and current moral theory I did not mean a particular moral theory but the standards by which a particular moral theory is evaluated. These are not theories in and of themselves; they are two in a set of tools to help axiological philosophers. Again, I seem to have fallen into excessive ambiguity. 

Here is your reference.
Hallie, Phillip “From Cruelty to Goodness” _Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life_. 6th ed. 
Belmont: Wadsworth/ Thomson, 2004.Hallie has written a few other pieces and this is only a selection but it is the only one I had on hand.




> How so? Please explain. Which arguments have so far focused only on this "negative moral law"? Please specify.


I made this statement because I did not see that anyone had addressed the implications of Positive moral law or that which establishes value on prescribed action. It seemed that most of the comments where referring to the prohibition of action which is only half of the game.





> Murder, in "most societies", is the *unlawful* killing of a *reasonable* creature *under peace*, with *intention* to kill or create grevious bodily harm.


I assumed that we were only dealing with those actions that were intentional. I am not sure that there can be moral blame ascribed to unintentional actions as long as an reasonable effort is made to understand the consequeces of the action.
I am also not so sure that laws actually reflect any moral tendency while I know they reflect social expediency.





> So what's your answer? Remember the main question: "Do objective moral values exist?"? You say you can't prove 'it does', nor can you prove 'it does not'; so is this another 'I don't know'?


My answer is that any negative moral law (value set on a prohibition of action) can not be objective because it requires a subject (the other that you are not allowed to infringe upon), unless there is the presupposition of a deity. The deity then becomes the other and is what is infringed upon. When it comes to the Positive moral structures, I do not know, because it may be possible to have a positive moral proscription which does not require the other.

Much of philosophy has been eloquently saying, “I don’t know.”

----------


## Regit

> Again, I seem to have fallen into excessive ambiguity.


 And this was caused only by the lack of reference. You were not misunderstood, you were simply *not* understood.




> Here is your reference.
> Hallie, Phillip From Cruelty to Goodness _Vice and Virtue in Everyday Life_. 6th ed. 
> Belmont: Wadsworth/ Thomson, 2004.Hallie has written a few other pieces and this is only a selection but it is the only one I had on hand.


Thanks; I will read it after I find it. I have a feeling that I will have much difficulty with the latter task.




> Regarding the positive and negative moral law and current moral theory I did not mean a particular moral theory but the standards by which a particular moral theory is evaluated. These are not theories in and of themselves; they are two in a set of tools to help axiological philosophers.


Yes, that was the first possibility that I considered. But tools still involve theories; and unless it's your own theory, you understand if I find difficulty in being convinced when you gave no source of reference whatsoever. And when you use the word "standard", you have to expect people to think of it as a dominant and influencial work.




> I assumed that we were only dealing with those actions that were intentional.


A careless assumption may I say. And regardless of whether you did include the lack of "intention" in "wrongful", my point stands corrected (being unchallenged) that most unintentional "killings" are also prohibited (murder is not the only killing against the law), which makes your statement wrong. This is the point that you should be challenging, using that source you gave. I understand if you have a hard time finding supporting material from it. And anyway, whether the article does in fact support the view you put forth, it will take me a while to verify, due to the scarce and diminutive nature of your source.




> I am also not so sure that laws actually reflect any moral tendency.


Yes they do, at least in theory. In modern democracies, the legislative brach of government must be the most representative of the people (search 'separation of power'). Thus, its produce is that of the people to the nearest proximity currently available. In other words, legislations reflect the morality of citizens. And it is its proximity that you can challenge, not its nature or purpose. And here's your reference: Rousseau's "social contract and discourse", and A V Dicey's "The Rule of Law", that should be enough info to find them. They are books, influencial ones in their fields.




> Much of philosophy has been eloquently saying, I dont know.


Yes, but most with a satisfying and well-supported explanation; and most were not participating in a discussion with a specific question which requires a specific answer.

----------


## AllisonForbes

I think morality is defined by that which benefits the greatest amount of people. Therefore, killing is morally wrong, because if it were allowed, it could lead to the extinction of the species. 

Morality is then taught/coded to individuals who either embrace it or reject it. However, the consequences for rejecting it are censure/punishment to reinforce the greatest good for all. 

Morality could be seen in a broader sense as a self-preservation mechanism. Laws governing behavior allow each of us to interact with some freedom and mobility. Were it not for morality and the enforcements of the law, societal behavior would disintegrate, and it would be each man for himself. 

ShoutGrace you've asked:
Are there no moral values that are constant regardless of temporal, spacial, or individual concerns? Is murder (killing a person with premeditated malice) consistently wrong?

I would tend to believe as I've read through this thread and understand what you are asking that no, there are no moral values that are constant. Moral values are defined by groups of people, each particular group has their own moral code. Murder could quite conceivably be said to the closest to a constant, however there are many societies that do not hold murder in the same light as the majority of civilizations do now.

----------


## jon1jt

> I think morality is defined by that which benefits the greatest amount of people. Therefore, killing is morally wrong, because if it were allowed, it could lead to the extinction of the species. 
> 
> Morality is then taught/coded to individuals who either embrace it or reject it. However, the consequences for rejecting it are censure/punishment to reinforce the greatest good for all. 
> 
> Morality could be seen in a broader sense as a self-preservation mechanism. Laws governing behavior allow each of us to interact with some freedom and mobility. Were it not for morality and the enforcements of the law, societal behavior would disintegrate, and it would be each man for himself. 
> 
> ShoutGrace you've asked:
> Are there no moral values that are constant regardless of temporal, spacial, or individual concerns? Is murder (killing a person with premeditated malice) consistently wrong?
> 
> I would tend to believe as I've read through this thread and understand what you are asking that no, there are no moral values that are constant. Moral values are defined by groups of people, each particular group has their own moral code. Murder could quite conceivably be said to the closest to a constant, however there are many societies that do not hold murder in the same light as the majority of civilizations do now.


I agree, well said.

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I think morality is defined by that which benefits the greatest amount of people. Therefore, killing is morally wrong, because if it were allowed, it could lead to the extinction of the species.
> 
> Morality is then taught/coded to individuals who either embrace it or reject it. However, the consequences for rejecting it are censure/punishment to reinforce the greatest good for all.
> 
> Morality could be seen in a broader sense as a self-preservation mechanism. Laws governing behavior allow each of us to interact with some freedom and mobility. Were it not for morality and the enforcements of the law, societal behavior would disintegrate, and it would be each man for himself.
> Moral values are defined by groups of people, each particular group has their own moral code. Murder could quite conceivably be said to the closest to a constant, however there are many societies that do not hold murder in the same light as the majority of civilizations do now.


Precisely. If there is a society today which advocates removing half of all children from society at the age of 5, killing them, and using their bodies as natural fuel, they are not morally culpable in any objective sense.

They would most obviously be in violation of some sort of international laws, I imagine. Their polices might seem savage to us, or offend our sensibilities.

If they could convince their populace that this was a rational, advantageous way to run society, what right would anybody have to interfere (excluding legal)? If anybody had any right, where did it come from and why is it legitimate morally? Would there be no basis to decry their policy and move to stop its processes? Wouldnt any such basis be entirely subjective and therefore not ultimately binding?

----------


## AllisonForbes

The majority decides. As is the case with most moral laws. Therefore, if the majority of Americans believed that the death penalty should be legalized, it would become law. Perhaps, the thing that stops humans from fully adapting this attitude completely is the self-preservation instinct.

----------


## ShoutGrace

I find that disturbing, *AllisonForbes*.

The reason that children should not be systematically executed is not because the majority decides not to. It isn't because it is detrimental to society or because it offends our sensibilities. 

It is because objective moral values exist, and therefore human beings have intrinsic worth; unalienable rights endowed upon us.

Morality isn't evolved socio-biological preference.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I think I've thought up a good analogy:

Morality is like quality of music. There are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, but nobody would think that this makes any collection of noises as good a piece of music as any.

----------


## bhekti

> I think I've thought up a good analogy:
> 
> Morality is like quality of music. There are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, but nobody would think that this makes any collection of noises as good a piece of music as any.


 :Nod:   :Nod:   :Nod:

----------


## ShoutGrace

> I think I've thought up a good analogy:
> 
> Morality is like quality of music. There are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, but nobody would think that this makes any collection of noises as good a piece of music as any.


Music is personal preference. If there are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, than anything Mozart ever produced cannot be said to be "better" or "as good" as a collection of noises.

We may all like Mozart better, but there isn't any rational way of defending that.

Are you really willing to apply that to morality? 

Is it rational to say that torturing another human being is morally wrong? I contend that if there are no objective moral values, than that statement isn't rational at all. 

I'll reproduce the following (with changes, just to stay true to history) because it constitutes an extreme caricature which highlights the foolishness of moral relativism (which is given).

If there is a society today which advocates removing 1/3 of all children from society at the age of 5, killing them, and using their bodies as natural fuel, they are not morally culpable in any objective sense.

They would most obviously be in violation of some sort of international laws, I imagine. Their polices might seem savage to us, or offend our sensibilities.

If they could convince their populace that this was a rational, advantageous way to run society, what right would anybody have to interfere (excluding legal)? If anybody had any right, where did it come from and why is it legitimate morally? Would there be no basis to decry their policy and move to stop its processes? Wouldnt any such basis be entirely subjective and therefore not ultimately binding?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Music is personal preference. If there are no objective standards by which to say that any piece of music is better than any other, than anything Mozart ever produced cannot be said to be "better" or "as good" as a collection of noises.
> 
> We may all like Mozart better, but there isn't any rational way of defending that.
> 
> Are you really willing to apply that to morality? 
> 
> Is it rational to say that torturing another human being is morally wrong? I contend that if there are no objective moral values, than that statement isn't rational at all.


Oh, so just because I don't believe in god, I have to be rational about everything?*




> I'll reproduce the following (with changes, just to stay true to history) because it constitutes an extreme caricature which highlights the foolishness of moral relativism (which is given).
> 
> If there is a society today which advocates removing 1/3 of all children from society at the age of 5, killing them, and using their bodies as natural fuel, they are not morally culpable in any objective sense.
> 
> They would most obviously be in violation of some sort of international laws, I imagine. Their polices might seem savage to us, or offend our sensibilities.
> 
> *If* they could convince their populace that this was a rational, advantageous way to run society, what right would anybody have to interfere (excluding legal)? If anybody had any right, where did it come from and why is it legitimate morally? Would there be no basis to decry their policy and move to stop its processes? Wouldnt any such basis be entirely subjective and therefore not ultimately binding?


That's a pretty big 'if', but yes, if you can get everybody to pretend something is moral, than there's no way to say that it isn't (similar to the way that if you get everybody to pretend that Beyonce is brilliant, there's no rational way to attack them). Somebody, however, does have the right to interefrere: the children who are to be slaughtered and their parents. If the children would like to be saved, then save them.

There is one way way moral claims can be validated that does not fit in with my analogy, however: the claim can be based on a statement that can be factually false. If, for example, the government of this country justified their actions by saying "It's alright, because children cannot feel pain", one could say, "I can demonstrate the children do feel pain, and therefore your claim is invalid."

The best protection against this, however, is a population which is not completely stupid and not completely cowed. If you try to kill my children I will oppose you, not because of any objective moral code that's floating somewhere in the universe that you are in violation of, but because I don't want my children to be killed.

Because we are all terribly afraid that we will wake up one day and be extremely suceptible to suggestion, we write down all the things that we (subjectively) consider immoral and call it a 'code of law'. We then all agree to _pretend_ that this constitutes an objective moral code but, of course, it doesn't because it was written by subjective human beings, because people generally only follow those laws which suit them personally, and because the law changes with public taste.

The same problem arises with scripture. Ignoring the origins of texts such as the Bible (no good can come of _that_ argument, and it doesn't matter for my purposes), interpretation changes over time. The actual _text_, unlike legal codes, changes very little, but different groups in different time periods read different morals into different bits of it. Every single sect of Christians, Jews and Muslims are reading from the same book (give or take), but there is a very wide range of moral codes between them. Rastafarians read the story of Sampson and come to the conclusion that it is an affront to God to cut their hair. Catholics read the same passage and come to the conclusion that Rastafarians are out of their heads. Meanwhile, Rastafarians are reading the bit about the last supper, and think that the Catholics are absolutely barking mad about the whole transubstantiation issue. The point of all this (admittedly quite silly) illustration is that scriptures cannot be considered objective moral codes because everybody interprets them according to their own biases. (Let me point out that I think this is a good thing. If all believers took Leviticus litteraly, they would have to do some pretty unpleasant things to pretty much everybody I know.

Enough rambling for you?


*Joke. That was a joke.

----------


## Orionsbelt

> When it comes to the Positive moral structures, I do not know, because it may be possible to have a positive moral proscription which does not require the other.
> 
> Much of philosophy has been eloquently saying, I dont know.


The reference in this case is "the self" as the other. So I'm not sure that this is just not a special case of the negative moral structure. 

I am inclined to say that there is no objective moral law. I would venture to say it would have to include all things animal, vegetable, mineral.... up to and including God himself ... so claim the souls of Sodom and Gomorrah. :Smile:

----------


## ShoutGrace

> That's a pretty big 'if', but yes, if you can get everybody to pretend something is moral, than there's no way to say that it isn't




Im not saying that the people are being convinced that it is moral, Im saying that they are being convinced that it is advantageous for society, which it clearly is.







> There is one way way moral claims can be validated that does not fit in with my analogy, however: the claim can be based on a statement that can be factually false. If, for example, the government of this country justified their actions by saying "It's alright, because children cannot feel pain", one could say, "I can demonstrate the children do feel pain, and therefore your claim is invalid."





That is true. But why does the government have to say that children dont feel pain? Their decision to use children as natural fuel doesnt depend on the fact that children cant feel pain.



An adult says, Hey, this is wrong, children can feel pain. The government (and the persons peers) can just say, Sure they can. Whats your point? Why should that necessarily direct the course of our thinking, or our consideration in this matter?


The harm principle has no more validity here than any other idea. It's the majority who decides, just as *AllisonForbes* said above.






> If you try to kill my children I will oppose you, not because of any objective moral code that's floating somewhere in the universe that you are in violation of, but because I don't want my children to be killed.




Why? Because they have sentimental value for you? You have a biased opinion that you would rather they live. Why is your personal preference binding as it concerns the philosophical aspect of the analogy?


My analogy isnt about physical concerns, but rather philosophical ones. Sure, there would be an overwhelming portion of any society which would oppose having 1/3 of the children killed and used as fuel. Logistically, it wouldnt happen (though there are many different reasons for that).



But philosophically, given the lack of objective moral values, why is it invalid? Why is it immoral? *It clearly is not*.






> it doesn't because it was written by subjective human beings, because people generally only follow those laws which suit them personally, and because the law changes with public taste.




The law (as an aspect of regulated human society) clearly changes according to public taste. But on a philosophical level, I disagree. Though if there is no god, then this is certainly true. 

Which is why you can oppose the slaughter of children, based on taste and subjective preference, but you cannot say that it is objectively wrong.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> That is true. But why does the government have to say that children dont feel pain? Their decision to use children as natural fuel doesnt depend on the fact that children cant feel pain.


I was assuming it does to prove my point about factual validity of moral claims. In practice, whenever governments do attempt something of this kind (Nazi Germany springs to mind) they substantiate it with similar nonsense.




> But philosophically, given the lack of objective moral values, why is it invalid? Why is it immoral? *It clearly is not.*


Nope, 'tisn't. Not based on anything empirical anyway.

There are certainly pragmatic arguments for objective moral values, such as the fact that there are certain moral values that are close enough to being universal that they can be treated as such, and can therefore be treated as objective even if they are clearly not. Society tends to work on this basis. Ultimately, though, these beliefs rest on nothing (unless they rest on God, and even then he's being less than clear about it). I am not, however, in favor of complete ethical free-for-all, again for pragmatic reasons. It's best if we act as though there are objective moral values even if there aren't.

----------


## bhekti

> I am not, however, in favor of complete ethical free-for-all, again for pragmatic reasons.


What are these pragmatic reasons? Why should they be reasons? I assume they possess a certain definite value. 




> It's best if we act as though there are objective moral values even if there aren't.


I remember you have said it before and I also remember that there was a british sociologist (Sir Julian Huxley, if I'm not mistaken) who said more or less the same thing about God (it's best if society act as though God exists). The key word is in "as though".

my question: on what basis should we assume the objectivity of moral values when we ourselves always think that moral values can't be objective?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> my question: on what basis should we assume the objectivity of moral values when we ourselves always think that moral values can't be objective?


Well, let's start with the murder taboo. Would you like to be killed? Me neither. How about if we then enter in to an agreement which stipulates that we will not kill each other and, while we're at it, include every other member of society along with us, because it is, in the long run, better for every single member of society if nobody kills anybody, assuming of course that all members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered. I don't see why we should need a large invisible man with a beard to arbitrate this.

----------


## bhekti

> ...How about if we then enter in to an agreement which stipulates that we will not kill each other and, while we're at it, include every other member of society along with us, because it is, in the long run, better for every single member of society if nobody kills anybody, assuming of course that all members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered....


I see that your pragmatic reason includes, if i may say, an assumed generalization. What drives you to such generalization? Or, what makes you so ready to assume that "*all* members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered"? If everything is subjective, we couldn't have made such an assumption, right? So, despite your self-consciousness, it seems to me that you recognize an objective value in society's being, thus in morality.

(I'm sorry if I sound like judging you)

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> I see that your pragmatic reason includes, if i may say, an assumed generalization. What drives you to such generalization? Or, what makes you so ready to assume that "*all* members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered"?


Observation. I don't want to be killed, you don't want to be killed, none of our friends or family want to be killed. There are always deviations from such rules, but there always will be, objective moral values or no.




> If everything is subjective, we couldn't have made such an assumption, right? So, despite your self-consciousness, it seems to me that you recognize an *objective value* in society's being, thus in morality.


Didn't you just criticize me for failing to recognise that this is *not* an objective value? And I completely agree, it's completely subjective, but most people subscribe to it, so it's as good a starting point as any.

I'm not proposing that we remove objective moral values, I'm stating the fact that there are not now, nor were there ever such things. There's no reason to rework our legal system in light of this, as it's nothing new, as our legal system (or at least mine) has never worked on the assumption that there are anyway.

----------


## dramasnot6

> I see that your pragmatic reason includes, if i may say, an assumed generalization. What drives you to such generalization? Or, what makes you so ready to assume that "all members of society do not like being killed and do not like having to worry about being murdered"?





> Observation. I don't want to be killed, you don't want to be killed, none of our friends or family want to be killed. There are always deviations from such rules, but there always will be, objective moral values or no.
> 
> .


i agree with cuppa, how could fear of death be an assumed generalization? I refer to Maslows Hierarchy of needs, the fear of death and need for protection is simply a physiological instinct embedded into all humans, and most living things subconscience. You could observe in any society masses of literature, art, mythology, etc. that supports a negative response to death. Sure, nowadays we are bombarded with the "emo" phase. Suicide is portrayed as appealing, satanism promoted. But because death is universely regarded as such an extreme, if not the most extreme, source of fear, it is contrasted with positive emotions by attention seeking teenagers to appear cool even thoguh they have no idea what they are talking about. Thats the only example I can think of in terms of people not seeing death as something not to be desired. What is more fundamental to survival then avoiding the end of it?

----------


## Charles Wong

Depends on what "way of knowing" one chooses to use. I rely on the scientific method. science can "prove" that certain things happen and why. But science cannot "prove" that, for example, abortion or porn is "moral" or immoral." it is purely a subjective/emotional feeling of "right" and "wrong." Each generation varies in their moral values, yet each generation claims that their moral values are absolute truth. If you are of European descent, than your great grandparents believed that is was absolute moral truth to be anti-Semitic and consider Africans as biologically inferior. Today though, European people believe the opposite: that all races are equal, and that this is the only moral thinking view.

----------


## kilted exile

> If you are of European descent, than your great grandparents believed that is was absolute moral truth to be anti-Semitic and consider Africans as biologically inferior.


Wow, and I thought I was prone to making sweeping generalisations.....

----------


## Charles Wong

> Wow, and I thought I was prone to making sweeping generalisations.....


Actually, it's quite historically accurate that only in the last 100 years did European people become racially egalitarian: for most of the recorded 5,000 years of European history, equality did not exist. But I only use Europeans as an example because they are the majority population where I live. But same thinking existed for other races as well. In fact, currently in my country of China, racism the norm: our people hold the same racial views that Whites did 100 years ago. So, I was not just picking on Euro people.

----------


## bhekti

> i agree with cuppa, how could fear of death be an assumed generalization? I refer to Maslows Hierarchy of needs, the fear of death and need for protection is simply a physiological instinct embedded into all humans, and most living things subconscience....


And I agree with you. I was just using irony when I called it "an assumed generalization".  :Tongue:  As you and cuppajoe and I observe, fear of death has the characteristic of an objective thing. 

Now, returning to the topic, isn't morality a by-product of this fear of death? Therefore, being originated from an objective thing (that is, fear of death), morality is consequently an objective thing too.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Now, returning to the topic, isn't morality a by-product of this fear of death? Therefore, being originated from an objective thing (that is, fear of death), morality is consequently an objective thing too.


Fear of death is *not* an objective thing. It's a completely subjective and rather irrational thing. Fear and objectivity are two concepts that simply do not go together. Something cannnot be objectively said to be fearful any more than it can be objectively said to be plesant or (as I am trying to argue) objectively moral.

----------


## Shadowsarin

I'm gonna plunge right into the deep end here as I just don't have the willpower to read five pages of debate. If I say anything that has been said already, I'm sorry. 

I am 100% Relativist, and consider the concept of objective moral truths daft. Humans are born as clean slates, and their enviroment as they are brought up is what molds them. Just look at Feral Children! 

Morality is a concept I consider evil. Perhaps a necisery evil, but still evil. It is born of God, which is born of fear of death. _Do this or some unseen unfelt being will cast you into a fire for eternity_! There are so many ideals of right and wrong, some streaching back milleniums, so how are we meant to know which is the right one? If there is an Objective Moral Code, how are we meant to find it with so many other concepts of right and wrong?

(yeah, all of that will defo have been said pages ago, ah well)

----------


## Eagleheart

> There are so many ideals of right and wrong, some streaching back milleniums, so how are we meant to know which is the right one?


Now, what is your reaction when for example someone is pointing a gun at you? Perhaps you are stoically accepting the freedom of values, or you are questioning the right of the disturber to deprive you of life...
I really risk being boring to myself if I am to repeat my position on relativism...I can only add that relativism has been and will be faint-heartedness in facing the human tasks and challenges and lack of responsibility for the world as we see it...

----------


## Shadowsarin

> Now, what is your reaction when for example someone is pointing a gun at you? Perhaps you are stoically accepting the freedom of values, or you are questioning the right of the disturber to deprive you of life...
> I really risk being boring to myself if I am to repeat my position on relativism...I can only add that relativism has been and will be faint-heartedness in facing the human tasks and challenges and lack of responsibility for the world as we see it...


Desire to live is a survival instinct in my eyes, no different than for example a need to feed. So, an equally extreme example for you. Is it wrong to kill and eat another human if not doing so will result in your death?

----------


## Eagleheart

> Desire to live is a survival instinct in my eyes, no different than for example a need to feed. So, an equally extreme example for you. Is it wrong to kill and eat another human if not doing so will result in your death?


Do you intentionally blur the distinction between desire and right? Are you proposing that your hypotetical disturber, who is to kill you is doing a wrong thing only because it does not correspond to your instinct of survival...If his violation is of instincts and not of values, then what is the hindrance to exonerate this "petrel"' counterinstinct of aggression/ notice that we must still have defined "bad" and "good" instincts, so as to condemn the killing for example and decide in favour of the instinct to preserve life/.Where is the violation when an instinct is opposed to an instinct. The truth is that if a value was not violated then we would not have a violation...
My answer to your question:
Millions of people are dying because of hunger, are we to witness a cannibalistic feast in this respect. Thankfully we still have some antirelativism in this world...

----------


## bhekti

> Fear of death is *not* an objective thing. It's a completely subjective and rather irrational thing. Fear and objectivity are two concepts that simply do not go together. Something cannnot be objectively said to be fearful any more than it can be objectively said to be plesant or (as I am trying to argue) objectively moral.


Ah, then I have misinterpreted you. Sorry for that, cuppajoe

----------


## bhekti

> Is it wrong to kill and eat another human if not doing so will result in your death?


For me, it is wrong. Coz I know death is nothing to me.

----------


## sam96

> _Objective Moral Values_
> 
> 
> 
> Do objective moral values exist?
> 
> - - - - - If you believe so, what reasons do you have for believing in the existence of objective moral values?
> 
> - - - - - If you believe that objective moral values do not exist, what is your reasoning for that belief?
> ...


i think morals aren't really that constant i think they depend on certain situations and more importantly the conviction of the person looking at the act itself(really nice thread by the way) :Wink:

----------


## bhekti

> Desire to live is a survival instinct in my eyes, no different than for example a need to feed...


I am quoting again shadowsarin's post as I've just come across this text from a book. Sorry for the length, but I think it is worth quoting here to further our discussion. This is from C.S. Lewis:

*Some people wrote to me saying, "Isn't what you call the Moral Law simply our herd instinct and hasn't it been developed just like all our other instincts?" Now I do not deny that we may have a herd instinct: but that is not what I mean by the Moral Law. We all know what it feels like to be prompted by instinctby mother love, or sexual instinct, or the instinct for food. It means that you feel a strong want or desire to act in a certain way. And, of course, we sometimes do feel just that sort of desire to help another person: and no doubt that desire is due to the herd instinct. But feeling a desire to help is quite different from feeling that you ought to help whether you want to or not. 

Supposing you hear a cry for help from a man in danger. You will probably feel two desiresone a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them. You might as well say that the sheet of music which tells you, at a given moment, to play one note on the piano and not another, is itself one of the notes on the keyboard. The Moral Law tells us the tune we have to play: our instincts are merely the keys.

Another way of seeing that the Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts is this. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the herd instinct, by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to get up enough steam for doing the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up," cannot itself be the herd instinct. The thing that tells you which note on the piano needs to be played louder cannot itself be that note.

Here is a third way of seeing it If the Moral Law was one of our instincts, we ought to be able to point to some one impulse inside us which was always what we call "good," always in agreement with the rule of right behaviour. But you cannot. There is none of our impulses which the Moral Law may not sometimes tell us to suppress, and none which it may not sometimes tell us to encourage. It is a mistake to think that some of our impulses say mother love or patriotismare good, and others, like sex or the fighting instinct, are bad. All we mean is that the occasions on which the fighting instinct or the sexual desire need to be restrained are rather more frequent than those for restraining mother love or patriotism. But there are situations in which it is the duty of a married man to encourage his sexual impulse and of a soldier to encourage the fighting instinct. 

....Strictly speaking, there are no such things as good and bad impulses. Think once again of a piano. It has not got two kinds of notes on it, the "right" notes and the "wrong" ones. Every single note is right at one time and wrong at another. The Moral Law is not any one instinct or any set of instincts: it is something which makes a kind of tune (the tune we call goodness or right conduct) by directing the instincts.*

What do you guys think about Lewis' argument?

----------


## Orionsbelt

For my part, I think that this is right on the money. It occurs to me that these decisions and the associated instinct are all going on within an individual(s). The conflict does not exist outside of this context. This framework or decision to choose to one instinct or impulse over the other is enforced or favored and encouraged in a social setting or group. Learned! Then, tradition and longevity tend to leave the impression that certain value judgments are immutable and eternal. This board itself is a testament to the existence of the perpetual exception. C.S. Lewis huh? Good work.  :Tongue:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

I rather like the Lewis argument (except, perhaps, for the definition of the sexual impulse as bad in most cases). I do not, however, think that it contradicts any of my arguments, and in fact fits rather nicely into my morality-as-quality-of-music analogy.

----------


## jon1jt

objective moral values: doesn't insight into the nature of objective moral values require a divine mind?

----------


## Guzmán

> objective moral values: doesn't insight into the nature of objective moral values require a divine mind?


I for myself think that morals are relative, that there is no such thing as an absolute right or wrong.
Regarding the issue that the belief on objective or absolute moral values requires 
the belief in a divine mind as well here's an excerpt from Bertrand Rusell's lecture "Why I am not a Christian" (it doesnt have much to do with the topic but i find it rather interesting):

"Kant, as I say, invented a new moral argument for the existence of God, and that in varying forms was extremely popular during the nineteenth century. It has all sorts of forms. One form is to say there would be no right or wrong unless God existed. I am not for the moment concerned with whether there is a difference between right and wrong, or whether there is not: that is another question. The point I am concerned with is that, if you are quite sure there is a difference between right and wrong, then you are in this
situation: Is that difference due to God's fiat or is it not? If it is due to God's fiat, then for God himself there is no difference between right and wrong, and it is no longer a significant statement to say that God is good. If you are going to say, as theologians do, that God is good, you must then say that right and wrong have some meaning which is independent of God's fiat, because God's fiats are good and not bad independently of the
mere fact that he made them. If you are going to say that, you will then have to say that it is not only through God that right and wrong came into being, but that they are in their essence logically anterior to God. You could, of course, if you liked, say that there was a superior deity who gave orders to the God that made this world, or could take up the line
that some of the gnostics took up -- a line which I often thought was a very plausible one -- that as a matter of fact this world that we know was made by the devil at a moment when God was not looking. There is a good deal to be said for that, and I am not concerned to refute it."

----------


## bhekti

It seems what Russel calls God there is a no-God. The problem to argue, then, would be on the comprehension of the term "God".

----------


## Orionsbelt

I have often had a chuckle out of the Gnostic notion. Kind of like a major verison of the Norse god Loki or the tricksters in folk tails. 


For the sake of consistancy, I am going to take God as a projection of mankind in the sense that Plato presented as the idea of the perfect form of human intelligence. In this sense perhaps you could argue that the perfect intellegence would make the perfect choices and these would be... perfect and Immutable. However that perfect intellegence would have to be human in this sense. If it wasn't would humans be condemned for the agressive expansion on the planet at the expense of so many other forms? or is this just natural selection? In this case then there is no good or bad only "the process". If the process is deemed good then our opinions have no meaning. This is the tao. --- random thoughts..

----------


## subterranean

I was thinking about an act like kamikaze or other similiar acts, in which the subject voluntarly sacrifice his/her self for a reason, which are actually against human natural instinct (to use Lewis' term, self-preservation).

----------


## bhekti

> I was thinking about an act like kamikaze or other similiar acts, in which the subject voluntarly sacrifice his/her self for a reason, which are actually against human natural instinct (to use Lewis' term, self-preservation).


A bit off topic, those acts are not really against human natural instinct, I think. Remember the term _thanatos_? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thanatos_%28Freud%29

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Morality is an individual experience, one that the individual ascertains and changes throughout one's life. A sense of morality en masse can become an objective reality, and has become to a degree, but it is fully based on perception.


I think morality is an individual experience in terms of how we apply a _larger moral framework_ to our own personal decisions. Making morality totally defined by the individual (which is a popular idea these days) is frankly pretty scary because the world presents us with a wide variety of different world-views (as well as various levels of rational function). If morality is totally subjective, then we have no right to "impose our views on someone else" (a popular phrase when the topic of objective (or worse, "Christian") morality pops up). Once morality becomes solely self-defined, we now have no way to ajudicate between parties in dispute over the nature of an action or behavior. Hence the development of a collective morality - which allows us now to render socially defined ideas about "right" and "wrong" - but these are only "objective" in terms of _agreement_: the majority believe that a, b, and c and "right," so therefore they are. These "objective" standards are open to debate and revision - which means their "objectivity" was merely an agreed upon convention (which is not in the strictest sense "objective" at all). 

So we've solved the social problem, somewhat. But what about the "global village" we all live in? Technology has brought numerous cultures within closer contact. So far, so good. But what happens when cultures clash in terms of morals? If morality is socially defined by consensus, then how can any culture "judge" another? It's very popular in a number of threads here for people to post the politically-correct sounding "who are we to judge someone else/else's culture?" - but that reasoning creates a problem: how do you solve disagreements between cultures with moral systems that disagree? Just say "Well, that's just how they do things and it's none of our business"? Aren't there some behaviors that _ought_ to be condemned, regardless of culture? I think we paint ourselves into a scary corner when we decide that morality is self-defined, because, at some point, some culture will present a behavior that we will look at and go "That is unmistakably wrong."

----------


## Orionsbelt

I think you answered your own question. The root of the word morality comes from Latin roots that roughly translate to "customs". I believe that the problem is only a "social" problem as you phrased it. The cultural conflict is certainly an issue. Agreement does not necessarily exist across cultures. I think this is the easy side of the problem. I think the problem has more to do with systems that are used to justify what is not moral behavior in any culture. I think you can agree that killing is generally regarded as wrong across the board. Now you have groups believing that it's OK to kill if you are doing God's work. Not picking on religion. The secular argument is it's OK to kill to protect the state from the bad guy. I picked on these because most people believe they are sort of the absolute anchor positions. The biggest being self defense. In truth, it could be argued that there is really no justification to take a life ever. With this as the anchor point, it becomes a debate for what is acceptable. The problem now is that the lines for what is acceptable are changing. This is because of advances in technology as well as cultural clashes mixed with long standing tradition. The abortion debate is the text book example. So in the new world, which is coming into being every single passing moment, how shall we agree to what is acceptable. Globally! By the way once we agree, some new breakthrough in understanding may need consideration next week. It will be on the net. So we may have to do it again. The moral framework will require shifting. I am of the opinion that people will need to adjust to less tradition and more dynamics as the pace of change grows more rapid. This is not comfortable for many. Nothing is a substitute for individual compassion and a sense of practical.

----------


## Redzeppelin

I think your post creates a circle back into mine. Any "global" agreement on "morality" is just that: an _agreement_. People can choose to disagree and ignore an agreement when it no longer serves their needs (or they can refuse to endorse it from the start because it _disagrees_ with their view of "right" and "wrong.")

"Objective" means "without bias or prejudice": ultimately, humanly established morality will always be subject to one or both of these flaws - it is inescapable. Morality established by consensus is a necessary tool, but it cannot help mediate problems between cultures because cultures will inevitably have some areas that don't coincide in terms of "right" behavior. Without objective morality, we have to allow atrocious behavior to exist because we really don't have any right to condemn another culture's consensual idea of "right" action.

This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea: the assumption being that a divine being's law is above human bias and prejudice (therefore "objective" in the purest sense of the word); as well, it is beyond human "revision" regardless of technological "advancement" (note my contemptuous quotation marks) and global "diversity."

----------


## Whifflingpin

"This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea"

It is a disastrous idea when it gets into the minds of heads of powerful states. 
As long as they can accept "morality established by consensus is a necessary tool" there is some check on their actions. Once they believe they are speaking for God, and starting talking about an "axis of evil" then they are well on the way to moral insanity.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "This is why God as the giver of moral law is such an important idea"
> 
> It is a disastrous idea when it gets into the minds of heads of powerful states. 
> As long as they can accept "morality established by consensus is a necessary tool" there is some check on their actions. Once they believe they are speaking for God, and starting talking about an "axis of evil" then they are well on the way to moral insanity.


I won't deny that - fallen beings have unlimited capactity to warp any philosohpy to their own ends. Even technology can be utilized so - but that doesn't make the philosophy/theology or technology inherently bad/wrong/invalid - it just means it is subject to distortion. Auto accidents are either the #1 or #2 cause of death in the US, but nobody's calling for an end to automobiles (at least I don't think so  :Smile:  ).

That governments wrap themselves in God's law in order to do as they wish doesn't diminish the value of objective moral law - it just shows how it can be perverted. "Speaking for God" is wrong because humans cannot speak for God - they can only point to what He Himself says (hence the importance of the Bible as authority). Again - as I probably posted elsewhere - objective moral law as created by God can only be wielded in ways consistent with the character of God. If a government is "speaking for God" but acting inconsistent with his character, then that government is abusing the law.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> "Speaking for God" is wrong because humans cannot speak for God - they can only point to what He Himself says (hence the importance of the Bible as authority).


You do not, I assume, call for the death penalty as punishment for failing to observe the Sabbath, as is described in the Old Testament. Therefore, you need some criterion outside scripture on which to base which parts of scripture you want the law to be based on. Therefore the Bible is not the only legal and moral authority, even to Christians.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You do not, I assume, call for the death penalty as punishment for failing to observe the Sabbath, as is described in the Old Testament. .


Correct - I do not. One of the key reasons for my agreement with your sugestion is that the New Testament _revises_ the Old Testament. In other words, the Mosaic Laws of which you make reference were nullified by the New Covenant created by Christ's sacrifice on the Cross. Much of Christ's confrontation with the religious authorities of His time were due to their insistence of the Mosaic Laws and His refutation of the Law's role in "saving" mankind. The significance of the Bible is in its revelation of God's character - and His character, as seen in the person of Christ, abolished much of the 600 odd Jewish restrictions in the Old Testament. The laws of the OT that are verified by the NT are the ones that matter. The NT did not advocate death penalty for "Sabbath violations."




> Therefore, you need some criterion outside scripture on which to base which parts of scripture you want the law to be based on. Therefore the Bible is not the only legal and moral authority, even to Christians.



Well, which "law" are you talking about? Objective moral law cannot be "objective" in its purest sense unless a being capable of objectivity creates it. As well, I'm not sure I advocated that the Bible be the "legal" authority - it wasn't written for that purpose.

By the way, glad to have you posting again, cup - I have missed your sharp-eyed comments  :Smile:

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Well, which "law" are you talking about?


Political law. I'm trying to leave moral law the hell out of it until I've read some Kant.


> Objective moral law cannot be "objective" in its purest sense unless a being capable of objectivity creates it.


Fortunately, it doesn't need to be objective 'in its purest sense'. Morality is something that exists in the minds of humans, and I think we're going to have to deal with that.


> As well, I'm not sure I advocated that the Bible be the "legal" authority - it wasn't written for that purpose.


I think I misconstrued your last post. Apologies.


> By the way, glad to have you posting again, cup - I have missed your sharp-eyed comments


The sentiment is mutual, I'm sure.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Well hi there, cuppajoe - I just left you in the Evolution thread...




> Political law. I'm trying to leave moral law the hell out of it until I've read some Kant.


I wonder if you'll find Kant to your liking - he's even more inflexible than I am about objective morality. He doesn't allow for circumstance.




> Fortunately, it doesn't need to be objective 'in its purest sense'. Morality is something that exists in the minds of humans, and I think we're going to have to deal with that.


Perhaps your first sentence is correct (it certainly is a _necessity_ here on earth in terms of law). As far as your 2nd sentence, you're right: we do need to "deal" with morality because if it only exists in human minds, then it has no guaranteed stability: it's up for constant revision - whether that revision is "majority rule" or cultural bias - neither of which being capable of being free from subjective (and therefore questionable) morality.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> As far as your 2nd sentence, you're right: we do need to "deal" with morality because if it only exists in human minds, then it has no guaranteed stability: it's up for constant revision.


Thank gawd for that. 500 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with burning cats for entertainment. 200 years ago nobody saw anything morally wrong with denying people employment and housing based on ethnic or religious background. 100 years ago, people took it for granted that it is morally correct for women to be subservient to men. 60 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with dumping toxic waste directly into the ocean.

You are assuming first that morality, as it stands, is not subject to change, and second that if it is allowed to change, it will disappear. Morality is certainly subject to change, it always has been, and we've been getting better at it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Thank gawd for that. 500 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with burning cats for entertainment. 200 years ago nobody saw anything morally wrong with denying people employment and housing based on ethnic or religious background. 100 years ago, people took it for granted that it is morally correct for women to be subservient to men. 60 years ago, nobody saw anything morally wrong with dumping toxic waste directly into the ocean.


Some of what you suggest is due to ignorance. And, nothing in the Bible supports the moral atrocities you list above.




> You are assuming first that morality, as it stands, is not subject to change, and second that if it is allowed to change, it will disappear. Morality is certainly subject to change, it always has been, and we've been getting better at it.


Christ once said the "you cannot put new wine in old wineskins because the new wine will burst the old skins - you must put new wine in new wineskins" (Matt 9:17 loosely paraphrased). This analogy was Christ's attack against the Pharisee's "letter of the law" approach, because Christ was advocating a "spirit of the law" approach. The letter of the Law must have a certain flexibility (the new wineskin) in order to contain the living law (new wine) of God. So, in other words, I agree: certain revisions are necessary, but they need to occur inside a stable framework or else you get the kind of insanity you listed above.

As far as getting better, you really think so? Perhaps certain things have improved since the decades prior to the 60s - like equality for women and minority groups - but what about the flip-side in terms of sexual mores (and the consequences of those loosened standards), respect to authority and the stabilizing force of Christianity? Disregard my specific examples and consider the rising rates of crime, divorce, abortion, gang violence, teen suicide, etc. Are we really getting better?

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> And, nothing in the Bible supports the moral atrocities you list above.


The people who justified all of those using the Bible seem to think that it did (cat burning excepted).




> Christ once said the "you cannot put new wine in old wineskins because the new wine will burst the old skins - you must put new wine in new wineskins" (Matt 9:17 loosely paraphrased).


Christ was obviously dealing wineskin there. Oh well, he can always turn some more water into it.




> This analogy was Christ's attack against the Pharisee's "letter of the law" approach, because Christ was advocating a "spirit of the law" approach.


I am advocating a "change the law" (and, eventually, "elliminate the law") approach, but that's beside the point.




> As far as getting better, you really think so?


Undeniably. Here's Pinker on it: http://www.edge.org/q2007/q07_1.html#pinker.




> ...but what about the flip-side in terms of sexual mores (and the consequences of those loosened standards), respect to authority and the stabilizing force of Christianity?


Authority does not deserve to be respected for its own sake, I obviously don't throw much truck in with the stabilizing force of Christianity, and I think sexual repression was just as bad for society as the excessive losening of sexual mores would be.


> Disregard my specific examples and consider the rising rates of crime, divorce, abortion, gang violence, teen suicide, etc. Are we really getting better?


Crime, violence and war are all, from the perspective of history, on a downward trend. Abortion experienced a spike when it became medically feaseable, but it is also dropping, if I'm not mistaken, and will continue to drop as oral contraceptives such as Plan B become increasingly available. The divorce rates strike me as a sign that we should be reevaluating our society's constant emphasis that everybody in it must get married and have children, rather than a sign that we are all bad people.

Face it: we're killing each other in smaller numbers and becoming increasingly aware and sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man. We're getting morally better, in other words.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The people who justified all of those using the Bible seem to think that it did (cat burning excepted).


Just because some Christians have distorted the Bible does not condemn the Bible any more than the actions of Hitler condemns all Germans.





> Christ was obviously dealing wineskin there. Oh well, he can always turn some more water into it.
> 
> I am advocating a "change the law" (and, eventually, "elliminate the law") approach, but that's beside the point..


Clever, but you didn't address the point I was trying to make.




> 1.Authority does not deserve to be respected for its own sake, 
> 2.I obviously don't throw much truck in with the stabilizing force of Christianity, 
> 3.and I think sexual repression was just as bad for society as the excessive losening of sexual mores would be.... 
> 4.The divorce rates strike me as a sign that we should be reevaluating our society's constant emphasis that everybody in it must get married and have children, rather than a sign that we are all bad people.


I numbered your points for clarity's sake:
1. True - but even authority that deserves respect today gets none.
2. Fine - but despite the horrendous behavior committed by _some_ Christians that so many atheists like to point out, what is conveniently left out is much of the humanitarian efforts and social improvements Christianity has contributed to - Abolition was carried forward on the shoulders of Christians. I think it rather glib to dismiss some of the positive things Christiantiy has contributed to society. I would certainly not dismiss a positive contribution to society based on someone's belief system.
3. What "repression"? Save it until you're married is repressive? How many problems does it solve/avoid to date for a few years, get married and then have sex? How many STDs, unwanted pregnancies, abortions and fragmented families does doing things in this order help avoid/stop?
4. Where do you get the idea that society says everyone should be married? You may be right, but I may be right too: the divorce rate may be increasing because we have devalued marriage by devaluing the sexual relationship.






> Face it: we're killing each other in smaller numbers and becoming increasingly aware and sympathetic to the plight of our fellow man. We're getting morally better, in other words.


Really? I think our society's "It's not my problem" and "that's their business" attitudes point in an opposite direction.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Just because some Christians have distorted the Bible does not condemn the Bible any more than the actions of Hitler condemns all Germans.


I didn't condemn all Christians, not by a long shot. My point is that the Bible is open to interpretation, and that your particular interpretation of it is not necesarily definitive (although, to judge from our conversations here, I heartily wish that it was).




> 1. True - but even authority that deserves respect today gets none.


Example?




> . Fine - but despite the horrendous behavior committed by some Christians that so many atheists like to point out, what is conveniently left out is much of the humanitarian efforts and social improvements Christianity has contributed to - Abolition was carried forward on the shoulders of Christians. I think it rather glib to dismiss some of the positive things Christiantiy has contributed to society. I would certainly not dismiss a positive contribution to society based on someone's belief system.


Christianity has indeed contributed positive things to society, but that certainly does not mean that society will crumble if Christianity is removed. The country with the highest atheist population in the world was recently called the second best country in the world in which to live.




> What "repression"? Save it until you're married is repressive?


No, not that repression. The "sex is dirty and chastity is pure" repression. People are not helped by the idea that every time they have a sexual thought, they have commited a sin. This was a popular idea in the past (women were commonly burned at the stake for having sexual dreams in the middle ages).




> 4. Where do you get the idea that society says everyone should be married?


The ideal that society pushes most certainly does involve marriage, particularly it's religious factions. You, in fact, just stated that people should ideally be either married or celibate.




> I think our society's "It's not my problem" and "that's their business" attitudes point in an opposite direction.


There was never a time when society did not have those attitudes to some degree. The very fact that you think it's a problem indicates that we are changing.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Example?


From personal experience: as a teacher, I experience many levels of disrespect that I am certain teachers of 30-40 years ago did not experience. I know disrespect in teenagers has always existed, but I doubt teachers in the 40-50s put up with what I have to - and I'm not even at some "inner city" school full of hoodlums. Second, look at attitudes towards the elderly - they are generally viewed as being a nuisance, irrelevant and a burden - as opposed to part of our rich cultrual/familial heritage that they were in the past. 




> Christianity has indeed contributed positive things to society, but that certainly does not mean that society will crumble if Christianity is removed. The country with the highest atheist population in the world was recently called the second best country in the world in which to live.


As to your first point: I never implied society would "crumble" - I suggested that the diminshment of Christianity as a central force in society has weakened it in certain ways. As to your second point, what's the criteria for "best"?




> No, not that repression. The "sex is dirty and chastity is pure" repression. People are not helped by the idea that every time they have a sexual thought, they have commited a sin. This was a popular idea in the past (women were commonly burned at the stake for having sexual dreams in the middle ages).


I agree - but there are ways to deal with that kind of repression that does not involve "have uncommitted sex with whomever you wish." And, I do believe we're way past the middle ages and that having sexual thoughts hasn't been considered a crime for quite a while.




> The ideal that society pushes most certainly does involve marriage, particularly it's religious factions. You, in fact, just stated that people should ideally be either married or celibate.


Religious factions "push" marriage so that sexuality has a safe place to be exercised within. My suggestion offers two equally valid choices - which does not imply that either is more preferable.

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> From personal experience: as a teacher, I experience many levels of disrespect that I am certain teachers of 30-40 years ago did not experience. I know disrespect in teenagers has always existed, but I doubt teachers in the 40-50s put up with what I have to - and I'm not even at some "inner city" school full of hoodlums.


It's a problem. However, I think the increased prevalence of disrespect towards teachers is a decent trade off for, say, the fact that you aren't alowed to beat your students senseless anymore.




> As to your first point: I never implied society would "crumble" - I suggested that the diminshment of Christianity as a central force in society has weakened it in certain ways. As to your second point, what's the criteria for "best"?


First: I disagree, plenty of societies are doing just fine without it. Second: I'm not exactly sure, you'll have to ask the UN.




> I agree - but there are ways to deal with that kind of repression that does not involve "have uncommitted sex with whomever you wish."


I agree, yes.




> And, I do believe we're way past the middle ages and that having sexual thoughts hasn't been considered a crime for quite a while.


See? Moral progress!




> My suggestion offers two equally valid choices - which does not imply that either is more preferable.


Yeah, but I (for example) reject both of your suggestions, and suggest that people are perfectly capable of being unamarried and sexually active without being promiscuous. Your suggestions cannot be enfoced, so perhaps we should be looking into some sort of middle ground.

----------


## Redzeppelin

OK - last post for tonight - I'm beat. You're making me think too hard.




> It's a problem. However, I think the increased prevalence of disrespect towards teachers is a decent trade off for, say, the fact that you aren't alowed to beat your students senseless anymore.


Wait a minute - how is it a "decent trade" that students get more respect and I get less? 





> First: I disagree, plenty of societies are doing just fine without it.


Example? (And what does "fine" mean?)




> Second: I'm not exactly sure, you'll have to ask the UN.


I'll get right on that.




> See? Moral progress!


Let's hear it for the Straw Man (because you _know_ that the discussion on moral progress was being applied to the 20th century but you purposely went far enough back to find an easily-attacked example - or did you? I assumed you did; perhaps that was my mistake).




> Yeah, but I (for example) reject both of your suggestions, and suggest that people are perfectly capable of being unamarried and sexually active without being promiscuous. Your suggestions cannot be enfoced, so perhaps we should be looking into some sort of middle ground.


Fine - but "promiscuity" was not necessarily the issue I was pointing to. Sexual activity outside of a committed marriage creates circumstances that benefit from a committed marriage (children, for example). And, even if the relationship is kept childless, I think that sex creates bonds between people that are far more emotionally tenacious than we realize. As well, sex has the ability to "bind" us emotionally to someone to whom we may - if we had gotten to know them thoroughly before hopping into bed - have discovered is not a good person to be dating at all. But sexual intimacy convinces us that we have a true "bond" with someone - kind of like the false intimacy created between a therapist and client, a student and a teacher - that intimacy is based on proximity and should not be mistaken for a true relational intimacy. Sex indelibly marks us with the heart of the other person, and - like it or not - we "carry" that other person into our next relationship. (And that I connect - in part - to our current divorce rates).

----------


## cuppajoe_9

> Wait a minute - how is it a "decent trade" that students get more respect and I get less?


Unless they are actively beating you up, I consider that a decent trade off. Again, that isn't to say it's not a problem, but I would rather have rudeness than intsitutionalized violence, and I would much rather have neither.




> Example? (And what does "fine" mean?)


Iceland. It means that the members of that society are, on the whole, healthy, happy and not prone to killing one another.




> Let's hear it for the Straw Man (because you know that the discussion on moral progress was being applied to the 20th century but you purposely went far enough back to find an easily-attacked example - or did you? I assumed you did; perhaps that was my mistake).


Nope, not just this past century, I was trying to look at the question from a larger historical perspective. Sexual repression of the kind I describe was, in any case, present in greater quantities at the beginning of the 20th century.




> Sex indelibly marks us with the heart of the other person, and - like it or not - we "carry" that other person into our next relationship.(And that I connect - in part - to our current divorce rates).


So do, to speak from experience, a lot of other things. It's unavoidable, unless you plan to marry the first person you become romantically interested in.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Unless they are actively beating you up, I consider that a decent trade off. Again, that isn't to say it's not a problem, but I would rather have rudeness than intsitutionalized violence, and I would much rather have neither.


Easily said by one still a student and not a teacher. You've created an "either/or" issue out of something that was not origianlly so - a clever way of making my point sound less relevant because my concerns become trivial next to violence against children. You imply a relationship between the two in order to make my point part of a "trade off," but that wasn't my point - you asked me for examples of an erosion of respect towards authority and I gave you one. You supplied the "hey, it's better than this" which really wasn't relevant. There is a continuum from the "institutionalized violence" of the late 19thC to the current disrespect accorded educators of the late 20thC - and at somewhere on the line, students _weren't_ being beaten and teachers - as "elders" and authority figures - _were_ given much more respect than now. Why should there have to be a trade off? Am I supposed to "atone" for the atrocities of Victorian age education? Spend one day in my shoes and you'd get it.




> Iceland. It means that the members of that society are, on the whole, healthy, happy and not prone to killing one another.


Fine. Assuming that a lack of homocide is the premise that points to the conclusion of a healty, moral society. Morality concerns more than whether or not we're killing each other _literally_. 




> Nope, not just this past century, I was trying to look at the question from a larger historical perspective. Sexual repression of the kind I describe was, in any case, present in greater quantities at the beginning of the 20th century.


Point taken - but again: at what cost do you "liberate" people from restrictive attitudes? Should every restrictive attitude concerning sex be abolished? Where on the sexual continuum should we say "uh, no, that's not OK"? Can't NAMBLA cry "sexual repression" too? (Yeah, I know - extreme, unrealistic example, but you get my point.) Either way, the "free love" idea of the 60s which has flowered into the idea that sex is for whoever wants it was a flame-thrower response to a much smaller problem.




> So do, to speak from experience, a lot of other things. It's unavoidable, unless you plan to marry the first person you become romantically interested in.


Maybe - but without knowing what those things are, I will simply respond "not like sex does." Sex rewires our heart in ways I don't think science can completely fathor or measure. If you have sex with 20 individuals before you settle down and get married, trust me - you have carried some baggage into your marriage that you could have done without because it was - ultimately - avoidable. But more than just "you could have done without it," I would suggest that those prior intimate connections will result in problems within the marriage. (But that, again, is based on the Biblical idea that sex takes two and joins them into "one.")

And, you wouldn't marry the first person you got romantically involved with if you refrained from sex because you would be more able to maintain some sense of objectivity in deciding if this person is right. You'd have spent time dealing with the big questions before making that committment. But, once you have sex, the illusion is created through the bonding action of sex that makes us feel like this person is the one. One wonders how many doomed relationships - instead of properly terminating for the right reasons - instead went ahead and created unhappiness (or worse) because the sex _fooled_ them into thinking they really had something between them when they really didn't?

----------

