Objective morality vs subjective morality

Wow, it's a long time since I came across such a stunning failure of logic...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

According to a long and elaborate tradition that has a foundation in the written teachings of the Buddha.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you hereby trying to tell me that you feel offended by what I said?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Like this:

There is a Supreme Being.
Being the Supreme, everything is related to it.
We are dependent beings.
It is common decency to acknowledge those we depend on.

 

So that justifies an acknowledgment of a supreme being, but can it be any more specific about guiding our actions? We still don't know if the god is good, evil, or just capricious. It's effects on the world don't seem to provide any guidance, since good things and evil things happen.

 

I think self evident means that it's obvious that recognizing these things as rights would be good for society. I think they are subjective, in spite of the wording of the D of E, but since all humans are more or less similar in their needs, this subjectivity is universal. In other words, the absolutism is a sham, but perhaps a necessary one so that people will fight for it.

 

i'm not a buddhist but let me guess, they center around introspection, transcendence from the material, communion, and the recognition of something greater than ourselves...the whole? don't they believe in reincarnation as well? which implies an eternal spiritual existence, doesn't it?

 

Or an eternal material existence.

 

christianity implies both and that what happens spiritually manifests physically.

 

Morals can never be Objectively true, in the real sense of the word until we understand the mores of sea urchins....

If anything the definition of morality itself is indeed incongruous with an objective state of existence such as the motion of billiard balls on a pool table.

If we redefine it, then perhaps the debate will end. And the debate between atheism and theism can cease to clog our intellectual queues.

 

Out of recognizing our dependence comes an understanding of scaricity of resources, and thus 1. an understanding to use them as economically as possible and an according course of action, 2. a sense of indebtedness and gratitude (hence, for example, expressing gratitude before taking a meal).

Since we understand God to be the Supreme Being, God is per definition the Summum Bonum.

People have free will, so they are able to engage in various kinds of activities, good and evil.
As such, they also have the freedom not to acknowledge that they are dependent on the Supreme Being.

 

That is a topic for another thread.

 

No.

 

The following was posted on another thread and I was so intrigued by it that I felt is was worth and relevant to post here.

Did Huxley offer evidence that logically justifies the objective truth of this proposition? If not then it is a self refuting statement, a logical contradiction. A personal opinion about how Mr. Huxley would like the world to be. That's nice but its not logically meaningful. So that particular rendition of agnosticism is meaningless.

 

Please refer to post #81.
This thread just keeps getting better*.

* For variable values of "better".

 

Ultimately truth, freedom, virtue and happiness converge because they are all interdependent and aspects of Love. God is the Summum Bonum if goodness is understood as dynamic and creative.

 

I dunno about that, but humans have an ethical sense they have inherited as mammals as well as rationality to determine general good behavior. Much of that depends on our realization that we are social animals. Mirror neurons factor into the process as well, aiding the tendency to imagine oneself in another person's situation.

The first line of your paragraph caught my attention because I propose that for people there is a universal ethics principle, which is to fight or compete against harmful things in nature instead of against other people. Such harmful things include hunger, disease, disasters, and unknowing.

 

Five pages of this thread and no one as yet explained where morality comes from and what it is?! Oh, come on guys! Surely some of you have studied animal behavioralism. We evolved through millions of years of biological evolution as small GROUP primates. That is, we are SOCIAL animals. We have social instincts as do all social animals. Behavioral studies of chimps, for example show that the when one chimp nextends favors to another but the favor is not returned, the chimp becomes angry. Its our sense of justice. Each member of the group is motivated to extend help (favors) and slackers face the anger of the others.

And this is just one of the social instincts among many.

Another thing, moral systems are the agreed upon means to the agreed upon ends. All religions have some sort of a goal its members are supposed to cooperate with each other to achieve. It might be "heaven" or "God's Kingdom" or it might be "making the world safe for democracy" or even "a communal society of the proliteriat." Moral systems are just the means to the ends.:shrug:

brough,
http://civilization-overview.com

 

Morality defines individual behavior which helps maximize the group. Objective morality does the above in the most efficient way. Subjective morality can also work but is usually less efficient using far more resources.

The easiest way to see this is to start simple like the ten commandments. For example, thou shall not steal. Stealing is done by animals so there is a natural aspect to it. This might even maximize the individual since it is more efficient than working in terms of energy expenditure. However, it creates problems for the group. The inefficiency is connected to all the extra resources needed compare to the ideal situation of nobody stealing.

Adultery can also maximize the individual since you can get the milk without buying the cow. But relative to the group it can lead to conflicts which lower the cohesion of the group. To overcome that we need to make laws and have lawyers to keep the peace, lowering the social efficiency.

In the modern generation, it is more about me; maximize the individual. Often this is considered immoral since it has an impact on the group. The work around are social programs to compensate. This loss of efficiency makes much of this subject morality"