What about subjective morals?

(September 15, 2016 at 8:31 pm)Jesster Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 8:27 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Thanks for asking this question,  Napoleon.  I have the following concern:

Some people, regardless of whether they are theistic or non-theistic, say that there must be one truth and that everyone else is wrong. But, why can't everyone (all truths and beliefs) be wrong?  Why doesn't humanity embrace this possibility more?

Hm. On some level I agree with you, but there still has to be one set of truths that is true. That doesn't mean that anyone on the planet absolutely has the right beliefs. We could all be wrong about the truth.

Jesster, thank you for your response.  Your statement, "That doesn't mean that anyone on the planet absolutely has the right beliefs. We could all be wrong about the truth.", is really what I was trying to get at.  Well said.

Are we currently equipped to objectively discover and interpret that one truth?  How can we be sure that if and when we discover this one truth that our subjectivity won't be making it into whatever we want it to be?

(September 15, 2016 at 9:17 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 8:31 pm)Jesster Wrote: Hm. On some level I agree with you, but there still has to be one set of truths that is true. That doesn't mean that anyone on the planet absolutely has the right beliefs. We could all be wrong about the truth.

Jesster, thank you for your response.  Your statement, "That doesn't mean that anyone on the planet absolutely has the right beliefs. We could all be wrong about the truth.", is really what I was trying to get at.  Well said.

Are we currently equipped to objectively discover and interpret that one truth?  How can we be sure that if and when we discover this one truth that our subjectivity won't be making it into whatever we want it to be?

I agree. I wouldn't make things out to be so futile, though. That's the road to nihilism. We do what we can, and then keep checking the answers with others just to make sure. That's the only right way to be as accurate as possible.

(September 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Because that removes the need for an idea of right and wrong altogether. There is a right and wrong way to do everything. [...]

Really? What about rape? What is the "right way" to do a rape? What about genocide? What would it mean to exterminate a race of people "the right way"?

Seems to me, that you need to be more precise, when using terms like "right", "wrong" and "everything". Because clearly - you don't mean to say what those words mean...

(September 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 8:27 pm)Kernel Sohcahtoa Wrote: Thanks for asking this question,  Napoleon.  I have the following concern:

Some people, regardless of whether they are theistic or non-theistic, say that there must be one truth and that everyone else is wrong. But, why can't everyone (all truths and beliefs) be wrong?  Why doesn't humanity embrace this possibility more often?

Because that removes the need for an idea of right and wrong altogether. There is a right and wrong way to do everything. If you say everything is wrong, you won't get around to doing anything, presumably.

Is there a right and wrong way to eat an Oreo???

(September 15, 2016 at 9:29 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Because that removes the need for an idea of right and wrong altogether. There is a right and wrong way to do everything. [...]

Really? What about rape? What is the "right way" to do a rape? What about genocide? What would it mean to exterminate a race of people "the right way"?

Seems to me, that you need to be more precise, when using terms like "right", "wrong" and "everything". Because clearly - you don't mean to say what those words mean...

Yes there are right and wrong ways to do those things.

If you're eating a hamburger, you're not commiting a rape.

If you're watching TV, you're not commiting a genocide.

(September 15, 2016 at 10:39 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Because that removes the need for an idea of right and wrong altogether. There is a right and wrong way to do everything. If you say everything is wrong, you won't get around to doing anything, presumably.

Is there a right and wrong way to eat an Oreo???

If you're not putting it in your mouth, you're doing it wrong.

Self sacrifice is immoral.

(September 15, 2016 at 9:29 pm)Homeless Nutter Wrote:

(September 15, 2016 at 8:41 pm)Excited Penguin Wrote: Because that removes the need for an idea of right and wrong altogether. There is a right and wrong way to do everything. [...]

Really? What about rape? What is the "right way" to do a rape? What about genocide? What would it mean to exterminate a race of people "the right way"?

I guess the right way in both cases would be "to do it in a non-existent way."



Perhaps EP should amend his statement to something like "There is a right and wrong way to do everything...except some things."

(September 15, 2016 at 11:41 pm)chimp3 Wrote: Self sacrifice is immoral.

I would agree with this but it depends on the definition. It's very difficult to be self-sacrificing towards someone without at least getting some sort of psychological or emotional need fulfilled in return and thereby not be fully self sacrificing.

Example. If I am to give away all my non-essential possessions to someone in need and/or would appreciate them far more than myself... even if I am in the long run worse off for it it would no doubt give me gratification otherwise I wouldn't do it.

Another example: Saving someone's life and I myself dying in the process. That is a far more extreme process. Let's say hypothetically I save a young child's life. Let's say it's my hypothetical son or daughter. I couldn't do that fulfilling my own in one sense 'selfish' deep seated very very strong emotional need to protect my child at all costs.

I guess what I'm saying is... most strictly speaking is self-sacrifice even possible?

Thoughts on this Chimp3?