Objective morality and why Subjectivism cannot work in ethics

  • Thread starter Thread starter mymamamary
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
sedonaman said:
We’ve been through this numerous times before and concluded that in the end, someone’s concept of right and wrong is going to be forced on the rest, otherwise there will be no order to society, only chaos. You might try imagining who would make the rules in an atheist colony, and whether those rule would qualify as being “enforced on others”. :sad_yes:
Click to expand...
Thank You!! 👍👍
 
mymamamary said:
I think that Objective morality is needed to run an organized society. Moral relativism is a self defeating theory. Logically, there has to be two fixed standards on which to judge right and wrong. Subjective morality will never work in our world. You will get nutjobs like peter singer, who advocates that a pig has more worth than an unborn child. I think peter singer is a nazi. Hitler would have loved to employ folks like peter singer in his camp.

How can a world function with subjective morality? I don’t see the logicity of it.

I do see however, an objective standard running the world, ensuring that right and wrong are indeed right and wrong, in all and ever case.

Subjective morality only causes chaos. We all know that satan loves chaos and discord. We all need moral convictions, otherwise as the saying goes “Anything goes”, including peace and harmony, for the sake of our personal selfish good. Then who can tell me that killing is wrong. What If I see it as a right course of action for me to take, as it is a subjective value no? Who can tell me stealing is wrong? If you do, are you not guilty of holding me to an objective standard?

Subjectivism cannot work. It is an illogical method of philosophising and operating. :cool: :cool:
Click to expand...
Subjectivity has two recognized dimensions. The first is opinions, which have no real truth value. After all, I may like vanilla more than chocolate, but that doesn’t mean vanilla is -actually- better than chocolate for me.

The second is “tensed” truth claims, such as, for example, “Socrates sits.” This is true if and only if Socrates is sitting. If he’s not sitting, it’s false.

However, other kinds of truth claims, such as “Columbus sailed to America,” are not dependent on your opinion, nor are they tensed. Therefore, they are objective.

Ethics are just as objective, and if pressed, most serious intellectuals will admit this, because if they were subjective in -any- sense, that means that no evil action done by any tyrant, molester or murderer was -really- wrong. Almost no one who’s serious about their philosophy is going to admit that if they can help it.
 
mytruepower2 said:
Subjectivity has two recognized dimensions. The first is opinions, which have no real truth value. After all, I may like vanilla more than chocolate, but that doesn’t mean vanilla is -actually- better than chocolate for me.

The second is “tensed” truth claims, such as, for example, “Socrates sits.” This is true if and only if Socrates is sitting. If he’s not sitting, it’s false.

However, other kinds of truth claims, such as “Columbus sailed to America,” are not dependent on your opinion, nor are they tensed. Therefore, they are objective.

Ethics are just as objective, and if pressed, most serious intellectuals will admit this, because if they were subjective in -any- sense, that means that no evil action done by any tyrant, molester or murderer was -really- wrong. Almost no one who’s serious about their philosophy is going to admit that if they can help it.
Click to expand...
Thank you!!

The past few posters are very philosophically ignorant and not serious about Philosophy…
 
40.png
mymamamary:
Thank you!!

The past few posters are very philosophically ignorant and not serious about Philosophy…

And you are able to know this how? Can you read minds?

-ACEGC
 
cerad2 said:
I won’t be around but it would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the statement you just made 50 or so years from now.
Click to expand...
Didn’t people half a century ago believe we would live like the Jetsons by 2000?

Real science is not as awesomely advanced as people like to think it is.
 
InJesusItrust said:
Didn’t people half a century ago believe we would live like the Jetsons by 2000?

Real science is not as awesomely advanced as people like to think it is.
Click to expand...
Depends on what you mean by ‘awesome’ I guess. I think where we were 50 years ago, and where we are now, in terms of scientific advance is indeed awesome.

Sarah x 🙂
 
I actually do study math and some physics. Some people just do not understand the current state of science.
 
Julia_Mae said:
Objective parameters for behavior in a society are the only way to enact and enforce laws and judge guilt or innocence.

Morally, who is “judging right and wrong?” Only God. Not you. Yet, you have to make choices about your own behavior in terms of right and wrong. So, where do you find the guidelines to do that? Jesus gave us those.

Now - what do you mean by moral relativism? Here’s an example:

Adultery is a sin.

Here is an example based on a real culture: in the Arctic there was a tribe of native peoples who lived, for the most part, far removed from one another in igloos. If a stranger came, you were required, by moral law of the culture, to give them shelter and food. But the man was also required to offer his wife to the traveler to sleep with (and have sex if he wished) and the wife was duty bound to comply. It was considered very rude for the guest to refuse.

Do you think all these people are in Hell because they committed mortal sin and were never confessed and forgiven?
Click to expand...
You are speaking of the Innuit or eskimos, this practice has little to do with morality and a lot with preservation of the species.

Gene pool corruption is a real issue when the available population is very limited, as you know inbreading causes a lot of genetic disorders, by making a visiting male share his genes with the tribe they decrease de chances of this happening.
And by the way it is considered very bad to refuse to have intercourse with the offerred woman. After all why would you not help their tribe with your genes. Very utilitarian.
Would like to know what a theologian has to say with respect to this.

I guess that when survival of the human race we have to accept some slight deviations maybe? 🤷
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top