(March 1, 2017 at 1:50 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Are they objective because they are the laws of the universe, or because a god made them?  If they were still the laws of the universe, but did not originate with a god, would they then, also, be objective?  Is that what you mean by defining objectivity in terms of the universe?

Yes, they are objective because they are the laws of the universe.  Whether God made them or not isn't really relevant to us, so long as they are hard-and-set rules (like gravity or the speed of light).  This would imply that there really is a soul, and that somehow our behaviors and thoughts really had a predictable effect on how the soul develops.  I don't believe that to be the case, though.

(March 1, 2017 at 10:23 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Yes, they are objective because they are the laws of the universe.  Whether God made them or not isn't really relevant to us, so long as they are hard-and-set rules (like gravity or the speed of light).

Agreed, which is why I can never understand the "no god no objective this or thats".  If there are objective metrics then regardless of the origin of those metrics objective this and that's are in.

Quote:This would imply that there really is a soul, and that somehow our behaviors and thoughts really had a predictable effect on how the soul develops.  

Wait, lol....what?  That's a hell of a jump.  Nothing about the above implies this...not even remotely.  You must have some other thing in mind that you didn't communicate.  Wouldn't natural law satisfy objectivity even in the case of human behavior and thought?

Quote:I don't believe that to be the case, though.

There's no reason to and no necessity thereof.

(March 2, 2017 at 3:14 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

Quote:This would imply that there really is a soul, and that somehow our behaviors and thoughts really had a predictable effect on how the soul develops.  

Wait, lol....what?  That's a hell of a jump.  Nothing about the above implies this...not even remotely.  You must have some other thing in mind that you didn't communicate.  Wouldn't natural law satisfy objectivity even in the case of human behavior and thought?

If mores were built into the universe by a creator God, i.e. were for that reason objective absolute, then they would be laws, like gravity or the atomic forces. They would determine how things behaved, rather than being a general set of "self help" bits of advice for good living. So what could mores interact WITH, or have any effect ON? Certainly, while acting immorally can have bad results on a person's character or the outcome of one's life, this is not nearly reliable enough to say they are objective absolute. So I'd say if mores matter in a non-arbitrary way, there must be some real object which they govern and with which they interact. Of course, I don't believe any of this to be true-- I think mores are a social construct, and have no reliable connection to anything.

I can think of a way of viewing our species in which morality is objective. If you take the normal interactions of the species, and realize that the ideas we have are limited and informed by our instincts, then even though moral systems are composed of ideas, you could still view the foundation of our morality as supervening on genetic impulses beyond our awareness or control. For example, all mammal love their offspring (on average), and will act to protect them. When they are developing in a new social climate, one of the first things they will do is make a "don't fucking kill my kids" rule. That these manifest in different rule sets doesn't mean that they aren't founded in objective human truths.

But I don't think you could call the latter "absolute" morality.

Is it true there is no absolute morality?

No.

(March 2, 2017 at 7:13 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: Is it true there is no absolute morality?

No.

Absolutely not, I should say.

Would readily concede the point that anyone can be moral regardless of religious affiliation, moreover that countless atrocities have been committed in the name of religion.

Still I ponder why there seems to be some universal constants among us. Such as why we would all agree that Alabama is the best football team in the country and that it is wrong to eat children or ice cream for breakfast.

What mechanism is behind the thing that drives us feel that way?

Absolute morality answers that question for me.

(March 2, 2017 at 7:45 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: What mechanism is behind the thing that drives us feel that way?  

Absolute morality answers that question for me.

But you haven't given a mechanism. Your answer is akin to, "Magic answers that question for me." It's a non-answer.

(March 2, 2017 at 7:55 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 7:45 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: What mechanism is behind the thing that drives us feel that way?  

Absolute morality answers that question for me.

But you haven't given a mechanism. Your answer is akin to, "Magic answers that question for me." It's a non-answer.

Correct. I did not give an answer, merely stated a question. More of a contemplation. Of course for me, Christianity answers that question but I did not wish to post bible verses in the philosophy forum.

These type of questions exist apart from religion. Science, philosophy, religions all attempt to answer them.

(March 2, 2017 at 7:55 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 7:45 pm)PETE_ROSE Wrote: What mechanism is behind the thing that drives us feel that way?  

Absolute morality answers that question for me.

But you haven't given a mechanism. Your answer is akin to, "Magic answers that question for me." It's a non-answer.

Mechanism seems like a poor choice of words on his part.

(March 2, 2017 at 8:56 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(March 2, 2017 at 7:55 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: But you haven't given a mechanism. Your answer is akin to, "Magic answers that question for me." It's a non-answer.

Mechanism seems like a poor choice of words on his part.

True, I did not give a mechanism, merely described the compulsion we all seem to feel as a mechanism.