Facility Spring Cleaning Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it Sixx AM Fire TV Stick Made in Italy Amazon Gift Card Offer out2 out2 out2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors Kindle Paperwhite Spring Arrivals in Outdoor Clothing May4th
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Objective Morality - DEFINED!


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-25 of 598 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Oct 26, 2012 9:09:10 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:22:12 PM PDT]

Posted on Oct 26, 2012 12:25:46 PM PDT
Brian Curtis says:
Only that inventing a definition for something imaginary doesn't make it real.

There is no evidence that anything like objective morality exists.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 12:29:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 26, 2012 12:29:37 PM PDT
ErikR says:
Then it is relative to our genetic interests. For it to be objective it would have to exist independently of any other considerations.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 12:58:07 PM PDT
ErikR - " Then it is relative to our genetic interests. For it to be objective it would have to exist independently of any other considerations. "

On top of that, our ability to discern our "genetic interests" is subjective and fallible--i.e. not even remotely objective. MMX seems to have confused descriptive science with normative morality. Evolution is just a description of how nature works, not an exhortation as to how we should act.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 5:24:51 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:22:42 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 5:27:19 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:22:42 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 26, 2012 5:28:45 PM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:22:42 PM PDT]

Posted on Oct 27, 2012 1:17:47 AM PDT
There is no such thing as an objective morality. It is a messy blend of what we find convenient, pragmatic and altruistic at any given time.

It changes from age to age. Otherwise we'd still believe painting ourselves blue brings us divine favour, that dying in battle fast-tracks us to paradise, and giving blood is 'a sin'.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 1:21:52 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Posted on Oct 27, 2012 1:26:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 27, 2012 1:29:20 AM PDT
I think you'll find I was merely pointing out that morality is not objective; so making your comment as redundant as it was revealing.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 1:30:47 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 7:57:57 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:22:53 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 8:31:34 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:23:02 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 8:52:00 AM PDT
[Deleted by Amazon on Sep 25, 2014 12:23:03 PM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 12:13:55 PM PDT
"Hmm,"

Pardon my wariness, but I doubt you are actually curious at all.

"couldn't what you call "a messy blend of what we find convenient, pragmatic, and altruistic at any given time" be integrated into "If any aspects of that mess helped promote the genetic interests of the group, then those aspects were moral; but if they didn't, they weren't?" "

It's a simple statement of what morality is, and always has been. And if you have a veiled accusation, state it plainly in future.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 12:15:50 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 27, 2012 12:17:41 PM PDT
" 'Messy' in conjunction with morality is not useful: see your 1:17 AM post"

On the contrary. Morality is complex, contradictory and jumbled. Or, put another way, as human as its creators. It is a reflection of humanity's conflicting drives and ideas about right and wrong.

'Messy' sums all that up, and in a single word.

And, as your fumbling attempts at answers have shown, you should think first before you speak. It would spare you further embarrassment.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 12:17:11 PM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 28, 2012 1:58:02 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 2:51:55 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Clarissa says: "Nevertheless, morality is what gives us credibility, so don't give it a bad name."

Ariex: Clarifying the nature of the source of our "morality" does not give it a bad name. How do you think morality gives us credibility? What do you mean by "credibility" in the sense used?

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 2:53:52 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Clarissa says: ""Messy" in conjunction with morality is not useful: see your 1:17 AM post."

Ariex: it would seem useful, because moralty is somewhat "messy", in that it is, like jello, hard to nail down, and knowing that it is messy helps us to be prepared to deal with the mess rather than wasting time complaining that there shouldn't be one.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 3:05:45 PM PDT
Ariex says:
MMX says: "That graph reported the following: (1) That marital happiness is at its peak on the day of marriage. (2) That marital happiness steadily-but-not-steeply decreases every day until the first-child-is-born. (3) That, from that day forward, marital happiness steadily-AND-MORE-steeply-decreases until the specific day when the youngest child becomes a teenager. (4) That, from this new day forward, marital happiness steadily-but-not-steeply increases until the specific day that the last child leaves the home. (5) That, the final level of marital happiness, achieved on the specific day the last child leaves the home, is almost as high as the height of marital happiness, which is experienced during the first day of marriage."

Ariex; But anyone familiar with graphs would realize that this is a crude approximation of averages, and does not represent a "typical" marriage, nor does it even come close to representing every marriage.

MMX says: "Anyone who looks at this graph reaches a very strong conclusion: "Having children does NOT make people happy!"

Ariex; Anyone who looks at your arguments reaches a very strong conclusion: You simplify statements to the point of absurdity in order to attempt to make reasonable ideas look ridiculous because it gives you some kind of perverted satisfaction (i.e. you are a troll).

MMX says: "So why do so many people repeat this message?"

Ariex; Because, in spite of your "expert's" graph, many people do find happiness and fulfillment in having and raising children, and many young people expect to do so.

Look at the graphs showing that smoking is harmful to your health, yet many people ignore the statistics, even the bodies in the morgue, and smoke. Look at the statistics on the use of heroin or crystal meth. Very, very problematic, yet it doesn't seem to affect the use much.

MMX says: "And why do people who already have children deny deny deny deny AND attack someone-like-me who finds that graph interesting?"

Ariex: Because you misrepresent things to the point of absurdity, and, of course, the person who produced the graph appears to have been letting his own personal bias distort the facts.

MMX says: "That's easy. :) If every member of the human species were to realize the scientifically-proven TRUTH that "having children doesn't make people happy", then none of us would have children. And, in roughly 80 years, all of humanity would become extinct."

Ariex: More simplified absurdity. People do not have children because they are concerned with "scientifically-proven TRUTH" of any kind. And, there is the problem that one person's "graph" is not a scientifically proven truth.

Trolling through the tulips, through the tulips.......

It occurs to me that some trolls get satisfaction out of thinking that they are wasting other peoples' time. They don't seem to realize that they themselves are wasting their own time and also making themselves look like fools. And they giggle a lot, thinking that it fools their opponents.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 27, 2012 3:08:54 PM PDT
Ariex says:
Ryan Williams says: "And, as your fumbling attempts at answers have shown, you should think first before you speak. It would spare you further embarrassment."

Ariex: some folks think that if they giggle a lot, others will think they have actually thought about their answers.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2012 1:56:43 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 28, 2012 2:02:26 AM PDT
Ariex

It is better for the word "morality" to have good currency. Relativism spoils its necessary reminding function.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2012 2:00:14 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 28, 2012 4:58:16 AM PDT
Ariex :

Thinking is what we are all good at on this Forum, one no less than another, Ryan no less than I.

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2012 2:01:02 AM PDT
[Deleted by the author on Oct 28, 2012 6:56:40 AM PDT]

In reply to an earlier post on Oct 28, 2012 2:10:20 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Oct 28, 2012 2:11:43 AM PDT
Ariex :

The concept of a "messy morality" speaks of a desire to do away with it as useless, whereas we know morals are essential.
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 24 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
1527 9 days ago
keep one change one started 10 October 2014 5705 1 minute ago
Is the need of salvation an evil lie from religions? 1272 7 minutes ago
A thread about theology. Not a thread about whether or not God exists. 1209 15 minutes ago
Time for Christians to stop crying persecution. 563 17 minutes ago
Amy Hall claims: There is no Jesus, no thorny crown, and he was a mere man, just like you. There is no deity. 2894 21 minutes ago
Proof of Evolution - Read it & Weep 263 33 minutes ago
Today in Muslim History 6419 40 minutes ago
Why did those who are now atheists leave Christianity? 1173 1 hour ago
Life 122 1 hour ago
Jesus probably didn't exist. Brian Bethune in response to Bart Ehrhman 669 1 hour ago
How did the Bible get right the order of creation (vegetation before sea animals, sea animals before land animals, man created last), the Earth being round and hanging on nothing in space, and the location of the world's first civilization if it be myth 2 2 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  34
Total posts:  598
Initial post:  Oct 26, 2012
Latest post:  Dec 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions