Bonky Posted January 6, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: Morality doesn't work that way. Perhaps to you it doesn't, for others .... mo·ral·i·ty məˈralədē/ noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. Edited January 6, 2017 by Bonky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Teditis Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) It is true that in their strictest definitions both ethics and morals are by definition, subjective... it doesn't necessarily mean that, for the sake of a discussion, either can't be limited in definition to encompass the possibility of "objective morals/ethics". In such cases it's unfair to quote a dictionary as some empirical source... the question is: Is there a God that has predetermined right and wrong for human behavior and thought? Edited January 6, 2017 by Teditis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted January 6, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 6, 2017 8 minutes ago, Teditis said: Is there a God that has predetermined right and wrong for human behavior and thought? I think that's a fair question. We all know there are going to be multiple responses to this from various theists, how do we sift through them and determine which, if ANY, are right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 8 hours ago, Bonky said: Perhaps to you it doesn't, for others .... mo·ral·i·ty məˈralədē/ noun principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society. I realize that's a dictionary definition puts it. But that is not how we live. It's not how our courts of law work. We live as if there is an objective morality. There is something innate in all of us that knows right from wrong. And it is reflected around the world. For the purpose of discussions like this, it is easy to talk about situational ethics. But it is a horse of a different color when you are the victim of such a terrible system of morality. Situational ethics becomes pretty over rated when you're the one who gets sacrificed, so to speak, for the good of the many. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted January 7, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 7, 2017 (edited) 8 hours ago, shiloh357 said: It's not how our courts of law work. Then explain how/why America is changing it's direction on marijuana use. People have historically been thrown in prison for using marijuana and now some States are allowing businesses to sell it. Some States allow gambling in various forms and some States don't. So depending on which courts and which laws we're talking about we have different views. Where's the objectivity? It sounds to me that social discourse, debate, lessons learned/experience certainly play into our moral code. 8 hours ago, shiloh357 said: There is something innate in all of us that knows right from wrong. And it is reflected around the world If you just look at things like murder and theft, then yes. As we peel back we see in some cases vast differences on what is "wrong". 8 hours ago, shiloh357 said: For the purpose of discussions like this, it is easy to talk about situational ethics. But it is a horse of a different color when you are the victim of such a terrible system of morality. Situational ethics becomes pretty over rated when you're the one who gets sacrificed, so to speak, for the good of the many. Person A cuts person B. Did person A do something immoral? Edited January 7, 2017 by Bonky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 42 minutes ago, Bonky said: Quote Then explain how/why America is changing it's direction on marijuana use. People have historically been thrown in prison for using marijuana and now some States are allowing businesses to sell it. Some States allow gambling in various forms and some States don't. So depending on which courts and which laws we're talking about we have different views. Where's the objectivity? It sounds to me that social discourse, debate, lessons learned/experience certainly play into our moral code. You're confusing what's legal with what's moral. What's legal isn't a reflection on what is moral. Anything that is immoral can be legalized. Quote If you just look at things like murder and theft, then yes. As we peel back we see in some cases vast differences on what is "wrong". The human mind can justify anything. Just because I can rationalize an action in order to salve my conscience, doesn't mean that I am not doing what is wrong. Quote Person A cuts person B. Did person A do something immoral? If you're talking about attempted murder, yes. If you're talking about an accident in a wood or metal shop, no. But that's not situational ethics. You would have to justify attempted murder, that a situation could arise that taking or attempting to take the life of an innocent person is morally justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted January 7, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted January 7, 2017 28 minutes ago, shiloh357 said: You're confusing what's legal with what's moral. What's legal isn't a reflection on what is moral. Anything that is immoral can be legalized. You were the one who brought up courts and laws no? I agree that laws don't address morality thoroughly. It's not illegal to be a jerk. They can even be made President 2 hours ago, shiloh357 said: If you're talking about attempted murder, yes. If you're talking about an accident in a wood or metal shop, no. But that's not situational ethics. You would have to justify attempted murder, that a situation could arise that taking or attempting to take the life of an innocent person is morally justified. Not referring to an accident even. I should have added the context that Person A intentionally cuts person B. Person A could be a thief or a surgeon. Context of the action helps us determine whether the act was moral or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted January 7, 2017 Share Posted January 7, 2017 37 minutes ago, Bonky said: You were the one who brought up courts and laws no? I agree that laws don't address morality thoroughly. Yes I did bring up the courts. But that was to point out that we don't look at morality subjectively in real life; courts operate from moral objectivity. The situational ethics and subjective moral view is good philosophical fodder, but no one really lives that way. If someone broke into the subjective moralist's home and stole his stuff and raped his wife, he would seek justice. There would be no subjective moral argument that the perpetrator could make to justify his moral decision that would change his victim's mind about the fact that he had been wronged both morally and legally. Quote It's not illegal to be a jerk. They can even be made President Yep, that's true. And he will be out of office in couple of weeks. Quote Not referring to an accident even. I should have added the context that Person A intentionally cuts person B. Person A could be a thief or a surgeon. Context of the action helps us determine whether the act was moral or not. As you can see in my response, I already added the intentional factor. So thanks for helping make my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted January 7, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 7, 2017 On 1/6/2017 at 6:20 PM, Bonky said: I clearly stated I don't believe there's an absolute objective morality. I stated that a case for morality can be built and then measured or defending objectively. Countries like America have built a social and moral fabric on the basis of equality, freedom and the pursuit of happiness. Upon this foundation you can OBJECTIVELY declare murder wrong and eating peanuts ok. If you're wanting a higher being to approve of this foundation then I don't believe that exists or if it does how would we demonstrate it? Bonky, You're confusing objective morals with objective declarations about morals. They're not the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LuftWaffle Posted January 7, 2017 Group: Senior Member Followers: 5 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 820 Content Per Day: 0.17 Reputation: 261 Days Won: 7 Joined: 01/09/2011 Status: Offline Share Posted January 7, 2017 4 hours ago, Bonky said: You were the one who brought up courts and laws no? I agree that laws don't address morality thoroughly. It's not illegal to be a jerk. They can even be made President Not referring to an accident even. I should have added the context that Person A intentionally cuts person B. Person A could be a thief or a surgeon. Context of the action helps us determine whether the act was moral or not. Bonky, You're making a common mistake, by not distinguishing between absolute morals and objective morals. Absolute morals would describe a moral claim that true independent of circumstance or context, such that the claim "X is wrong" is true no matter what the place, time or circumstance. Some have offered, "It is wrong to torture babies for fun" as an absolute moral claim. Objectively morals on the other hand describe obligations or values that are true mind independently, but not necessarily circumstance independent. Thus, offering up examples of where cutting someone is morally justified does nothing to disprove moral objectivity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts