General question regarding "objective" morality
November 15, 2011 at 12:51 pm
(This post was last modified: November 15, 2011 at 1:27 pm by mayor of simpleton.)
@ well, whoever...
If I'm not mistaken, morality is a perceived condition of value theory. This valuation is contingent upon events/actions within a given circumstance/context.
We live and experience life in terms of a spacetime experience. All that we have is, well all that we have and it is within our perception of reality within spacetime. We simply cannot experience something that is not within this spacetime (aka spaceless space or timeless time)
Sticking to Einstein's concept of relativity (made easy)... As there are no fixed points (aka static points) within spacetime, circumstance/context is an ever changing point of reference. In other words, what one experiences depends greatly upon location and time of the experience. Points of reference are relative to the origin from which the assumption uis being made.
On top of this, the experience of this perception of spacetime is an individual perception. Meaning... I cannot experience exactly what is is to be another person other than myself. This is part of what makes each individual unique (some like to say "special").
This would imply (if not state), that all experiences are contingent upon a combination of space/time/context/circumstance/individual... thus all expeience is RELATIVE to these ever changing properties... why changing? Simply... accumulation/adaptation is not a static thing, but rather a continual dynamic process. All perceptions made can indeed only be from an individual perspective in context to limited circumstances. All perceptions made by an individual are subjective and not objective.
To make an objective moral value assessment (assumption), one would be in need of all possible context (past present, future), within all possible circumstances (past, present, future), from all individual perspectives (past, present, future) and make a statement that can somehow be immune to the accumulation and adaptive process of future influences and determining factors...
WTF?
In other words... does any "objective morality" exist in a coherent form or is this simply a hasty generalization founded upon a very very limited perspective; thus placing an anthropomorphic contingency upon the universe/cosmos? (the anthropomorphic error here is the assumption that the universe must somehow have a moral agenda/intention/desire/wish... why limit the universe to our personal very human perspective? sounds like someone wishes to try on "god's shoes" and kick everyone in the ass - then blame it on (justify it with) god).
I fear that "objective morality" is nothing more that "god's teeth".
To make claim of such is to play master of the universe justified via a proxy of ego one might choose to call "god".
What I really don't get here is that many a theist makes such a claim of 'this or that' is an "objective morality". Isn't that a declaration of defining god? Isn't that (if you believe in a god) not a form of blasphemy?
Debates on morality according to the mayor of simpleton:
Moral Debate: "the art of nailing jello to the wall and bitching about which flavour is the 'bestest of them all', without noticing the absurdity of the act of NAILING JELLO TO THE WALL in the first place".
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it to be.
Meow!
GREG
If I'm not mistaken, morality is a perceived condition of value theory. This valuation is contingent upon events/actions within a given circumstance/context.
We live and experience life in terms of a spacetime experience. All that we have is, well all that we have and it is within our perception of reality within spacetime. We simply cannot experience something that is not within this spacetime (aka spaceless space or timeless time)
Sticking to Einstein's concept of relativity (made easy)... As there are no fixed points (aka static points) within spacetime, circumstance/context is an ever changing point of reference. In other words, what one experiences depends greatly upon location and time of the experience. Points of reference are relative to the origin from which the assumption uis being made.
On top of this, the experience of this perception of spacetime is an individual perception. Meaning... I cannot experience exactly what is is to be another person other than myself. This is part of what makes each individual unique (some like to say "special").
This would imply (if not state), that all experiences are contingent upon a combination of space/time/context/circumstance/individual... thus all expeience is RELATIVE to these ever changing properties... why changing? Simply... accumulation/adaptation is not a static thing, but rather a continual dynamic process. All perceptions made can indeed only be from an individual perspective in context to limited circumstances. All perceptions made by an individual are subjective and not objective.
To make an objective moral value assessment (assumption), one would be in need of all possible context (past present, future), within all possible circumstances (past, present, future), from all individual perspectives (past, present, future) and make a statement that can somehow be immune to the accumulation and adaptive process of future influences and determining factors...
WTF?
In other words... does any "objective morality" exist in a coherent form or is this simply a hasty generalization founded upon a very very limited perspective; thus placing an anthropomorphic contingency upon the universe/cosmos? (the anthropomorphic error here is the assumption that the universe must somehow have a moral agenda/intention/desire/wish... why limit the universe to our personal very human perspective? sounds like someone wishes to try on "god's shoes" and kick everyone in the ass - then blame it on (justify it with) god).
I fear that "objective morality" is nothing more that "god's teeth".
To make claim of such is to play master of the universe justified via a proxy of ego one might choose to call "god".
What I really don't get here is that many a theist makes such a claim of 'this or that' is an "objective morality". Isn't that a declaration of defining god? Isn't that (if you believe in a god) not a form of blasphemy?
Debates on morality according to the mayor of simpleton:
Moral Debate: "the art of nailing jello to the wall and bitching about which flavour is the 'bestest of them all', without noticing the absurdity of the act of NAILING JELLO TO THE WALL in the first place".
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it to be.
Meow!
GREG
Moral is as moral does and as moral wishes it all too be. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
The absence of all empirical evidence for the necessity of intuitive X existing is evidence against the necessary empirical existence of intuitive X - MoS (variation of 180proof)
Athesim is not a system of belief, but rather a single answer to a single question. It is the designation applied by theists to those who do not share their assumption that a god/deity exists. - MoS
I am not one to attribute godlike qualities to things that I am unable to understand. I may never be in the position to understand certain things, but I am not about to create an anthropomorphic deity out of my short-commings. I wish not to errect a monument to my own personal ignorace and demand that others worship this proxy of ego. - MoS
