We all have faith in something: world views take faith.

a reply to: windword

Oh my Jesus, is this really truly happening?

YOU don't understand subjective vs objective dude.

It is WRONG for someone to tie up & murder your family.

It doesn't matter if they feel morally justified & OBJECTIVE MORALITY HAS NOTHING TO DO with your ATTEMPT/LACK OF to CONVINCE HIM otherwise.

It is WRONG for wage disparity to be where it's at. It doesn't matter how much you or anyone you know makes, we are living in an upside down backwards world.

When something is blatantly "wrong" vs "right" that's objective morality it doesn't matter what action is actually taken.

LambServant, I don't know how you even made it that far, Id give you 50 stars if I could.

a reply to: windword

No. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I don't believe that my existence is detrimental to the betterment of mankind, one way or the other, but I can't stop someone, who is passionately determined, from taking my life.

The question isn't about whether or not you can stop them. The question we need to ask is was their action good?

Remember you said from your world view morals are subjective so on a world view stand point if I believe the death your family is detrimental to mankind on the basis of eugenics, and I kill you and your family was my action a good thing to do .

a reply to: Eunuchorn

LambServant, I don't know how you even made it that far, Id give you 50 stars if I could.

Well I appreciate it. I enjoy hearing his side though. I hate to use the family analogy as I would prefer the stolen wallet to stay away from appeal to emotion. However appealing to emotion seem the point of ethics to me when I think about it, so I suppose no argument is going to be completely free of that.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

From a human point of view it appears to be wrong to "tie up" and murder anyone's family. But in the total scheme of things, in the big picture, that family has no effect of the outcome of the state of the Universe.

Why is a human family intrinsically more valuable than a pesky colony of ants or wasps in your world view of objective morality?

It seems to me that IF your God exists and intends to judge humanity for its actions as individuals, then a fair and just God would take into account what is in a person's heart and mind. If a person is convinced that what they're doing is "righteous", then I believe that God would take that person' state of mind into the thought process that would go into HIS judgment of a person's iniquities. I would say to "forgive them, for they know not what they do".

I find your example rather hypocritical, because the God of the Old Testament ordered the murder of countless families at the hands of other humans and had no qualms killing off nearly all of the human race for the betterment of HIS agenda in a flood. If murdering my family is intrinsically and objective wrong in universally moral way, then the Biblical God is immoral.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Eunuchorn

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb
If murdering my family is intrinsically and objective wrong in universally moral way, then the Biblical God is immoral.

Now you're getting it; you're one step closer to the real world, welcome.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Eunuchorn

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

It seems to me that IF your God exists and intends to judge humanity for its actions as individuals, then a fair and just God would take into account what is in a person's heart and mind. If a person is convinced that what they're doing is "righteous", then I believe that God would take that person' state of mind into the thought process that would go into HIS judgment of a person's iniquities. I would say to "forgive them, for they know not what they do".

That's not how "objective" anything works; you can forgive someone for doing something evil, doesn't make it any less evil. Hell, that's the entire Christian philosophy, to be forgiven of our evil actions

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Eunuchorn

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

From a human point of view it appears to be wrong to "tie up" and murder anyone's family. But in the total scheme of things, in the big picture, that family has no effect of the outcome of the state of the Universe.

Outcomes of the state of the universe aren't necessarily affected by our actions, objectively moral or not.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Eunuchorn

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Why is a human family intrinsically more valuable than a pesky colony of ants or wasps in your world view of objective morality?

Technically, it's not. But some people would probably say advanced critical thinking & verbal language.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

That's not how "objective" anything works; you can forgive someone for doing something evil, doesn't make it any less evil. Hell, that's the entire Christian philosophy, to be forgiven of our evil actions

I say "forgive them" because in my world view killing me and my family is wrong. But in the world view of the killer, what they're doing is righteous. IF, and that's a capital "IF" there is a God that wants to Judge, then HIS judgment would also be SUBJECTIVE, based on what is in the individual's heart and mind, not on my opinion that the act was "evil.

a reply to: windword

I don't disagree with that in the slightest. Now that we've all established an understanding I think we can discuss whether or not Faith, Religion, & world views actually have an effect on each other.


Would a true godhead be subject to subjective morality? Many would argue that is contradictory. I suppose you'd have to determine which religious godhead you want to meet up with post mortem.

I choose to not give a crap about potential after life stuff, personally. I know good evil right & wrong, & I would choose to watch the world burn if I could.

Now, is that objectively moral?



My world view is driven by a lack of faith in my fellow man to choose good over evil, & I think this warrants our destruction.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I know good evil right & wrong, & I would choose to watch the world burn if I could.

Now, is that objectively moral?

I don't know. I don't believe in objective morality. I don't think it exists.

But, I would be honored to be among the final generation on Earth, if it came to that.

I had to come to grips with being the last generation when I was growing up in a fundamental Christian household that believed in the "Rapture" and that Jesus was going to come and snap us up, any minute now, and then destroy the planet.

I don't believe any of that any more, but a random asteroid or a comet, sure. It could happen. Would that make the comet or asteroid evil?

a reply to: windword

Asteroid? Nah, they're intrinsicallly neutral. God told me so.


Do you believe in general good & evil? I think the concepts themselves imply that objective & subjective morality are both quite real.

What do you have faith in WW?

a reply to: Eunuchorn

I believe that morality is a construct of the mind, put in place due to a millennium of time and trial and error.

I believe in reincarnation.

I believe in a spiritual hierarchy.

I believe in beings that are "supremer" than me in my present condition, but not really so much in a supreme being as a god.

a reply to: windword

Again, I don't disagree with this. I think "existence" implies life & death, which is why animals killing each other / surviving by instinct are not representations of morality.

Advanced critical thinking leads to choice. We choose how to survive. If you choose to survive on the blood, sweat, & tears of others then you are by definition evil.

Is it human nature to exhibit evil? Maybe. I think we've been forced into a moral gray area due to long term conditioning & 5000 years of wage disparity.

To me, this doesn't change the fact that certain actions could be considered blatantly evil.
To me, our ability to make choices proves objective morality. While there may not only be one "good" choice to make, certain choices can be nothing else than obviously evil. We don't need a judgmental God to teach us about morality. We can judge each other well enough.

Obviously you could even take it so far as to discuss nature vs nurture, but I think I said earlier that a sociopath isn't someone who "doesn't understand right from wrong" it's someone that can choose not to worry about it. This is where people mistakenly assume an almighty godhead will enact judgement based on objective morality. Religion (or maybe more specifically the idea of redemption/salvation by an all knowing creator) was probably initially meant to cull evil actions, but too bad for us, subjective morality is equally real & as powerful as objective morality.

Let's take the Ten-250 Commandments for example. While following the specifics strictly could arguably be objectively moral or not, it's the idea of "Good Actions To Live By" which proves objective morality. Like I said earlier in this post, it's our forced materialistic environment & ability to make choice which can lead to the contradiction of the existence of objective morality.

Some would say a person has no morals, I say they didn't have the luxury of making the "right" choices throughout their lives & the need to survive didn't allow them the chance to learn & grow in their understanding of right & wrong.

"The system" as it currently exists only perpetuates this further. & the fact that all we or anyone else knows is "the system" is the only reason this is even a disputable topic.

a reply to: windword

From a human point of view it appears to be wrong to "tie up" and murder anyone's family.

The guy who just murdered your family and went and told the story to his buddies. They and him agree that the action appeared good. You cannot just say from a human point of view it appears wrong, because all humans don't share the same view point. Either its a good action because he says it is, or its wrong because objective right and wrong exist. Its not hard. I'm not trying to lure you into a trap. Think about anytime you've actually been wronged. Was your moral experience subjective relative or objective? Please also explain how your moral experience falls into said category.

But in the total scheme of things, in the big picture, that family has no effect of the outcome of the state of the Universe.

If the family's death did have a negative effect on the universe would that have anything to do with the nature of whether the man's action was Good or Bad? As a moral relativist the answer must ultimately be no, even if it destroyed the universe and that man believed it was truly good in his heart and soul then it was a good action. I simply cannot accept that. I think you have value and worth and if anyone were to murder you and your family the would be doing absolute evil regardless of that mans beliefs, and regardless of my beliefs. I think its evil because observational experience has shown me when I see a women beheaded on the internet my moral experience tells me that their action of ending her life was absolutely wrong 100% always.

Why is a human family intrinsically more valuable than a pesky colony of ants or wasps in your world view of objective morality?

I think because humans are the only ones who are self-aware, we are the only ones with moral obligations and the only ones who are part of a moral community.

It seems to me that IF your God exists and intends to judge humanity for its actions as individuals, then a fair and just God would take into account what is in a person's heart and mind.

He will do exactly that, but that wont turn out so well for the person.

If a person is convinced that what they're doing is "righteous", then I believe that God would take that person' state of mind into the thought process that would go into HIS judgment of a person's iniquities. I would say to "forgive them, for they know not what they do".

So the righteous man who murdered your family should just not have to go to prison then right?

I find your example rather hypocritical, because the God of the Old Testament ordered the murder of countless families at the hands of other humans and had no qualms killing off nearly all of the human race for the betterment of HIS agenda in a flood. If murdering my family is intrinsically and objective wrong in universally moral way, then the Biblical God is immoral.

There is a difference between killing and murder. If God chooses to judge a person or the whole world its within his rights.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You cannot just say from a human point of view it appears wrong, because all humans don't share the same view point.

You are correct, that was careless of me. It appears wrong to some and not wrong to others.

So the righteous man who murdered your family should just not have to go to prison then right?

If they broke the law. But if they were operating within the law of the area where the killings happened, then they wouldn't. Soldiers don't go to prison for the people they kill in wars.

Think about anytime you've actually been wronged. Was your moral experience subjective relative or objective? Please also explain how your moral experience falls into said category.

I've already done that.

I think because humans are the only ones who are self-aware, we are the only ones with moral obligations and the only ones who are part of a moral community.

I don't agree. Great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales are all self aware. My cat like to get under a frilly scarf at look at herself in the mirror with it over her head. She get embarrassed when we laugh at her and then changes her behavior.

There is a difference between killing and murder. If God chooses to judge a person or the whole world its within his rights.

Does that mean God doesn't have an objective moral standard that he operates on? Or do you mean that if God does it, or orders others to do it, it's not immoral?

I think its evil because observational experience has shown me when I see a women beheaded on the internet my moral experience tells me that their action of ending her life was absolutely wrong 100% always.

So you think the "death penalty" is immoral? God instituted the death penalty in the Bible.

If the family's death did have a negative effect on the universe would that have anything to do with the nature of whether the man's action was Good or Bad?

If the universe ceased to exist, would that be good or bad to whom? You see, it's subjective.

I simply cannot accept that.

There are a lot of things in the Bible and in the doctrine of Christianity that I can't accept.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Let's take the Ten-250 Commandments for example. While following the specifics strictly could arguably be objectively moral or not, it's the idea of "Good Actions To Live By" which proves objective morality.

The problem with that is, I think that the 10 + Commandments aren't moral , in fact, most of them immoral, in my opinion.

The 10 Commandments are Unnecessary, Irrelevant and Immoral

a reply to: windword

You are correct, that was careless of me. It appears wrong to some and not wrong to others.

No it wasn't careless. It was you accidentally expressing your actual moral experience, and as you can see it was objective not subjective.

If they broke the law. But if they were operating within the law of the area where the killings happened, then they wouldn't. Soldiers don't go to prison for the people they kill in wars.

Ok but the momemnt you start talking about soldiers and killings we have entered a strawman. To murder and To kill are two very different things. Now again I will ask you, if a man preforms an action he believes to be Good, then by your definition of ethics he was Good. So ethically speaking, why should that man have to go to prison?

I don't agree. Great apes, elephants, dolphins and whales are all self aware. My cat like to get under a frilly scarf at look at herself in the mirror with it over her head. She get embarrassed when we laugh at her and then changes her behavior.

I have four dogs. When they get in the trash and I find it their eyes droop, their tails tuck, their heads sink. Is this emotion or a response to classical conditioning?

I believe you and I both would be anthropomorphizing the animals. The truth behind the matter is animals respond to stimuli in the environment, and they can be conditioned to respond to certain ones. Your cat responds to the laughter, my dogs respond to a long time of punishment and reward scenarios that condition their behavior.

Does that mean God doesn't have an objective moral standard that he operates on? Or do you mean that if God does it, or orders others to do it, it's not immoral?

God is the moral standard that we appeal to. Does that mean you have to believe in God? No, but you appeal to Him as a standard outside ourselves on a daily basis even if your not aware that it is Him your appealing to.

So you think the "death penalty" is immoral? God instituted the death penalty in the Bible

When did I say I think the death penalty is immoral? The death penalty again is not murder, so your putting forth a strawman. My example had nothing to do with a death penalty. It was a cold blooded murder.

If the universe ceased to exist, would that be good or bad to whom? You see, it's subjective.

You do realize in your previous response to me where you talked about your family not having an effect on the universe, you implied that if your family did have an effect on the universe it would have been bad. You fall into moral absolutism constantly as we are talking because its obvious you have an objective moral experience.....

There are a lot of things in the Bible and in the doctrine of Christianity that I can't accept.

Thats perfectly ok with me.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You do realize in your previous response to me where you talked about your family not having an effect on the universe, you implied that if your family did have an effect on the universe it would have been bad.

Again I ask, "Bad" for whom?

No it wasn't careless. It was you accidentally expressing your actual moral experience, and as you can see it was objective not subjective.

Yes, it was careless because I had intended to integrate more of animal morality into my "human perspective" answer, but neglected to effectively tie those points together.

I disagree, animals do have their own "subjective" moral compass.

When did I say I think the death penalty is immoral? The death penalty again is not murder, so your putting forth a strawman. My example had nothing to do with a death penalty. It was a cold blooded murder.

Well, to be fair, you didn't explain why a person was being publicly beheaded. I just assume when I hear about a public execution it's because "someone's" law has been broken and the Death Penalty" applied.

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about a legal execution or a cold blooded murder, the effect is subjective not universally objective.

If universal objective morality existed, we would see it exhibited in nature, but we don't.

a reply to: windword

If universal objective morality existed, we would see it exhibited in nature, but we don't.

How on earth did you come to this conclusion? You don't see it in nature, but you do see it when someone wrongs you. Its quite obvious that you don't want to concede that if the man that murders you and your family believed it was a moral act, then you would have to concede that ethically he preformed a morally good action by killing you and your family. If morals were truly subjective you wouldn't have beat around the bush so long. You would have just said yea that man did an ethically good thing by killing me and my family.

Again I ask, "Bad" for whom?

Destroying the universe is bad...and you were the one that implied it was objectively bad if you'll go re read our conversation...that was my point when I said your previous response implied an objective standard and now you have to change it because your world view isn't consistent with the way you live your life....

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

How on earth did you come to this conclusion? You don't see it in nature, but you do see it when someone wrongs you.

NO I DON'T! Everything, including right and wrong is subjective. There is no objective moral standard! Everything is relative, including the existence of the universe.

Destroying the universe is bad...and you were the one that implied it was objectively bad if you'll go re read our conversation

No. You misunderstand. Why is destroying the universe bad? Serious question.

Things are only bad to those who perceive them to be.

a reply to: windword

Accepting other people's subjective actions doesn't mean there's no objective morality. The destruction of the universe isn't good or bad.

Maliciousness & unneccesary contemptible actions are always bad. Just because someone might think it's "good" to torture, rape, pillage, & murder doesn't mean it is good. Only subjectively good. You still don't understand the actual difference between subjective & objective.

"Evil" is unneccessary but it is there & just because it might be human nature to be evil doesn't make it any less wrong.

Is it human nature to be evil? I think you have a great argument FOR long term conditioning & survival of the fittest in a materialistic society with extreme disparity,

But your argument AGAINST objective morality sucks.