Obama's latest crime

God Himself is not objective, but as His will is the Absolute will, His morality is the Absolute morality.  It is therefore objective from our perspective.

But God's words (which translate his morality) is rather subjective.  Let's take a look at the 10 commandments.

1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
- So does this mean we can have other Gods below you?  And equal to you?

2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
-Does this mean clouds?  Rocks?  plants?  Animals?  Fungus?  Fish?  etc... 
I mean, does this mean that we can't make any pictures of anything that exists anywhere except on the land?
Or does it mean Angels, the pearly gates, hell, etc...?  And what is that "in the water under the earth"?  Does he not want us to take pictures of wells?

3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
-Who is to say what is or isn't in vain?  God surely isn't giving instructions on the subject.

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
-Ok, so which day is the sabbath?  We say it's Sunday but how do we know that's really the say?  Is it an arbitrary day out of the 7 day week that we chose?  Or did God say "Today is the Sabbath.  Start here"?

5. Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
-How do should one honour thy father and thy mother?  Probably however you feel they would want.  Many claim this is a "do what your parents tell you" but what if they tell you to sin?  Should you honour them?  Or should you stop them and that honours them by helping to save them from sin? 

6. Thou shalt not kill.
- This is a big one.  Does it mean end a life?  Does the animals we eat, the plants we harvest count?  Does hunting for sport but not food/clothing count?  What about the bugs we kill by accident or on purpose?  Or what about all the bacterial that our bodies kill on a daily basis?
Or does it mean only intentional kills?
Or does it mean only intentional kills between humans?
And if it's only intentional kills between humans, what about in self defense?  Or defense of your homeland?  Or defense of God?  Or when God says to do it? 

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.
-Does that mean I can't have that 3some?

8. Thou shalt not steal.
-Sure taking directly from a person is stealing but what else?  What about more abstract terms like legal loopholes and high taxation and copying data from someone's computer?  Or their identity?  Do those count? 

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
-What if it saves his life?  If I were to tell the truth about my neighbour and it causes him to be murdered, am I guilty of allowing it or does God give me a pass because I followed his commandments?

10. thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.
-So now God is telling us we can't even want something?  What if my neighbour is selling it or will sell it? 


I don't know about you but it seems subjective to me.

It's all subjective, silly pants.

As an atheist I have way better morals than some Christians I know. Some Christians think they can do whatever they like as long as they go to church on Sunday. Morals do not come from an imaginary friend but from an inherently human sense of right and wrong. Remember, we made god in our image, not the other way around. And we have a constitution. Any president of any faith or lack of faith still has to follow the country's rules. Ultimately, being Christian brings absolutely no benefit to the presidential table.

It's all subjective, silly pants.

... Morals do not come from an imaginary friend but from an inherently human sense of right and wrong.

If the morals are inherent how are they subjective?

Quote from: rooster on November 26, 2011, 06:44:35 PM

It's all subjective, silly pants.

... Morals do not come from an imaginary friend but from an inherently human sense of right and wrong.

If the morals are inherent how are they subjective?

Don't be dumb.

Humans as a whole have inherent morals. These morals can range from strict to loose, antisocial (atypical) humans have them not at all, and morals can change based on upbringing.

Quote from: Ski on November 26, 2011, 06:48:28 PM

Quote from: rooster on November 26, 2011, 06:44:35 PM

It's all subjective, silly pants.

... Morals do not come from an imaginary friend but from an inherently human sense of right and wrong.

If the morals are inherent how are they subjective?

Don't be dumb.

Ski is a lot of things.....dumb isn't one of them. I would watch who you were caling names around here, and what board you are doing it in.

It was a pretty dumb question of anyone to ask. Stay on topic, warpuppy.

Don't be dumb.

Humans as a whole have inherent morals. These morals can range from strict to loose, antisocial (atypical) humans have them not at all, and morals can change based on upbringing.

If morals are arbitrary as you have just stated, then they are not inherent.

Uh, I never said morals were based on a personal whim, but they are an essential characteristic of humans. However, the flavor of morals can vary from person to person making it subjective. Example: everyone knows it's wrong to murder someone in cold blood (unless you're an atypical sociopath), but not everyone thinks polygamy is wrong.

Learn your definitions plx.

inherent (adj): existing in someone as a permanent and inseparable element, quality, or attribute

If morals come in differing flavours and are "subjective," they are not "inherent" or "absolute."  You are arguing for learned or "relativistic" morality. If "sociopaths" exist, is there sense of social-mores less correct than yours? If so why?
Unless you are inventing a whole new social-philosophic vocabulary to suit your whim, I believe you are the one who might brush up on her definitions.
Are you attempting to argue that some morals are inherent and some are culturally-subjective (if so, I might agree)? But if so, why do you state "It's all subjective"?

I am stating that morals in the most basic sense are inherent otherwise humans would have never survived as a community. What those morals are would be subjective to the individual. And sociopaths have no morals or sympathy and it wouldn't be viewed as a personality disorder if they were normal... because morals of some kind are an inherent trait.

Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: \-ənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inhaerent-, inhaerens, present participle of inhaerēre
Date: 1581
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit

If "what those morals are" is subjective to the individual, how do we know the sociopath's mores are not simply different ("subjective") than yours? Which is correct? On what basis do you make this claim?

If "what those morals are" is subjective to the individual, how do we know the sociopath's mores are not simply different ("subjective") than yours? Which is correct? On what basis do you make this claim?

Neither is correct.
You can only judge them based on ability to survive and reproduce.

In our current society, a sociopath would have a difficult time surviving and reproducing while other people don't.
In a post apocalyptic society where law is unheard of and death is common, a sociopath may be more able to survive than others.

Well, that would be the answer of pure relativism, yes. I'm asking Rooster how she manages to reconcile her belief in "inherent" mores while believing them to be "all subjective."

If "what those morals are" is subjective to the individual, how do we know the sociopath's mores are not simply different ("subjective") than yours? Which is correct? On what basis do you make this claim?

What's it like being so blatantly argumentative?

If society as a whole sees sociopathy as a personality disorder, does that not mean something is disorderly? A breakdown of inherent law? Or do you think I'm basing this off personal beliefs? Do you agree with sociopathy? If sociopathy were typical human nature do you think we would have culture and community?

Sociopaths do not have morals. There's nothing subjective about it. What is subjective is the idea of polygamy, same-sex marriage, clothing, abortion.

Now if god's will is so objective, why are there so many different Christian sects?

Well, that would be the answer of pure relativism, yes. I'm asking Rooster how she manages to reconcile her belief in "inherent" mores while believing them to be "all subjective."

It's pretty simple. Honest. Look at any culture's constitution. Most have the same basic guidelines with variances from culture to culture.

Basic morals are inherent (an essential human characteristic) but the details vary depending on the individual which would make it subjective. I really don't know how to make this any more clear.

Quote from: Ski on November 26, 2011, 11:17:32 PM

Well, that would be the answer of pure relativism, yes. I'm asking Rooster how she manages to reconcile her belief in "inherent" mores while believing them to be "all subjective."

It's pretty simple. Honest. Look at any culture's constitution. Most have the same basic guidelines with variances from culture to culture.

Basic morals are inherent (an essential human characteristic) but the details vary depending on the individual which would make it subjective. I really don't know how to make this any more clear.

Just say that it's in our genetic makeup to desire social groups and thus have adapted a set of very basic behaviors implanted in our brains to assist us in achieving stable social groups.  Guilt is a big one. 

Quote from: rooster on November 26, 2011, 11:29:28 PM

Quote from: Ski on November 26, 2011, 11:17:32 PM

Well, that would be the answer of pure relativism, yes. I'm asking Rooster how she manages to reconcile her belief in "inherent" mores while believing them to be "all subjective."

It's pretty simple. Honest. Look at any culture's constitution. Most have the same basic guidelines with variances from culture to culture.

Basic morals are inherent (an essential human characteristic) but the details vary depending on the individual which would make it subjective. I really don't know how to make this any more clear.

Just say that it's in our genetic makeup to desire social groups and thus have adapted a set of very basic behaviors implanted in our brains to assist us in achieving stable social groups.  Guilt is a big one.

Right...
Main Entry: in·her·ent
Pronunciation: \-ənt\
Function: adjective
Etymology: Latin inhaerent-, inhaerens, present participle of inhaerēre
Date: 1581
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit

My question becomes which of the morals (if any) are you prepared to say are inherent, and which are subjective? You seem to be willing to admit that some morals are objective, but then say that "it is all subjective." If there are some morals which are objective, how did you come to this conclusion?
How do you keep subjectivism from devolving logically into a nihilism (like Lord Dave) or completely relativisitic morality?

As a moral objectivist (I actually prefer universalist, but I'm trying not to introduce new terms for you), I would say that certain morals are objective. I'm not qualified to speak on behalf of the myriad of Christian sects.

The obvi ones are objective, obvi. Y'know, the rules that are present in almost every society. Treat people within your community with general respect, don't murder in cold blood, don't steal, etc. Subjective ones would be same-sex marriage, dancing, circumcision, y'know the ones that vary. I'm not pulling this out of my rear as you seem to think. Any general knowledge of human society and history will tell you this basic truth.

As you believe, some moral judgements are universal, but not ALL of them.

lulz that universalism would be a foreign concept to me. Are you becoming a troll, dear moderator?

Geese don't kill each other, but orangutans do, does that mean geese have higher morals then orangutans?

Geese don't kill each other, but orangutans do, does that mean geese have higher morals then orangutans?

What are you trying to say?

Morals are inherent to geese?

Are you a moral objectivist, Wardogg?

Philosophy is not one of my stronger subjects.  Does that mean I think geese have high morals?

As an atheist I have way better morals than some Christians I know.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA OH WOW YOU DID NOT JUST GO THERE

The only way you would ever have "better morals" than anyone else would be that you follow objective moral guidelines, which in our society means laws - and even then it only applies to your own society and its established laws. The people you're comparing yourself to would have to be criminals for you to be "better" than them.

And no, morals aren't inherent. Every human is born without morals, and only when they integrate into society do they gain morals, as morals are a product of the social contract. Humans in their state of nature only wish to gain their own good, and as such they don't have morals at all. By abandoning their state of nature they agree to certain principles that ensure that one's own rights and freedoms to some extent are secured. For example, murdering would no longer be considered acceptable. These basic principles are the foundation for the social contract which enables humans to live in a society or in commune.

But let's look at this from your angle. If some morals are inherent as you say, then how is it that there are people that act against these morals? Did their inherent morality stop working at some point?

Philosophy is not one of my stronger subjects.  Does that mean I think geese have high morals?

Moral objectivists believe that morals are objective. Simple as that.

Orangutans and geese haven't established any moral guidelines for their own, therefore you can't treat their actions on a moral principle, unless you believe that some or all morals are objective and not up to subjective interpretation.

EDIT: OH OH OH OH OH OH CHECK THIS OUT

The obvi ones are objective, obvi. Y'know, the rules that are present in almost every society. Treat people within your community with general respect, don't murder in cold blood, don't steal, etc. Subjective ones would be same-sex marriage, dancing, circumcision, y'know the ones that vary. I'm not pulling this out of my rear as you seem to think. Any general knowledge of human society and history will tell you this basic truth.

LET'S TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AT THIS SHIT

[...]are objective[...]

[...]the ruls that are present in almost every society[...]

DID YOU CATCH THAT YET?

[...]objective[...]

[...]almost[...]

OH

SNAP

ARGUMENT INVALIDATED

When I say I have better morals, I mean I don't treat other people like shit as some Christians do. I was merely pointing out that for Christians, god's will is supposed to be law. I follow this principle better than some people of the faith even though I am atheist. Which is what this discussion was originally about. You don't have to be religious to have morals.

If it's not an inherent trait, why has every society come up with similar moral guidelines? Some people will cheat and steal, etc. because morality is also subjective. But I know that you seem like a bitter person, so you'll just keep arguing for your cause without anything to back it up. You can not look at humanity as a whole and say that moral values are not an essential characteristic.

When I say I have better morals, I mean I don't treat other people like shit as some Christians do. I was merely pointing out that for Christians, god's will is supposed to be law. I follow this principle better than some people of the faith even though I am atheist. Which is what this discussion was originally about. You don't have to be religious to have morals.

Treating people like shit is a non-issue if all morality is subjective.

If it's not an inherent trait, why has every society come up with similar moral guidelines?

Because such moral guidelines are essential in securing one's rights and freedoms within a society, like I already explained.

Some people will cheat and steal, etc. because morality is also subjective.

No, they do this because morality isn't inherent. Inherent morals can't be up to interpretation.

But I know that you seem like a bitter person, so you'll just keep arguing for your cause without anything to back it up.

Oh hello, pot. Where's kettle this fine morning?

You can not look at humanity as a whole and say that moral values are not an essential characteristic.

They're only essential for societies and communities to function. I suggest you read up on Hobbes to learn more.

As you believe, some moral judgements are universal, but not ALL of them.

Are they universal objectively, or have they become universal only as part of some social contract?

lulz that universalism would be a foreign concept to me. Are you becoming a troll, dear moderator?

Well, you seem to be mixing terms, I think I may be forgiven for thinking that you might be unfamiliar with the correct use of some of them. However, rereading what I wrote, it may be read with a good deal more condescension than I intended, and for that I apologize.

I believe morality is objective. I believe that some certain mores are inherent, though I do not believe that it would much matter if they were proven not to be (hence objective morality). These are the Noachide laws. I also believe in the existence of subjective social-contracts.

I am beginning to think that the ability to empathize is inherent.  But then we still have to say that morals would derived from such characteristics. 

I am beginning to think that the ability to empathize is inherent.  But then we still have to say that morals would derived from such characteristics.

Precisely.  Empathy is a God-given trait, and therefore, since our entire sense of morality is derived from empathy, it is ultimately derived from God.