It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Logical Syllogism for the objectivity of morality

page: 2
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
a reply to: dffrntkndfnml




I don't really describe morality as being very objective, other then focusing on the Golden Rule. I still feel like measuring our selves, and working on behaving better has it's rewards.


I am a bit confused as to the language you use here. You say "I don't describe morality as being objective," but then you go on to state that you feel like working on behaving "better" has it's rewards. Right there you used language to compare some set of behaviors to another and stated that one set was more correct or true. That act of comparison concedes that there must be some outside reference point by which to measure two sets of behavior . You've defeated yourself, and had you paid closer attention to the OP you would have realized that you just spoke of morality progressing towards a better state which shows it to be objective as only objective things can advance.




posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 01:57 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Why do you assume that I think morality is known from following a religion? I actually think recognizing right and wrong is an intrinsic quality of human beings. If morality is stagnant you are basically saying that the abolishment of slavery was not moral progress, that there is no difference between the way barbarians lived and the way we lived today. That is simply not realistic.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




then there is no meeting of minds...you started with morality and the meaning of truth...but couldnt wait to throw in "sin".


...why does everyone get upset at that word..to break the moral law would be to sin or rather to miss the mark of moral perfection...are you really saying that pointing out the fact all humans are immoral at some point in time or another isn't honest?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 08:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight




then there is no meeting of minds...you started with morality and the meaning of truth...but couldnt wait to throw in "sin".


...why does everyone get upset at that word..to break the moral law would be to sin or rather to miss the mark of moral perfection...are you really saying that pointing out the fact all humans are immoral at some point in time or another isn't honest?


Because to define our every natural actions as sin, upsets us, because we are more than sin.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight




Because to define our every natural actions as sin, upsets us, because we are more than sin.


Are you saying that in your view you have never done anything that you yourself consider wrong? If you have you would by your own definition be a sinner...i don't think its that deep man



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
We can overcome sin, we are part God...no we are Gods...no what are we?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I think you need to define God and define human. As what I mean by the term are very different things, and as such I do not understand the proposition I am God to be a true proposition, nor do I consider my self a part of God if what you mean by part is a section of God's fundamental attributes.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 09:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I have lived long and God visited me, I can tell what are shadows an Gods.



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:21 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I thought you were God. You came to visit yourself!?



posted on Jan, 17 2017 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

To trace my line of thought to your original post...

When I was playing with your syllogism, I thought to myself that about the challenge of trying to quantify morality.I look at science and math as being disciplines that are more empirical in nature.I believe one's morality can progress, but I feel my emotions coloured my response.

You brought up the example of 2+2=4, independant of human thought, and I think you were trying to point to the underlying principles of how someone can try to formulate their stance on Moral Law, rather then trying to codify it per se.

LittleByLittle wrote about measurement, and used driving a car for example.InTheLight's insight on religious dogma and objective morality peaked my interest too.ChesterJohn's post had me thinking that logical syllogism may be a more static form of coming to conclusions in general.

At this point, I don't think I can do better then then bringing up the Golden Rule, as the best way to objectify moral law.It brings together my intellect and intuition to practice making decisions that are more beneficial for everybody.Beneficial or better, in the sense of attempting to align different layers of being more coherently towards the intent of my actions.Personally, I think looking at it this way helps to add gravity to one's will.

This thread has me thinking about measurement, and how the it's only as accurate as the tools we use to measure with.

Some really good food for thought in these threads, you started lately.


edit on 17-1-2017 by dffrntkndfnml because: grammer



posted on Jan, 18 2017 @ 01:08 PM
link   
a reply to: dffrntkndfnml




To trace my line of thought to your original post... When I was playing with your syllogism, I thought to myself that about the challenge of trying to quantify morality.I look at science and math as being disciplines that are more empirical in nature.I believe one's morality can progress, but I feel my emotions coloured my response.


How is math empirical? Math has empirical applications, but numbers and sets themselves are human fictions. The number 2 isn't out there somewhere, but is rather a label for the arbitrary grouping of a thing and another thing. It just so happens that the way arbitrary groupings behave is objective in nature. Morality cannot be discussed without recognizing ones internal experiences which to me is more empirical than the number 2. The claims of science ultimately all amount to claims about how things behave. When discussing morality part of what you discuss is how humans behave, and psychology is the scientific study of the human mind and its functions, especially those affecting behavior in a given context.

Psychology tells us how the mind functions and under what circumstances a person may choose to act a given way. Psychology however isn't the whole story is it? In every other discipline this would be the whole story. Geology, physics, quantum physics, biology, and astronomy all of these fields require nothing more than the facts, how things behave. Yet inside you and I we do not experience only how humans behave. You and I have an idea of how others ought to behave, and at times when we are wronged we expect the other people to recognize this standard of behavior and treat it as though it is a real standard and not just a preference. We have all heard things, like "that was my seat I was there first" or "how would you like it if I did that to you?", but rarely do we hear the response "To hell with your standard!" Rather we hear apology or an explanation of why in this circumstance the person is not breaking that standard.

The purpose of the 2+2=4 analogy is to make my position on objectivity very clear. Its a simple example of what it means to be objective, though you may have to specific base ten so people like nameless won't complain lol. But irrespective of human disagreement of the sum of 2+2 in base ten, the sum is 4. In the same way, irrespective of human disagreement over what is fair, it is good to be fair. In other words, if someone thinks for example one thinks that being fair is evil, and that people should be unfair that person is wrong in the same way the person who says 2+2 in base ten does not equal four is wrong.




At this point, I don't think I can do better then then bringing up the Golden Rule, as the best way to objectify moral law.


This isn't going to give you the grounding you need for you are presupposing that which you are trying ground rather than deriving it from some other thought. If we say the Good is that which follows the Golden Rule, then how are we to answer the question is following the Golden Rule Good? We may say yes, but when asked why we would be left with because the good is that which follows the Golden Rule. So the statement, "following the Golden Rule is Good," would mean nothing more than following the Golden Rule is following the Golden Rule.

As my name no doubt gives away I am a Christian theist. So I would say that ontologically the Good is that which is inline with the unchanging nature of God and that it is part of human nature as image bearers of God to recognize when an action is out of line with the perfect nature of God. This is what the Christian speaks of when they speak of they law written on your heart. It is the innate knowledge of God's nature that gives us the ability to recognize moral and immoral actions.

So you may think we could turn this little I've done on you with the Golden Rule right back on me, right? So let's try it:

If we say the Good is that which is inline with God's unchanging nature, then how are we to answer the question is doing something inline with God's nature Good? I may say yes, but why is doing something inline with God's nature good? Well I would define God as the greatest possible being, and to save my self a little time I will just assert that moral perfection as a fundamental attribute can be derived from this definition. So the unchanging nature of God is morally perfect, therefore anything inline with God's nature would by definition be moral perfection. It is important to keep moral epistemology and ontology separate hear as I have mingled an explanation of my epistemology in here with my ontology. God's nature grounds what is Good, and whilst our human nature gives us the ability to recognize right from wrong(this is a general statement not an one without exceptions).




top topics



 
3
<< 1   >>

log in

join