Question for nonbelievers, atheists, seekers

[2ndRateMind]

 

I appreciate your point, Gerald, but cultural relativism doesn't work for me. I find unsatisfactory to say, for example, that the holocaust was a good thing because the fascists thought it was. and that the fact that we now find it to be a bad thing is simply a matter of our culture being different to that of the Nazis. I wan't to say that the holocaust was objectively bad, not just subjectively, relatively bad. And I think the harm test, though not without it's problems, offers us a way to do that.

 

Sure, but like it or not moral relativism is reality.  All one has to do is examine humanity across time and space to see that.

 

 

Sure, humanity's ethics has varied from culture to culture. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard. In fact, most human cultures agree more than they disagree about ethics. Very few cultures have thought it OK to murder, steal from or lie to each other. We are perfectly entitled to think there is an objective reality about ethics, to which all societies aspire, and some achieve more closely than others. And I am suggesting that the degree of harm that some standard of ethics allows is a simple measure of extent to which it approaches that objective ideal, that no harm is done to anyone or their best interests, and humanity finds a way to co-inhabit this fragile planet peacefully and harmoniously.

 

Best wishes, eco.

[TsukinoRei]

 

I appreciate your point, Gerald, but cultural relativism doesn't work for me. I find unsatisfactory to say, for example, that the holocaust was a good thing because the fascists thought it was. and that the fact that we now find it to be a bad thing is simply a matter of our culture being different to that of the Nazis. I wan't to say that the holocaust was objectively bad, not just subjectively, relatively bad. And I think the harm test, though not without it's problems, offers us a way to do that.

 

Sure, but like it or not moral relativism is reality.  All one has to do is examine humanity across time and space to see that.

 

 

Oh noes!  My ankles are showing!  I'm so immodest! 

Edited August 13, 2013 by TsukinoRei

[Guest]

Sure, but like it or not moral relativism is reality.  All one has to do is examine humanity across time and space to see that.

 

~

 

Reality, Compared To God

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. James 1:17

 

Sinner Man

And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. Genesis 6:5

 

Stinks

But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away. Isaiah 64:6

 

You

Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. Then when lust hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin: and sin, when it is finished, bringeth forth death. James 1:13-15

 

See

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. Isaiah 1:18

 

~

 

Believe

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16

 

And Be Blessed Beloved

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers; But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot: Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, 1 Peter 1:18-20

 

Be Very Blessed

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:

The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:

The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

 

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27

 

Love, Joe

[Diatheosis]

 

 

I appreciate your point, Gerald, but cultural relativism doesn't work for me. I find unsatisfactory to say, for example, that the holocaust was a good thing because the fascists thought it was. and that the fact that we now find it to be a bad thing is simply a matter of our culture being different to that of the Nazis. I wan't to say that the holocaust was objectively bad, not just subjectively, relatively bad. And I think the harm test, though not without it's problems, offers us a way to do that.

 

Sure, but like it or not moral relativism is reality.  All one has to do is examine humanity across time and space to see that.

 

 

Sure, humanity's ethics has varied from culture to culture. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard. In fact, most human cultures agree more than they disagree about ethics. Very few cultures have thought it OK to murder, steal from or lie to each other. We are perfectly entitled to think there is an objective reality about ethics, to which all societies aspire, and some achieve more closely than others. And I am suggesting that the degree of harm that some standard of ethics allows is a simple measure of extent to which it approaches that objective ideal, that no harm is done to anyone or their best interests, and humanity finds a way to co-inhabit this fragile planet peacefully and harmoniously.

 

Best wishes, eco.

 

 

This could be considered as one of the fundamental foundations for moral and ethics, to not to harm life in that sense. At least, from our point of view. The interesting question that follows is, what is the authorizing factor here that puts us in that special state to define something in general, so that it could be considered as objective, not only subjective?

 

For if we assume that somehow defending life in general is fundamental ethics, then we allow the possibility for universal definitions for good and bad that can be applied everywhere no matter which galaxy. The case becomes interesting if we assume there is no God who would have laid the rules for existence, I think.

 

Unless, of course, we take God's place, so to speak. I don't mean to say this in a religiously negatively charged manner, just a philosophical statement. But in doing so, do we really penetrate the reality to its core so that we can 'preach' our understanding of morals and ethics to somebody, let's another species from another part of the universe? Especially would they have come here to colnize the planet in the similar manner as was done here centuries ago and still is done. That's an interesting question.

[Alyson]

Sure, humanity's ethics has varied from culture to culture. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard. In fact, most human cultures agree more than they disagree about ethics. Very few cultures have thought it OK to murder, steal from or lie to each other.

 

 

 

Perhaps that has less to do with an objective moral standard and more to do with how humans have developed over the years. Of course cultures haven't thought it OK to murder, steal, and lie to each other, because a culture that did that would never have survived. We are altruistic because it benefits the species to be alruistic.

 

Well, to an extent. There are people in every society who think murdering, stealing, and lying are perfectly okay, because they have been able to live and breed successfully by doing one or all of those things. And all of us lie to each other to some extent. We lie (or omit the truth) about our stigmatizing illnesses or shameful things we've done in the past to protect ourselves. Or we lie to others to spare feelings and preserve relationships.

[2ndRateMind]

 

Sure, humanity's ethics has varied from culture to culture. But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard. In fact, most human cultures agree more than they disagree about ethics. Very few cultures have thought it OK to murder, steal from or lie to each other.

 

 

 

Perhaps that has less to do with an objective moral standard and more to do with how humans have developed over the years. Of course cultures haven't thought it OK to murder, steal, and lie to each other, because a culture that did that would never have survived. We are altruistic because it benefits the species to be alruistic.

 

Well, to an extent. There are people in every society who think murdering, stealing, and lying are perfectly okay, because they have been able to live and breed successfully by doing one or all of those things. And all of us lie to each other to some extent. We lie (or omit the truth) about our stigmatizing illnesses or shameful things we've done in the past to protect ourselves. Or we lie to others to spare feelings and preserve relationships.

 

 Indeed, Alyson. I disagree with nothing that you have said. Cultures have developed the way they have because that is a good way for them to be. Individuals have the moral standards they do because they find that these are the set of ethics that work for them. If they don't work for individual or culture, they get swapped for better ideas. None of this negates the idea that objective morals may exist, and that individuals and cultures, to a greater or lesser extent, reflect them. The very fact that we can discuss different ethical codes in terms of 'good' and 'better' implies that there exists a 'best' - an ultimate, objective standard of morality against which all others may be measured.

 

Best wishes, eco.

[2ndRateMind]

 

Sure, humanity's ethics has varied from culture to culture.

 

Not just from culture to culture, but within cultures over the course of time as well.  Just an obvious example....Jews don't stone disrespectful children anymore.

 

But that doesn't mean that there is no such thing as an objective standard. In fact, most human cultures agree more than they disagree about ethics.

 

 

If there is an objective standard, I haven't seen it.

 

Very few cultures have thought it OK to murder, steal from or lie to each other.

 

 

From each other...but when dealing with other societies, it's OK to murder (war), steal (plunder), and lie (strategy).  These actions are condoned in the Bible, even to the point of being directly ordered by God.  Therefore, is the objective standard that killing another human being is immoral?  No.  It's morality is relative to the circumstances, which is "moral relativism".

 

We are perfectly entitled to think there is an objective reality about ethics, to which all societies aspire, and some achieve more closely than others. And I am suggesting that the degree of harm that some standard of ethics allows is a simple measure of extent to which it approaches that objective ideal, that no harm is done to anyone or their best interests, and humanity finds a way to co-inhabit this fragile planet peacefully and harmoniously.

 

 

You're certainly free to believe that, but history strongly suggests otherwise.

 

 

You are clearly disatisfied with the current state of humanity's standard of ethics, Gerald. Good. So am I. But you cripple yourself by insisting on cultural moral relativism. What right do you have to criticise if ethics are merely the accidents of human nature and history? None at all, it seems to me. Why should your set of ethics be considered any more valid than anyone else's? Than the Jews, who stoned disobedient children? Than the Nazis who started wars and gassed Jews? If you are going to criticise, you need to appeal to some objective reason why you have some better stance than the people you castigate.

 

Also, I think you are confusing situation ethics with moral relativism. Situation ethics suggests that (objectively) correct moral actions depend on the exact circumstances. It doesn't care for rules like 'Thou shalt not kill', seeing as there may be circumstances when killing may be the right thing to do. Moral relativism is the idea that no standard of ethics is any better than any other, which is a position you do not seem to hold, given that you criticise God and the Bible for condoning murder in wartime.

 

And as for history. To you it demonstrates that humanity has yet to find a set of ethics you can subscribe to. Me too. But that doesn't mean that objective 'best' ethics cannot exist.

 

Best wishes, eco

 

Best wishes 2RM

[Diatheosis]

I don't know if it works like that to compare human beings to animals in the way you do. Let's say, humanity would find a way to produce nutrition to sustain our species without needing to kill anything, and a way to produce enough energy without burning anything. It of course is an utopia, but some maybe could see it is as a possible future scenario. Regardless of do we consider it possible, the point is, that achieving a state of living which would eliminate the need for crime, where would that situation (extremely theoretical as it is) lead us as for the subject of discussion?

 

Then what would be the paradigm for human existence, without killing to protect self interests? How would you then define the concept of good/evil, right/wrong? If we were relatively self-sustainable to the utmost meaning of the word, how would we fit in this picture?  Even we find it unlikely to be so in real life, this scenario opens up a window to look at the subject from a different angle which alters the factors that are often present in our present reality. Because we need to consider the situation in different light to be able to reach the deeper level of truth in it.

 

Was it good then to just let life evolve, and what would be good among our kind? Good from the point of view of life processes continuity, perhaps? DNAs and whatnot, which physically and biologically are considered as the building block of life.

 

As for the idea good and right releasing hormones which make us feel good, the brain works almost in a similar way when feeling love or hate which is interesting. Protecting species? I did not consider to end up with this question which is pretty much debated elsewhere in this forum, but inevitably it crosses my mind why then and when did it begin? The connection in this way viewed, between us towards simpler life forms seen as the basis for life to evolve creates this fascinating picture, of life organizing itself over a long period of time. I am trying to figure this out now from a sort of atheistic point of view.

 

Be it as it may, no matter if we believe in the natural selection of the fittest directing the process, although there certainly are questions for it, or God having created and sustaining it, and yet many questions still remain, life is a mystery to us. By which I mean, even though one believes the Bible clarifies great many things to us, it is one thing to read and believe, than to really get it revealed in a deeper sense. 

 

Just trying to get behind the question why and how did life start become aware of its existence? Because we tend to think we are alive and we are aware of that happening. Answering this question is the key answering the questions I shared in the beginning.

[Diatheosis]

The example of the utopia I used was to open the discussion towards a more philosophical direction, considering humanity in general and by large had evolved to a level where people understood they can focus on building better facilities for themselves and their community (in this case the whole species in a sense). I am not even trying to guess how far such utopia is from our current stand point, but the idea is that considering mankind ever had such understanding, be it from the biblical context or some other, how would that then put us to look at the situation?

 

From what you are saying, simply put, in other words, there is neither good nor evil? I understand you refer them being social definitions but that's the kind of conclusion where it leads. Sort of freakish idea to me, no offense, this is just my personal interpretation of such approach. But it is an approach and I don't condemn anyone for their reasoning. We all figure out things differently because of something, and that something often changes. I've changed my understanding of many things during my life and probably (and hopefully) continue doing so. Otherwise there is no growth. I hope it is a good thing. relatively speaking, of course

[LuftWaffle]

 

Therefore, is the objective standard that killing another human being is immoral?  No.  It's morality is relative to the circumstances, which is "moral relativism".

 

 

That's an incorrect distinction between moral relativism and moral objectivism.

Both moral objectivists and subjectivist would say that moral values and duties are dependent on circumstance.