Objective morality: True or Not?(Thanks to mOjOm)

a reply to: subtopia

I agree. I've used that example before also. In the same way a Belief, when it's supported by something, removes Faith. You could say that Knowing then removes Belief.

It's almost like a dream or distant memory in a way. Like, let's say when you were really young you saw a bigfoot while camping. But now, many years later for whatever reason you can't quite remember if maybe it was all a dream you had. Which does happen. At that point what you Know, starts actually becoming something you believe again.

In the context of what you're saying, it becomes clear just why "Knowing" has such an impact for those who hold on to beliefs so strongly. Actual knowledge, if it contradicts their belief, is probably the most frightening thing they can imagine and would be avoided even if it means dying in order to protect it.

a reply to: mOjOm

I find it fascinating in regards to human thought when someone proclaims, subconsciously, 'I cant believe it' when they are directly experiencing something out of the ordinary.

Thanks for your thoughts.

a reply to: mOjOm

But that's just it. I don't expect MY MORALS to mean anything to you. I don't know why you think YOUR MORALS should mean anything to someone else either. In fact it's that difference in thinking which causes all the trouble. You think everyone is supposed to have the same moral code, most likely the kind you also have and agree with.

So if you understand that in reality your morals are meaningless, then why do you call them meaningful? I dont think everyone is supposed to have the exact same moral code as me. Maybe I should have clarified in my OP that this in not an argument that Humans have a perfect moral intuition. I believe we have a strong moral intuition, but I don't believe its perfect. I am making the argument that there is a basis for which we form our morals. That basis is Love. Love is the Law. All morals are formed on that basis. Now, let me ask you this if you think something is moral one day and immoral the next is that evidence of moral subjectivity or that our moral intuition is flawed? On what basis does a person change their moral frame work when they change it? If an objective moral reality exist, would that mean people were always right or that when there moral frame work was wrong they would notice it based on an objective moral reality that transcends the self? Now if moral reality is subjective how are you to bring any objective charge against another person? How will that charge hold an authority?

No, you've got it wrong. You think I am avoiding something. That I don't want to see the truth. That's what you mean when you say "I Deny God." But that's not it at all, in fact it's the opposite. This is what Believers think about Non Believers and where all the Blaming and Fighting also comes in.

No I meant exactly what I said. I am not blaming or fighting merely trying to have a discussion. I said that because thats how I honestly feel. You have made it appear as though your a "Non-believer" so are you telling me I am to assume that you hold no personal bias when you come into this argument? I don't feel that morals are subjective. I feel that morals are something that I know intuitively, and I know that sometimes I trick myself into thinking that I am doing something Good or Neutral rather than immoral, but eventually I realize that my moral intuition was flawed. Now if I am wrong about what is moral would that have any effect on an objective moral reality? No. I have got to go work so I'll respond more later, but I harbor no ill feelings toward you man I wouldn't have posted the thread if I didnt think you would engage in a honest conversation.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: mOjOm

But that's just it. I don't expect MY MORALS to mean anything to you. I don't know why you think YOUR MORALS should mean anything to someone else either. In fact it's that difference in thinking which causes all the trouble. You think everyone is supposed to have the same moral code, most likely the kind you also have and agree with.

So if you understand that in reality your morals are meaningless, then why do you call them meaningful? I dont think everyone is supposed to have the exact same moral code as me. Maybe I should have clarified in my OP that this in not an argument that Humans have a perfect moral intuition. I believe we have a strong moral intuition, but I don't believe its perfect. I am making the argument that there is a basis for which we form our morals. That basis is Love. Love is the Law. All morals are formed on that basis. Now, let me ask you this if you think something is moral one day and immoral the next is that evidence of moral subjectivity or _javascript:bold()that our moral intuition is flawed? On what basis does a person change their moral frame work when they change it? If an objective moral reality exist, would that mean people were always right or that when there moral frame work was wrong they would notice it based on an objective moral reality that transcends the self? Now if moral reality is subjective how are you to bring any objective charge against another person? How will that charge hold an authority?

No I meant exactly what I said. I am not blaming or fighting merely trying to have a discussion. I said that because thats how I honestly feel. You have made it appear as though your a "Non-believer" so are you telling me I am to assume that you hold no personal bias when you come into this argument? I don't feel that morals are subjective. I feel that morals are something that I know intuitively, and I know that sometimes I trick myself into thinking that I am doing something Good or Neutral rather than immoral, but eventually I realize that my moral intuition was flawed. Now if I am wrong about what is moral would that have any effect on an objective moral reality? No. I have got to go work so I'll respond more later, but I harbor no ill feelings toward you man I wouldn't have posted the thread if I didnt think you would engage in a honest conversation.

Having a strong moral intuition where others do not was one of the reasons why I have been critically studying Human Behavior.

Questioning this helped me to ask the right questions as I sought the primal cause to all Human behavior, which I have found is not love. Love can be considered an extension of the primal cause.

Think what is a moral trying to do, what is the action of love 'trying' to do. They are protective, yet this protection can escalate to the point where a nuclear arsenal is justified for the want to protect that which is loved.

Yet to protect and to love are still only expressions of the primal cause of human behavior, which is the cause of inherent morality within humans.

a reply to: subtopia

Are you talking about instinct?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
So if you understand that in reality your morals are meaningless, then why do you call them meaningful?

They are meaningful to me. They might be meaningless for everyone else because everyone else has their own morals. So once again, they aren't meaningless to me, just like your morals are meaningful to you. However, what's meaningful to one of us may or may not be meaningful to another.

I dont think everyone is supposed to have the exact same moral code as me. Maybe I should have clarified in my OP that this in not an argument that Humans have a perfect moral intuition. I believe we have a strong moral intuition, but I don't believe its perfect. I am making the argument that there is a basis for which we form our morals. That basis is Love. Love is the Law. All morals are formed on that basis. Now, let me ask you this if you think something is moral one day and immoral the next is that evidence of moral subjectivity or that our moral intuition is flawed? On what basis does a person change their moral frame work when they change it?

I suppose it depends on the reason we changed it. Maybe it was bad intuition or maybe just bad logic or just bad cultural norms. For example, it used to be that slavery was considered moral. Then that changed. Was it flawed intuition or bad logic that changed that??? I don't know personally because I wasn't around then. Ever since I've been alive Slavery has always been morally wrong and I agree with that, so in that case I don't know exactly why people changed their minds about it. But they did decide to change their minds about for one reason or another.

If an objective moral reality exist, would that mean people were always right or that when there moral frame work was wrong they would notice it based on an objective moral reality that transcends the self?

I don't know how objective reality would work. An objective reality doesn't make sense to me. That would be a question for you to answer since you subscribe to the idea that there actually is an objective reality somewhere by which we should follow. I don't think there is such a thing. I think it's based upon what we are taught and/or our experiences.

Now if moral reality is subjective how are you to bring any objective charge against another person? How will that charge hold an authority?

From a legal perspective people are "charged" for breaking a "Law". Law isn't about morality, it's about order. Now, we sometimes make laws that follow the same thinking as our morality but not always. We make laws based on keeping order. In fact sometimes we even make laws that are against morality. For example, adultery. Adultery is considered immoral however it isn't considered illegal everywhere. Some places it's illegal and some places it's not. In the places where it's not illegal it may still be considered immoral though.

No I meant exactly what I said. I am not blaming or fighting merely trying to have a discussion. I said that because thats how I honestly feel. You have made it appear as though your a "Non-believer" so are you telling me I am to assume that you hold no personal bias when you come into this argument?

I believe you're honest in what you say. I don't doubt you're being honest about what you believe. I'm just saying I don't agree with what you believe. I don't doubt the fact that you honestly believe it though.

No, I have a bias toward what I believe the same as we all do. Everyone is bias toward whatever they believe. That's why they believe it. But that isn't all I have to support my argument. That's why I keep using examples as supporting evidence to show "why" I am biased toward one way versus the other.

I don't feel that morals are subjective. I feel that morals are something that I know intuitively, and I know that sometimes I trick myself into thinking that I am doing something Good or Neutral rather than immoral, but eventually I realize that my moral intuition was flawed. Now if I am wrong about what is moral would that have any effect on an objective moral reality? No. I have got to go work so I'll respond more later, but I harbor no ill feelings toward you man I wouldn't have posted the thread if I didnt think you would engage in a honest conversation.

Thanks for letting me know that. I don't harbor ill feeling about you either and I believe you are sincere in what you believe too. If I thought you were lying about it just to argue against me or something I'd let you know. I realize you think there is a Perfect Objective Moral code that exists. I don't think so. I think our Morals are Subjective based upon our own experiences and what we've been told, or read or whatever since our birth. Now, I can't be absolutely certain that either of us are right or wrong. But from what I've been able to understand so far, it seems more likely that Morality is in fact Subjective.

For example, Premarital Sex. To me Premarital sex is in no way immoral as long as both parties want it. I don't think there is anything wrong with having two people having sexual relations with one another out of wedlock. However there are others who do feel that it's absolutely always immoral to have sex out of wedlock. So which side is correct???

To me, because I believe Morality is Subjective, both sides are correct. They are both correct because "They are doing Right by themselves." If you think it's ok, then it's ok. If not, then it's not. But most importantly is that both sides are allowed to make that choice for themselves. Also, because the sexual habits of two consenting people only effects those two people, it is also not the responsibility of anyone else to decide for them if it's right or wrong. It only involves them, so even if I disagree with it, it's still none of my business so I stay out of it unless they decide to ask me to get involved. But until they want me involved in it for some reason it doesn't matter what I think about what they are doing.

a reply to: mOjOm

I don't know how objective reality would work. An objective reality doesn't make sense to me.

I do not bring this up much, but if you can't even fathom the opposite side of the argument is that not an argument from incredulity? As I can easily imagine a world in which moral reality was subjective, but is it really that hard for you to open your mind at the very least pretend that there is an objective moral standard?

They are meaningful to me. They might be meaningless for everyone else because everyone else has their own morals. So once again, they aren't meaningless to me, just like your morals are meaningful to you. However, what's meaningful to one of us may or may not be meaningful to another.

I am not being rude, but we are talking about how your morals pan out in the external reality. Think a little bigger than yourself. In a subjective reality do your personal morals have meaning in the big scheme of things?

From a legal perspective people are "charged" for breaking a "Law". Law isn't about morality, it's about order. Now, we sometimes make laws that follow the same thinking as our morality but not always. We make laws based on keeping order. In fact sometimes we even make laws that are against morality. For example, adultery. Adultery is considered immoral however it isn't considered illegal everywhere. Some places it's illegal and some places it's not. In the places where it's not illegal it may still be considered immoral though.

Are you not kind of dodging my question here? I don't want to know how someone is legally charged, but I want to know how anyone can bring an objective charge against another human being free of government and outside influences. Lets say there are two brothers and a baby marooned on an island. Brother A wants to eat it alive starting with the hands and feet, while Brother B wants to care for it and nurture it. They have enough food for months, but Brother A doesn't want to waste it on the child who will most likely die anyways. How is Brother B supposed to bring an objective moral charge against Brother A's claim? If moral reality is subjective there is no way for Brother B to get Brother A to understand that he is wrong, because there is no standard outside of human thought and emotion to compare "right" and "wrong" to.

Now in the scenario above if Brother A changes his mind because Brother B, in a morally subjective realm what could have possibly gotten Brother A to change his mind? Please try and answer both questions.

To me, because I believe Morality is Subjective, both sides are correct

One logical law that is easy to accept is the law of non-contradiction. This law can be expressed by the propositional formula ¬(p^¬p). Breaking the sentence down a little makes it easier to understand. p^¬p means that p is both true and false, which is a contradiction. So, negating this statement means that there can be no contradictions (hence, the name of the law). In other words, the law of non-contradiction tells us that a statement cannot be both true and false at the same time. This law is relatively uncontroversial, though there have been those who believe that it may fail in certain special cases. However, it does lead us to a logical principle that has historically been more controversial: the law of excluded middle.
The law of excluded middle can be expressed by the propositional formula p_¬p. It means that a statement is either true or false. Think of it as claiming that there is no middle ground between being true and being false. Every statement has to be one or the other. That’s why it’s called the law of excluded middle, because it excludes a middle ground between truth and falsity. So while the law of non-contradiction tells us that no statement can be both true and false, the law of excluded middle tells us that they must all be one or the other

web.stanford.edu... ml

As you can see according two the laws of logic the two statements "Premarital sex is moral" and "Premarital sex is immoral" cannot both logically be true.

I would say on premarital sex is immoral is the true statement as that is truly the only way to ensure you don't emotionally hurt other humans.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
I do not bring this up much, but if you can't even fathom the opposite side of the argument is that not an argument from incredulity? As I can easily imagine a world in which moral reality was subjective, but is it really that hard for you to open your mind at the very least pretend that there is an objective moral standard?

I just mean I don't know how it would function, but I suppose I can imagine it and guess at answering your questions, sure. To answer your question of whether that would mean people were always right or that they would know when they do something wrong because because it would feel incorrect internally? I would say most likely they wouldn't always be right, unless of course everyone always had the same moral rules and acted accordingly. Then yes they'd all be right, but I can't ever imagine everyone always thinking and acting the same way.

On the other hand, if objective morality was hard coded from an external source into everyone's psyche, then I imagine that when someone acted in the "wrong" way they would have to knowingly go against what they think is the right thing to do. Since a moral code is written within them they would then automatically think and feel what was right, meaning if ever they did something immoral they would have to purposefully act against their own better judgement. So even though they might act in ways that are "Bad" or "Wrong" they would be doing so knowing full well that they are doing something "Wrong". There would be no doubt or question as to whether or not they were wrong in their actions.

I am not being rube, but we are talking about how your morals pan out in the external reality. Think a little bigger than yourself. In a subjective reality do your personal morals have meaning in the big scheme of things?

I have no idea if they have "meaning" outside of myself because I am forever locked within myself. However, they of course would have an effect on the outside reality, sure. They may even be meaningful for someone else too. If I share them with someone and they also find them to be correct and true and decide to follow them as well then they would then have meaning for them and myself.

So personally I feel they should be meaningful to others and I would hope that they are so that morally we would all be on the same or at least similar paths in how we live together. But I don't know for sure that they would be. I can only speak about things being meaningful for myself, not others. For example, my morals I'm sure would not be meaningful for someone living under Sharia Law in the middle east. My morals and theirs for the most part would not mesh. Even just the one aspect of how they treat women I don't think I would ever be able to adopt because I don't believe it's moral to subjugate women like that. They also would find my views about women having freedom equal to my own as a problem and would never agree that my moral choice in that matter was meaningful to them.

Are you not kind of dodging my question here? I don't want to know how someone is legally charged, but I want to know how anyone can bring an objective charge against another human being free of government and outside influences. Lets say there are two brothers and a baby marooned on an island. Brother A wants to eat it alive starting with the hands and feet, while Brother B wants to care for it and nurture it. They have enough food for months, but Brother A doesn't want to waste it on the child who will most likely die anyways. How is Brother B supposed to bring an objective moral charge against Brother A's claim? If moral reality is subjective there is no way for Brother B to get Brother A to understand that he is wrong, because there is no standard outside of human thought and emotion to compare "right" and "wrong" to.

You're right. There is just one argument against another. All that brother B can do is try and explain to brother A why it should be one way over the other. He can appeal to logic and reason and emotion or whatever way possible to try and get brother A to see it his way, but that's about it. If brother A doesn't ever agree with brother B then there isn't much else he can do about it. He can "charge" him with wanting to do something "immoral" I suppose, whatever that means. He could also kill his brother over the disagreement and just move on with it, although I imagine killing his brother might be against his own moral code. But that's pretty much it.

In the end they may still not agree with one another if neither of them change their moral opinion. I'm assuming that both of them have their reasons for what they believe too, so I can't say for sure that either of them are wrong. To me obviously I'm against eating the baby even though I might starve or die sooner because of it. But if someone has the opposite belief and I can't convince them otherwise, so be it. What other choice is there??? One brother can't make the other change their beliefs if they refuse to do so.

Now in the scenario above if Brother A changes his mind because Brother B, in a morally subjective realm what could have possibly gotten Brother A to change his mind? Please try and answer both questions.

What made him change his mind is that he was convinced by his brother that his plan of eating the baby was bad. Maybe because of Reason, or a better Logical argument or maybe because it would be better emotionally.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

As you can see according two the laws of logic the two statements "Premarital sex is moral" and "Premarital sex is immoral" cannot both logically be true.

That's fine. Because I still allow for the fact that one of those two choices could be wrong. Maybe it is immoral or maybe it's not. I personally cannot see why it is. So I'm not holding both of them as true exactly. I think my way is true, but allow for someone else to think what they want too. I am not the authority over other people so I cannot force them to see it my way. They are also not the authority over me so IMO they should allow me the same respect.

I would say on premarital sex is immoral is the true statement as that is truly the only way to ensure you don't emotionally hurt other humans.

I, like many others are able to have sex with someone without being married to them without emotional damage. Does that mean that it is always true?? No. It would depend on the two people involved. But to automatically say that it will hurt other people is also not true.

The only people directly effected by it are the two unmarried people having sex. If they both consent to it and want to do it and it doesn't involve others then let them. If one of them becomes emotionally hurt because of it then they will have to figure that out for themselves. I suppose they need to figure out why it was a good idea at one point and now it's not. Obviously either they were "wrong" to think it was a good idea back then or they are wrong about why it is "bad" now. They will have to figure that out for themselves as they should. That is how you learn things. By experiencing them for yourself.

I've heard it said the opposite way too. Someone saves themselves for marriage only to find out that they were incompatible sexually and it eventually ends in divorce. They will tell you that waiting to have sex until marriage is a "bad" idea now even though at one time they believed it was a "good" idea. However their experience changed all that.

Once again showing that it's subjective. For anyone to insist that they are without question, absolutely correct about such things is arrogance to ultimate limit. Such arrogance, especially in view of such logical arguments against it is plain dangerous. It's that absolute, unchanging, refusal to admit that one might be wrong in their beliefs that makes people kill each other of differences of opinion and is certainly why Religions and Nations throughout history continue to have War and Kill others. Even though doing so goes against their own Moral Values and Religious Teachings.

It's arrogance and self obsession with one's own opinions to the point to that they proclaim themselves God over everyone and that only their way is the right one and that anyone who disagrees can either change or die.

That is f**king Insane and psychopathic!!! But that's just how I see it. Maybe you disagree. If so, show me why and we'll talk about it.

a reply to: mOjOm

To answer your question of whether that would mean people were always right or that they would know when they do something wrong because because it would feel incorrect internally?

I didn't state my question very well. Remember an objective moral reality would transcend emotions. When I speak of someone realizing that something is wrong(while yes it normally accompanies an emotion) due to an objective moral reality what I mean is that its like discovering a fact about your environment you weren't previously aware of.

I would say most likely they wouldn't always be right, unless of course everyone always had the same moral rules and acted accordingly. Then yes they'd all be right, but I can't ever imagine everyone always thinking and acting the same way.

You are talking about our moral intuition here right? Remember when I said I don't believe that our moral intuition is perfect, but I do believe it is strong. But our belief of something being moral or immoral is irrelevant to an objective moral standard. An objective moral standard means even if everyone in the world believed the moral thing to do was kill chinese babies it would still be wrong, because it transcends human though and emotion like all truth. I mean when humans believed the earth was flat did that make their belief true? Of course not the earth was still round they just didn't know that. In the same way objective moral reality remains perfect while our perception of it might be lacking. That goes for myself as well. My moral intuition is not perfect though I would say that I more often act against my better judgment rather than a shortage of moral intuition.

On the other hand, if objective morality was hard coded from an external source into everyone's psyche, then I imagine that when someone acted in the "wrong" way they would have to knowingly go against what they think is the right thing to do. Since a moral code is written within them they would then automatically think and feel what was right, meaning if ever they did something immoral they would have to purposefully act against their own better judgement. So even though they might act in ways that are "Bad" or "Wrong" they would be doing so knowing full well that they are doing something "Wrong". There would be no doubt or question as to whether or not they were wrong in their actions.

Ah but do people not do this all the time? I am sure you yourself have even done something you knew you shouldn't have. I am not saying they always do this, but I would say this happens more often than someone having a shortage of moral intuition. I know I am guilty of it on a daily basis. As this is what I believe defines us as a sinner.

To me obviously I'm against eating the baby even though I might starve or die sooner because of it.

Now notice your choice. I find it interesting because its something I mentioned in the OP, true altruism. This is something that I believe is firm evidence for objective moral reality. In a subjective moral reality there would be no logical reason for you to believe that the correct choice would be possibly die for a child you don't even know. However, you, I, and the vast majority of the human race know that the moral thing to do would be to try and keep the baby alive and healthy

What made him change his mind is that he was convinced by his brother that his plan of eating the baby was bad. Maybe because of Reason, or a better Logical argument or maybe because it would be better emotionally.

If they are in a subjective moral reality what is the objective standard used by Brother B to reason. He has nothing to compare bad to. What a better logical argument. You have already said leaving the child alive reduces your own chance of survival. Its not the logical option when it comes to survival or self. Brother A was convinced that eating the baby was the moral decision so if its a subjective moral reality why would it have bothered Brother A emotionally?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

If they are in a subjective moral reality what is the objective standard used by Brother B to reason. He has nothing to compare bad to. What a better logical argument. You have already said leaving the child alive reduces your own chance of survival. Its not the logical option when it comes to survival or self. Brother A was convinced that eating the baby was the moral decision so if its a subjective moral reality why would it have bothered Brother A emotionally?

I would agree with that. In fact I can even go a step more and say that by Logic alone, if eating the baby actually allowed Brother A to live long enough to be rescued from the island then by Logic Alone one might think it to be the correct choice to take even though morally they still think it was a "bad" choice.

Brother B however may not be using Logic though which is why he chooses to die rather than eat the baby. He may be using emotion instead and the idea of actually eating an innocent baby to keep himself alive a bit longer is too difficult for him emotionally so he chooses to die instead. Especially if eating the baby may not allow him to be rescued. If eating the baby just keeps him alive for another month upon which he's going to die anyway, than logic along with emotion is enough to keep him from doing it.

Of course with him dead the baby would die too, but at least he's not responsible for it.

Although, since this is hypothetical it's also possible for other details to be introduced which could change the perspective on how we see this. We are both making decisions about something we don't have all the details to.

Upon even more thinking about this: Logic alone would also say that instead of eating the baby Brother A should eat Brother B because then there is enough meat for him and the baby to survive. But eating the baby wouldn't be enough for both brothers. So in that case, the most logical choice would be for Brother A and the Baby to eat Brother B. So in that case, Logic Alone would result in the baby living.

I'm not sure if we are proving objective reality with any of this, but it's a fun mental exercise either way.

a reply to: mOjOm

That's fine. Because I still allow for the fact that one of those two choices could be wrong. Maybe it is immoral or maybe it's not. I personally cannot see why it is. So I'm not holding both of them as true exactly. I think my way is true, but allow for someone else to think what they want too. I am not the authority over other people so I cannot force them to see it my way. They are also not the authority over me so IMO they should allow me the same respect.

Friend I dont want you to think that I think just because you have premarital sex and see nothing wrong with it that I think less of you. I have premarital sex, I lie, I have stolen before, the list goes on friend. I believe all those things are immoral, yet I do them anyways. Why? I am a sinner, and even though I know better I fall short all the time. That friend is why I am so thankful for Jesus. I dont think that I am any better than you friend, but rather I believe that I am just as bad if not worse than you as far as following the moral code. Its ok if you disagree with me on it being an immoral act, but as I have shown you according to the laws of logic they cannot both be true. "I think my way is true, but allow for someone else to think what they want too," this statement violates the law of the excluded middle. Logically one of statement must be true and the other must be false. Based on those two laws of Logic any moral fact is either true or false never both.The Rules of Logic show that an objective moral realm must exist IMO. Once again what you believe is true and what is true are not always the same.

It's arrogance and self obsession with one's own opinions to the point to that they proclaim themselves God over everyone and that only their way is the right one and that anyone who disagrees can either change or die.

Once again, I dont mind if people disagree with what I think is moral or immoral as we have varying degrees of moral intuition, but as I said before our beliefs and emotions are not what we are talking about when we talk about an objective moral reality. What that means is whats Good is Good and whats Bad is Bad regardless of what you or I believe. I could believe amputating all Indians was a good thing, but does that make it true? No.

a reply to: mOjOm

I would agree with that. In fact I can even go a step more and say that by Logic alone, if eating the baby actually allowed Brother A to live long enough to be rescued from the island then by Logic Alone one might think it to be the correct choice to take even though morally they still think it was a "bad" choice.

Ah but have you forgotten that Brother B has changes Brother A's moral perspective, and we are trying to discover how that would be possible in this situation in a subjective moral reality. Brother B has caused Brother A to change his moral perspective completely, but without any standard that transcends the two parties involved how do they have anything to compare bad to? how could it ever be possible to change a moral perspective in this kind of reality?

I agree I am having fun with the analogy I mean conversations about cannibalism are always a party.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Logically one of us must be true and the other must be false. Based on those two laws of Logic any moral fact is either true or false never both.The Rules of Logic show that an objective moral realm must exist IMO. Once again what you believe is true and what is true are not always the same.

Ok, then I say premarital sex isn't immoral. That is the truth. Just being married has no effect upon the "Rightness" of sexual interaction with someone. Sex while married has also led to emotional damage too making both of those examples cancel each other out. One doesn't have to effect the other. Marriage itself may be immoral according to some Universal Law or Morality also. Perhaps such contractual agreements between people is "wrong" morally because it separates people from Loving everyone equally. How do you know that isn't true???

Another example would be Swinging. If two couples exchange partners and are ok with it how am I to say it's immoral. Whereas I personally wouldn't make that same choice because of who I am, doesn't mean others can't make it and be perfectly happy doing so.

Now, ultimately if you're right and there is an objective moral code then whatever it said would be the right answer. However I see nothing to suggest that there is such a Universal truism. If you honestly feel it's wrong and I honestly feel it's right, neither one of us can say the other is wrong by what you're saying. Using just our intuition or our internal conscious alone we both have opposite opinions of what is true. We both have our logic and reasoning for each side as well. This makes the "Universal Truth" unknowable at that point or perhaps unreasonable.

Once again, I dont mind if people disagree with what I think is moral or immoral as we have varying degrees of moral intuition, but as I said before our beliefs and emotions are not what we are talking about when we talk about an objective moral reality. What that means is whats Good is Good and whats Bad is Bad regardless of what you or I believe. I could believe amputating all Indians was a good thing, but does that make it true? No.

Ok, but once again if you don't use emotions or logic to base your decisions one, what are you using??? You keep saying that because I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying. Maybe I'm not. Explain what people would use to make choices if they aren't using their Reasoning Skills or Emotional Skills to do so?? Intuition is defined as what feels right without reasoning. So if your answer was going to be Intuition stop right there. "Feeling" what is right without Reason would be Emotion. Just keep that in mind before you answer so we both use the same terms as one another.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb

Ah but have you forgotten that Brother B has changes Brother A's moral perspective, and we are trying to discover how that would be possible in this situation in a subjective moral reality. Brother B has caused Brother A to change his moral perspective completely, but without any standard that transcends the two parties involved how do they have anything to compare bad to? how could it ever be possible to change a moral perspective in this kind of reality?

I agree I am having fun with the analogy I mean conversations about cannibalism are always a party.

Oh, ok. I was still thinking Brother A still wanted to eat the baby. It's hard to say how he changed his brother mind but I guess we can guess how.

Perhaps Brother B explained to Brother A that as his brother how he always respected him because when they were young Brother A always stood up and protected Brother B. That Brother A's choice to put himself in danger to save Brother B was the reason Brother B loved and respected his brother so much. Brother B then tells Brother A that if he eats the baby it would destroy that respect and admiration that he had for him so Brother A decides that he would rather die with the respect of his brother intact rather than eat the baby and have his brother lose respect for him.

That's just off the top of my head so I may not even agree that it's a good example later, but for now that seems to be a good answer so I'll go with it. I'm not sure if this proves anything either way though because we are still talking about a hypothetical situation with a hypothetical result. We both might be excluding or including other details without the other knowing it and since it never really happened to either of us, how could we possibly know the reason why either of them did or didn't do anything??

a reply to: mOjOm

Now, ultimately if you're right and there is an objective moral code then whatever it said would be the right answer.

You are getting much better at stepping outside of your box even if its only hypothetical. You may recall that I told you what I thought that the Law is Love. Love is the Basis for which I believe all morals are formed. Love is a very pure thing, and it is actually the very essence of God.

www.gotquestions.org...

Now I suppose the question is do you believe that Love is only an emotion or something that transcends you entirely?

Love is a force of nature. However much we may want to, we can not command, demand, or take away love, any more than we can command the moon and the stars and the wind and the rain to come and go according to our whims. We may have some limited ability to change the weather, but we do so at the risk of upsetting an ecological balance we don't fully understand. Similarly, we can stage a seduction or mount a courtship, but the result is more likely to be infatuation, or two illusions dancing together, than love. Love is bigger than you are. You can invite love, but you cannot dictate how, when, and where love expresses itself. You can choose to surrender to love, or not, but in the end love strikes like lightening, unpredictable and irrefutable. You can even find yourself loving people you don't like at all. Love does not come with conditions, stipulations, addenda, or codes. Like the sun, love radiates independently of our fears and desires.

www.psychologytoday.com... /201111/what-is-love-and-what-isnt

Intuition is defined as what feels right without reasoning.

I agree, so when I say people have varying degrees of moral intuition that means that they use an emotion and possibly reasoning skills to come to a purported moral fact(refer to OP). Now this moral fact may be true or false. There is a basis that transcends the Human that is Love. I believe all humans intrinsically know what Love is, although our emotions and reasoning skills may sometimes get in the way of that. In our Brother scenario for example, you said the logical choice would be to eat ones own Brother as he is more meat, and maybe eat the baby down the line or something to that affect. Lets say Brother A chose that route based on logic. You'll notice that he left the transcended moral realm of Love and lost some of his intuition based on his mental state and by using his reasoning skills.

a reply to: mOjOm

It's hard to say how he changed his brother mind but I guess we can guess how. Perhaps Brother B explained to Brother A that as his brother how he always respected him because when they were young Brother A always stood up and protected Brother B. That Brother A's choice to put himself in danger to save Brother B was the reason Brother B loved and respected his brother so much. Brother B then tells Brother A that if he eats the baby it would destroy that respect and admiration that he had for him so Brother A decides that he would rather die with the respect of his brother intact rather than eat the baby and have his brother lose respect for him.

Notice what you start doing as you play through this experiment that is meant to exist in a subjective moral reality. Every time you attempt to reason with Brother A you must proceed as though he already has the knowledge of what is "right" and "wrong."In this thinking exercise you'll notice its very very hard to proceed as though morals are subjective. Everything brother B is saying would be similar to telling his brother what flavor of ice cream. The point of the thought exercise was hopefully to get you to see that a subjective moral reality makes it possible for people who do not have strong moral intuitions like you and I to be able to justify atrocious acts simply based on that idea that their moral frame work is right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Hopefully I have at least shown you that an objective moral reality is possible. Maybe not that it exist, but that it is at least logical and possible.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Now I suppose the question is do you believe that Love is only an emotion or something that transcends you entirely?

That was the best part of your argument so far. I didn't mention it earlier but should have. The problem I have with that being the answer is I don't consider Love to be an objective principle of reality either. In fact, Love is defined and referenced in radically different ways and although I think I know what it is, it's one of those things that is almost impossible to comprehend depending on the situation.

Basically, it's just as subjective as morality is. We could be discussing the Love in the same way we discuss morality. My understanding of what love is may not be what others understanding of what love is and I don't know if either side is actually able to be provable except to one's own self.


I agree, so when I say people have varying degrees of moral intuition that means that they use an emotion and possibly reasoning skills to come to a purported moral fact(refer to OP). Now this moral fact may be true or false. There is a basis that transcends the Human that is Love. I believe all humans intrinsically know what Love is, although our emotions and reasoning skills may sometimes get in the way of that.

That is still just your assumption however. Not everyone may intrinsically know what love is however.

In our Brother scenario for example, you said the logical choice would be to eat ones own Brother as he is more meat, and maybe eat the baby down the line or something to that affect. Lets say Brother A chose that route based on logic. You'll notice that he left the transcended moral realm of Love and lost some of his intuition based on his mental state and by using his reasoning skills.

Ok, but Love may also lead him to kill the baby anyway because to let him just starve to death is even more cruel. At that point he could act out of love for the baby so it doesn't suffer more than needed in that situation. He may or may not eat it afterward but acting out of love he would still be killing it. Not for selfishness but so as to protect the baby from prolonged suffering.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
Notice what you start doing as you play through this experiment that is meant to exist in a subjective moral reality. Every time you attempt to reason with Brother A you must proceed as though he already has the knowledge of what is "right" and "wrong."In this thinking exercise you'll notice its very very hard to proceed as though morals are subjective. Everything brother B is saying would be similar to telling his brother what flavor of ice cream. The point of the thought exercise was hopefully to get you to see that a subjective moral reality makes it possible for people who do not have strong moral intuitions like you and I to be able to justify atrocious acts simply based on that idea that their moral frame work is right and everyone who disagrees with them is wrong. Hopefully I have at least shown you that an objective moral reality is possible. Maybe not that it exist, but that it is at least logical and possible.

Sure, because I'm presenting the argument from how I view it through my own morality. Also, I'm not against the possibility that it is objective. I certainly leave that option open. Same goes for a God like force or entity existing too. I don't refuse that it could be there. Just that by looking at the evidence I am able to examine and understand it's at least unanswerable at this point. More specifically, the "God's" presented from all Religious Dogma so far all fail to convince me that any one of them have it correct. But one "God" outside of those Dogma's. One which is essentially without any possible parameters for lack of a better discription may in fact be possible.

I just haven't experienced such a thing so I cannot come to that conclusion. But the option is of course always available.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: subtopia

Are you talking about instinct?

Yes, The primal instinct, it is the key to the lock you are attempting to open.

Both Brother A and Brother B are instigating the same primal instinct, yet their actions are in conflict, which is a contradiction, one that until you realize the key to human behavior ensures it will continue to perplex your attempt to understand it.

Be mindful that most people search for a key without first understanding the lock they are attempting to open@.