How to argue with subjective moralists

[warpspeedpetey]

if there are no objective morals, there simply are no morals at all. every proposed moral system is nothing but their opinion. its simply an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system that fits what they think should be the standard. (funny how it always looks like Christain morality, minus the ones that restrict fornication and homosexuality. i wonder why?)

if they list any system, utilitarianism, the golden rule, etc. point out that such a system is little more than an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system and is therefore self defeating. when that is dealt with make the point that if there is no moral authority that is objective, then each man is his own moral authority, ergo, why should we worry about other people at all? why not just an anarchy where everyone can do as he pleases, regardless of its effects on others? the golden rule and its variations only benefit those who are weakest. complete anarchy benefits and therefore contributes to the happiness of the strong. why then should we care about others rights?

in the end, moral authority can only stem from that legitimate authority of the Creator, over His Creations, and if there be no Creator, there are no morals at all. anything else, any other basis for authority requires an artificial assignation of authority to a third party, be that another individual, or to society as a whole.

 

[grannymh]

if there are no objective morals, there simply are no morals at all. every proposed moral system is nothing but their opinion. its simply an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system that fits what they think should be the standard. (funny how it always looks like Christain morality, minus the ones that restrict fornication and homosexuality. i wonder why?)

if they list any system, utilitarianism, the golden rule, etc. point out that such a system is little more than an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system and is therefore self defeating. when that is dealt with make the point that if there is no moral authority that is objective, then each man is his own moral authority, ergo, why should we worry about other people at all? why not just an anarchy where everyone can do as he pleases, regardless of its effects on others? the golden rule and its variations only benefit those who are weakest. complete anarchy benefits and therefore contributes to the happiness of the strong. why then should we care about others rights?

in the end, moral authority can only stem from that legitimate authority of the Creator, over His Creations, and if there be no Creator, there are no morals at all. anything else, any other basis for authority requires an artificial assignation of authority to a third party, be that another individual, or to society as a whole.

From observing CAF posts, one of the problems of dealing with subjective moralists is that for them, the meanings of subjective and objective have dramatically changed places. Utilitarians and others look within themselves and take note of their emotions, their thoughts, their values, their learning, what they see happening and what they sense as the real world. Because this is real to them, it is considered objective. What is outside of them or what influences them is the subject of their thoughts, emotions, etc. Thus, the underlying philosophy is relativism which means that one makes judgments according to one’s own personal mind. Decisions regarding morality are relative to the object which is one’ own self.

Blessings,
granny

All human life is sacred.

It

 

[Betterave]

if there are no objective morals, there simply are no morals at all. every proposed moral system is nothing but their opinion. its simply an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system that fits what they think should be the standard. (funny how it always looks like Christain morality, minus the ones that restrict fornication and homosexuality. i wonder why?)

if they list any system, utilitarianism, the golden rule, etc. point out that such a system is little more than an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system and is therefore self defeating. when that is dealt with make the point that if there is no moral authority that is objective, then each man is his own moral authority, ergo, why should we worry about other people at all? why not just an anarchy where everyone can do as he pleases, regardless of its effects on others? the golden rule and its variations only benefit those who are weakest. complete anarchy benefits and therefore contributes to the happiness of the strong. why then should we care about others rights?

in the end, moral authority can only stem from that legitimate authority of the Creator, over His Creations, and if there be no Creator, there are no morals at all. anything else, any other basis for authority requires an artificial assignation of authority to a third party, be that another individual, or to society as a whole.

But assignation of authority to individuals is not necessarily artificial. If the individual is intrinsically rational, then she is intrinsically moral. We care about others rights because we are rational and because we have reverence for the moral law within. If there are no subjective morals, then there are no objective morals.

• Immanuel Kant

 

[rossum]

in the end, moral authority can only stem from that legitimate authority of the Creator, over His Creations, and if there be no Creator, there are no morals at all.

Buddhism has objective moral authority and does not have a creator.

rossum

 

[gearhead]

if there are no objective morals, there simply are no morals at all. every proposed moral system is nothing but their opinion.

What a remarkably ignorant statement. Effectively, you’re saying that if a moral statement isn’t true everywhere for all time, then it’s not true at all.

I think it’s especially ignorant considering that all morality, if we’re going to actually apply it to real life, has to be subjective. Can you name a single moral precept that’s true in all circumstances?

It’s not “killing is wrong” - there’s nothing wrong (IMO) with killing in self-defense or to defend the lives of others.

It’s not “stealing is wrong”, as demonstrated in the old question “would you steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child?”

So… your statement implies that objective morals exist. Name some of them.

(funny how it always looks like Christain morality, minus the ones that restrict fornication and homosexuality. i wonder why?)

Because “Christian morality” itself is based on earlier human morality. Also, moral systems that tend not to work tend not to survive, so the ones that have lasted tend to have things in common.

if they list any system, utilitarianism, the golden rule, etc. point out that such a system is little more than an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system and is therefore self defeating.

If someone argues for an objective basis for morality, then they’re not arguing for subjective morality. Just because they reject your concept of objective morality doesn’t mean they reject objective morality altogether.

in the end, moral authority can only stem from that legitimate authority of the Creator, over His Creations, and if there be no Creator, there are no morals at all. anything else, any other basis for authority requires an artificial assignation of authority to a third party, be that another individual, or to society as a whole.

Heh - you realize that you just argued against your own point, right? If morality depends on the Creator, then it’s not objective; it’s just subjective at a very high level. For morality to be truly objective, God, if he exists, would have to be subject to it as well.

 

[grannymh]

Buddhism has objective moral authority and does not have a creator.

rossum

There has been such a variety of ideas regarding the meaning of objective, I am interested in knowing how objective is explained in Buddhism. Also, I would like to know more about the “authority” which I have seen range from objective or universal truth which exists independently to an actual person or community of sorts.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

But assignation of authority to individuals is not necessarily artificial. If the individual is intrinsically rational, then she is intrinsically moral. We care about others rights because we are rational and because we have reverence for the moral law within. If there are no subjective morals, then there are no objective morals.

• Immanuel Kant

i would argue that assignation of authority must be artificial and illegitimate, in that no one but G-d has said legitimate authority to give. or more colloquially, a thief cannot pass good title, ergo, only G-d can assign legitimate authority. i would also argue that rationality and morality are quite separate. i know a great number of people who are rational, but not moral. a rational person need not care for others rights, after all, if there is no moral authority, then there is simply no moral authority. there is no reason beyond subjective wants and desires for the morality of any particular behavior.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Buddhism has objective moral authority and does not have a creator.

rossum

if it has no creator, then by definition it has no objective moral authority. in that there is no authority at all. therefore it is a collection of men who claim authority on some basis, but not on the legitimate basis, that of Creation. its no more then these men proclaiming this is right or wrong, becuase we say so.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

What a remarkably ignorant statement. Effectively, you’re saying that if a moral statement isn’t true everywhere for all time, then it’s not true at all.

um…no, i didnt say that. im talking about how to crush a moral relativist.

I think it’s especially ignorant considering that all morality, if we’re going to actually apply it to real life, has to be subjective. Can you name a single moral precept that’s true in all circumstances?

It’s not “killing is wrong” - there’s nothing wrong (IMO) with killing in self-defense or to defend the lives of others.

It’s not “stealing is wrong”, as demonstrated in the old question “would you steal a loaf of bread to feed a starving child?”

So… your statement implies that objective morals exist. Name some of them.

no, it doesnt, but you seem it to really want it to.

Because “Christian morality” itself is based on earlier human morality. Also, moral systems that tend not to work tend not to survive, so the ones that have lasted tend to have things in common.

and which one would that be? Mosaic law? of course, we are the fulfillment of Judaic Prophecy.

If someone argues for an objective basis for morality, then they’re not arguing for subjective morality. Just because they reject your concept of objective morality doesn’t mean they reject objective morality altogether.

so they do think there is an objective morality, its just the one they like best? that sounds subjective to me.

Heh - you realize that you just argued against your own point, right? If morality depends on the Creator, then it’s not objective; it’s just subjective at a very high level. For morality to be truly objective, God, if he exists, would have to be subject to it as well.

first i would have to be arguing there is an objective morality, no?

youre reading things that arent there, this isnt an argument for objective morals, its about dealing with people promoting a subjectivist view.

 

[grannymh]

Hi Petey,

I’m not sure if this quote is from you or someone else.

I think it’s especially ignorant considering that all morality, if we’re going to actually apply it to real life, has

 

[rossum]

There has been such a variety of ideas regarding the meaning of objective, I am interested in knowing how objective is explained in Buddhism. Also, I would like to know more about the “authority” which I have seen range from objective or universal truth which exists independently to an actual person or community of sorts.

The Buddha was enlightened. His enlightenment enabled him to understand the way that the universe works. If I throw a rock directly up, it will come down and hit me on the head. If I don’t want rocks landing on my head then I shouldn’t throw rocks in the air.

Morality works in the same way; actions have consequences. The Buddha pointed out the consequences and hence the actions it is wise to avoid and the actions it is wise to cultivate.

rossum

 

[warpspeedpetey]

warpspeedpetey;5844988:

Hi Petey,

I’m not sure if this quote is from you or someone else.

A moral precept that is true in all circumstances is – Human life is sacred.

thats from gearhead.

 

[hatsoff]

if there are no objective morals, there simply are no morals at all. every proposed moral system is nothing but their opinion. its simply an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system that fits what they think should be the standard. (funny how it always looks like Christain morality, minus the ones that restrict fornication and homosexuality. i wonder why?)

if they list any system, utilitarianism, the golden rule, etc. point out that such a system is little more than an attempt to make a universal or “objective” moral system and is therefore self defeating. when that is dealt with make the point that if there is no moral authority that is objective, then each man is his own moral authority, ergo, why should we worry about other people at all? why not just an anarchy where everyone can do as he pleases, regardless of its effects on others? the golden rule and its variations only benefit those who are weakest. complete anarchy benefits and therefore contributes to the happiness of the strong. why then should we care about others rights?

in the end, moral authority can only stem from that legitimate authority of the Creator, over His Creations, and if there be no Creator, there are no morals at all. anything else, any other basis for authority requires an artificial assignation of authority to a third party, be that another individual, or to society as a whole.

Do you want to live in anarchy?

Neither do I–and objective morality (AKA the subjective morality of an autocrat) is not the reason.

 

[geometer]

But assignation of authority to individuals is not necessarily artificial. If the individual is intrinsically rational, then she is intrinsically moral. We care about others rights because we are rational and because we have reverence for the moral law within. If there are no subjective morals, then there are no objective morals.

• Immanuel Kant

He was a real fountain of nonsense. Rational does not mean moral. A rational person can do the mathematics that he knows. Rationality is simply that kind of competence, there isn’t anything more to it.

There are many very calculating people who are corrupt.

Are you sure Kant wrote that? If he did he is the idiot that has ruined education.

 

[rossum]

if it has no creator, then by definition it has no objective moral authority.

Then we differ on the definition of “objective moral authority”. I define “objective moral authority” as the words of a fully enlightened Buddha who has seen and fully understood the workings of moral law. Since neither YHWH not Jesus were fully enlightened Buddhas then Christian morality is not, and cannot be, “objective moral authority”.

Buddhist morality is built into the universe, just as gravity is built into the material universe. The Buddhist universe, in both its material and immaterial aspects has no creator because the immaterial aspect, which includes moral law, is eternal. Consult the Brahmajala sutta (Digha Nikaya 1) for the Buddhist take on the idea of a single creator God.

To summarise Buddhist morality, actions have consequences:
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2

Even if you rely on a creator then you still have to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. If the creator had a choice, then the moral law is arbitrary: “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday.” If the creator had no choice then there is a higher authority than the creator, and moral law does not originate with the creator.

rossum

 

[grannymh]

Then we differ on the definition of “objective moral authority”. I define “objective moral authority” as the words of a fully enlightened Buddha who has seen and fully understood the workings of moral law. Since neither YHWH not Jesus were fully enlightened Buddhas then Christian morality is not, and cannot be, “objective moral authority”.

Buddhist morality is built into the universe, just as gravity is built into the material universe. The Buddhist universe, in both its material and immaterial aspects has no creator because the immaterial aspect, which includes moral law, is eternal. Consult the Brahmajala sutta (Digha Nikaya 1) for the Buddhist take on the idea of a single creator God.

To summarise Buddhist morality, actions have consequences:
Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with an evil mind then suffering will follow you,
as the wheel follows the draught ox.

Mind precedes all conditions,
mind is their chief, they are mind-made.
If you speak or act with a pure mind then happiness will follow you,
as a shadow that never leaves.

Dhammapada 1:1-2
Even if you rely on a creator then you still have to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. If the creator had a choice, then the moral law is arbitrary: “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday.” If the creator had no choice then there is a higher authority than the creator, and moral law does not originate with the creator.

rossum

Thank you. This also answers my question on Buddhist morality.

As to various dilemmas, humans attach to God, I believe that the real problem is that we look at God as a being bound by our boundaries. As the Creator, God is not bound by the principles or laws or rules of His creation.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Do you want to live in anarchy?

Neither do I–and objective morality (AKA the subjective morality of an autocrat) is not the reason.

ok, so what is the reason?

 

[James_S_Saint]

So if I say that it is a moral (loss of life for disobeying) to;

"Stay alert to possible critical threats to ones life."

Is that objective or subjective?

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Even if you rely on a creator then you still have to deal with the Euthyphro dilemma. If the creator had a choice, then the moral law is arbitrary: “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday.” If the creator had no choice then there is a higher authority than the creator, and moral law does not originate with the creator.

rossum

if G-d said “Thou shalt not eat butter on a Wednesday.” then its wrong to eat butter on a wednesday. He is G-d, after all.

 

[hatsoff]

ok, so what is the reason?

What, don’t you care for governmental overseeing? I happen to very much enjoy civilized society, and the liberties accompanying it.