(April 24, 2012 at 12:50 am)Cthulhu Dreaming Wrote: That, in my view, is immoral. I recognize that a strong pacifist would disagree. I abhor violence, but I am no strong pacifist.

The way I see it: It is always immoral to take a life, but it may still be necessary to stop the base rule from being broken. If necessary is how you define just than I completely agree.

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Objective morality is not effected by view points. It is not dependent on people, it exist because there is One who can judge and enforce it, because the One is absolutely moral and because that morality is who the One is.

Bullshit. Objective morality - in order to be objective - must not be affected by that "One" either, otherwise, it won't be objective. Further, there is no constraint on objective morality to be absolute as well

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Yes that's what many do, however this makes morality subjective, and subjective morality taken to it's limit would be a disaster, everyone would live by his/her own morality, chaos, the downfall of civilization.

Unless, ofcourse, they can find certain common grounds in interests of co-existence which form the social morality, which allows everyone to practice their own morality. Hey, guess what, that's what we are doing right now.

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Again objective morality does not depend on people or what they believe, it is a standard that is set because of who the One is. Varied perception of morality is subjective morality and will result in an unfairness for some and an advantage for others, the more powerful will set moralit for a given population.

Wrong - objective morality wouldn't be objective if it is being set by anyone, even the One. And wrong - your delusions to the contrary - there can be basic, rational morals on which everyone can agree on as the basis of society.

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: They can't and that is what's absolutely wrong with subjective morality, but when you have a society run by man and all his flaws and you kick out the only One who is objectively moral at some point the society will fail, I can prove that statement too.

Actually, the society which depended upon the One for morality is a society made for failure. Once you get that one out of the way, you can actually come up with over-arching moral code based on reality and nature of moral agents, which would be acceptable to any rational person.

---

(April 24, 2012 at 12:56 am)BrotherMagnet Wrote: The way I see it: It is always immoral to take a life, but it may still be necessary to stop the base rule from being broken. If necessary is how you define just than I completely agree.

I never agree to blanket moral commandments like these. Morality is contextual - different principles are applicable in different situations. In some cases it may be immoral to take a life, in others it may be the most moral thing to do.

(April 24, 2012 at 1:52 am)genkaus Wrote:

(April 24, 2012 at 12:56 am)BrotherMagnet Wrote: The way I see it: It is always immoral to take a life, but it may still be necessary to stop the base rule from being broken. If necessary is how you define just than I completely agree.

I never agree to blanket moral commandments like these. Morality is contextual - different principles are applicable in different situations. In some cases it may be immoral to take a life, in others it may be the most moral thing to do.

Hmm, perhaps if I change this up a little. Most of the time it is immoral to take a life. The only times it would be moral is when another life is being threatened. Minimize the harm done. I know a lot of people could disagree with this too. War and such. Abortion. But these are all cases where another life could be said to be threatened. Anyways, getting into all the specifics with this is dangerous ground so I won't go any further.

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Objective morality is not effected by view points. It is not dependent on people, it exist because there is One who can judge and enforce it, because the One is absolutely moral and because that morality is who the One is.

genkaus Wrote:Bullshit. Objective morality - in order to be objective - must not be affected by that "One" either, otherwise, it won't be objective. Further, there is no constraint on objective morality to be absolute as well

How can you possibly believe that, objective (absolute) morality must come from a perfectly moral source, if it does not, it is subjective (whatever I feel) morality. Morality does not come out of the thin air, it represents the One or those who initiate it.

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Yes that's what many do, however this makes morality subjective, and subjective morality taken to it's limit would be a disaster, everyone would live by his/her own morality, chaos, the downfall of civilization.

genkaus Wrote:Unless, ofcourse, they can find certain common grounds in interests of co-existence which form the social morality, which allows everyone to practice their own morality. Hey, guess what, that's what we are doing right now.

No, not in this country we do not. No one is allowed to claim they are innocent because of their own subjective morality. They must claim their innocents according to the written law. I will agree that the morality of this nation is changing (for the worse IMO) and is subjective because it changes over time.

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: Again objective morality does not depend on people or what they believe, it is a standard that is set because of who the One is. Varied perception of morality is subjective morality and will result in an unfairness for some and an advantage for others, the more powerful will set morality for a given population.

genkaus Wrote:Wrong - objective morality wouldn't be objective if it is being set by anyone, even the One. And wrong - your delusions to the contrary - there can be basic, rational morals on which everyone can agree on as the basis of society.

Again, how can you believe that, morality does not appear out of thin air, and man's nature leads to subjective morality, this means only the absolutely moral of the One can set objective morality. This means that only the One can judge and punish. I would agree that most can agree on some different moral issues, these usually become law of the people.

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: They can't and that is what's absolutely wrong with subjective morality, but when you have a society run by man and all his flaws and you kick out the only One who is objectively moral at some point the society will fail, I can prove that statement too.

genkaus Wrote:Actually, the society which depended upon the One for morality is a society made for failure. Once you get that one out of the way, you can actually come up with over-arching moral code based on reality and nature of moral agents, which would be acceptable to any rational person.

How do you see a society that has objective morality by the One becoming a failure. I do not know of one nation that has survived under subjective morality.

(April 23, 2012 at 11:03 pm)Godschild Wrote: They can't and that is what's absolutely wrong with subjective morality, but when you have a society run by man and all his flaws and you kick out the only One who is objectively moral at some point the society will fail, I can prove that statement too.

Most of the "secular" countries you see today have adopted some form of universal and utilitarian principles. Like another poster said there are certain base universal moral codes we base the society on like minimizing harm done. Harm would be considering causing suffering. The rest can be subjective as long as it tries to minimize the suffering of others. There is no absolute. There are only multiple situations and some provide less harm than others. Universal morals do not need to come from an absolute moral source. Where it comes from could be existence itself, and you yourself could decide if existence is moral. The point is where it comes from is completely debatable/and or made up and irrelevant at this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_D...man_Rights
One of the best sources of human reason ever in my point of view.

The All for the One and the One for the All ;-)

(April 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: How can you possibly believe that, objective (absolute) morality must come from a perfectly moral source, if it does not, it is subjective (whatever I feel) morality. Morality does not come out of the thin air, it represents the One or those who initiate it.

I believe it because I actually care about using the words according to their correct meaning.

Objective means independent of anyone's will, mind or consciousness. So if morality is dependent on god's will, then it is subjective, not objective.

Absolute means unchanging in time or space. Something can be objective and still not be absolute.

Objective morality does not come from god and it does not come from thin air. It comes from the same source that logic comes form - the nature of reality. In this case, the nature of a moral agent.

(April 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: No, not in this country we do not. No one is allowed to claim they are innocent because of their own subjective morality. They must claim their innocents according to the written law. I will agree that the morality of this nation is changing (for the worse IMO) and is subjective because it changes over time.

Exactly. The laws represent the common grounds agreed upon by almost everyone. Beyond the laws, everyone is allowed to live according to their subjective morality. The morality of your country is worsening because some of you are trying to make the laws overreach beyond prescribed limits.

(April 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: Again, how can you believe that, morality does not appear out of thin air, and man's nature leads to subjective morality, this means only the absolutely moral of the One can set objective morality. This means that only the One can judge and punish. I would agree that most can agree on some different moral issues, these usually become law of the people.

So, you understand how morals become laws. Subjective morality can be absolute as well if the one defining it does not change it. All you are arguing for here is the non-existence of objective morality. If it depends on man's will, it is subjective, if it depends on god's will, it is still subjective.

(April 24, 2012 at 4:32 pm)Godschild Wrote: How do you see a society that has objective morality by the One becoming a failure. I do not know of one nation that has survived under subjective morality.

Every nation surviving today does so under subjective morality. Some tenets of the subjective morality which are agreed upon by everyone are made into laws. If you don't agree, can you name any nation whose morality is the same today as it was a thousand years ago? Or even a hundred years ago?

A nation that doesn't change according to time gets left behind and becomes backward. Eventually, it destroys itself and has to be replaced with a more rational and constantly evolving system.

(April 24, 2012 at 9:42 pm)genkaus Wrote: [quote='Godschild' pid='277051' dateline='1335299545']
How can you possibly believe that, objective (absolute) morality must come from a perfectly moral source, if it does not, it is subjective (whatever I feel) morality. Morality does not come out of the thin air, it represents the One or those who initiate it.

genkaus Wrote:I believe it because I actually care about using the words according to their correct meaning.

Objective means independent of anyone's will, mind or consciousness. So if morality is dependent on god's will, then it is subjective, not objective.

Absolute means unchanging in time or space. Something can be objective and still not be absolute.

Objective morality does not come from god and it does not come from thin air. It comes from the same source that logic comes form - the nature of reality. In this case, the nature of a moral agent.

If you care about the correct meaning then how is it you can say subjective morality can be non changing, when the very definition of subjective is "differing".

You are not listening to me "no surprise", the One's will, mind or consciousness has nothing to do with objective absolute morality, the morality is defined by who He is not what He thinks.
objective: of or relating to an object or end : existing outside and independent of the mind. Objective morality is who God is. God is eternally unchanging. He is absolutely moral.

(April 26, 2012 at 1:06 am)Godschild Wrote: If you care about the correct meaning then how is it you can say subjective morality can be non changing, when the very definition of subjective is "differing".

Wrong again. The definition of "subjective" is:
- existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).

(April 26, 2012 at 1:06 am)Godschild Wrote: You are not listening to me "no surprise", the One's will, mind or consciousness has nothing to do with objective absolute morality, the morality is defined by who He is not what He thinks.
objective: of or relating to an object or end : existing outside and independent of the mind. Objective morality is who God is. God is eternally unchanging. He is absolutely moral.

Then The One is not the basis or the standard of objective morality, merely an instantiation. The objective morality then depends upon whatever determines his nature. And if you say that he himself determines his nature, then we are back to morality being subjective.

(April 26, 2012 at 2:02 am)genkaus Wrote:

(April 26, 2012 at 1:06 am)Godschild Wrote: If you care about the correct meaning then how is it you can say subjective morality can be non changing, when the very definition of subjective is "differing".

Wrong again. The definition of "subjective" is:
- existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought ( opposed to objective).

(April 26, 2012 at 1:06 am)Godschild Wrote: You are not listening to me "no surprise", the One's will, mind or consciousness has nothing to do with objective absolute morality, the morality is defined by who He is not what He thinks.
objective: of or relating to an object or end : existing outside and independent of the mind. Objective morality is who God is. God is eternally unchanging. He is absolutely moral.

Then The One is not the basis or the standard of objective morality, merely an instantiation. The objective morality then depends upon whatever determines his nature. And if you say that he himself determines his nature, then we are back to morality being subjective.

This could go on forever and frankly I do not want to spend the time seeing how we both are going to differ on this. Let's say that we should agree to disagree.