My views on objective morality

[Losty]

Did I misunderstand you? I was only trying to say that no one defended her against you because you weren't saying really mean things.

That was my way of saying I'm no gentleman, young lady.  

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yep it's midnight I'm calling it a night.

Your efforts are appreciated, ma'am.

[Losty]

It's really late right now (past midnight), and I have to go somewhere early tomorrow.

Sweet dreams love. Tomorrow (if God permits) I will create that thread, and I hope I won't disappoint you.

Sweet dreams

[Losty]

Yep it's midnight I'm calling it a night.

Goodnight

[Athene]

That was my way of saying I'm no gentleman, young lady.  

Heh heh...I think you're a gentlemen, Thump.
Certainly not to a fault, though. 

You "keeps" it real enough.

[bennyboy]

There's an angle we haven't talked about yet. If there is NO God, then what is the real difference between "subjective" and "objective"? Wouldn't "subjective" morality be a product of determinist chemistry, brain function, DNA, environment, etc. anyway? In other words, wouldn't the "subjective" sense of it be simply the experience of it, and the "objective" sense of it be the actual mechanism of moral thought and behavior?

It seems to me that the LACK of God makes an objective morality way more likely than the existence of one. The only problem is that our objective morality, so far as we are concerend, might be completely arbitrary-seeming anyway.

[robvalue]

It seems to me defining objectivity is arbitrary, if we're talking about anything other than (presumably) objectively existant physical objects.

For example, the way we measure mass is arbitrary. It's just an abstract representation of a quality of something. It just so happens it's extremely useful. The way we measure it has to be objective, or else it is useless for obvious reasons. We could have measured physical objects in any other entirely different way, and maybe that would be useful, maybe not.

However, it has not been established that any arbitrary set of morals is actually useful in the same way. As I said in another thread, I can only see it being of any use to someone who literally has no idea what to do in order to fit in with society such as a psycopath. Whether they'd even listen to you is another matter.

The way I see it, if morality is to be objective, it must be somehow measurable in a way that isn't dependent on the user; or else it's just a set of vague principles which everyone will interpret differently anyway. Measurements are objective, judgements are subjective. But in reality, morality is a judgement, as far as I can see. Those who claim to be following "objective morality" are just following one particular possible set of rules out of infinitely many, and whether or not that's a good idea is up them to demonstrate. The only difference seems to be that they refuse to grow and develop over time, whereas those less dogmatically minded learn and adapt to improve themselves (if they wish to).

It comes down to an equivocation fallacy. The theist wants morality to mean "being a nice person / caring about wellbeing / everyday morality" and "some magical property that has something to do with God". They slide between the two positions, intentionally or otherwise, in order to make their case. If you pick just the first definition, God is irrelevant. If you pick the second, morality is now nothing to do with what we normally consider to be morality. It's about boot licking and mindless obedience; or perhaps justifying what you were going to do anyway with divine righteousness.

So theists pretend it's about both of these things. But if they are the same thing, then "God" is redundant. If they are not the same thing, then God is negatively affecting their treatment of others, any time the two come into conflict.

So there. The sermon is over. You'll find a yellow hat under your seat. For god's sake, don't put it on. They look stupid.

[LadyForCamus]

So, I've taken some time away from the meat of this thread to gain some perspective, and l've taken the time to go back and read through what happened here with fresh eyes. I'd like to share my final thoughts and feelings (assuming anyone is still interested) before stepping out and closing the door on this disaster.

Rape is a difficult subject for many people. Every time I have seen it come up as a topic here at the forums (I can only speak to what I have been personal witness to), it begins as thoughtful discussion and inevitably escalates into one or two people being villainized as "pro-rape."

After sitting back and absorbing what has happened here, I have come to the realization that I cannot discuss rape without getting personally, emotionally involved. I am not capable of unbiased discourse on the matter. I should have politely excused myself from the thread the second it came up. This is was my learning curve. I take full responsibility for it, and I'm sorry for it. I should have picked up on CL's emotional fatigue and let it go.

Now to be fair, I think there is learning curve here for CL as well. In my opinion, she needs to understand that when we are discussing the horrors of human suffering, and she takes the philosophical position: "God lets these things happen for a reason, and this suffering is part of his larger plan," she isn't just talking about the suffering that is 'out there somewhere.' She is taking about suffering that many of the people involved in the discussion have experienced personally. In other words, what it sounds like is: "God let YOU suffer for a reason. YOUR suffering is a part of his larger plan." In other words, it pulls in the dummies who don't know better than to circumvent the thread all together (like me) with an emotional hook that burns. Whether or not they believe in such a God, or any God, is irrelevant I think.

And that's not fair to CL. For one, we don't (or at least I don't) have any idea what she has been through in her life; what she has suffered. I certainly don't hold her personally responsible for anything her God has or hasn't done to me or anyone close to me. She is also not responsible for those of us who have a hard time keeping our feelings in check. But, I do think that going forward she needs to better prepare herself for the emotional backlash that is bound to occur anytime this particular can of worms gets opened, intentionally or otherwise.

I know she feels ganged up on, and I know some people said some pretty nasty things, but I think this was less about a gang-up: "let's beat on CL till she cries!" and more about her expressing a belief that several people had a negative emotional response to all at once. I'm not excusing it. I'm just saying I think that is what happened.

I also stand firm in my (and Hanky's) position that her beliefs are founded upon a logical contradiction, or atleast a cognitive dissonance in terms of god's morality. I have yet to see this challenged convincingly. It seems any challenge to it requires God to forfeit his omnipotence in some capacity, so I won't concede yet in that regard.

I am sorry in advance if I have spoken incorrectly for anyone's feelings or intentions here. Please correct me if I have misstepped. I am also sorry to CL, and I'd like to extend my apology to her personally if she would take me off ignore. If she chooses not to, I will respect her decision. Thanks to anyone who is still listening to me ramble; I promise I'll stop now!

[LadyForCamus]

I just horrified myself; I didn't realize how long this was, I'm sorry guys.

[LadyForCamus]

This thread will be closed down, if the initial OP discussion is not discussed. Period, end of story. Now I've spent at least six to seven hours (A. Because I'm a slow reader and B. Because I like to get the full scope and be objective when it comes to issues like this), and I'd like to ask you guys to stop fighting about what did happen, and continue with the discussion at hand (sans CL for now). I do hope she returns, but that's up to her. I for one have a break down of everything that has been said, so far, and I will continue to observe what occurred and then confer with my fellow mods and admins on this matter. Anyone elses' opinion, in my opinion, can wait until we've come to our conclusions. For those of you who would like to continue investigating objective morality and perhaps posit some insight (I can and have thought of a million things you could offer CL to clarify what it is that you are saying), then please by all means do so in a manner that resembles the outstanding forum that we are. Sure, we are loose on our verbiage, and allow everyone the floor. My advice to you is not to take advantage of that, and stick to the topics at hand.

On a side note, dear lord this is a long long long thread to have to review post by post! While you all are spanking, I'm working my ass off! Don't make me regret my decision please. My goal is to rectify all sides, with our policies and procedures accordingly (if warranted) and make sure no one was unfairly treated. That is all. So many differing opinions, personalities, etc are naturally going to lead to discourse at some point. Take that into account, and move on. Or Tibs will close this thread!

I'm sorry, Luckie! I posted that damn long thing before I saw this. I apologize. Will stick strictly to the OP topic from here on out, promise!