Objective morality, Virtue, and Gray areas

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Objective morality, Virtue, and Gray areas

Post #1

Post by 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.)
Truth=God

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #61

Post by Bust Nak »

ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Bust Nak wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: 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.
You said it, not me. Sarcasm is not an argument. Who gets to decide what is good order?

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #62

Post by Goat »

ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: [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...?

Well this is the point.. how can you 'establish objective morals'?? That means something is moral or not, no matter what people think about it. If you try to 'establish' it, then it is was you think about it, and other would think differently.

Why should I goose step in unison with what you think should be moral?
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #63

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Bust Nak wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Bust Nak wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: 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.
You said it, not me. Sarcasm is not an argument. Who gets to decide what is good order?
If everything is subjective, the ones with the guns. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule....if it weren't for the US. And of course the US isn't perfect....even less so of late.

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #64

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: [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...?

Well this is the point.. how can you 'establish objective morals'?? That means something is moral or not, no matter what people think about it. If you try to 'establish' it, then it is was you think about it, and other would think differently.

Why should I goose step in unison with what you think should be moral?
The objective of objectivity is NOT to goosestep. I'm saying that a universally acceptable, reasonably deducible moral code is possible for all but despots and anarchists.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #65

Post by Goat »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: [
If everything is subjective, the ones with the guns. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule....if it weren't for the US. And of course the US isn't perfect....even less so of late.
Let me add another one.. Ghandi. Has nothing to do with the U.S. what so ever.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #66

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: [
If everything is subjective, the ones with the guns. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule....if it weren't for the US. And of course the US isn't perfect....even less so of late.
Let me add another one.. Ghandi. Has nothing to do with the U.S. what so ever.
Not at all sure what you're getting at, but Ghandi and objective morality both cross hairs on Truth. And objective morality/Truth has to do with equal justice for all.

User avatar
Goat
Site Supporter
Posts: 24999
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2006 6:09 pm
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 207 times

Post #67

Post by Goat »

ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: [
If everything is subjective, the ones with the guns. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule....if it weren't for the US. And of course the US isn't perfect....even less so of late.
Let me add another one.. Ghandi. Has nothing to do with the U.S. what so ever.
Not at all sure what you're getting at, but Ghandi and objective morality both cross hairs on Truth. And objective morality/Truth has to do with equal justice for all.

Is that true?? Why is that so? It certainly isn't objective, because that is what you feel about it.

It seems like the folks in many places in the middle east don't htink so.

oh.. and the Sudan. We must not forget the Sudan.
“What do you think science is? There is nothing magical about science. It is simply a systematic way for carefully and thoroughly observing nature and using consistent logic to evaluate results. So which part of that exactly do you disagree with? Do you disagree with being thorough? Using careful observation? Being systematic? Or using consistent logic?�

Steven Novella

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #68

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: [
If everything is subjective, the ones with the guns. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule....if it weren't for the US. And of course the US isn't perfect....even less so of late.
Let me add another one.. Ghandi. Has nothing to do with the U.S. what so ever.
Not at all sure what you're getting at, but Ghandi and objective morality both cross hairs on Truth. And objective morality/Truth has to do with equal justice for all.

Is that true?? Why is that so? It certainly isn't objective, because that is what you feel about it.

It seems like the folks in many places in the middle east don't htink so.

oh.. and the Sudan. We must not forget the Sudan.
I wonder if your even convincing yourself. I rest my case.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #69

Post by Bust Nak »

ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Bust Nak wrote: You said it, not me. Sarcasm is not an argument. Who gets to decide what is good order?
If everything is subjective, the ones with the guns. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule....if it weren't for the US. And of course the US isn't perfect....even less so of late.
If everything is objective, it is STILL the ones with the guns who gets to decide what is good order. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule... and so on.
I wonder if your even convincing yourself. I rest my case.
Doesn't work like this here, check forum rule 5. Demostrate that "objective morality/Truth has to do with equal justice for all" or rephrase it as your opinion.

User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Post #70

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

Bust Nak wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Bust Nak wrote: You said it, not me. Sarcasm is not an argument. Who gets to decide what is good order?
If everything is subjective, the ones with the guns. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule....if it weren't for the US. And of course the US isn't perfect....even less so of late.
If everything is objective, it is STILL the ones with the guns who gets to decide what is good order. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule... and so on.
I wonder if your even convincing yourself. I rest my case.
Doesn't work like this here, check forum rule 5. Demostrate that "objective morality/Truth has to do with equal justice for all" or rephrase it as your opinion.
There are people here who use their own subjective opinion to determine objective Truth--ironically calling it subjective. Wonderland does exist in the minds of some.

Post Reply