MERGED--> Objective Moral Law discussions - Page 2 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 07-13-2006, 07:54 PM   #16
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by AEON
Funny - there are HUGE debates on this in modern Philosophy, especially because many Atheist philosophers are now trying to assert there is an objective moral law (without God, of course) – but you dismiss it as if it is just some petty nuisance. Melon says "period" and that makes it so.

Forget reading the philosophers that have discussed this from Plato to Kant to Nietzsche to Willard. Melon says "period" so it is a non-issue.
Spoken from the arrogant know-it-all cleric himself.

Quote:
A wikipedia definition of objectivity:

Objectivity, as a concept of philosophy, is dependent upon the presupposition distinguishing references in the field of epistemology regarding the ontological status of a possible objective reality, and the state of being objective in regard to references towards whatever is considered as objective reality. Inherent to the distinction is a paradoxical notion that despite the various meanings or definitions assigned to the concept by various disciplines, schools of thought, or individual philosophers, there is ultimately a body of knowledge representative of a single reality.
Ah yes. And you know what the irony is? Name one philosophy that has remained constant to fit this definition of "objectivity." There aren't any. The fact that philosophies are molded and amended, even in the slightest manner, means that they are created through subjective consensus. An unchanging philosophy contradicts the nature of philosophy itself, just as a changing objectivity contradicts the definition of objectivity itself.

You cannot achieve pure objectivity. The best you can do is create a subjective consensus to resemble the illusion of "objectivity." That is why I believe the argument between what is objective and subjective is ridiculous. The fact that you can argue over what is objective and what isn't means that pure objectivity does not exist!

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 07:56 PM   #17
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
Maybe we need a new thread...
The moderating staff is free to split this thread into two as they see fit. I realize that this thread has diverged beyond its original intent, and it would probably be best to split it.

Melon
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 07:59 PM   #18
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:07 AM
I have requested that the discussion of this in the other thread be split off into a separate thread. I will build upon that "discussion," if that's what we can call this.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 08:24 PM   #19
Jesus Online
 
Angela Harlem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: a glass castle
Posts: 30,163
Local Time: 02:07 AM
Can there ever be more than just an opinion on this?
/rhetoric
__________________
<a href=http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v196/angelaharlem/thPaul_Roos28.jpg target=_blank>http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...aul_Roos28.jpg</a>
Angela Harlem is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 09:41 PM   #20
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 03:07 PM
I don't see how a universe without a God can have any worthwhile views of right or wrong in the first place, as none of our lives or views would be worth more than a speck of dust.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 09:54 PM   #21
War Child
 
najeena's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: an island paradise
Posts: 995
Local Time: 03:07 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
I don't see how a universe without a God can have any worthwhile views of right or wrong in the first place, as none of our lives or views would be worth more than a speck of dust.
God can steer your decisions and your views, but basic human nature tells us what is acceptable and what is not. Not everyone follows this built-in guide, a few are born without it, but it's there if you listen to your heart.
__________________
najeena is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 09:57 PM   #22
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 07:07 AM
Relativism, take to its logical conclusion, becomes non-existent. Thus, objective moral law must exist.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:03 PM   #23
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 03:07 PM
As I posted in another thread, in a universe without a higher power to judge us there could be no objective moral right and wrong. We'd all simply be blobs of moving flesh and bones with lives and feelings that would mean absolutely nothing.

I don't understand why anyone would argue otherwise. I've been told countless times that right and wrong is dictated by culture. But is culture objective? Of course it isn't. Cultures of different times and locations view different things as wrong. If right and wrong were decided by culture then right and wrng would truly be dictated by time and distance. In my opinion this is a completely silly and illogical view.

I've had so many atheists tell me "I believe any action is wrong that will hurt another person". But I don't understand one thing. In a world with no concrete right or wrong why is hurting others wrong? Like I said, we'd basically be animals moving masses of flesh and bone aimlessly (ultimately our lives would be pointless) wandering this planet thinking our lives actually mean something. I ask atheists why our feelings mean anything if we don't have souls. Why do our lives matter? Why does our property matter?

In remote islands in in the Pacific there are small villages of people who believe human sacrifice is OK. Is it? You'd say no, but why is it wrong? Is it not accepted in the culture? If there is no higher power there is no judge of right and wrong except society, thus human sacrifice wouldn't be wrong. The same can be said about countless other cultures in this world who treat women like insignificant baby factories. According to these people our culture is completely horrible. That's their culture. But who's right?
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:04 PM   #24
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Relativism, take to its logical conclusion, becomes non-existent. Thus, objective moral law must exist.
And yet, making the presumption that "objective moral law" exists requires "relativism" to define it.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:08 PM   #25
ONE
love, blood, life
 
MrBrau1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Verplexed in Vermont
Posts: 10,436
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
I don't see how a universe without a God can have any worthwhile views of right or wrong in the first place, as none of our lives or views would be worth more than a speck of dust.
Since we're just specks of dust, all we really have are the decisions we make and the actions we take.
__________________
"If you needed my autograph, I'd give it to you." Bob Dylan
MrBrau1 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:08 PM   #26
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
Like I said, we'd basically be animals moving masses of flesh and bone aimlessly (ultimately our lives would be pointless) wandering this planet thinking our lives actually mean something. I ask atheists why our feelings mean anything if we don't have souls. Why do our lives matter? Why does our property matter?


what if the only reason you are anything more than an animal moving masses of flesh and bone is because you think you are?
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:12 PM   #27
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 03:07 PM
You'd have to as yourself why thinking you're more than a blob of insignificant flesh and bone would make you one. If you have no soul, no afterlife and no higher power to judge your actions then you would truly be no more significant than a speck of dust even if you felt otherwise.
__________________
shart1780 is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:18 PM   #28
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
As I posted in another thread, in a universe without a higher power to judge us there could be no objective moral right and wrong. We'd all simply be blobs of moving flesh and bones with lives and feelings that would mean absolutely nothing.
This is your subjective experience that cannot be "objectively" qualified.

Quote:
I don't understand why anyone would argue otherwise. I've been told countless times that right and wrong is dictated by culture. But is culture objective? Of course it isn't. Cultures of different times and locations view different things as wrong. If right and wrong were decided by culture then right and wrng would truly be dictated by time and distance. In my opinion this is a completely silly and illogical view.
This is rather illogical reasoning, if you ask me. Yes, culture isn't objective, and, likewise, what they would define as their "moral laws" are not objectively universal. There is also no guarantees that, in 1000 years, that what future civilizations define as "moral" will bear an exact resemblance to what people today define as "moral."

Ask the people of 1000 years ago what was "moral," and they would say that any married couple who enjoyed having sex with each other would "objectively" be a mortal sin.

Quote:
I've had so many atheists tell me "I believe any action is wrong that will hurt another person". But I don't understand one thing. In a world with no concrete right or wrong why is hurting others wrong? Like I said, we'd basically be animals moving masses of flesh and bone aimlessly (ultimately our lives would be pointless) wandering this planet thinking our lives actually mean something. I ask atheists why our feelings mean anything if we don't have souls. Why do our lives matter? Why does our property matter?
Again, that's your subjective experience, which is not objectively qualified.

Quote:
In remote islands in in the Pacific there are small villages of people who believe human sacrifice is OK. Is it? You'd say no, but why is it wrong? Is it not accepted in the culture? If there is no higher power there is no judge of right and wrong except society, thus human sacrifice wouldn't be wrong. The same can be said about countless other cultures in this world who treat women like insignificant baby factories. According to these people our culture is completely horrible. That's their culture. But who's right?
You, of course, think you're right. You cannot possibly fathom that other people might look at American culture and think it is horribly wrong. Your subjective definition of what constitutes "objective moral law" is inextricably tied to your cultural and religious upbringing. It is not universal, and, by definition, cannot be an "objective moral law."

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:27 PM   #29
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 10:07 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by shart1780
You'd have to as yourself why thinking you're more than a blob of insignificant flesh and bone would make you one. If you have no soul, no afterlife and no higher power to judge your actions then you would truly be no more significant than a speck of dust even if you felt otherwise.


can't we simply be self-aware blobs of insignificant flesh?

when one looks at how cheaply we view human life, especially from a historical perspective, it seems to make logical sense that we really are insignificant flesh and bone and the only importance we have is that which we assume for ourselves.
__________________
Irvine511 is online now  
Old 07-13-2006, 10:30 PM   #30
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Washington State
Posts: 3,861
Local Time: 03:07 PM
I think you're missing my point. The main point I'm trying to make is that if you're trying to claim that there is no true, concrete right and wrong that may be completely unscathed by the way we view things then, then there really is no point on casting any sort of judgments on others' actions.

In this world right and wrong wouldn't exist, simply left and right, so to speak.
__________________

__________________
shart1780 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com