My views on objective morality

[The Grand Nudger]

Because you referred to it as your point of origin...you attempted to explain those sins and -why- they were sins, as such. If you're actually explaining something else, use some other word, some other framework. You're basically telling a spanish speaker that rojo doesn't mean red, it means some other thing that you, an english speaker, will define forthwith. If sin is the framework, our wills are fallen, and subverting them is the goal, not a problem to be avoided by prohibitions against sin.

I know that you're trying to imagine what they were trying to "get at", with the concept....but don't you think they might have been trying to get at precisely what they said, rather than your revision which ignores what they said? I think, in this case...you're just going to have to let them be wrong, rather than try to force their square peg into your round hole. Sin doesn't subvert our will, our will is to sin. Now, I'm sure you'll have something much more intelligent to say than anyone who ever commented on that ever had to say, but you really aren't talking about the same thing at all.

[bennyboy]

Either way, I see no evidence for any truly objective moral code. Morality isn't really synonymous with the survival imperative, and I believe the concerns of humanity should be limited to facilitating survival for as many as possible - therefore, I really don't like that word "morality", and I don't feel that it is appropriately used in any secular discussion. The Xtian moral code is not an objective one for humanity, not when smarter people see nothing wrong with sabbath-breaking, the mixing of fabrics, the consumption of pork,  "fornication" and masturbation under safe conditions.

I agree with this. I don't think there's an objective moral code, because that requires arbitrary value decisions, communication, etc. I do, however, think that there may be real or hypothetical objective mores.

Let me make this clear: I'm not supporting the Christian view of morality. If we are going to look for objective mores, I'd say that our genetics, and especially our instinctual behaviors, is the best place to look.

Our struggle as conscious beings with strong instincts is all about maintaining good function and avoiding dysfunction. The 7 deadly sins represent those instincts, which if they dominate, will lead to dysfunction.

[bennyboy]

Because you referred to it as your point of origin...you attempted to explain those sins and -why- they were sins, as such.  If you're actually explaining something else, use some other word, some other framework.  You're basically telling a spanish speaker that rojo doesn't mean red, it means some other thing that you, an english speaker, will define forthwith.  If sin is the framework, our wills are fallen, and subverting them is the goal, not a problem to be avoided by prohibitions against sin.

I know that you're trying to imagine what they were trying to "get at", with the concept....but don't you think they might have been trying to get at precisely what they said, rather than your revision which ignores what they said?  I think, in this case...you're just going to have to let them be wrong, rather than try to force their square peg into your round hole.  Sin doesn't subvert our will, our will is to sin.  Now, I'm sure you'll have something much more intelligent to say than anyone who ever commented on that ever had to say, but you really aren't talking about the same thing at all.

I clearly never set the 7 Deadly sins as my "point of origin." Read again. Let's forget about the catholicism, and look exclusively at the list divorced of the religious context, okay?

-lust
-gluttony
-greed
-wrath
-sloth
-envy
-pride

I'd say these represent a pretty good list of those instincts which tend to subvert the will, and lead to dysfunction.

Where that dysfunction poses a burden to the species or to genetic fitness, there's a problem.  Now, we may have individual ideas about what constitute "burden" or "dysfunction," but that may be more a limitation of our ability to see consequence for behaviors in a complex social environment than a lack of a hypothetical best-case behavioral system.

[The Grand Nudger]

My insticts and genetics may explain my lethality and propensity for it.  Is this what you would refer to for objective mores?  It's easy to say that "sin", as you define it,  leads to dysfunction, but you're ignoring all those times it leads to gain, success, and happiness... not just on an individual scale, but a societal scale.  You're appealing to our "better natures" by ignoring our whole natures.

I can point to each of those sins and describe them in a positive context. It takes very little imagination to do so. That they are sin, even by your own definition (as subverting will)..is as subjective as anything else.

[abaris]

I don't know why we have to get all philosophical on the big 7. All of them are basic rules to live in a society. Gathered by observation. Nothing metaphysical about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

Conditional rules, no less.  The big seven are clearly not always bad. Ask my wife how she feels about my lust.

[abaris]

Conditional rules, no less.  The big seven are clearly not always bad.  Ask my wife how she feels about my lust.

I guess, originally it was more geared towards not raping your neighbours wife.

[bennyboy]

My insticts and genetics may explain my lethality and propensity for it.  Is this what you would refer to for objective mores?  It's easy to say that "sin", as you define it,  leads to dysfunction, but you're ignoring all those times it leads to gain, success, and happiness... not just on an individual scale, but a societal scale.  You're appealing to our "better natures" by ignoring our whole natures.

Like I said earlier, nobody said that morality is a simple subject.  That's why I see any objective morality as hypothetical or inscrutable, even though we can get a glimpse of things we suspect to be objective mores.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that the sins can lead to gain, success, and happiness.  Note that nobody's talking about sex, eating, or relaxing.  It's only a "sin" when it gets so out of control that it becomes harmful.  Take sex, for example.  It's a normal and healthy expression of human adult function.  But sex addiction can lead to harmful relationships, the spread of disease, and the loss of the individual to fully pursue other interests or ambitions.  Not only is it likely to affect one's own genetic fitness, but that of others also.

Now, keep in mind that I'm still talking about statistical norms here.  You can always say that there's nothing intrinsically important about the survival of the species, or of reducing suffering.

[The Grand Nudger]

That you say it's only sin when it gets out of control and becomes harmful means that you're using -another- set of unspoken metrics. Speaking of, harmful in what way? Not all harm is a moral issue. Whose control and at what level are they out of it?

I'm still not sure that you've explained how they subvert the will. If my will was to be lustful...how would lust subvert my will?

[bennyboy]

Conditional rules, no less.  The big seven are clearly not always bad.  Ask my wife how she feels about my lust.

Your desire for sex is not one of the 7 deadly sins unless it overwhelms your life and damages your relationships.  If you start fucking every woman you know and pulling out your dick at the dinner table with the in-laws over, she's likely to change her feelings pretty fast.