Objective morality, Virtue, and Gray areas

[ThePainefulTruth]

I think objective, universal, morality exists and is basically a refined statement of the Golden Rule--which, BTW, is expressed in some form by every major religion, even though it's swamped by extraneous, non-applicable add-ons which inevitably draw most of the attention.

Morality should deal ONLY with our interactions with each other. All else is subjective, individually determined virtue. Not working or going to church on the sabbath are not moral issues, but if you think they're virtuous behavior, that's entirely up to you. Virtue should never be legislated, although it will always be subject to social pressure, though some will pay a price if they buck the pressure.

As for the fine tuned Golden Rule, it is: "Honoring the equal rights of all adult humans of sound mind, to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud".

That's it. Subjective morality doesn't exist, but there are some gray areas lurking in the qualifiers (adult, human, of sound mind) that have to be dealt with.

Specifically, I'm referring to cases such as the differing degrees of humane treatment given to animals, when does an embryo acquire the right to life, and when do children/adolescents, the mentally handicapped or criminals, come to possess (or loose) their rights. These gray areas deal with the degree of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness possessed by a given individual; and they're gray because there is rarely a specific time, or stage of evolution between point A when they don't have a particular right, to point B when they do. For example, children acquire the right to liberty gradually, yet we use a specific age when they're suddenly no longer considered a minor and have full legal rights as adults. The point is to recognize that picking a specific, arbitrary point for legal purposes can obviously have negative consequences. How can we allow for extenuating circumstances yet maintain equal protection under the law? Should, say, an arbitrary first trimester limit on abortion be lengthened if, for instance, the fetus has developmental problems? When does the right to life of a fetus override the right to life and liberty of the mother? For animals, is humane treatment for a dog the sames as for a chicken, or a lizard or cockroach? It isn't immoral to put (lock up) a child in playpen, restrict an adolescent from selling his TV, drinking alcohol, or making them do chores, and you don't give a child a gun to handle bullies, etc., but when do they acquire those liberties?

When we look at the extremes, 1 day old vs. 9 mo. old fetus, dog vs. cockroach, healthy adult vs. one with Alzheimers, we have little trouble making judgements. This isn't an argument against arbitrary limits, but the transition can be very problematic for deciding what's moral, and how we should deal with these issues legally. Sometimes we just don't have the information we need to make an informed judgement, and the first step is to recognize that. Some fundamentalists believe that the right to life begins at conception, but that's strictly a matter of arbitrary faith. Should a 13 year-old girl who is one day pregnant as the result of being raped by her father be forced to carry the baby to term? Others believe we can abort a healthy baby even when it's in the process of being born, but that's just as much a matter of blind faith, and should actually be considered murder.

These gray areas are gray because we don't have definitive answers for them, and the point is we need to recognize them for what they are and deal with them calmly as much as we can in our laws. All we know for sure is if a crime can have no victims, it isn't a crime. All absolute immorality stems from an adult establishing a moral double standard for himself or his family, clique, group, race, religion or country.

(I know there are questions such as under what assumptions do we adopt the Golden Rule, what would motivate society to adhere to it, and how do we enforce justice with objective morality but subjective punishment. But this is a long post already so I'll deal with those as they arise.)

[Goat]

Except, of course, it is not objective. Something is objective no matter what one thinks about it, or feels about it, and morality has no meaning except for what one thinks or feels about it.

I consider the term 'objective morality' an oxymoron

For the purposes of governance, think of it as a universal, enforceable, code of behavior for adult able-minded humans. The only alternative is to shift the law as the winds of power shift. That's the equivalent of advocating for absolute monarchies and dictatorships. If there's another alternative I'm not seeing, then please....[/quote]

I don't see any 'code of behavior' being universal and enforceable.

Winds of power shift??? That phrase does not seem to have meaning.

[ThePainefulTruth]

Your attribution is screwed up. You (Goat) wrote:

Except, of course, it is not objective. Something is objective no matter what one thinks about it, or feels about it, and morality has no meaning except for what one thinks or feels about it.

I consider the term 'objective morality' an oxymoron

I wrote:

For the purposes of governance, think of it as a universal, enforceable, code of behavior for adult able-minded humans. The only alternative is to shift the law as the winds of power shift. That's the equivalent of advocating for absolute monarchies and dictatorships. If there's another alternative I'm not seeing, then please....

Then you wrote:

I don't see any 'code of behavior' being universal and enforceable.

Of course you don't see it, or rather won't, it being the want of subjectivists to see things as they want them to be. Therefore, all things being subjective, all meaning, including even the meaning of words, is sustained by whim alone, and absent of any reality, discussion will always be as nonsensical as anything Lewis Carroll could ever have imagined.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense.�
Voilà

Winds of power shift??? That phrase does not seem to have meaning.

Just look it up in the subjectivist dictionary: "Meaning: there is none." (Which of course, is to say that words and even letters are subjective. Translation: keht jksg ;h ;'jlij' lsdo rdj g or ghir! See. Ain't subjectivism GRAND, Hmmmmmm.)

[Goat]

Your attribution is screwed up. You (Goat) wrote:

Except, of course, it is not objective. Something is objective no matter what one thinks about it, or feels about it, and morality has no meaning except for what one thinks or feels about it.

I consider the term 'objective morality' an oxymoron

I wrote:

For the purposes of governance, think of it as a universal, enforceable, code of behavior for adult able-minded humans. The only alternative is to shift the law as the winds of power shift. That's the equivalent of advocating for absolute monarchies and dictatorships. If there's another alternative I'm not seeing, then please....

Then you wrote:

I don't see any 'code of behavior' being universal and enforceable.

Of course you don't see it, or rather won't, it being the want of subjectivists to see things as they want them to be. Therefore, all things being subjective, all meaning, including even the meaning of words, is sustained by whim alone, and absent of any reality, discussion will always be as nonsensical as anything Lewis Carroll could ever have imagined.

“If I had a world of my own, everything would be nonsense.�
Voilà

Winds of power shift??? That phrase does not seem to have meaning.

Just look it up in the subjectivist dictionary: "Meaning: there is none." (Which of course, is to say that words and even letters are subjective. Translation: keht jksg ;h ;'jlij' lsdo rdj g or ghir! See. Ain't subjectivism GRAND, Hmmmmmm.)

Yet, the thing is.. you can make the claim, but you can't show the claim to be true.

That's the whole point. You can't.... it is one big unsupported claim.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 53 by Goat]

Which claim would that be?

[Bust Nak]

Which claim would that be?

This: "objective, universal, morality exists" for example, or this: "subjective morality doesn't exist."

[ThePainefulTruth]

Which claim would that be?

This: "objective, universal, morality exists" for example, or this: "subjective morality doesn't exist."

My only claim is that we either adopt a universal morality that's equally applied to all, or we have the chaos of uncounted individuals and groups adopting their own self-serving subjective moral codes. Who adjudicates the SMC hierarchy? Which double standard outweighs which others etc. etc. ad absurdum--the Rule of Martial Law? And to the Banana Republic for which it stands....



...one nation, infinitely divisible, with liberty and justice for the elite.

[Goat]

[Replying to post 53 by Goat]

Which claim would that be?

The claim there are objective morals

Can you show me an objective moral?>

[Bust Nak]

My only claim is that we either adopt a universal morality that's equally applied to all, or we have the chaos of uncounted individuals and groups adopting their own self-serving subjective moral codes. Who adjudicates the SMC hierarchy? Which double standard outweighs which others etc. etc. ad absurdum--the Rule of Martial Law? And to the Banana Republic for which it stands one nation, infinitely divisible, with liberty and justice for the elite.

That doesn't help one bit, who gets to decide which universal morality we adopt? And so on and so forth. Universally applicability to all is no indication of fairness or workability. Consider the following rule: "All, no matter who you are, must obey Bust Nak, under all circumstances."

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 53 by Goat]

Which claim would that be?

The claim there are objective morals

Can you show me an objective moral?>

No. I claim that we need to establish objective morals instead of there being 7 billion moral codes, and counting. Why should I post my objective moral code again so you can tell me to post it again, and again, and again...?

[ThePainefulTruth]

My only claim is that we either adopt a universal morality that's equally applied to all, or we have the chaos of uncounted individuals and groups adopting their own self-serving subjective moral codes. Who adjudicates the SMC hierarchy? Which double standard outweighs which others etc. etc. ad absurdum--the Rule of Martial Law? And to the Banana Republic for which it stands one nation, infinitely divisible, with liberty and justice for the elite.

That doesn't help one bit, who gets to decide which universal morality we adopt? And so on and so forth. Universally applicability to all is no indication of fairness or workability. Consider the following rule: "All, no matter who you are, must obey Bust Nak, under all circumstances."

Yeah, better we let the ones with the most guns continue with their genocide or and various forms of corruption. I mean, it's not possible that most people would favor good order.