Objective Morality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johenz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
in·no·cent (ĭn’ə-sənt)
adj.
Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.

Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.

Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank.
Candid; straightforward: a child’s innocent stare.

Not experienced or worldly; naive.
Betraying or suggesting no deception or guile; artless.

Not exposed to or familiar with something specified; ignorant: American tourists wholly innocent of French.
Unaware: She remained innocent of the complications she had caused.
Lacking, deprived, or devoid of something: a novel innocent of literary merit.
n.
A person, especially a child, who is free of evil or sin.
A simple, guileless, inexperienced, or unsophisticated person.
A very young child

That leaves anyone under the age of reason who has been cleansed of original sin. Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist.
 
Kaninchen said:
Or not as the case may be - while all those are really, really nice things, you’ve merely stated that they’re objective, you haven’t established that the over-arching ‘objective morality’ that they are deduced from is, in fact, ‘objective’ - no matter how many ways you find of saying them or describing how really, really nice they are.
Click to expand...
In point of fact, I have. It is morally wrong to injure your fellow man without just cause. That is the overarching principle. The immorality of murder, rape, robbery, and similar crimes follow from that.

But let me point out that inductive reasoning is just as valid – if not moreso – than deductive reasoning. We can objectively determine that murder in and of itself is wrong. The same with rape and robbery. And having determined that, we can proceed from the particular to the general, "Theses things are wrong because . . . "
 
I ask this because just today my Dr. asked “what was the objective I was talking about?”. I said “to get to heaven”. He just looked at me stupidly. Thats what happens when you leave God out of the mix.
 
TOP said:
in·no·cent (ĭn’ə-sənt)
adj.
Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.

Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
Within, allowed by, or sanctioned by the law; lawful.

Not dangerous or harmful; innocuous: an innocent prank.
Candid; straightforward: a child’s innocent stare.

Not experienced or worldly; naive.
Betraying or suggesting no deception or guile; artless.

Not exposed to or familiar with something specified; ignorant: American tourists wholly innocent of French.
Unaware: She remained innocent of the complications she had caused.
Lacking, deprived, or devoid of something: a novel innocent of literary merit.
n.
A person, especially a child, who is free of evil or sin.
A simple, guileless, inexperienced, or unsophisticated person.
A very young child

That leaves anyone under the age of reason who has been cleansed of original sin. Jesus, Mary, John the Baptist.
Click to expand...
Innocent as in an unjust taking of someone’s life.
 
fix said:
We can’t? Is murder right or wrong?

How do you know it is right or wrong?

Huh? if conflict exists does that not presuppose there is a correct answer? How do you decide who is correct? Do you at least agree a right answer exists or are you skeptic?
Click to expand...
 
vern_humphrey said:
In point of fact, I have. It is morally wrong to injure your fellow man without just cause. That is the overarching principle. The immorality of murder, rape, robbery, and similar crimes follow from that.
Click to expand...
That’s just another restatement of what is nice or not.
But let me point out that inductive reasoning is just as valid – if not moreso – than deductive reasoning.
Click to expand...
Stating something is not establishing something - your defense of induction should come next.
We can objectively determine that murder in and of itself is wrong. The same with rape and robbery. And having determined that, we can proceed from the particular to the general, "Theses things are wrong because . . . "
Click to expand...
Hey, feel free to give us a demonstration of how you would go about ‘objectively determining’ - I await the description of the initial stage of your inductive process with bated breath (well, not really).
 
Kaninchen said:
That’s just another restatement of what is nice or not.
Click to expand...
Pure sophistry.

We are all humans. And therefore it is morally wrong to injure your fellow human without just cause. That is the overarching principle. The immorality of murder, rape, robbery, and similar crimes follow from that.
 
vern_humphrey said:
Pure sophistry.

We are all humans. And therefore it is morally wrong to injure your fellow human without just cause. That is the overarching principle. The immorality of murder, rape, robbery, and similar crimes follow from that.
Click to expand...
Ok, I admit it, you’re far, far too smart for me.
 
Kaninchen said:
The nice ways of disengagement with people tend to be the best - I’m sure moderators would tend to agree.
Click to expand...
I’m sure they would.😃

Malum in se refers to conduct that is inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from “malum prohibitum”, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
 
vern_humphrey said:
I’m sure they would.😃

Malum in se refers to conduct that is inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from “malum prohibitum”, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
Click to expand...
When people arrive at a point where continued conversation between them is futile, it’s best to end it - that’s what I was actually saying with my ‘smart’ remark.
 
We can’t? Is murder right or wrong?

How do you know it is right or wrong?
Click to expand...
It is self evident. It is part of our human nature. Would you think humans are irrational creatures?
Huh? if conflict exists does that not presuppose there is a correct answer? How do you decide who is correct? Do you at least agree a right answer exists or are you skeptic?
Click to expand...
That which is conformity with the natural law.
 
vern_humphrey said:
I’m sure they would.😃

Malum in se refers to conduct that is inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. It is distinguished from “malum prohibitum”, which is wrong only because it is prohibited.
Click to expand...
This is why I posted the stuff on Natural Moral Law in post #5. It is a way to determine the morality of an act based upon an objective criteria and reason.
 
Kaninchen said:
That’s not exactly the point - we’re dealing with the concept of ‘objective’ which rather precludes arguments from beyond the physical.

It’s not whether it’s right or wrong that we’re arguing about, it’s about whether the morality from which the deduction is made that it’s right or wrong is objective.

I’m firmly skeptical about the approach. I think the concept of ‘objective morality’ creates more problems than it could (theoretically) solve. Then again, as a Jewess, I’m not required to believe in concepts like ‘natural law’ in the first place.

Well, go ahead and establish that it’s objectively true, not that you know that it’s objectively true but that it is, in fact, objectively true. This does not involve repeatedly asking me whether I believe murder to be ‘objectively’ wrong, by the way, it requires you to argue, from non-metaphysical precepts, that the morality on which the deduction would be made is ‘objective’.
Click to expand...
Is love good and murder bad? Humans know the answer. Some get it wrong, but that does not prove it is not self evident. If by objective we mean able to be known by all then yes the moral order is objective, universal, and unchanging.
 
Kaninchen…you made an interesting statement earlier…"‘objective’ which rather precludes arguments from beyond the physical". No metaphysics huh? Well I hate to report as much but Morality cannot be determined to be Objective, and things cannot be said to be “right/good” or “wrong/evil” via physical means. For example, science can NEVER tell us whether, say, abortion is right or wrong. It can inform us, and maybe help us make a choice, but it cannot say its good, bad or indifferent. Science deals only in the quantitative, that which can be measured, weighed and seen. In other words, when we speak of morality we have to bring in metaphysics. It is not cheating, it’s necessary.
 
SumEns said:
Kaninchen…you made an interesting statement earlier…"‘objective’ which rather precludes arguments from beyond the physical". No metaphysics huh? Well I hate to report as much but Morality cannot be determined to be Objective, and things cannot be said to be “right/good” or “wrong/evil” via physical means.
Click to expand...
Thank you for agreeing with me so wholeheartedly.
In other words, when we speak of morality we have to bring in metaphysics. It is not cheating, it’s necessary.
Click to expand...
Exactly but, as you say, it cannot be determined to be objective in the process or by such process.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top