Why it's important to know there is an objective morality.

[Joods]

I hope that wasn't directed towards me.

[robvalue]

You are right Rob. And I agree with you. I guess I was trying to figure it all out and the only way I could cite an example was to take a page from an IEP but yes, two totally and completely different things.

Thank you for educating me about the morality part of it. I've always had trouble trying to understand exactly what it was.

You're welcome

I think it's a fascinating subject, and that I'm still learning about it. I didn't mean to belittle your example at all, objective standards have a very important role to play in many areas of life.

The important thing, for me, is whether the objective standard is useful. Measuring progress, based on what people have been learning, is very useful and can often be done using an objective standard. Agreeing exactly on what the standard is and how it's applied are very much up for discussion, but it makes sense to apply the current most meaningful standard to everyone equally. I agree that individuals making judgements about other individuals is going to be problematic, although in some situations in may be appropriate.

Morality is such a very strange and different beast, so much so that people end up talking past each other much of the time. People can mean any one of, or combination of:

1) Individual's morality
2) Societal norms
3) Scientific explanations for empathy
4) Measuring outcomes of actions
5) Assessing intent of actions
6) Allowing for beliefs held at the time
7) Allowing for state of mind
8) What God wants

And so on. There are so many possible facets of it that to try and describe the whole thing in one go is extremely hard. Making "moral progress" is not quite the same as progress towards a learning goal. For the latter, you have very clear and agreed things to achieve. For morality, every individual decides on their own goals, and there is no consensus. Nor should there be, except to try and agree to reasonable compromises within a society.

The problem with theists is agreeing goals in the first place. If they want "to please God", first and foremost, we're just not talking about the same thing anymore. That is generally the hardcore ones who will put that as their first goal, though. But having it in there at all is potentially poisonous, whatever weighting it has.

[pocaracas]

If they want "to please God", first and foremost, we're just not talking about the same thing anymore. That is generally the hardcore ones who will put that as their first goal, though. But having it in there at all is potentially poisonous, whatever weighting it has.

Truer words haven't been said.... and you have no idea where I'm coming from with this.... but I hear you, man! I hear you!

[robvalue]

Thank you!

[IATIA]

---

I think we are using moral relativism and moral objectivity perhaps in a way that neither are true in reality. By we I mean how humanity is using the words currently.

First if we define moral relativism to be the view that morals differ person to person and that no one is right, then that makes morality unreal. For morality is all about telling you the right thing to do.  It has to be at the very least the right thing for that person to do, but the definition as it's defined is more or less, there is no right thing, it's just a perspective. 

And if we define morality as something that is right regardless of our opinions or anyone opinion, I'm sorry, but morality is all about perception.  If we had no perception of it, it would be not be good of us to do anything or wrong of us to do anything. 

The problem is that these are commonly or even philosophically defined in a way that makes both of them wrong automatically.

The way I understand morality is somewhat in between.

1. Do I know anything is moral in the sense it's truly right for me to do?

Yes. For example kindness to my parents who raised me is good to do. Exactly what consists of that kindness is a little more complicated. But this is not due it being independent of my opinion, it's actually, because it's part of my knowledge to do so.

2. Do I know ALL things that are moral for all humans to do?

No I don't.

3. Is important to know all things that are objectively moral? Not for me, it simply is important to know whatever I ought to do in my current state.

What I am required to do in the current moment, what I must improve myself in, and I feel most humans know enough to improve their current state.

If we act upon what we know, we will increase in knowledge. The more you act on what you know to be good, the more you increase in knowledge of what more can be to do more good or be more good.

This has been my experience in life.  In fact seeking to know all of morality is fools errant for most humans except a few.

4. People often confuse for morality to be right, it has to apply universally. This from my perspective is very limited in view. That are barely any universal morals in the sense that there is something that applies universally.

Rather the reality is there is no hard code, but that there is things we know apply 90-99% of the time. 

I don't like the words objective morality or relative morality for what I stated earlier but from what I understand, there is a morality that is absolute. 

So I will use absolute morality vs non-absolute morality. 

Absolute morality as far as knowledge of right or wrong goes, why is this important to believe in? And not simply non-absolute morality? 

I gave an example before if I look at the moon, and I know there is a measurement to it, even though I don't know it's exact size,  I will estimate it my head.

Non-absolute morality in somewhat similar to look at absolute morality (the sun) from a distance, that it's like a distant star. We don't know the size of the star with just looking at it from far, I know science has a way of measuring things now, but try to bear with the parable so as to understand.

If I don't believe there is a absolute vision of my good action or evil action, I will not have an estimate of it. The non-absolute view.

Some how I am trying to ascend in rank, get more good, be a better person. This takes belief that there is something I am heading towards, that there are ranks, that there is better or worse that states that I can be. 

With relative morality, there is no better or worse. It's all just perception.

With belief in absolute morality, our non-absolute morality which is more of acting to light/knowledge from the absolute light, that is not absolute, we believe there is a basis, there is really better or worse states, there is ranks to ascend, etc.

That said, ultimately, I do believe we can gain vision of what we ought to do that is 100% correct, as opposed to what most people are in, in which some of what they know is 100% correct, some of it they don't know, and some it they know they are wrong inwardly but are holding to it never the less. But this vision to be 100% correct is only through divine help through a spiritual guide in the journey that appears to show inwardly the path.

If anyone was upon this guidance, they would not state to others they were upon this guidance.  Anyone who is pure would not declare he is pure unless God manifests it through a revelation or the words of an appointed guide. We cannot declare ourselves pure without proof nor claim we are guided without proof from God to others.

That said, a lot of our non-absolute views are very much in line with absolute view, and we can know it.

The lowest heaven is adorned with shinning stars. These stars are arrows and missiles against the devils for us to make use of. We can fight back with them.

However, just because we can see them to a degree, doesn't mean our vision is absolute nor that we cannot fully see them as they truly are in their true state, that our view is baseless.

To be correct doesn't mean we see the action as it truly is. 

The final question is where does God come in all this? 

I think there is a world of difference in believing a living spiritual reality to goodness and morality, and that we are connected to something absolute and great, even though we don't fully grasp it, but to most of it, it's a very distant star, then believing our morality is just a program that we experience to biological reasons and evolution.

With it being a program from evolution, the question, of the euthyphro dilemma should be asked, is it good to do because evolution made it out to be that or did evolution make it out to be because it is good? If the latter, then good exists before evolution, and if evolution decides what is moral, then to me, this seems baseless for many reasons. Why should we pay attention to commands or instructions in us from evolution? 

And the last thing I want to say, our perception of morality doesn't all come down to empathy and being empathetic. This is important, but morality we all believe in is more comprehensive then that. I don't want to make this post any longer...so I won't go into details of this but I believe this is fairly obvious to anyone who thinks about the issue.

Lastly, the distant star is not meant to be a distant star forever, but we are meant to get closer to it, till our vision of our souls pierce the veils of light and reach the source of greatness while our souls get suspended by the glory of it's sanctity.

The last statement is the most important reason for believing the link between the light and the source in my view.

---

From where did your god get it's morals?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'd caution against any strong conflation between morality and law. If the benefit of objective morality pertains to writing law, it's not much of a benefit, if at all. That's probably the most poisonous portion of gods "objective" morality, to begin with....the danger of having it represented in human law. Regardless of any god, or even of any objective or subjective morality, there are good reasons that we don't write or justify law based upon moral proclamations. We don.t say, for example "murder is illegal because murder is bad". We justify it;s legal status by reference to the rights of the victim, and the violation of those rights by the perpetrator.

[popsthebuilder]

The final question is where does God come in all this?

I think there is a world of difference in believing a living spiritual reality to goodness and morality, and that we are connected to something absolute and great, even though we don't fully grasp it, but to most of it, it's a very distant star, then believing our morality is just a program that we experience to biological reasons and evolution.

There may be something to a common shared morality... but it need not be handed down by a god...
The god bit is your own indoctrination talking... not your abstract thinking self.

With it being a program from evolution, the question, of the euthyphro dilemma should be asked, is it good to do because evolution made it out to be that or did evolution make it out to be because it is good? If the latter, then good exists before evolution, and if evolution decides what is moral, then to me, this seems baseless for many reasons. Why should we pay attention to commands or instructions in us from evolution? 

It seems to me you're looking at it from the point of view of the individual...
Evolution operates on populations.
It's good, because the population has learned what harms its health and labelled that as bad.... and what actively avoids such bad things is labelled good.

It's important to remind ourselves, once in a while, that words are labels for concepts.... and sometimes the concepts are not what they seem. Nowadays, many concepts have evolved to become strange things, heavily imbued by the religious thoughts of the past.

Think about what it means to be "a healthy population" and you'll find the concept of good and bad and, if you so wish, an absolute kind of moral code that each individual within that population should adhere to.

You may also find that there are several ways to achieve a healthy population and, as such, several "absolute moral codes"... and that is what is commonly called non-absolute morality, right?
And that is how evolution works.... finding ways to make things work, not necessarily always finding the same ways... nor at the same time...

Evolution is a guided system. It is guided by the will of life to continue. To say it is random or not at least both a cause and an effect is being closed minded due to bias for whatever reason, and has absolutely no evidence to back it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[popsthebuilder]

I can only come to the conclusion that some sort of fixed moral code would only be any use to someone having serious trouble fitting into society, such as a psychopath, who wouldn't have any natural moral compass. But of course, that code would have to be based at least partly on the society itself anyway, or else it would fail to achieve this. It would be objective, but subjectively generated.

If it's any use to anyone else, no one has been able to tell me how.

Everyone has a natural moral compass. Not all use it fully, or even partially depending on their level of greed and privilege.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

[robvalue]

No, they don't. Some people don't have empathy. To such people, killing someone isn't much different to opening a bag of crisps, in extreme cases.

[pocaracas]

There may be something to a common shared morality... but it need not be handed down by a god...
The god bit is your own indoctrination talking... not your abstract thinking self.



It seems to me you're looking at it from the point of view of the individual...
Evolution operates on populations.
It's good, because the population has learned what harms its health and labelled that as bad.... and what actively avoids such bad things is labelled good.

It's important to remind ourselves, once in a while, that words are labels for concepts.... and sometimes the concepts are not what they seem. Nowadays, many concepts have evolved to become strange things, heavily imbued by the religious thoughts of the past.

Think about what it means to be "a healthy population" and you'll find the concept of good and bad and, if you so wish, an absolute kind of moral code that each individual within that population should adhere to.

You may also find that there are several ways to achieve a healthy population and, as such, several "absolute moral codes"... and that is what is commonly called non-absolute morality, right?
And that is how evolution works.... finding ways to make things work, not necessarily always finding the same ways... nor at the same time...

Evolution is a guided system. It is guided by the will of life to continue. To say it is random or not at least both a cause and an effect is being closed minded due to bias for whatever reason, and has absolutely no evidence to back it.

Faith in selfless Unity for Good.

Did anyone say evolution was random?