Atheistforums.com

Humanities Section => Philosophy & Rhetoric General Discussion => Topic started by: Awakepuddle on February 26, 2017, 09:20:11 PM

Title: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on February 26, 2017, 09:20:11 PM
This is mainly directed at people who use the term objective morality similar to that of mattD@AE IE for any situation when deciding between actions one will be more and one less moral "objectively" against an agreed on standard (like welll being).
While I whole heartily agree with the concept, I often think we derail the fight by calling it objective morality. That term carries with it a lot of baggage implicitly to a theist discusser and the topic can then get bogged down in semantics.  While I don't disagree (double negative. Ms terry my 3rd grade English teacher is rollling her eyes) that objective is not wrong, I like the terms quantitative or qualitative   The latter is more accurate but the former more inline with the term objective.
Just my thought. Would love to hear feedback

42
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on February 27, 2017, 07:05:55 AM
For many on this subject, Objective = Objectivist = Ayn Rand.  Pretty reactionary, as was Ayn Rand.

If by objective, you mean .. something by common agreement, reached by pragmatic observation, then you will have a hard time finding this in discussions of morality/ethics/legality.

Personally I think it is OK to kill people, provided you kill the right ones.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on February 27, 2017, 11:18:03 AM
I'm using in a way I seem to think Matt dillahunty uses it. Objective in the term quantifiable. Or one action causes more harm or does more good there is more moral. This is the way he often debated on objective morality and answers theists who ask if he believes in objective morality. Unfortunately the most common theist impression of objective morality that I can gather is right or wrong irrespective of human opinion. This is toncontrast to relative morality. Matts argument is if we can agree on the standard then the morality of an action is objective with respect to the standard irrespective of our opinion. While true this is very different then the theist. So instead calling it qualitative (more less) makes more sense to me. Again it frees us of the charge that our morality is all relative. It is but not in the sense the theist is arguing.
Just my two cents.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on February 27, 2017, 02:14:29 PM
Quote from: AwakepuddleUnfortunately the most common theist impression of objective morality that I can gather is right or wrong irrespective of human opinion.

To avoid all kinds of semantic issues, it is best to stick with that definition, or risk being misunderstood.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Sal1981 on February 27, 2017, 03:14:18 PM
Hard to pin down those two concepts together in a meaningful way. I mean, the way I see morality and ethics is entirely in human terms. So, it becomes a lot more meaningful to use "moral" or "ethic" in subjective terminology.

But this quickly becomes, as you say, pure semantics.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on February 27, 2017, 03:35:29 PM
Semantics can get in the way. My limited experience in these conversations have at least shown that when I change the nomenclature they seem to get it or at least argue semantics less. These conversations are usually your morality is all relative (in truth I think all morality is relative but that's a different argument ) and not objective. To be objective it is right regardless of what you or I say.
My response is it's not relative but quantitative. If we agree a few base assumptions harm, well being, etc that are "good." Then all actions can be measured against this yard stick and be quantifiably better or worse. Therefore in relation to the agreed on yardstick our morality is not relative

The real crux is how do we agree on the yardstick or should it be a meter stick? But at lesser that's a better discussion then you can't be objectively moral without god.
Again just my limited experience. Thanks.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on February 27, 2017, 03:38:36 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 27, 2017, 07:05:55 AM
For many on this subject, Objective = Objectivist = Ayn Rand.  Pretty reactionary, as was Ayn Rand.

If by objective, you mean .. something by common agreement, reached by pragmatic observation, then you will have a hard time finding this in discussions of morality/ethics/legality.

Personally I think it is OK to kill people, provided you kill the right ones.

I agree that there are few universal truths or morals. There can almost always be a situation where a vacuous immoral action (e.g. Killing or stealing or lying) is actually the moral action. Hence morality is sitatuinal. But against a standard of good it is still quantifiable.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on February 27, 2017, 08:45:29 PM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on February 27, 2017, 11:18:03 AM
I'm using in a way I seem to think Matt dillahunty uses it. Objective in the term quantifiable. Or one action causes more harm or does more good there is more moral. This is the way he often debated on objective morality and answers theists who ask if he believes in objective morality. Unfortunately the most common theist impression of objective morality that I can gather is right or wrong irrespective of human opinion. This is toncontrast to relative morality. Matts argument is if we can agree on the standard then the morality of an action is objective with respect to the standard irrespective of our opinion. While true this is very different then the theist. So instead calling it qualitative (more less) makes more sense to me. Again it frees us of the charge that our morality is all relative. It is but not in the sense the theist is arguing.
Just my two cents.

This was developed by John Stewart Mill in the 19th century, but it has turned into consumerism.  Those who die with the most goodies, win.  This competition produces the most average goodies per person of the whole population.  Therefore the predation of the elite needs to be encouraged, rather than inhibited.  Basically today it is called neoliberalism.  So yes, we have agreed already, a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot, just as President Hoover promised us.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on February 27, 2017, 09:00:35 PM
Quote from: Baruch on February 27, 2017, 08:45:29 PM
This was developed by John Stewart Mill in the 19th century, but it has turned into consumerism.  Those who die with the most goodies, win.  This competition produces the most average goodies per person of the whole population.  Therefore the predation of the elite needs to be encouraged, rather than inhibited.  Basically today it is called neoliberalism.  So yes, we have agreed already, a car in every garage and a chicken in every pot, just as President Hoover promised us.
Sorry I got lost there. While hoovers campaign promise is great (not for me I'm vegetarian but you know) I'm lost confused how we got from morality to commercialism.
Finishing with the most stuff COULD be a criteria for some (trump?) but I personally don't think it's a good metric. Regardless I was describing how we measure the morality against a metric rather than defining the metric. Have i missed something ?  Thanks.
I'm a scientist not philosopher so I think linearly and maybe too concretely.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on February 28, 2017, 05:45:15 AM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on February 27, 2017, 09:00:35 PM
Sorry I got lost there. While hoovers campaign promise is great (not for me I'm vegetarian but you know) I'm lost confused how we got from morality to commercialism.
Finishing with the most stuff COULD be a criteria for some (trump?) but I personally don't think it's a good metric. Regardless I was describing how we measure the morality against a metric rather than defining the metric. Have i missed something ?  Thanks.
That feeling as if you missed the point of Baruch's contrarian tangents, is something you'll get used to.


Quote from: AwakepuddleI'm a scientist not philosopher so I think linearly and maybe too concretely.
Although speaking in abstract terms is helpful, in some ways, to understanding the basic nature of making decisions, I find it helpful to be a little more concrete, when defining "good and bad." "Morality" is a rather blanket term, that encompasses a lot of diverse subjects. Is deciding whether to kill, really the same as deciding whether to steal? Or are those things really in the same category, as deciding who, when and how to fuck? Is my financial responsibility to my family, the same kind of duty as my obligation to be honest in court? Perhaps the only common thread, is making the best choice, given the alternatives that are within the power of the one choosing.

If it is a social question, I generally go with either "Suffer no man, what you would prefer not to suffer yourself," or the more imperative statement, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." But I would never consider either standard to be "objective." All decisions are subjective, and no rule is sufficiently complex to cover all the nuances of life. Nevertheless, these two sides of the concept, of positive action producing positive reciprocation, can help guide a person well in life. They are mankind's best impression of a "Golden Rule."
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on February 28, 2017, 06:48:01 AM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on February 27, 2017, 09:00:35 PM
Sorry I got lost there. While hoovers campaign promise is great (not for me I'm vegetarian but you know) I'm lost confused how we got from morality to commercialism.
Finishing with the most stuff COULD be a criteria for some (trump?) but I personally don't think it's a good metric. Regardless I was describing how we measure the morality against a metric rather than defining the metric. Have i missed something ?  Thanks.
I'm a scientist not philosopher so I think linearly and maybe too concretely.

Sorry you sound like a philosopher, not a scientist.  I don't mean that as an ad hominem.

So like Xeno who posts here, you want some sort of quality metric, a pseudo-number like GDP, to be used to measure average happiness?  His proposal is an actual social experiment (a contrived voting arrangement).  What experiment are you proposing, Mr Scientist?
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on March 01, 2017, 12:47:00 AM
It is more of a thought experiment. I'm not defining social norms. Rather I'm describing a frame work of evaluating morality that can be considered independent of the individual observer and their personal bias. It is not numerical. Hence i proposed a qualitative term. They key of course is the metric. But the reason for the proposal as I previously mentioned was not to prove the validity of method (how do you do that if your method claims to be god) but rather give less hot button terms to relate to our theistitic colleges with and allow us to move past maybe one quagmire and potentially steer our conversations on to a more fruitful subject. In fact nowhere in my statement do I use the word truth nor have I proposed a metric mr philosopher.  I'm not trying Prove anything (or dispel a null either) so not sure where experimentation came from. I never claimed this was the only way to look at morality. I was merely pointing out a common argument and word choice that I thought could be changed.
It just seems that using the term objective morality carries with it baggage that while definitionally required is connatatively present. Instead let's just use something else that is equally definitionally true and does not have the attached societal or historic connotation
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 05:21:30 AM
OK, lets use China as an independent observer of the US ... what will be the result?
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 01, 2017, 05:43:01 AM
I agree with your contention, as I understand it, that those who have been using the term "objective," as a description for a morality that is agreed upon, rather than the commonly understood meaning that it is an imposed metric, are creating a semantic problem. I would add that this is especially true, when they are posting online, in lengthy threads, that may not be read in their entirety by newcomers to the discussion, who may have missed any kind of special definition that was given during the discussion, and assume the common definition.

I can't offer a word, off the top of my head, that would be a satisfactory replacement.

As I stated in my last post, I would take the issue a step further, and suggest that perhaps "morality" is too broad a term, for the diverse nature of the subjects it is applied to, which can often bear little resemblance to each other. But we work with what words will be best understood. So if I say that there is no objective morality, I am not contradicting Dillahunty's contention, but actually talking about a different subject.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 01:09:55 PM
Moralists = hypocritical, delusional, deceitful ass holes.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 01, 2017, 01:56:47 PM
Quote from: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 01:09:55 PM
Moralists = hypocritical, delusional, deceitful ass holes.

Quote from: WebstersDefinition of moralist
1
:  one who leads a moral life
2
:  a philosopher or writer concerned with moral principles and problems
3
:  one concerned with regulating the morals of others
Pick one.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on March 01, 2017, 08:06:01 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 01, 2017, 01:56:47 PM
Pick one.

Dictionary writer: see Ambrose Bierce, Samuel Johnson, Voltaire, Noah Webster ... the first level of escape from the Matrix, is to burn the dictionary.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on March 03, 2017, 09:51:49 PM
Not sure how this thread got off track but I will give it more try to anyone who would like to respond to the actual topic I broached.
The term objective morality carries a lot of baggage in the theist eyes. I think a more accurate and less inflammatory term would be qualitative morality. IF the metric for morality is agreed upon then the relative morality of any action compared to another isnqualitafively more less. This is true regardless of observer just as a 6in nail is longer than a 5in nail assuming your using the same metric. 
In my limited experience when discussing morality with theists it seems to derail or defuse some of their arguments about where I get my morality and the need for god for this morality. It's not perfect and I'm not a professional debater but has worked for me and wanted to get interested folks feedback
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 04, 2017, 06:40:47 AM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 03, 2017, 09:51:49 PM
Not sure how this thread got off track but I will give it more try to anyone who would like to respond to the actual topic I broached.
The thread is off track, because you are ignoring me(I gave at least one direct reply to your contention), and responding to Baruch, who loves to sidetrack any thread, with his contrarian tangents.
Quote from: AwakepuddleThe term objective morality carries a lot of baggage in the theist eyes.
Objectivity is often equated with omniscience. This is because, in order to be 100% absolutely objective, an observer has to be outside the thing being observed, as God is supposed to be outside the universe. If omniscience is required for objectivity, then the word is meaningless to man, for the obvious reason, that humans are not omniscient. So objective morality, as the theist defines it, is not possible for any human.

Objectivity as a journalist, scientist or judge, uses a more realistic standard, which is primarily, to let the facts lead the investigation, without imposing preconceptions. Detachment.

Objectivity, for a moralist, is not sufficient without empathy.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 04, 2017, 09:25:14 AM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 01, 2017, 12:47:00 AM
It is more of a thought experiment. I'm not defining social norms. Rather I'm describing a frame work of evaluating morality that can be considered independent of the individual observer and their personal bias. It is not numerical. Hence i proposed a qualitative term. They key of course is the metric. But the reason for the proposal as I previously mentioned was not to prove the validity of method (how do you do that if your method claims to be god) but rather give less hot button terms to relate to our theistitic colleges with and allow us to move past maybe one quagmire and potentially steer our conversations on to a more fruitful subject. In fact nowhere in my statement do I use the word truth nor have I proposed a metric mr philosopher.  I'm not trying Prove anything (or dispel a null either) so not sure where experimentation came from. I never claimed this was the only way to look at morality. I was merely pointing out a common argument and word choice that I thought could be changed.
It just seems that using the term objective morality carries with it baggage that while definitionally required is connatatively present. Instead let's just use something else that is equally definitionally true and does not have the attached societal or historic connotation
Easy; remove want/gain for self from all moral equations.

Presto; general objective morality for the theist/deist/atheist/ agnostic....All.

Too easy?

faith in selfless unity for good

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on March 04, 2017, 10:00:52 AM
@zorn I agree I haven't been here long so I didn't realize that barusch was a tangentialist (she or he who worships the magic of the 90 degree arc). Thanks for responding to me. I agree with you completely which is why I was proposing that we as atheist stop using the term objective when discussing with theists. They are often fixed on the concept of absolutes that i atleast feel is impossible. So I don't engage on that level. When asked how I can determine morality I say I believe in qualitative morality. Maybe the ones I've spoken with haven't been smart enough to equate that to relative morality but I try to define it quickly in a more objective way, again saying hat we don't have to agree on the unit but if we agree on the ruler we can agree on greater and less than terms. This is true regardless as long as we agree on the same measurements. Now if you measure temperature and I'm measuring decibels we are at an impasse.  Anyway my limited experience it has defused the you need to have a god for morality otherwise eating children could be ok arguement. Just thought I would throw it out there.
@pop not sure what throwing out gain has to do with it. Actions can be moral irrespective or any gain or loss. In fact I would argue there is always a personal gain for doing something you consider moral. I remember a friends episode (jeez have we devolved so far as to quote early 2000s sitcoms for phylosoohical insite) when phoebe worried about givin away some money because even if no one else knew she would and her happiness is a personal gain therefore no one can be completely selfless. Anyway my 2 cents. Thanks
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: SGOS on March 04, 2017, 10:20:29 AM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 04, 2017, 10:00:52 AM
I was proposing that we as atheist stop using the term objective when discussing with theists.
Is that what atheists do?  Maybe I haven't been paying close enough attention, but I never think of morality in objective terms, and I can't think of any atheists that do.  I see morality as subjective.  All morality.  All cases.  When talking about morality, "objective" is simply a word that has no place in the discussion.  Just because morality happens to be subjective doesn't require that it's opposite (objective) requires equal consideration.

Yeah, OK, if theists demand that it does, let them provide an explanation, which we can disregard until they first get the rest of their shit sorted out.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: SGOS on March 04, 2017, 10:27:40 AM
If Matt Dillahunty wants to use it, I guess that's OK, as long as he defines it.  But you know, I'm going to disregard that one too.  Does Matt actually quantify morality?  Gee, I don't have the time or the interest, and I'm suspicious about whether he does.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on March 04, 2017, 11:08:33 AM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 04, 2017, 10:00:52 AM
@zorn I agree I haven't been here long so I didn't realize that barusch was a tangentialist (she or he who worships the magic of the 90 degree arc). Thanks for responding to me. I agree with you completely which is why I was proposing that we as atheist stop using the term objective when discussing with theists. They are often fixed on the concept of absolutes that i atleast feel is impossible. So I don't engage on that level. When asked how I can determine morality I say I believe in qualitative morality. Maybe the ones I've spoken with haven't been smart enough to equate that to relative morality but I try to define it quickly in a more objective way, again saying hat we don't have to agree on the unit but if we agree on the ruler we can agree on greater and less than terms. This is true regardless as long as we agree on the same measurements. Now if you measure temperature and I'm measuring decibels we are at an impasse.  Anyway my limited experience it has defused the you need to have a god for morality otherwise eating children could be ok arguement. Just thought I would throw it out there.
@pop not sure what throwing out gain has to do with it. Actions can be moral irrespective or any gain or loss. In fact I would argue there is always a personal gain for doing something you consider moral. I remember a friends episode (jeez have we devolved so far as to quote early 2000s sitcoms for phylosoohical insite) when phoebe worried about givin away some money because even if no one else knew she would and her happiness is a personal gain therefore no one can be completely selfless. Anyway my 2 cents. Thanks

Negative credit for propagating spelling mistakes of others (Baruch ... puulease).  Theist, not tangentialist ... spell checker says that isn't even a word.  No, you haven't presented any objective criteria, just talked about criteria for criteria.  OK ... so you have a 90 year old woman, it will cost one million dollars to keep her alive for one more month, should she pay for that surgery out of her own funds (if she has that much) or should the taxpayer be stuck with the bill?  Your answer would be illuminative as to whether you have any morality at all.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mike Cl on March 04, 2017, 04:24:24 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 01, 2017, 01:56:47 PM
Pick one.
I see the definition from Websters assumed to be positive.  I don't think moralists are positive.  I think as Baruch on this; they are blowhard assholes; making the assumption that their set of morals is the the correct and only set.  Morality is the same as beauty--defined differently by each and every viewer.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 04, 2017, 09:40:49 PM
Awakepuddle


"@pop not sure what throwing out gain has to do with it."

It's okay to not understand where I am coming from.

"Actions can be moral irrespective or any gain or loss."

In theory your premise is correct, but in reality as you say immediately following "I would argue there is always a personal gain for doing something you consider moral."

Greed is the ultimate sliding scale, pride being relatively close behind.

Surely you aren't so daft as to posit that ones own gain or rather, the proposition of such, in no way bears weight on ones moral decisions?

Some mutual profit or mood altering benefit may come from a morally right decision and action, but what makes it moral is the reason it was done. If that reason is for self then it isn't exactly moral.

Anyway my 2 cents. Thanks

peace



[

faith in selfless unity for good
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Hydra009 on March 04, 2017, 11:21:46 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 04, 2017, 09:40:49 PMSome mutual profit or mood altering benefit may come from a morally right decision and action, but what makes it moral is the reason it was done. If that reason is for self then it isn't exactly moral.
I dunno, I think morally right* decisions don't necessarily have to be entirely selfless.  For example, helping someone in trouble on the off chance that they'll return the favor (aka reciprocal altruism).  That's precisely what vampire bats do when sharing blood.

* Imo, moral right and wrong is more of a socially-constructed concept (like law and justice) rather than something that exists in nature apart from people.  In reality, there are simply actions with beneficial and detrimental results.  Evil is just shorthand for actions deemed to be reliably detrimental.

Morality works as long as the rubber stays on the road and moral precepts are tied to beneficial results.  When moralists stop thinking about human living conditions and focus on what God doesn't like or what they personally don't like, it can lead to some seriously maladjusted morality where right and wrong is totally arbitrary.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 04, 2017, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 04, 2017, 11:21:46 PM
I dunno, I think morally right* decisions don't necessarily have to be entirely selfless.  For example, helping someone in trouble on the off chance that they'll return the favor (aka reciprocal altruism).  That's precisely what vampire bats do when sharing blood.

* Imo, moral right and wrong is more of a socially-constructed concept (like law and justice) rather than something that exists in nature apart from people.  In reality, there are simply actions with beneficial and detrimental results.  Evil is just shorthand for actions deemed to be reliably detrimental.

Morality works as long as the rubber stays on the road and moral precepts are tied to beneficial results.  When moralists stop thinking about human living conditions and focus on what God doesn't like or what they personally don't like, it can lead to some seriously maladjusted morality where right and wrong is totally arbitrary.
I do agree with what was said.

But altruism in nature isn't for the benefit of the one giving/sacrificing.

Doing a thing because chance may allow for  you to collect on some debt is not moral and actually more closely resembles the injustices you where attempting to allude to.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Hydra009 on March 04, 2017, 11:37:31 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 04, 2017, 11:23:52 PMDoing a thing because chance may allow for  you to collect on some debt is not moral and actually more closely resembles the injustices you where attempting to allude to.
Reciprocal altruism is immoral and resembles an arbitrary form of morality unconcerned with human wellbeing?  A fascinating, though dubious claim.  Probably much easier to assert than to support.  I'd like to see you support that claim if you can.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 05, 2017, 06:29:41 AM
Quote from: Hydra009 on March 04, 2017, 11:37:31 PM
Reciprocal altruism is immoral and resembles an arbitrary form of morality unconcerned with human wellbeing?  A fascinating, though dubious claim.  Probably much easier to assert than to support.  I'd like to see you support that claim if you can.
So the wolf that dens the young does it for her own sake?

What of the orca that will defend and raise a pup from a wholy different family?

Ants and bees? There are so many....What would the difference be if a few weren't selfless? They do these things out of instinct (nature) and for the sake of others.

Not for reward for themselves.

Please show otherwise as I have studied altruism for some time.

peace friend

faith in selfless unity for good

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: SGOS on March 05, 2017, 06:55:46 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 05, 2017, 06:29:41 AM
So the wolf that dens the young does it for her own sake?

What of the orca that will defend and raise a pup from a wholy different family?

Ants and bees? There are so many....What would the difference be if a few weren't selfless? They do these things out of instinct (nature) and for the sake of others.

Not for reward for themselves.

Please show otherwise as I have studied altruism for some time.
I'm not sure this has any relationship to the subjectivity/objectivity issue.  Are you defending a definition of morality?  Or has the discussion been diverted to a tangent?
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 05, 2017, 06:58:56 AM
Quote from: SGOS on March 05, 2017, 06:55:46 AM
I'm not sure this has any relationship to the subjectivity/objectivity issue.  Are you defending a definition of morality?  Or has the discussion been diverted to a tangent?
Both I suppose.

I agree that all things are subjective as the seer is a singular subject with their own perception. That isn't to say that there isn't too objective morality on some level as well.



faith in selfless unity for good
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2017, 08:19:19 AM
I deny the existence of objective morality, on the general rule that nature is predatorial.  There is no morality in predation, and humans are ... predators.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 05, 2017, 08:43:14 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 05, 2017, 08:43:14 AM
They have the capacity to be predators, parasites, and altruistic.

Not all life is predatory is it? If we are defined by our capacities could it not be argued justifiably that we too are beneficent?

Are wolves, orca, ants, bees and other social animals wholly predatory or do they too have the capacity for altruism seen in nature?

faith in selfless unity for good
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on March 05, 2017, 10:43:04 AM
Individual acts of altruism, prove the rule.  However, you and I both know, that humans can exceed our ape-like natures ... the others here, not so much.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 04, 2017, 04:24:24 PM
I see the definition[of "moralist"] from Websters assumed to be positive.  I don't think moralists are positive.  I think as Baruch on this; they are blowhard assholes; making the assumption that their set of morals is the the correct and only set.  Morality is the same as beauty--defined differently by each and every viewer.
Morality perhaps. But the word "moralist" can have several definitions. Only the third definition: "one concerned with regulating the morals of others," generally equates to a blowhard asshole.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mike Cl on March 08, 2017, 06:57:34 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 08, 2017, 05:19:09 PM
Morality perhaps. But the word "moralist" can have several definitions. Only the third definition: "one concerned with regulating the morals of others," generally equates to a blowhard asshole.
Yeah, I see that, Solomon.  All of these 'charged' words can be and are, defined differently and used differently.  I think morals are different for each person.  What is a moral?  It is what I think it is.  And it may or may not, match yours.  Which is a very good reason to define these words prior to discussing them.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on March 08, 2017, 07:17:18 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 08, 2017, 06:57:34 PM
Yeah, I see that, Solomon.  All of these 'charged' words can be and are, defined differently and used differently.  I think morals are different for each person.  What is a moral?  It is what I think it is.  And it may or may not, match yours.  Which is a very good reason to define these words prior to discussing them.

Except any dictionary writer ... is a blowhard asshole ;-)
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Hydra009 on March 08, 2017, 08:24:21 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 05, 2017, 06:29:41 AMSo the wolf that dens the young does it for her own sake?

What of the orca that will defend and raise a pup from a wholy different family?

Ants and bees? There are so many....What would the difference be if a few weren't selfless? They do these things out of instinct (nature) and for the sake of others.

Not for reward for themselves.

Please show otherwise as I have studied altruism for some time.
1) Various species exhibit *seemingly* (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection) selfless altruism.
2) ?
3) Reciprocal altruism is immoral

I think you missed a couple steps there.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Awakepuddle on March 14, 2017, 10:13:28 PM
All very interesting discussions, morality is a interesting topic. Depending on which definition of objective that you use objective morality can mean different things, particularly to a theist vs a non-theist.
Again, my question still stands about using the term qualitative morality rather than objective morality for those people who are discussing morality.
Not sure why attacking moralists is in vogue around here. I'm not trying to define a moral yard stick, only a term to represent how each of us weighs and defines morality.
Again thoughts ? Preferably in this arena but I'm learning not to hold my breath
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mike Cl on March 14, 2017, 10:44:36 PM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 14, 2017, 10:13:28 PM
All very interesting discussions, morality is a interesting topic. Depending on which definition of objective that you use objective morality can mean different things, particularly to a theist vs a non-theist.
Again, my question still stands about using the term qualitative morality rather than objective morality for those people who are discussing morality.
Not sure why attacking moralists is in vogue around here. I'm not trying to define a moral yard stick, only a term to represent how each of us weighs and defines morality.
Again thoughts ? Preferably in this arena but I'm learning not to hold my breath
Maybe you could frame your question better--I don't really understand what you are looking for.

I don't think many on this forum subscribes to the term 'objective morality'; personally, I don't think there is such a thing.  All morality is subjective.  it is subject to the dictates of the society you are referring to.  And the individual then uses those 'morals' as they think they should apply to his/her life.  So, trying to find any objective way to define morals is an impossible task. 
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 08:25:29 AM
I personally do not see much point in changing a word without changing its meaning.

When I think of objective morality I don't exactly think of GOD or religion but what can be deemed as universally good or right.

peace,

Sorry for not actually attempting to answer your question sooner.



faith in selfless unity for good

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mike Cl on March 15, 2017, 08:54:07 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 08:25:29 AM
I personally do not see much point in changing a word without changing its meaning.

When I think of objective morality I don't exactly think of GOD or religion but what can be deemed as universally good or right.

peace,

Sorry for not actually attempting to answer your question sooner.



faith in selfless unity for good
Can you name one 'universal' good?
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:08:35 AM
Quote from: Mike Cl on March 15, 2017, 08:54:07 AM
Can you name one 'universal' good?
Peace

Harmony

Compassion

Ever-giving

Long suffering for the sake of another

Self sacrifice for the sake of others.

Actually I could most likely make a list of words that indeed are universally good, but I'm trying to not bring words associated with faith into it, even though they can be wholly understood without religion.


I can most likely name off some universally negative or bad things too if you would like.

peace




faith in selfless unity for good

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 03:32:03 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:08:35 AM
Peace

Harmony

Compassion

Ever-giving

Long suffering for the sake of another

Self sacrifice for the sake of others.
Pops, I really need you to withdraw all of your savings, liquidate your assets, come up to Northwest Indiana, pay my rent in advance, for as far into the future as you can, and massage my back. It shouldn't be a problem for you, since ever-giving, long suffering, self sacrifice is a universal good.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mike Cl on March 15, 2017, 06:12:24 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:08:35 AM
Peace

Harmony

Compassion

Ever-giving

Long suffering for the sake of another

Self sacrifice for the sake of others.

Actually I could most likely make a list of words that indeed are universally good, but I'm trying to not bring words associated with faith into it, even though they can be wholly understood without religion.


I can most likely name off some universally negative or bad things too if you would like.

peace




faith in selfless unity for good
I should have known better than to open my big mouth............................:)

What is peace?  That is too broad a word; need to define it.  Same with harmony--what is that?  Compassion--what is that?  Ever--giving--what is that??? 

Long suffer for the sake of another and self sacrifice for the sake of others can be very harmful to the giver--and the givee as well.  And what does it mean to be 'self sacrificing' ??
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 06:23:17 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 03:32:03 PM
Pops, I really need you to withdraw all of your savings, liquidate your assets, come up to Northwest Indiana, pay my rent in advance, for as far into the future as you can, and massage my back. It shouldn't be a problem for you, since ever-giving, long suffering, self sacrifice is a universal good.
No savings or assets to be had. And the idea is those in need are those that should be helped. I wouldn't be putting all I had into simply giving to an able bodied man. Perhaps you are elderly or otherwise somehow disabled from supporting or providing for yourself then that would be different.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 07:17:10 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 06:23:17 PM
No savings or assets to be had. And the idea is those in need are those that should be helped. I wouldn't be putting all I had into simply giving to an able bodied man. Perhaps you are elderly or otherwise somehow disabled from supporting or providing for yourself then that would be different.
How selfish of you! Unless you are finally admitting that selflessness, and self-interest have to balance!

Any moral, made into a "universal," or absolute truth, is untenable.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 07:28:41 PM
Quote from: Awakepuddle on March 14, 2017, 10:13:28 PM
Again, my question still stands about using the term qualitative morality rather than objective morality for those people who are discussing morality.
I don't know if "qualitative" is the word I would use, for Dillahunty's brand of "objective" morality. But there should certainly be some word for it, that is less confusing than using a special definition of "objective."
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:16:13 PM


Quote from: Mike Cl on March 15, 2017, 06:12:24 PM
I should have known better than to open my big mouth............................:)

What is peace?  That is too broad a word; need to define it.  Same with harmony--what is that?  Compassion--what is that?  Ever--giving--what is that??? 

Long suffer for the sake of another and self sacrifice for the sake of others can be very harmful to the giver--and the givee as well.  And what does it mean to be 'self sacrificing' ??

First I'd like to add to things that are universally moral. The selfless conscience is a capacity universally imbued in all humans with normally functioning minds. It is the means to which objective morality actually becomes objective in my opinion.


peace

pÄ"s/

noun

1.

freedom from disturbance; quiet and tranquility.

"you can while away an hour or two in peace and seclusion"

synonyms:tranquility, calm, restfulness, peace and quiet, peacefulness, quiet, quietness;

privacy, solitude

"can't a man get any peace around here?"

2.

freedom from or the cessation of war or violence.

"the Straits were to be open to warships in time of peace"

synonyms:law and order, lawfulness, order, peacefulness, peaceableness, harmony, nonviolence; 

formalconcord

"we pray for peace


har·mo·ny

ˈhärmÉ™nÄ"/

noun

1.

the combination of simultaneously sounded musical notes to produce chords and chord progressions having a pleasing effect.

"four-part harmony in the barbershop style"

synonyms:euphony, polyphony;

tunefulness, melodiousness,mellifluousness

"musical harmony"

2.

agreement or concord.

"man and machine in perfect harmony"

synonyms:accord, agreement, peace, peacefulness, amity, amicability, friendship, fellowship, cooperation, understanding, consensus, unity, sympathy, rapport, like-mindedness; 

unison, union,concert, oneness, synthesis;

formalconcord

"the villagers live together in harmony"


com·pas·sion

kəmˈpaSHən/

noun

sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others.

"the victims should be treated with compassion"

synonyms:pity, sympathy, empathy, fellow feeling, care, concern, solicitude, sensitivity, warmth, love, tenderness, mercy, leniency, tolerance, kindness, humanity, charity

"have you no compassion for a fellow human being?"


Long suffering and self sacrifice for the benefit of another is not negative towards the other; and yes the level of detriment or discomfort one should endure for another can vary based on the severity of the need. Obviously you wouldn't need to sacrifice your life in order to hold a door open for someone, or help them carry something. Likewise; offering a dollar to a man actively shooting others most likely wouldn't really be beneficial to any, and could prove exceedingly detrimental to ones own health.

It really is very simple, though I'm sure you wish it was not for some reason.

Self sacrifice could mean missing a show you were looking forward to seeing because someone needed a favor. Or it could mean literal martyrdom, standing in the face of death do what one knows to be good. So basically self sacrifice would be setting aside ones own wants and needs in order to help another percievably in need in cases that you can. Obviously you can't do something about everything and you can't help everyone who needs it; let alone who wants it.


long-suf·fer·ing

ˈlôNG ˈˌsəf(ə)riNG/

adjective

having or showing patience in spite of troubles, especially those caused by other people.

"his long-suffering wife"

synonyms:patient, forbearing, tolerant, uncomplaining, stoic, stoical, resigned; 

easygoing, indulgent,charitable, accommodating,forgiving, understanding

"her long-suffering parents"


self-sac·ri·fice

self ˈsakrəˌfīs/

noun

the giving up of one's own interests or wishes in order to help others or to advance a cause.

synonyms:self-denial, selflessness, unselfishness; 

self-discipline,abstinence, asceticism,abnegation, self-deprivation,moderation, austerity,temperance, abstention

"the self-sacrifice of these young men and women is indeed admirable"




I'm sorry if the standard definitions are too broad for you. They seem quite right to me; especially harmony.

what is peace....comon man


faith in selfless unity for good

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:24:30 PM


Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 07:17:10 PM
How selfish of you! Unless you are finally admitting that selflessness, and self-interest have to balance!

Any moral, made into a "universal," or absolute truth, is untenable.

I never said that being utterly selfless to the point of ones own death for one not even in need was needed and will not.

I will admit equal value for life; yours being of no more value than mine, and visa versa.

To be clear; I would help you in any concievable fashion I could fathom, to any extent I could muster. The means is one issue, and you would actually needing something from me that I actually have too.

The balance is that  one life = one life.

How can you say that it isn't always universally good and moral to keep an innocent, healthy life from being killed?



faith in selfless unity for good

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 09:29:32 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:24:30 PMHow can you say that it isn't always universally good and moral to keep an innocent, healthy life from being killed?
I didn't, actually. But if I thought about it long enough, I'm quite sure I could concieve of an exception.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:32:12 PM


Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 07:17:10 PM


Any moral, made into a "universal," or absolute truth, is untenable.



faith in selfless unity for good

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 10:08:35 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder
Long suffering and self sacrifice for the benefit of another is not negative towards the other; and yes the level of detriment or discomfort one should endure for another can vary based on the severity of the need. Obviously you wouldn't need to sacrifice your life in order to hold a door open for someone, or help them carry something. Likewise; offering a dollar to a man actively shooting others most likely wouldn't really be beneficial to any, and could prove exceedingly detrimental to ones own health.
What you just described is subjective morality, in a nutshell. Many, if not most decisions, are more complex than any universal statements can encompass.

Quote from: popsthebuilderIt really is very simple, though I'm sure you wish it was not for some reason.
Morality is only simple to simpletons(in which category I would not place you). You have just outlined a few of the complexities, and exceptions, but still hold to the idea that self sacrifice is a "universal good."

Quote from: popsthebuilderSelf sacrifice could mean missing a show you were looking forward to seeing because someone needed a favor. Or it could mean literal martyrdom, standing in the face of death do what one knows to be good. So basically self sacrifice would be setting aside ones own wants and needs in order to help another percievably in need in cases that you can.
Agreed, on your definition of "self-sacrifice," although I never thought we had a semantic issue.

Quote from: popsthebuilderObviously you can't do something about everything and you can't help everyone who needs it; let alone who wants it.
Never said you could.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 11:01:22 PM
Quote from: Solomon Zorn on March 15, 2017, 10:08:35 PM
What you just described is subjective morality, in a nutshell. Many, if not most decisions, are more complex than any universal statements can encompass.
Morality is only simple to simpletons(in which category I would not place you). You have just outlined a few of the complexities, and exceptions, but still hold to the idea that self sacrifice is a "universal good."
Agreed, on your definition of "self-sacrifice," although I never thought we had a semantic issue.
Never said you could.
I'm not sure if I had addresses you in all those points specifically, but the subjective/ odjective thing is itself subjective as is every single thing one experiences in life. My point here is that nearly all of us have a conscience. It may not be being used or heard or listened to, but it is there. We all have the capacity to negate greed. These things coupled bring about what I call the selfless conscience, and it is as close to utterly absolute as any true sense of objective morality can be, in my opinion. It's as close to not a silly word game as it gets in terms of singular accord divided among how many billions?


Anyway; you are right....technically...everything is subjective.

But that doesn't mean that things aren't similar enough to be considered the same, or at least from a singular.....Wait.....Pumping the brakes....Not supposed to go there.

peace

faith in selfless unity for good
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on March 15, 2017, 11:13:32 PM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on March 15, 2017, 09:24:30 PM

I never said that being utterly selfless to the point of ones own death for one not even in need was needed and will not.

I will admit equal value for life; yours being of no more value than mine, and visa versa.

To be clear; I would help you in any concievable fashion I could fathom, to any extent I could muster. The means is one issue, and you would actually needing something from me that I actually have too.

The balance is that  one life = one life.

How can you say that it isn't always universally good and moral to keep an innocent, healthy life from being killed?



faith in selfless unity for good

in the Jataka tales, of the Buddha's prior incarnations ... he had come upon a starving tiger mother, unable to feed her cubs, he gave up his own life in compassion for them.  Now that is a cat lover!

On the other hand, I could take an honest rogue any day, over a masochistic saint.  Jesus included.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: dndhuram on May 12, 2017, 03:00:40 AM
I agree that there are few universal truths or morals
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on May 12, 2017, 06:30:06 AM
Quote from: dndhuram on May 12, 2017, 03:00:40 AM
I agree that there are few universal truths or morals

Wisdom means making an intro post ;-)  The forum moderators are the guardians of truth ... and the galaxy.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mike Cl on May 12, 2017, 09:08:42 AM
Quote from: dndhuram on May 12, 2017, 03:00:40 AM
I agree that there are few universal truths or morals
Actually, there are none.  Can you name just one??
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2017, 02:17:13 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 12, 2017, 09:08:42 AM
Actually, there are none.  Can you name just one??

Universal truth:

No matter how long you've been dealing with the human race, it keeps finding new and unexpected ways to fail your encreasingly lowered expectations.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 02:21:02 PM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2017, 02:17:13 PM
Universal truth:

No matter how long you've been dealing with the human race, it keeps finding new and unexpected ways to fail your encreasingly lowered expectations.
Do you find that depressing?
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2017, 02:31:16 PM
Quote from: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 02:21:02 PM
Do you find that depressing?

Depressing.

And hilarious.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Mike Cl on May 16, 2017, 06:45:40 PM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2017, 02:31:16 PM
Depressing.

And hilarious.
I know what you mean.  It is so much easier to have universal truths.  That way one does not have to think about things.  Just follow the 'truth'. 
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on May 16, 2017, 07:50:30 PM
Quote from: Mr.Obvious on May 16, 2017, 02:17:13 PM
Universal truth:

No matter how long you've been dealing with the human race, it keeps finding new and unexpected ways to fail your encreasingly lowered expectations.

That is called ... growing up.  It gets worse, believe me!
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 04:22:19 AM
Universal societal "truths" are satisfying to simple-minded people.  I do not know of any.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 07:49:17 AM
Quote from: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 04:22:19 AM
Universal societal "truths" are satisfying to simple-minded people.  I do not know of any.
What is a universal societal truth?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Cavebear on June 18, 2017, 08:16:20 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 07:49:17 AM
What is a universal societal truth?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Accepted wisdom without evidence that is innacurate.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2017, 08:23:30 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 07:49:17 AM
What is a universal societal truth?

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Man with gun wins.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 08:57:20 AM
Death is a universal truth minus the societal part.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2017, 09:05:36 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 08:57:20 AM
Death is a universal truth minus the societal part.

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Atheists are cool with that.  No afterlife for them.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 09:09:27 AM
Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2017, 09:05:36 AM
Atheists are cool with that.  No afterlife for them.
I'm cool with it too. Afterlife should be nothing but an after thought.  Motives stemming from fear(of any sort) aren't aligned with any true religion or belief or faith. Baruch; correct me where I am wrong please. I specified you because of your resourcfulness and seeming lack of bias.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on June 18, 2017, 09:21:10 AM
Quote from: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 09:09:27 AM
I'm cool with it too. Afterlife should be nothing but an after thought.  Motives stemming from fear(of any sort) aren't aligned with any true religion or belief or faith. Baruch; correct me where I am wrong please. I specified you because of your resourcfulness and seeming lack of bias.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

I work hard at being unbiased.  But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion or a favorite (or unfavorite).  I have studied everything I can, for my whole life.  And I try to apply charity to all I read and to all I know.  Some things I read (anti-semitism for example, read it every week) are hard to take, and so are some people.  I won't say I love my enemies, I am just trying hard not to have any.

Some of my posts are reactive.  Didactic posts don't fly well.  So not every post is thoughtful or researched.  I am as spontaneous as I can make myself ... but it comes from the real me, even if the real me is a parfait, not an ogre.  Yes, the greatest saint I know, is a Muslim woman who lived 1200 years ago.  Ra'bia of Basra.  She said that fear of punishment and hope of reward were ignoble motivations.  She had pure Allah love ... she was more true Muslim than Muhammad himself.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: popsthebuilder on June 18, 2017, 09:25:02 AM
Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2017, 09:21:10 AM
I work hard at being unbiased.  But that doesn't mean I don't have an opinion or a favorite (or unfavorite).  I have studied everything I can, for my whole life.  And I try to apply charity to all I read and to all I know.  Some things I read (anti-semitism for example, read it every week) are hard to take, and so are some people.  I won't say I love my enemies, I am just trying hard not to have any.

Some of my posts are reactive.  Didactic posts don't fly well.  So not every post is thoughtful or researched.  I am as spontaneous as I can make myself ... but it comes from the real me, even if the real me is a parfait, not an ogre.  Yes, the greatest saint I know, is a Muslim woman who lived 1200 years ago.  Ra'bia of Basra.  She said that fear of punishment and hope of reward were ignoble motivations.  She had pure Allah love ... she was more true Muslim than Muhammad himself.
Thank you friend.

peace

Sent from my Z983 using Tapatalk

Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 05:54:03 PM
Quote from: Baruch on June 18, 2017, 09:05:36 AM
Atheists are cool with that.  No afterlife for them.
Interesting point - are you expecting an afterlife? If so, what will it be like?
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2017, 06:18:21 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 05:54:03 PM
Interesting point - are you expecting an afterlife? If so, what will it be like?

There already.  If you think you are not undead ... you are mistaken.  This is the afterlife.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 06:27:01 PM
Then what was the 'before' life?
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on June 20, 2017, 11:02:19 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 06:27:01 PM
Then what was the 'before' life?

That is an interesting question almost no one asks ... but in imagination/myth, every soul goes before G-d before it is incarnated, to volunteer to leave Heaven.  And the fold beneath your nose is where an angel touches you, so that you forget the eternity of your "before" life.

People assume ... X ... and never question it.  So many assumptions, so much ignorance.  Another model is ... we are the fallen angels of Lucifer.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Unbeliever on June 21, 2017, 03:50:34 PM
Another model is...all that mythology is bullshit.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on June 21, 2017, 07:33:28 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 21, 2017, 03:50:34 PM
Another model is...all that mythology is bullshit.

All culture, including all language ... is bullshit (it comes from apes).  So what is your excuse?  You have better crap?  Hmmm.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Baruch on June 21, 2017, 07:36:07 PM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 20, 2017, 06:27:01 PM
Then what was the 'before' life?

Here is what I was looking for ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie

If to be conscious is to be a zombie, and if the zombies are the un-dead .... then since you and I are conscious, we must both be zombies aka dead.  It is mere prejudice that you consider yourself a life form, rather than a death form.  It is unexamined in philosophical zombie land, if pre-life has any meaning.
Title: Re: Let's rename objective morality
Post by: Cavebear on June 23, 2017, 04:36:16 AM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 21, 2017, 03:50:34 PM
Another model is...all that mythology is bullshit.

Well, of course all the mythology is bullshit.  There was no Odin, Zeus, Jupiter, Amun, Ra, Shiva, etc.  All were developed through superstition and fear.  But hundreds of generations lived thinking they were real and ruining their lives because of them. 

We had the bronze and iron ages, the industrial age, and I hope the future brings us the age of non-superstition.  I think that would be the greatest advance of all.