Subjective Morality?

[downbeatplumb]

If you choose a book, and base your morality on that book, then that’s just as subjective as anything else. It’s also circular. Your only justification for why something is good is that the book says it is good. If you have any other justification than that, then you clearly have moral standards external to the book.

The book itself has objective text (although certainly not objective interpretations), but there are an infinite number of possible texts or fixed rules you could base your morality on. Everyone picks their own, in whatever way they think is best. I prefer to think things through and decide for myself.

And sometimes the books are wrong.
There was a bible published that left out the word not in one of the ten commandments.

It said thou shalt commit adultary...

[Mystic]

If you choose a book, and base your morality on that book, then that’s just as subjective as anything else. It’s also circular. Your only justification for why something is good is that the book says it is good. If you have any other justification than that, then you clearly have moral standards external to the book.

The book itself has objective text (although certainly not objective interpretations), but there are an infinite number of possible texts or fixed rules you could base your morality on. Everyone picks their own, in whatever way they think is best. I prefer to think things through and decide for myself. Deciding that you will never update your own morality isn’t a virtue, in my opinion.

You can go the circular route, but if you go to recognize morality through reflections and see the wisdom and reason of everything you follow, then it's recognition. The problem occurs when holy books are interpreted in a lousy way and it's not recognized, but rather those false interpretations are blindly followed.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

That’s subjective though innit?

[Mystic]

Holy books and those who hold authority, were meant to be followed by insight, and they relied on to show the way, but not dictate to you and you blindly accept things you don't understand.

The leadership of Prophets although they have proof, is to be followed by insight, lest their words get misinterpreted and we make a mockery of God's signs and proofs.

---

That’s subjective though innit?

Why do you say so, if it's recognition, and not making it up, and it's insight, and not just a matter of taste, and has proofs that can be agreed upon and proven and explained, then I don't see at all how it's subjective.

It's subjectively only if it's followed blindly.

[robvalue]

If you choose a book, and base your morality on that book, then that’s just as subjective as anything else. It’s also circular. Your only justification for why something is good is that the book says it is good. If you have any other justification than that, then you clearly have moral standards external to the book.

The book itself has objective text (although certainly not objective interpretations), but there are an infinite number of possible texts or fixed rules you could base your morality on. Everyone picks their own, in whatever way they think is best. I prefer to think things through and decide for myself. Deciding that you will never update your own morality isn’t a virtue, in my opinion.

You can go the circular route, but if you go to recognize morality through reflections and see the wisdom and reason of everything you follow, then it's recognition. The problem occurs when holy books are interpreted in a lousy way and it's not recognized, but rather those false interpretations are blindly followed.

So if you’re able to assess what the book says using wisdom and reason, then you already have a moral framework in place. You’re just seeing what fits into it, and what doesn’t.

What seems reasonable and wise to one person won’t be the same for the next, so interpretations are clearly not objective either. You will see someone’s version as lousy, and they will think the same about yours.

[Mystic]

You can go the circular route, but if you go to recognize morality through reflections and see the wisdom and reason of everything you follow, then it's recognition. The problem occurs when holy books are interpreted in a lousy way and it's not recognized, but rather those false interpretations are blindly followed.

So if you’re able to assess what the book says using wisdom and reason, then you already have a moral framework in place. You’re just seeing what fits into it, and what doesn’t.

What seems reasonable and wise to one person won’t be the same for the next, so interpretations are clearly not objective either. You will see someone’s version as lousy, and they will think the same about yours.

Yes, there needs to be some light (moral framework you call it), to see and assess insights about the light and increase in vision of it.   God can make a book that if you approach sincerely, will explain itself through itself, and Ahlulbayt (as) are just there to help expose some of it's insights, like teacher assistants that help debug problems we make in our heads and also help us understand a lot of what we don't perceive in it.

They are not meant to dictate what a verse means, but rather facilitate understanding. 

Revelations are meant to make us reflect and facilitate understanding.

Anyways, I'm off to school. We'll continue this discussion probably in two days (I am swamped and procrastinated more then enough).

[robvalue]

PS: wait, what?

Following blindly is the only way you can adhere to something you claim is objective morality. If you think about it and decide for yourself, you’ve clearly made it subjective. I don’t know what you think objective means, but it’s not the same as everyone else's definition.

[Mystic]

Recognition instead of making it up. If you do both, you will mock up truth and falsehood.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Word salad.

Whose the arbiter of what’s ‘made up’? You?

Edit: see rob’s Post above. Think you might be contradicting yourself a tad.

[robvalue]

You’re recognising what matches up with the moral framework you already have; or just interpreting the text so that it reflects your own moral framework. This isn’t the least bit objective.

Subjective doesn’t necessarily mean making things up. That would be called arbitrary, or something like that. Subjective means you get different results depending on who is doing the assessing. And clearly, people get very different results, even when they’re in the same religion.

Objective means you get the same result no matter who does the assessing, according to a precisely defined method.

---

PS: Well, words are just words. If when MK says objective he means what we would call subjective but not arbitrary, then that’s fair enough. I’ll use whatever definitions people want for the purposes of a discussion, as long as they stick to them.

But he should also recognise that he actually agrees morality isn’t objective according to the general definition of the word.