Automotive Deals HPCC Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Pink Floyd Fire TV Stick Health, Household and Grocery Back to School Handmade school supplies Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection TarantinoCollection  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Starting at $49.99 All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Segway miniPro
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Objectively superior morality???


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 442 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 23, 2012 7:45:15 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
Here is the assertion made by some posters here: there is an objectively superior morality.
What is your opinion on this?
1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Maybe.
4. Are you insane?
5. ...

Posted on Oct 23, 2012 9:13:54 AM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
2B: There may be, but I've seen no evidence of it.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 9:20:43 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
Kind of like god, eh? :)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 9:30:53 AM PDT
Joe W says:
How can one tell the difference between objective superior morality and objective commands?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 9:37:38 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
I dunno. Ask WolfPup, he is the one saying that such a thing as "objectively superior morality" exists.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 9:52:51 AM PDT
Joe W says:
Ah. Not in the objectively superior by command, but in the objectively superior by result. Sure. That makes sense.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:04:22 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Ah, good description!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:07:51 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
I am not sure what "objectively superior by result" could mean.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:19:26 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 23, 2012 10:20:59 AM PDT
Joe W says:
Attempting to reach my kitchen from my bathroom using doors and hallways produces an objectively superior result to making the same attempt via the pipeworks.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:20:21 AM PDT
Ariex says:
Stan Furman says: "I am not sure what "objectively superior by result" could mean."

Ariex: Nor am I. Some kind of intelligence must make a determination, a Judgment, about what would be "superior" therefore the determination is completely subjective. Even such judgment by a god would be subjective, god being the subject making the decision.

Without intelligence making value judgments, the word, "superior" is meaningless. Everything that exists just is. Whether it is superior (to what?) requires intelligence to make a relationship evaluation, a subjective judgment.

Even "results" woud require subjective judgment, comparing them to other possible results. Therefore the concept, "superior result" would rest in the mind, not in the situation, the "result" itself.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:22:55 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Not according to Stan ;)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:30:21 AM PDT
Joe W says:
Well, Stan is like that.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:44:03 AM PDT
Astrocat says:
Oh, Stan, thank you. I'm still waiting for some kind of definition of the term.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:50:43 AM PDT
AxeGrrl says:
Ariex wrote: "Some kind of intelligence must make a determination, a Judgment, about what would be "superior" therefore the determination is completely subjective."
~~~~

Bingo.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 10:58:03 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
That's looking at in an absolute sense though, that (some) theists believe in, not a practical/functional sense. There is absolutely objectively superior morality in a practical sense. I'd be worried about anyone who claimed otherwise.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:14:14 AM PDT
Wolfie, all moral systems are necessarily subjective. The structure of them can be considered objective in that they all consist of "Do this, don't do that. If you do that, this will happen to you." But the admonitions are subjective. To give some idea of how our concept of morality has changed, think back to the believer who asserts that moral actions all come from God. In western civilization, this means that the root of morality is Christianity. The problem here is that there is no evidence that self-professed Christians act any more morally than any other designated group.

One of the problems is identifying what moral guidelines are in the Bible. Many believers state that the Ten Commandments are God's morality. There really is little of moral value in the TC. Here are the proscriptions not in the TC: incest, slavery, genocide, rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, among others. We would today consider breaking any of those to be immoral, but we find examples of each of those in the Bible.

Recently I posted an excerpt from a longer op-ed in Free Inquiry by Tom Flynn. Here's an excerpt from that excerpt:

"Rather than providing a platform for moral inquiry, atheism helps to make authentic moral inquiry possible. Here's why: if a god exists, we might be living under command morality. The good might be good only because the deity says so. That would make the landscape of right and wrong wholly arbitrary, devoid of contours reason might discern. Given command morality, moral inquiry is a doomed exercise. By removing the threat of command morality, atheism grants would-be moral thinkers a clear range on which to build their value systems."

http://www.amazon.com/forum/religion/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl?_encoding=UTF8&cdForum=Fx1M9TK6UGAX6EO&cdMsgID=Mx3ESF1OPUQK3PV&cdMsgNo=7994&cdPage=320&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx1KU2EBO0ZRQZI#Mx3ESF1OPUQK3PV

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:20:55 AM PDT
"What is your opinion on this?"

There is no such thing as an 'objective' morality. It's all a messy blend of what we find useful, altruistic and pragmatic at any given time. It changes by degrees from each age to another. If it didn't, we'd still think dying on the battlefield fast-tracks you to paradise, and giving blood is 'evil'.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:34:47 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
Perhaps to you that feels superior, to a rat OTOH, pipeworks is way safer and hence superior. :)

I know that we are talking "morality as it applies to humans", but even then there is no objectively superior one, all our mind-constructs are relative.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:36:46 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
Exactly!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:41:53 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
Yeap, yeap. Agreed.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:47:21 AM PDT
Stan Furman says:
No, WolfPup, there isn't one. There are various forms of morality *we* think are better for achieving particular societal goals, like longer lifespans and less reported suffering, but that doesn't make those moralities superior, let alone objectively superior. Not to mention that *others* may very well hold that it is *their* not *ours* morality that is better suited for achieving the very same goals as ours does. Who is right? Perhaps we can hash it out on a battlefield! Let the best, most objectively superior morality win. If it is so superior in practical terms, I'm sure it'll have no problems proving it in action :)))

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 11:47:32 AM PDT
WolfPup says:
Well I'd say they're both objective and subjective. Bear in mind that Stan claims all moral systems are equal (and that anything is science too) and we can not look at them objectively. He refuses to even say whether he thinks most people would object to being killed.

That's an AWESOME point about atheism allowing authentic moral inquiry to be possible!

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 12:01:07 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 23, 2012 12:01:29 PM PDT
Joe W says:
A rat is a different object than I. (Though not all would agree, I am sure!)

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 12:02:51 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
To WolfPup:

<<Bear in mind that Stan claims all moral systems are equal>>

What??? Why are you being such a little nasty liar? Then again, maybe you have severe comprehension problems. Have you tried Ritalin?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 23, 2012 12:03:40 PM PDT
Stan Furman says:
Conveniently ignored the second sentence of my post, I see :)
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 18 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Religion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Amazon Discussions Feedback Forum
1650 8 days ago
One-sentence Nonsense Deepities for Fun and Prophet 361 37 seconds ago
Life 1003 5 minutes ago
I cannot get goblueresurrection to address my evidence that atheism is true 775 22 minutes ago
Creationism is Sad 670 34 minutes ago
Even if There Were a 'God,' No Human Could Know It 2930 40 minutes ago
How can atheism be true or false? 924 1 hour ago
Noah's Ark - the "WTH?"Thread 245 2 hours ago
Another 10,000 Quotes... 7033 2 hours ago
Today in Muslim History 8680 4 hours ago
Art & Spirituality 612 4 hours ago
atheist church 557 11 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  27
Total posts:  442
Initial post:  Oct 23, 2012
Latest post:  Nov 24, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions