Objective morality

[genkaus]

My use of 'wants' and 'striving' here is anthropromorphic out of convenience; although, I do in fact believe reality does express a kind of will. I cannot fully substanciate that belief at this time.

Okay. You can take your time to figure it out.

Not sure if that exactly describes what I'm trying to do. It goes back to my assertions elsewhere about substance and form. For things that are truly real, we can recognize the form of a thing and we can recognize its substance. From that recognition we can make a mental contruct of the thing's form or substance. In reality; however, neither substance or form happen apart from each other. They are merely recognizable aspects of a complete thing. Form cannot be a part, nor can substance be a part. I'm saying this. The whole of reality is one thing. That one thing includes all of substance, as it really is, in a form that contains within it all possible true relationships. As you say, we compare recognizable aspects of parts to the recognizable aspects of other parts. I add the idea that a recognizable aspect of a part can be compared to a recognizable aspect of a whole. The perfect example of this idea is a fractal.

Again, more confusion here about the substance and form. From our earlier discussions, I was under the impression that the thing in itself was the substance and the mental construct we make of it was the form, rather than both form and substance being intrinsic attributes of the same thing. Maybe you are using the words "form" and "substance" in a different sense than what we were using them in earlier. Care to re-clarify?

Yes, I was avoiding the question. I wasn't clear that you gave me the go ahead. Thinking it through a bit more, I'm starting to see problems with thinking of integrity as the means to the end of happiness. I also need to avoid the mistake of connection happiness and integrity by definition. I think I had the idea backwards. Instead of increasing the happiness of the self, what I'm thinking is increasing the self that experieces happiness. As the self becomes more complete (integrated) the capacity for a fuller happiness increases. The moral standard which I propose is known by comparing features of a individual moral agent, as a part of reality, and recognizable features intrinsict to the whole. In this case I look to the whole of reality, the All, as the perfect example of what it means to be integrated. But does that make one more 'moral'? I must think more about that.

Okay. So I guess that now you know the shortcomings of your philosophy, you can work on getting it right.

[Scabby Joe]

What does it matter if there is objective morality or not when so many have different views?

You could argue that morality is innate and instinctive. That accounts for a lot of the similar moral views we have. The differences, and changes over time, are just reflections of how we perceive our innate morality.

Whether morality is truly subjective, or objective and our perception of it varies, seems to matter very little.

I like to think that it is undeniably moral to avoid causing unnecessary pain and suffering and promote happiness and well being. At least I have something to live by and strive to achieve. It seems to me that without some sort of moral compass as I have for myself, people are in danger of just drifting and not aspiring to do anything.

If people think everything is relative, morals are just opinions, everyone is entitled to their opinion, how can they judge another's actions wrong?

[The Grand Nudger]

Easily enough, by measuring the opinions of others against their own (and those of others). This hardly seems to be the herculean task you make it out to be, we do it all the time. We've managed to avoid annihilating each other along precisely these lines, thusfar.

[simplexity]

Could it be morally inherent to say that to end a life which is aware of existence is morally wrong? Without the awareness to view it where is existence? It's not that existence no longer has a purpose any longer but that it really does not exist without the awareness. This is the whole does a tree still fall in the forest when there is nothing aware of it or does the tree only appear to have fallen once an awareness views it? This is the universal moral base case.

I really have no idea, I'm just looking for a hole to jump in here.

[Godscreated]

What does it matter if there is objective morality or not when so many have different views?

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.

You could argue that morality is innate and instinctive. That accounts for a lot of the similar moral views we have. The differences, and changes over time, are just reflections of how we perceive our innate morality.

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.

Whether morality is truly subjective, or objective and our perception of it varies, seems to matter very little.

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.

I like to think that it is undeniably moral to avoid causing unnecessary pain and suffering and promote happiness and well being. At least I have something to live by and strive to achieve. It seems to me that without some sort of moral compass as I have for myself, people are in danger of just drifting and not aspiring to do anything.

Those are good ideas to live by, but that would not work in a totally free society because not all people would give up some of their stuff to keep people unknown to them from suffering.

If people think everything is relative, morals are just opinions, everyone is entitled to their opinion, how can they judge another's actions wrong?

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.[/quote]

[Jackalope]

Could it be morally inherent to say that to end a life which is aware of existence is morally wrong?

I would not say that. It's not immoral to kill in defense of self or others. Regrettable perhaps, but not immoral.

[simplexity]

Could it be morally inherent to say that to end a life which is aware of existence is morally wrong?

I would not say that. It's not immoral to kill in defense of self or others. Regrettable perhaps, but not immoral.

Assuming my premise is true, than I would say it is morally wrong to kill an aware being. That is not to say one has to take the moral high ground whenever there is a case which threatens another life or your own life. If it is one to one the defender always has the moral high ground. And you can go from there. This could also be taken to the lines of "suffering" as it is only the base case being described.

You could argue that morality is innate and instinctive. That accounts for a lot of the similar moral views we have.

I Agree. A universal law has been evolved in a way, maybe.

[Jackalope]

Could it be morally inherent to say that to end a life which is aware of existence is morally wrong?

I would not say that. It's not immoral to kill in defense of self or others. Regrettable perhaps, but not immoral.

Assuming my premise is true, than I would say it is morally wrong to kill an aware being.

Again, I would not agree. My position is that it is morally wrong to unjustly take life. You and others may reasonably disagree - however, that difference on this very basic tenet is one reason why I do not believe that there is any objective standard to morality.

[simplexity]

Again, I would not agree. My position is that it is morally wrong to unjustly take life. You and others may reasonably disagree - however, that difference on this very basic tenet is one reason why I do not believe that there is any objective standard to morality.

How do you reason that it is ever just to take life? Maybe we just reason the definition of just differently. I don't see how what you are saying defies a possible objective standard at all.

[Jackalope]

How do you reason that it is ever just to take life? Maybe we just reason the definition of just differently. I don't see how what you are saying defies a possible objective standard at all.

Doctrine of competing harms: Because to do stand by and do nothing to prevent another person from perpetrating an act of murder is to allow a greater evil to prevail.

That, in my view, is immoral. I recognize that a strong pacifist would disagree. I abhor violence, but I am no strong pacifist.

Edit: It defies an objective standard because one's position on this topic is going to be influenced by one's personal feelings and opinions (which is the very definition of subjectivity).