Objective morality and why Subjectivism cannot work in ethics

[Julia_Mae]

My personal beliefs on the US Government have nothing to do with Objective Morality. Move on.

Young man, I am at least old enough to be your grandmother, intelligent and erudite enough to be your professor and have experienced enough in life to expect a person who claims to aspire to priesthood to behave toward me with a modicum of respect.

I will NOT “move on” because your “personal beliefs” are the topic of the thread and “government” is actually the primary topic as evidenced by your own op:

I think that Objective morality is needed to run an organized society.

Which is why people brought up the connection between suggested “Catholic government” and your topic. Your hypothesis is that “objective morality” is necessary to govern, being as government and “run an organized society” are conflatable terms.

Your argument wasn’t particularly coherent, but thread members tried to find a way to make sense of what you said and engage with you.

If your topic for this thread is not what you stated in your opening hypothetical, then feel free to abandon the thread and start a new one. Or, explain how “objective morality” can be defined in some legal way and how a government could be improved by it if it were. In fact, if your answer is Catholic dictatorship, then you are, indeed, advocating the overthrow of the government as I cannot imagine how else you will implement your idea under the Constitutional Republic we have now.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

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.

You are doing fine. Some advice. For your peace of soul ingnore the Trolls.

 

[atheistgirl]

But here is the thing, Are you certain that they did not feel guilty about the things they did?

Positive.

It doesn’t matter if they did it or not.

Lol, well ok, they didn’t but that now doesn’t matter huh

What matters is the little voice going off inside their heads saying “Don’t do it”.

There was no little voice going off in their heads saying don’t do it. That’s the whole point. You’re just assuming there was. There wasn’t. It wasn’t part of their cultural or moral vocabulary.

You’re guilty of imposing your standards onto them. They’re your standards. Not theirs.

The code itself is objective.

It very clearly isn’t as I’ve just shown you.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

Positive.

Lol, well ok, they didn’t but that now doesn’t matter huh

There was no little voice going off in their heads saying don’t do it. That’s the whole point. You’re just assuming there was. There wasn’t. It wasn’t part of their cultural or moral vocabulary.

You’re guilty of imposing your standards onto them. They’re your standards. Not theirs.

It very clearly isn’t as I’ve just shown you.

Sarah x

Of course what they did matter, but as a relativist, why are You concered? Why be concerned about any social justice issue? Its all fine and dandy for you, then its fine for me. I am not assuming that their was a little voice. I know there is a little voice. Hence the reason even Non-Believers will hear that “little voice” telling them not to do it. Whether they do it or not is important, but irrelevant to the discussion at hand. What matters is that their indeed is a “Little voice” inside your head, (Please do a search, Im not the only one believing that their is a litle voice inside my head or your head or anyones head). Then why do we try to “Impose” a standard on lawbreakers? Let them be no? Why can’t we let them be? You in fact are imposing a standard on the murderer that is being tried, as a Judge for example. Why not let them off free? because our consciences, (That little voice I keep talking about) won’t let us. We desire to see justice done. We always have. Eye for an eye right? Also, when you “impose” that standard on the murderer, you are putting something objective on him.

 

[mymamamary]

Also, how can you be positive that they didn’t suffer from guilt after?

 

[mymamamary]

Young man, I am at least old enough to be your grandmother, intelligent and erudite enough to be your professor and have experienced enough in life to expect a person who claims to aspire to priesthood to behave toward me with a modicum of respect.

I will NOT “move on” because your “personal beliefs” are the topic of the thread and “government” is actually the primary topic as evidenced by your own op:

Which is why people brought up the connection between suggested “Catholic government” and your topic. Your hypothesis is that “objective morality” is necessary to govern, being as government and “run an organized society” are conflatable terms.

Your argument wasn’t particularly coherent, but thread members tried to find a way to make sense of what you said and engage with you.

If your topic for this thread is not what you stated in your opening hypothetical, then feel free to abandon the thread and start a new one. Or, explain how “objective morality” can be defined in some legal way and how a government could be improved by it if it were. In fact, if your answer is Catholic dictatorship, then you are, indeed, advocating the overthrow of the government as I cannot imagine how else you will implement your idea under the Constitutional Republic we have now.

Mrs. Mae, I apoligize for the tone I threw at You. If you are so insistent on knowing, yes, I am in favor of a Catholic Monarch. A Catholic Monarch who gives the people what they need, not nessescarily always what they want, AND respects the rights and beliefs of other people. I hope that clairfies my issues for You.

 

[atheistgirl]

Also, when you “impose” that standard on the murderer, you are putting something objective on him.

Like what?

Murderers have been freed after trial due to extenuating circumstances, such as abuse for example.

Murders have been acquitted, although they admit to murdering their love rival, using the ‘‘crime of passion’’ defense.

Murders get from acquittal to as little as a few months to the death penalty.

There’s no objective standard whatever being imposed on murderers.

Sarah x

 

[atheistgirl]

I am in favor of a Catholic Monarch. A Catholic Monarch who gives the people what they need, not nessescarily always what they want, AND respects the rights and beliefs of other people. I hope that clairfies my issues for You.

I’m going to let you in on a little secret.

I have ‘‘get away’’ money.

This is enough money, in cash, hidden, to escape to anywhere in the world (it’s a very considerable amount of money now, but it started off as enough for a bus outa town) with my family, should the need arise.

It’s to do with cultural and personal experience.

If things ever turned real bad, I can get out, and get my family out, to anywhere in the world.

It’s a family secret we laugh about and they poke fun at me for.

I do sometimes wonder, given the passage of time since the events that happened that made me do this initially, if I’m not just being a little bit crazy.

Then I read things like people want a Catholic Monarch who will run a theocracy.

And I think Sarah, behind that fun and joie de vivre exterior, you’re one smart cookie

Sarah x

 

[Julia_Mae]

Then why do we try to “Impose” a standard on lawbreakers? Let them be no? Why can’t we let them be? You in fact are imposing a standard on the murderer that is being tried, as a Judge for example. Why not let them off free? because our consciences,.

Law, enforcement and punishment have nothing to do with morals or conscience, they have to do with protecting property and persons. That is, they are about keeping order so that the culture survives.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

…anything that violates the 10 Commandements or teachings of the Church is objectively wrong

Are not the first 4 commandments only applicable to Christianity (or first three, I understand they are numbered differently in that Catholic bible)? Would this also mean that any culture that does not engage in Christian religious practices as being automatically in in violation of these 10 commandments by default?

 

[mymamamary]

Like what?

Murderers have been freed after trial due to extenuating circumstances, such as abuse for example.

Murders have been acquitted, although they admit to murdering their love rival, using the ‘‘crime of passion’’ defense.

Murders get from acquittal to as little as a few months to the death penalty.

There’s no objective standard whatever being imposed on murderers.

Sarah x

But they are still being tried for Murder, which if you ask any policeman, for no good reason, is seen as wrong. Or theft. I don’t care if they were let off, aquitted or whatever, what matters is they apparently, for the time being, broke that “imposed” line for “murder”. Then why have law, justice, crime and punishment. If I take the relativist standard, and listen closely to what I say, then lets get rid of it, otherwise we will be imposing an objective standard on them. I don’t care if they were aquitted, got off, etc.

What matters is they are still being tried for apparent “Murder”. All because someone felt that they tresppased a law and should be punished or at least examined why. If not, you get one chaotic society…

 

[mymamamary]

Are not the first 4 commandments only applicable to Christianity (or first three, I understand they are numbered differently in that Catholic bible)? Would this also mean that any culture that does not engage in Christian religious practices as being automatically in in violation of these 10 commandments by default?

Its still an objective truth, however they may not be aware of them, so they can claim ignorance. The principle itself is objective.

 

[Julia_Mae]

Mrs. Mae, I apoligize for the tone I threw at You. If you are so insistent on knowing, yes, I am in favor of a Catholic Monarch. A Catholic Monarch who gives the people what they need, not nessescarily always what they want, AND respects the rights and beliefs of other people. I hope that clairfies my issues for You.

Okay, and how will this work, exactly? Who will choose the monarch? You know, we have a system similar to this in the Church. Our “monarch” - our Popes, who make law and rules for us and appoint assistants (Bishops) and yet, people have been criticizing Popes, saying they have failed to give us what we need, attacking the Pope’s appointed assistants (Bishops) and causing disarray in the Church.

Why would a monarch be successful as a civil leader? Why wouldn’t power corrupt him? And what makes you think he would give people what you think they need instead of giving them more Federal assistance and dismantling the military?

What if he follows Jesus and says we should all allow our enemies to take our coats and turn the other cheek? What if a Catholic monarch was vastly different from what you expect him to be?

You have no redress - he would be an absolute Monarch.

I have one other question and then I’ll retire for the night: if you institute a government that forces all people into your religion’s code of moral behavior by law, how is that different from the Taliban? How is it different than what our forefathers fought and died to stop?

 

[mymamamary]

Okay, and how will this work, exactly? Who will choose the monarch? You know, we have a system similar to this in the Church. Our “monarch” - our Popes, who make law and rules for us and appoint assistants (Bishops) and yet, people have been criticizing Popes, saying they have failed to give us what we need, attacking the Pope’s appointed assistants (Bishops) and causing disarray in the Church.

Why would a monarch be successful as a civil leader? Why wouldn’t power corrupt him? And what makes you think he would give people what you think they need instead of giving them more Federal assistance and dismantling the military?

What if he follows Jesus and says we should all allow our enemies to take our coats and turn the other cheek? What if a Catholic monarch was vastly different from what you expect him to be?

You have no redress - he would be an absolute Monarch.

I have one other question and then I’ll retire for the night: if you institute a government that forces all people into your religion’s code of moral behavior by law, how is that different from the Taliban? How is it different than what our forefathers fought and died to stop?

Hm, then let me change my stance. Until the LORD returns, injustice and bad leadership is going to be ruling king in this world. No monarch or government is any good. My government is CHRIST JESUS and HIS Church.

 

[atheistgirl]

But they are still being tried for Murder, which if you ask any policeman, for no good reason, is seen as wrong.

What would be the ‘‘good reason’’ for murdering someone?

Honor killing? You know, where a woman is murdered by her family, for bringing shame on her family

The United Nations Commission on Human Rights acknowledges that so-called ‘honour killings’ have occurred in Great Britain, Brazil, India, Ecuador, Israel, Italy, Sweden, and Uganda as well as in Muslim nations such as Turkey, Jordan, Pakistan, and Morocco.

Article 324 of the Napoleonic Penal Code states that murder committed by a husband on his wife is excusable in the case of adultery. This law, as implemented in many nations, has been misappropriated and entangled with various cultural notions of “honour”. As a result, such interpretations of an ‘honourable motive’ have been broadened by cultural context, and has served to perpetuate ‘honour killing’ and honour-based violence in these societies.

**In Haiti: Article 269 of the Penal Code states that “in the case of adultery as provided for in Article 284, the murder by a husband of his wife and/or her partner, immediately upon discovering them in flagrante delicto in the conjugal abode, is to be pardoned.” **Yet a wife who kills her husband upon discovering him in the act of adultery is not excused.

You see? Your claim that murder is murder is murder and is always objectively wrong and has always been considered objectively wrong across all peoples times and cultures, is simply not true.

At least not where many women are concerned.

In Latin America, ‘crimes of passion’ committed by men are not classified as murders and are instead treated leniently or completely excused. The abuse of women’s human rights cuts across boundaries of culture and religion.

Sarah x

 

[mymamamary]

What would be the ‘‘good reason’’ for murdering someone?

Honor killing? You know, where a woman is murdered by her family, for bringing shame on her family

You see? Your claim that murder is murder is murder and is always objectively wrong and has always been considered objectively wrong across all peoples times and cultures, is simply not true.

At least not where many women are concerned.

Sarah x

Well then, forget murder. Any breaking of the law. Is that not an imposition of an objective value upon another? Don’t You see what I am getting at? Morality in general, even societial, has objective moral values. Relativsim just does not work, however you want to look at it. If society operated from a morally relativist standpoint, then we would have to suspend the courts, judges, lawmakers, lawyers, free all the criminals etc.

If society operated from a morally relativistic standpoint, we would be in utter chaos. You just logically cannot have peace with a morally relativistic mindset. Moral relativism is a logical disconnect, my rational cannot reason the process of moral relativism through. Moral Relativism is not logical. Just rationalize the problem here for a moment and you should see why… Just follow the steps down, You should arrive at the same conclusion I was just mentioning in this paragraph…

 

[mymamamary]

Moral relativism would make for a state of complete chaos and discord. Pope Benedict the XVI has repeatedly said that this age is under the tyranny of moral relativism, well, once you observe it with the wool off your eyes, you can see that the world is getting more and more chaotic. Undeniable. Economic crises, Government lying through its teeth repeadtedly, the middle east on the brink of war, Our society is turning more and more hostile to each other, even whilst we proclaim the new gospel of “tolerance”, “diversity” etc.

 

[edwest2]

You have to understand that:

Diversity: We approve of and promote gay behavior.

Tolerance: William F. Buckley, Jr. “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

Pope Benedict:

The Holy Father says:

"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."

The following is additional commentary from the practical Catholic:

How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.

Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]"

Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression.

Peace,
Ed

 

[mymamamary]

You have to understand that:

Diversity: We approve of and promote gay behavior.

Tolerance: William F. Buckley, Jr. “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”

Pope Benedict:

The Holy Father says:

"If we cannot have common values, common truths, sufficient communication on the essentials of human life–how to live how to respond to the great challenges of human life–then true society becomes impossible."

The following is additional commentary from the practical Catholic:

How true this is. Where there is no communication, no culture, no shared experience, there is no society; because there is no people. There remains only a vast and foreboding, unforgiving sea of individuals ready to crash upon each other and the world with the slightest wind. Without a common basis, we have not the vaulted pluralism we’re taught to embrace, but Babel, in all the confusion and madness of a society with no binding forces. Already we are seeing the tensions of this fragmentation breaking out across cultures.

Leftists, conservatives, anarchists, nihilists, secularists, objectivists, the shallow, the entertainers, the entertained, all vying for control against each other. Tribalism can indeed spawn differentiation, but without some common ground, and in the face of increasing jargon not only in the academies but in the cultures; we shall be left with madness. In the end this tribalism can only result in the decline of all their claims, and the alienation of one from the other. Babel is the happenstance when society tries to become God.

Pope Benedict XVI goes on to say:

"We are moving toward a dictatorship of relativism which does not recognize anything as for certain and which has as its highest goal one’s own ego and one’s own desires. The church must defend itself against threats such as “radical individualism” and “vague religious mysticism”. [emphasis added]"

Pope Benedict does not play language games, he is unconcerned with the postmodernist’s corner on untruth. Neither should we be. Notice how he calls relativism a “dictatorship” instead of agreeing that no values and no Truth are the way forward for society. What many fail to recognize is that imposing nihilism and arbitrary tribalism is a form of dictatorship. Where untruth or half truth is the common order, there can only be oppression.

Peace,
Ed

Thank You Ed!! I needed the back-up!! Straight out of My Pappa’s Mouth no less!! , Honestly, I don’t get whats so hard, its a very logical and rational conclusion to arrive to…

 

[mymamamary]

Just for the records though, Half truth and untruth are one and the same thing. A half truth is still a lie.