My views on objective morality

[LadyForCamus]

What exactly is "morality" anyway? I'm going to chalk this up to yet another Xtian construct, and this is unfortunate -I believe the dialogue in this thread has been hopelessly muddled on account of the argument is based on a construct of nebulous definition (as is typical with religious constructs). Then again, I have observed in my last post that an objective judgement can be made on whether something one may do is social or anti-social. Is this enough to determine whether or not it's moral? If so, then maybe we can all agree on there being objective morality, and without any need for any theistic doctrine. But I don't think it would work for any theists who insist that their controversial prohibitions and requirements are also founded on objective morality.

You can lump all Catholics in together if you really want, but their beliefs aren't all exactly the same, like whether Genesis is literal or not.

Again...therein lies the problem. This is practically the definition of subjectivity, and saying that the objective morals are "out there," and it is only human's interpretations of them that are subjective is not an excuse, and does not wiggle you out of the contradiction the way you think it does.

[Catholic_Lady]

You've been conflating matters of opinion and taste with behaviors which are sociable or anti-social. Murder is anti-social, and since sociable behavior is an important component of the human survival imperative for most humans, then murder is bad for most people. When you commit a murder, you commit an offense against society, which is why it doesn't matter what your opinion is or that you enjoyed killing your victim, all societies will outlaw murder. This fact does not in itself make murder, nor rape, nor child exploitation, nor the embezzlement of public funds objectively immoral - no, they are simply anti-social, which society will outlaw because society represents and protects what is social against those who would act against it. Anti-social behavior isn't considered wrong by all, therefore it's not objectively immoral - if it was, then nobody would be killing, raping, embezzling, etc.

This, I mostly agree with, however...

Well of course we have an inherent understanding of sociable vs. anti-social behavor, and that is because we have the genes of animals which are highly evolved to live in complex societies - nothing magical about that.

From here, if you dare (and I know you won't) we can compare anti-social behaviors to Catholic rules, some which Catholics and other Christians want to enforce on all Americans.

C_L has made it clear she doesn't want to force Catholic law on anyone.

There's contraception, which is a no-no to Catholics, but it never harms existing persons, and it helps keep populations at managable levels - therefore, sociable, and most Western countries don't outlaw it, they're definitely not objectively immoral.

I mean, I know you're arguing against objective morality here, so when did C_L say that contraception is objectively immoral? I mean, I don't ever recall her saying that she thinks all morality is objective; just that some morals are.

The same with abortion. So then, CL, how do you reconcile these facts on the above, which you consider to be wrong, but are not by the evidence "objectively wrong"? On forcing unfortunate women to carry an unwanted child to term, even when it ruins her life or harms her physically, this is certainly an anti-social side of your religion, but I know you aren't going to admit that lobbying to strong-arm them with the law is anti-social, for all the harm it causes very real people who you don't want to understand.

I'm sorry, but can you read C_L's mind?

Seriously, I don't think morality is objective; not by a long shot, but you can make that argument just fine without building straw men.

You also declare "fornication" as objectively immoral, but the evidence sheds a sociable light on this when done safely, not anti-social.

When did she declare that?

To clarify, I don't believe contraception or fornication are objectively immoral. That is, immoral all the time without exceptions, no matter who, what, where, when, how... etc. Neither do I think those things should be illegal, of course. I think it is immoral for certain people to do those things in certain situations, but I don't think it's universally, objectively immoral.... such as things like murder and rape. Which are always immoral even if the people/culture doing those things don't believe they are.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

What exactly is "morality" anyway? I'm going to chalk this up to yet another Xtian construct, and this is unfortunate -I believe the dialogue in this thread has been hopelessly muddled on account of the argument is based on a construct of nebulous definition (as is typical with religious constructs). Then again, I have observed in my last post that an objective judgement can be made on whether something one may do is social or anti-social. Is this enough to determine whether or not it's moral? If so, then maybe we can all agree on there being objective morality, and without any need for any theistic doctrine. But I don't think it would work for any theists who insist that their controversial prohibitions and requirements are also founded on objective morality.

I totally agree with you on the above. I just think you were assigning thoughts and opinions to C_L that she hasn't actually stated or that she's fully denied, either in this thread or in others. You can lump all Catholics in together if you really want, but their beliefs aren't all exactly the same, like whether Genesis is literal or not. I'm not sure, but I think I remember C_L saying she wouldn't vote against bodily autonomy, but we'd have to ask her to make sure.






(Please don't call me "Your Highness")

Now (and once again) it's you who are straw-manning me. I did not say CL would vote politically against bodily autonomy, but it's a fact that she has stated she believes abortion is wrong. It's also a fact (just ask her) that she has stated she accepts, without cherry-picking, the teachings of the Vatican, of which it can be presumed collects her tithe money. This may not be direct support of anti-abortion laws, but it is certainly a manner of support for every evil thing which bad Catholic political action organizations and bad priests, bishops and cardinals do.

[abaris]

I think it is immoral for certain people to do those things in certain situations, but I don't think it's universally, objectively immoral.... such as things like murder and rape. Which are always immoral even if the people/culture doing those things don't believe they are.

Even in that you are wrong. Rape was something that could be easily remedied by paying off the father of the rape victim or marrying her after the violation took place. That's in the OT, which you take to be allegorical. But it's one of the few instances the OT really gets concrete and even names the sum that has to be paid. Which shows us that violating women was a commodity rather than a crime for these people.

As for murder, you may not be aware of that, but all through the Middle Ages there have been certain codices offering the so called Wergeld. Again, a murderer could get away by paying a certain sum. And they weren't shy about fleshing out what to pay for any given victim. An indentured servant was worth much less than a free man. A woman was generally of less worth than a man.

Last, let me repeat what I already said. Not murdering someone belonging to the own group is as basic as it ever can get. I don't need any form of society for that. It's in the interest of preserving the species.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

This, I mostly agree with, however...


C_L has made it clear she doesn't want to force Catholic law on anyone.


I mean, I know you're arguing against objective morality here, so when did C_L say that contraception is objectively immoral? I mean, I don't ever recall her saying that she thinks all morality is objective; just that some morals are.


I'm sorry, but can you read C_L's mind?

Seriously, I don't think morality is objective; not by a long shot, but you can make that argument just fine without building straw men.


When did she declare that?

To clarify, I don't believe contraception or fornication are objectively immoral. That is, immoral all the time without exceptions, no matter who, what, where, when, how... etc. Neither do I think those things should be illegal, of course. I think it is immoral for certain people to do those things in certain situations, but I don't think it's universally, objectively immoral.... such as things like murder and rape. Which are always immoral even if the people/culture doing those things don't believe they are.

Who would "certain people" be? I'm guessing they aren't good Catholics.

[robvalue]

I have no idea what it means that something "is immoral" even if everyone thinks it isn't.

How does that have any bearing on reality? Immoral according to who, or what?

How does morality make any sense independent of a point of view? A neutral universe doesn't care what happens.

[Catholic_Lady]

I think it is immoral for certain people to do those things in certain situations, but I don't think it's universally, objectively immoral.... such as things like murder and rape. Which are always immoral even if the people/culture doing those things don't believe they are.

Even in that you are wrong. Rape was something that could be easily remedied by paying off the father of the rape victim or marrying her after the violation took place. That's in the OT, which you take to be allegorical. But it's one of the few instances the OT really gets concrete and even names the sum that has to be paid. Which shows us that violating women was a commodity rather than a crime for these people.

As for murder, you may not be aware of that, but all through the Middle Ages there have been certain codices offering the so called Wergeld. Again, a murderer could get away by paying a certain sum. And they weren't shy about fleshing out what to pay for any given victim. An indentured servant was worth much less than a free man. A woman was generally of less worth than a man.

Last, let me repeat what I already said. Not murdering someone belonging to the own group is as basic as it ever can get. I don't need any form of society for that. It's in the interest of preserving the species.

What if we get to the point where the world is so over populated, that "preserving our species" is no longer in a person's best interest? I don't believe this would make genocide, for example, moral.

[Catholic_Lady]

I have no idea what it means that something "is immoral" even if everyone thinks it isn't.

How does that have any bearing on reality? Immoral according to who, or what?

How does morality make any sense independent of a point of view? A neutral universe doesn't care what happens.

I see where you're coming from, Rob. From an atheists perspective, believing that anything can be objectively immoral makes 0 sense. Believing in a higher power certainly goes hand in hand with objective morality.

[God of Mr. Hanky]

I have no idea what it means that something "is immoral" even if everyone thinks it isn't.

How does that have any bearing on reality? Immoral according to who, or what?

How does morality make any sense independent of a point of view? A neutral universe doesn't care what happens.

This is why I hate discussing anything in the nebulously-defined terms of religious constructs.

When suicide is "moral" according to the whole group, a Jim Jones can lead them all down, and they'll drink the Kool-Aid. I suppose this would qualify as "immoral" according to Natural Selection, if it could make such judgements.

[robvalue]

Thanks

In what way does a higher power change the situation? Are you deferring to his opinion?