My views on objective morality

[abaris]

Since you have no respect for philosophy (word salad, as you say) then maybe you should refrain from engaging in it. In other words, better to be silent and thought the fool, than speak and provide proof.

The topic isn't philosophical, it's about the claim of something being objective. Well, it isn't. You can try to argue that away, but good luck with that, given the fundamental changes the West alone has undergone in the span of 2000 years.

On the other hand, as I always keep saying, look at animals and what recent research tells us about their morality, if you want to call it that. The basics are the same as with humans, when it comes to social species. Which we are after all. I said this before ad nauseum. Living in a community requires certain rules. That's true for wolves as well as for humans.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The topic isn't philosophical, it's about the claim of something being objective. Well, it isn't.

I have never before have heard someone say that morality and ethics were not philosophical issues. Maybe you should run out and tell that to Kant and Rorty. Maybe not; they're dead. Here, you go I found a list of contemporary ethicists: Wiki List Go ahead, drop them a line and tell them how you feel about their life's work.

[IATIA]

The topic isn't philosophical, it's about the claim of something being objective. Well, it isn't.

Damn you abaris for making me side with a theist.     Of course the topic is philosophical.  If morals or ethics were 'objective', then the topic would not be philosophical so much as up to interpretation, however, as morals and ethics are 'subjective' then it definitely falls solidly into the philosophical category.

[abaris]

Maybe you should run out and tell that to Kant and Rorty.

Why would I? Even if they weren't dead. I never subscribed to their ideas anyway.

I subsrcibe to research when it comes to morality, since I find that much more fascinating than any idea any philosopher ever had.

[abaris]

If morals or ethics were 'objective', then the topic would not be philosophical so much as up to interpretation, however, as morals and ethics are 'subjective' then it definitely falls solidly into the philosophical category.

They're neither objective nor subjective, as I said before. They're dependent on the particular society and time, as I said several dozens of pages before. They're simply rules to live together with the least amount of friction. I see nothing philosophical in that fundamental truth. It's nature at work, the same way as it ingrained rules in a pack of wolves or chimps. The only dfference being, far as we can tell, that we are the only ones being able to jerk off in front of a mirror over it.

[IATIA]

The biggest difference between us and the animals is our sense of right or wrong and that is what gives us a philosophical outlook on morals and ethics. Sociological/cultural morals may trump individual morals, but that does not make societies rules 'right'.

[LadyForCamus]

That dilemma does not apply to a monotheistic god whose essense is identical to his existence. Your trump card is the wrong suit.

I am definitely going to need you to explain that more clearly, lol.

[bennyboy]

The biggest difference between us and the animals is our sense of right or wrong and that is what gives us a philosophical outlook on morals and ethics.  Sociological/cultural morals may trump individual morals, but that does not make societies rules 'right'.

I think animals have a sense of injustice, too.  Look at what happens if I show preference to one of my dogs-- it gets offended, grumpy, jealous.  Clearly, it understands that something is wrong with the world.  If my beagle would speak at such times, I'm sure he would say it's immoral of me to play with my Yorkie too much.

[IATIA]

Apples and oranges. Right and wrong vs. emotions. Emotions may play a part in determining right and wrong, but they are not the same. I have cats and dogs. I see lots of personality and emotion in them. I do not think, however, that they have the abstract capabilities to determine right and wrong beyond the 'Pavlov' reaction.

[Bob Kelso]

That dilemma does not apply to a monotheistic god whose essense is identical to his existence.  Your trump card is the wrong suit.

After taking a cursory glance at the responding arguments I could find it seems you're taking a leaf from Rabbi Averick -or his ilk-, and the original doesn't sound much different from that annoying twat on the playground. 

"Nuh-uh, you didn't hit me. I'm transcendent, space/time and arguments poking holes in objective morality don't apply to me."