- Joined
- Jul 17, 2020
- Messages
- 35,181
- Reaction score
- 15,237
- Location
- Springfield MO
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Oh, fun.I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism.
Yet every religion has a different idea of what that absolute and ultimate morality is. So how do you pick one? Usually the one you're born into you think is right and other just don't get it.Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality
Whether a society is religious or secular, they all estwblish their own ethics.while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.
I say neither has done a good job.I obviously say that the latter is correct.
The concept of morality is human created and invented. No one discovered morality.
What does doing a 'good job' mean in this context? Even that statement alone implies the existence of a moral system or standard you believe in.I say neither has done a good job.
But if you look at something like game theory's prisoner's dilemma, what's "best" for an individual at the expense of a group, or what's best for a "group" that adheres to the same rules, is in fact a discovery of fact.
Also, for morality and ethics, its always understood that its from a human frame of reference. Relative to humanity, so to say.
So killing without reason...this is wrong seems discoverable, and not just what someone feels like categorizing it as, on a whim.
In the same way my senses inform me it's raining outside, they also inform me that OM exists. Until someone can offer compelling evidence to the contrary, I'll go ahead and trust them.
My sense that it's wrong to torture kittens, and objective morality.Which senses are you talking about and what is OM?
My sense that it's wrong to torture kittens, and objective morality.
Ok, thanks.That is not your senses at work. There is no objective morality.
There is some confusion over morality and ethics.No, it is always a subjective view. There are no objective facts with morality even if certain things are popular or even widely agreed upon.
I think there are objective facts about ethical systems however. Places with generally agreed ethical values, including things like 'honesty' achieve better outcomes than those who lack them.No, it is always a subjective view. There are no objective facts with morality even if certain things are popular or even widely agreed upon.
Yeah, we see how that is working...while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.
There is some confusion over morality and ethics.
Morality is simply an individuals choice and therefor subjective.
Ethics however is when a bunch of philosophers get together and nut out a proposition that can be seen as an objective stance.
For example. The ethical stance is we should not kill. The moral stance is that I will see what the circumstances are before I decide that.
I think there are objective facts about ethical systems however. Places with generally agreed ethical values, including things like 'honesty' achieve better outcomes than those who lack them.
Your claim is contradictory.No, it is always a subjective view. There are no objective facts with morality even if certain things are popular or even widely agreed upon.
We might be using a different definition of objective. Im not so sure morality can exist without human subjects.My sense that it's wrong to torture kittens, and objective morality.
Morality, ethics, rights, etc. It all comes from the society you are part of.I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism. Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.
I obviously say that the latter is correct.
I think there are objective facts about ethical systems however. Places with generally agreed ethical values, including things like 'honesty' achieve better outcomes than those who lack them.
I guess we have discussed this many times before, but it may be worth revisiting it because this question is the basic gulf between religion and atheism/Humanism. Religionists claim that “God” is the absolute and ultimate authority regarding morality while Humanists say that it is human societies that must establish their own ethics based on the long-term stability of that society.
I obviously say that the latter is correct.
Your claim is contradictory.
"It's always a subjective view" <- This statement is an absolute. Not subjective. It contradicts itself.
"There are no objective fact" Must be either self-evidently true, or an objective fact. It's not self-evident....
Objective facts are a premise on which all of reasoning/philosophy is built.
That there is truth, and we can know it through observation (ultimately)<- the foundation of reason, science, etc.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?