Religion, Science, Scepticism, Philosophy and things metaphysical

[luutzu]

Because you can't reduce morality to a formula that you can test by experiment, it's just not possible.

You are applying a value judgement to what is right and what is wrong.

You are one who really should know the difference as you were in the Army.

Do you believe that it is an objective morality that murder is wrong ?

If so, then you should never have joined the Army because you could be expected to murder someone in the course of your duty.

But then you add ifs and buts that justify breaking an objectively moral rule. Your objective morality becomes subjective and therefore the objective morality most likely did not exist in the first place.

I refer you to the rationalwiki quote I posted before.

That's a bit unfair though.

VC and most soldiers are idealists... they joint to serve their country and protect its people and value.

Just sometime, or often, such beliefs are taken advantage of by warmongers.

 

[SirRumpole]

That's a bit unfair though.

VC and most soldiers are idealists... they joint to serve their country and protect its people and value.

Just sometime, or often, such beliefs are taken advantage of by warmongers.

I'm not questioning in any way the value of VC's service to the country, I just don't agree with the way he defines morality.

 

[Value Collector]

Because you can't reduce morality to a formula that you can test by experiment, it's just not possible.

.

I never claimed you could reduce it to a formula,

You are applying a value judgement to what is right and what is wrong.

Yes we often do, but that doesn't change which actual option in a real life scenario would be the most moral

You are one who really should know the difference as you were in the Army.

Those experience have informed my opinion to a large extent

Do you believe that it is an objective morality that murder is wrong ?

I think you are confusing "Absolute morality" with "Objective Morality".

But yes, the things that we would put under the "Murder" label would be immoral, But no "Killing" is not always immoral.

Remember its the Religious folk that claim "Absolute" moral rules, not me.

If so, then you should never have joined the Army because you could be expected to murder someone in the course of your duty.

No, Murder would never be classed as a lawful command.

But then you add ifs and buts that justify breaking an objectively moral rule.

Again you are confusing Objective morality with Absolute morality.

Your objective morality becomes subjective and therefore the objective morality most likely did not exist in the first place.

Nope, the most moral option always exists whether we understand it or not.

 

[cynic]

I'm not questioning in any way the value of VC's service to the country, I just don't agree with the way he defines morality.

I tend to agree that human understanding of morality is largely subjective and informed through the context of their life experience and/or ideologies.

To my understanding the existence of an objective morality, which can be articulated in absolute terms, remains unproven.

However, the absence of proof, cannot automatically be assumed to equate to proof of absence.

Can morality be proven to only exist subjectively? Yet again, absence of proof doesn't equate to proof of absence.

 

[SirRumpole]

Nope, the most moral option always exists whether we understand it or not.

If we don't understand it then it has no relevance to our current existence.

But yes, the things that we would put under the "Murder" label would be immoral, But no "Killing" is not always immoral.

That is splitting hairs. Killing with intent to kill is what all armies do. The same as murder.

People make a value judgement that the enemy's lives are worth less than their own. Subjective.

 

[Value Collector]

If we don't understand it then it has no relevance to our current existence.


.

the laws of physics were relevant long before we had a full understanding of them, and morality affects us and other thinking beings even when we don't understand it, so it's our job to do our best to make the best judgements and develop a moral code that brings us as close to the best objective moral outcomes we can get.

Invoking gods and old holy books is not a pathway to morality.

That is splitting hairs. Killing with intent to kill is what all armies do. The same as murder.

People make a value judgement that the enemy's lives are worth less than their own. Subjective

Spoken like someone with no understanding of modern armies and modern soldiering.

When a police officer shoots and kills to defend himself or someone it is his duty to protect is it murder?
If a person killed another terminally ill person as part of a voluntary euthanasia situation would it be murder?

No it wouldn't,

Intent doesn't determine murder, and not all killing is murder, that's absolute morality stuff, which I said I don't agree with.

There will be times when killing is the best moral choice.

By the way I am not saying there aren't situations where armies have killed immorally, just that not all killing is immoral and in general armies (especially the Australian army) cares a lot about who they kill and why.

 

[luutzu]

I'm not questioning in any way the value of VC's service to the country, I just don't agree with the way he defines morality.

Where's Tisme?

 

[SirRumpole]

Spoken like someone with no understanding of modern armies and modern soldiering.

True. I'm not denying that murder is sometimes justified, I'm saying that when you distinguish between when it is and when it isn't then you make a value judgement that makes the whole question subjective.

When a police officer shoots and kills to defend himself or someone it is his duty to protect is it murder?
If a person killed another terminally ill person as part of a voluntary euthanasia situation would it be murder?

Yes. Murder is killing with intent to kill. The above acts satisfy the criteria.

People who have committed euthanasia have been charged with murder.

The policeman commits legalised murder. Someone has made a subjective judgement that murder is legal in this circumstance, but he could still be prosecuted if found that he did not have sufficient justification. That's another subjective decision that someone has to make.

 

[luutzu]

I tend to agree that human understanding of morality is largely subjective and informed through the context of their life experience and/or ideologies.

To my understanding the existence of an objective morality, which can be articulated in absolute terms, remains unproven.

However, the absence of proof, cannot automatically be assumed to equate to proof of absence.

Can morality be proven to only exist subjectively? Yet again, absence of proof doesn't equate to proof of absence.

I think all we need to know about morality and how to carry out lies in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you wish them done unto you.

That rule tend to have been held up by all religion and teachers as a virtue.

So there is no need to be objective or subjective - one simply ask... what I am doing to someone else, would I want that be done to me.

Yes, even that rule will still cause harm since there are psychos and insane people out there who would kill themselves or wouldn't mind if others do it but they got there first etc.

---

To SirR's point... so we know what is moral and what is immoral... but can we say that a apathetic person, one who only looks out for number one, are they moral or immoral.

I'd probably go with Chomsky's definition of responsibility - that it depends on your position,your situation.

Say you are poor, you have to work hard and are busy to make ends meet. You do the right thing by yourself and your family and you help where you can, but rarely do you help. While here it cannot be said that you're only looking after yourself, but you are not helping anyone or anything else that isn't within your circle.

Are you then immoral or moral? I'd say moral.

But say that person is in a position of previledge, holds a lot of power and influence... and yet they do the same thing - only looking out for themselves. Still don't do any harm to anyone, but don't do any good for anyone else either (let's ignore for the moment the good that's being done through their corporations or business)... Is that person still moral?

I would say no.

With great power come great responsibility, as Uncle Ben told us.

 

[cynic]

I think all we need to know about morality and how to carry out lies in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you wish them done unto you.

That rule tend to have been held up by all religion and teachers as a virtue.
...

Many,myself included, have admiration for that rule, and I am heartened by the fact that it seems to be recognised across a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions.

Efforts are being made to differentiate amorality from morality. Thus far those efforts appear to be falling a long way short of their intended goal.

If one cannot discern the existence of morality in anything other than a subjective context, and the same is then said of amorality, then the dividing line becomes so blurry that both appear to be, at best, manifestations of subjective morality.

 

[SirRumpole]

Many,myself included, have admiration for that rule, and I am heartened by the fact that it seems to be recognised across a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions.

Efforts are being made to differentiate amorality from morality. Thus far those efforts appear to be falling a long way short of their intended goal.

If one cannot discern the existence of morality in anything other than a subjective context, and the same is then said of amorality, then the dividing line becomes so blurry that both appear to be, at best, manifestations of subjective morality.

It seems to me that those who believe in objective morality must also believe in the existence of God, because otherwise who put these immutable morals into existence ?

VC seems to be destroying his own atheist principles. If morals are determined by man (subjective) then man has freedom of choice and God is less likely to exist. On the other hand if morals are eternal and immutable (objective), then how did these morals arise ?

I'd be interested to hear an answer to that.

 

[cynic]

It seems to me that those who believe in objective morality must also believe in the existence of God, because otherwise who put these immutable morals into existence ?

VC seems to be destroying his own atheist principles. If morals are determined by man (subjective) then man has freedom of choice and God is less likely to exist. On the other hand if morals are eternal and immutable (objective), then how did these morals arise ?

I'd be interested to hear an answer to that.

What is it about God that makes Her objective?

And how would this God be within Her moral rights to deny Her progeny freedom of choice?

And if God is truly objective, what if man is God?

 

[SirRumpole]

What is it about God that makes Her objective?

And how would this God be within Her moral rights to deny Her progeny freedom of choice?

And if God is truly objective, what if man is God?

The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?

I can't see that the other questions have much relevance to this discussion.

 

[cynic]

The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?

I can't see that the other questions have much relevance to this discussion.

If some authority determines the right moral action, then that moral action is subject to determination by that authority i.e. it becomes subjective.

 

[luutzu]

Many,myself included, have admiration for that rule, and I am heartened by the fact that it seems to be recognised across a wide spectrum of philosophies and religions.

Efforts are being made to differentiate amorality from morality. Thus far those efforts appear to be falling a long way short of their intended goal.

If one cannot discern the existence of morality in anything other than a subjective context, and the same is then said of amorality, then the dividing line becomes so blurry that both appear to be, at best, manifestations of subjective morality.

Too many sy la bles. Can we stick it to US presidential level please

 

[luutzu]

The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?

I can't see that the other questions have much relevance to this discussion.

Wouldn't that objective test be some sort of "reasonable man" test?

Like Cynic was saying, it can't be based on some "higher" authority because then the "objectiveness" of that moral compass is subject to the entity's moral code.

As my friend Lao Tzu said, the Way that can be defined is not The Way... hence, my other friend said, there is a right moral action, these are its examples, and that is that

 

[Value Collector]

True. I'm not denying that murder is sometimes justified, .

If it is Justified, it's not "Murder". Murder is a word that is used to describe a Killing that is Unlawful by our law, or more importantly I would describe it as a killing that was immoral.

Not all Killings are murder, if you are going to just use the term Murder to describe all situations where a person is killed by another person, you are confusing the issue, the term Murder isn't used in law or common usage to describe all deaths.

I'm saying that when you distinguish between when it is and when it isn't then you make a value judgement that makes the whole question subjective.



.

People who have committed euthanasia have been charged with murder.

Yes, because in those states Euthanasia is illeagal, so the killing would be "Unlawful" and the legal term Murder can be used.

I personally don't think Euthanasia is Immoral, so I wouldn't use the term to describe that killing.

Someone has made a subjective judgement that murder is legal in this circumstance,

Offcourse we have to make a subjective judgement, By our subjective judgement doesn't alter the facts of what is actually the best moral outcome based on the facts.

eg, If you fire a bullet, you have to make a judgement about where that bullet will land, But your opinion on where it will land doesn't alter the flight of the bullet, the bullets flight will be determined by the laws of physics whether you understand them or not.

 

[Value Collector]

It seems to me that those who believe in objective morality must also believe in the existence of God, because otherwise who put these immutable morals into existence ?

.

No one, the most moral choice is the one that has the best outcome for the well being of the thinking creatures involved, It's not based on a command of a god.


I'm saying that when you distinguish between when it is and when it isn't then you make a value judgement that makes the whole question subjective.

The discussion is about morals being objective ; ie fixed and immutable. VC says "there is always the right moral action", so who determines what this is ?
.

Remember I am not saying that there are absolute moral rules eg thy shalt not kill (that's a religious thing)

I am saying in any situation, you will have a whole host of different actions you can take, now out of all of those possible combinations, one of them will result in an outcome that is best for the well being of all those involved.

That's not based on a god commanding it, its based on physics its just how things are.

eg, if I pour acid all over you, I will reduce your wellbeing, so that is immoral to do regardless of my opinion.

But I am not saying there is a cosmic rule like "Thou shalt not pour battery acid on people", Because there may be situations where I can drip a small amount of acid on you to burn off a cancer, and increase your well being, in that situation the most moral choice would be to use the acid.

None of this is commanded by a god, or relies on opinion, its just how things work, in every situation some choices will be better morally than others.

------------------------------------------

Now offcourse whether a doctor decides to use acid or not will be based on his subjective opinion, But that opinion doesn't effect which choice is moral, he will just be right or wrong.

 

[Value Collector]

If morals are determined by man (subjective) then man has freedom of choice and God is less likely to exist. On the other hand if morals are eternal and immutable (objective), then how did these morals arise ?

I.

A mans opinion of what is best for human well being, is subjective, different men come to different answers based on their experiences, knowledge etc etc, Some will be closer to the right answer than others.

But when is comes to Objective Morality, I am not talking about what Men think, I am just saying that in any given situation what action is best for the well being of those involved, is not based on opinion (of man or god) its based on what the actual outcome will be and the real world effects on the well being of those involved.

----------------------------------------

Picture Objective Morality as a light on a hill we should all be trying to move towards as we learn more, not a set of fixed rules.

 

[SirRumpole]

No one, the most moral choice is the one that has the best outcome for the well being of the thinking creatures involved, It's not based on a command of a god.

The real point is, does any of this matter ?

There may be a best "moral" option in every case for all I know, but people will disagree what it is, so the objective moral option always reduces to a subjective one in real life.

If we can't all agree on what the objective morality is in a particular case then the concept is irrelevant.