-Moral Standard In All of Humanity-

I admire your efforts. But why be content with just getting to the stars? Why not get to the very boundaries of the known universe? Why not find a communion between your inner soul and the outer limits of reality?

why do you think I made the Ph.D. comment?

Allow me to ask you some questions.

Did you know that your parents loved you, or did you simply believe it?

If you met me on the street and we talked, you would have to say that you knew that you met me and not simply that you believed you had met me. My impression would be proof of the meeting. As it is now, you can still honestly say that you believe that you know me..but yet we have not formally met.

I can't rightly say for sure. I don't know you well enough to ascertain your personality, sense of humor, hopes, dreams, and goals.Getting back on topic, however, I believe that everyone has a common inner unction of morality and ethics. There may be some abstractions, but everyone wants to protect their children, for example. Humans surely have some common characteristics.

Read a statement the other day that I thought carried a lot of truth:'Morality is the plaything of the well-fed'.

Isn't this just what you have done? I haven't seen any evidence from you to back up morality being objective.No but really, I do believe morality is objective. But that's just my opinion, I can't back it up with anything. If you'll ever travel to another country you'll see how the concept of morality goes hand in hand with culture and it most certainly seems subjective.
Still... I like to believe morality is objective just because I like to believe it is...

Yes, that is all we can do.Now the question posed/implied in the OP is what standard do we use to deduce the "right" decision. Do we use the New Testament? Do we use the Old Testament? Do we use the Qu'ran? Do we use the Vedas? Do we use the teachings of Buddha? Do we use the teachings of our own personal new age guru? Do we use the writings of L. Ron Hubbard? Do we use our parents who may have been influenced by any or all of these things throughout their lifetime? Do we use our middle school peers?So, the real question is what moral standard should we adhere to? Not if there is one, because we can all use a "standard" to uphold. Whether it be a religious standard dictated by Moses or Jesus of Mohammed or Buddha or Zoroaster or various gods/their adherents or a more secular standard such as that proscribed by the American Constitution/The French Declaration of the Rights of Man/The UN Declaration of Human Rights/etc ad nauseum.The "deduction" of right and wrong seems mighty complicated when seen in the terms of the whole world.The deduction of right and wrong seems even more complicated when your "right" is seen through the eyes of another's "wrong."From what standard do you "deduce" this from?The one you believe in? How is yours "right" and everyone else's "wrong?Where is the logical deduction in that?To me, right and wrong seem highly emotional, not logical at all, my own rights and wrongs included.The questions that sidelined posed was meant to represent the complexity of morality and the human condition. When is murder (killing) justified? When is stealing justified? Is it murder? Is it stealing?That is where our "standards" come in and who says what is "justified" Yes, but a struggle towards what? Towards a perfect Christian Utopia? Or a perfect Islamic Utopia? Or a perfect Hindu Utopia? Which one? We all have near universal taboos, in the general sense, meaning that murder is defined as justified killing in certain circumstances, rape is considered a crime in certain circumstances or not (it was even OK to rape your wife in the US until just very recently), child abuse is defined differently under different circumstances/cultures, incest is defined in varying terms in varying cultures, art is considered pornography in some circles. All of these crimes/"sins" have a context. We all judge the context based on where we live and how/where we were raised, but does that mean that my definition meets yours?

Seems correct on the surface, but your questions mirror one another.Right="better" much of the time (as in do we allow a killer to kill more or do we kill him/her?).Is justice blue or red? Who says (some say that killing gays for fucking is justice in the name of their God)?Should I live my life in the name of chocolate or vanilla? Do I exist for either?You try to highlight the difference between subjective and objective by defining the subjective with seeming trivialities. However, both of your groups of examples qualify as subjective.Meaning that we, as humans, define ALL of the above in our very differing terms.You telling me that your God lays it all it out and saying that your morality is objective based on on that point of view does not mean that your morality is objective. It means your morality is subject to the book/god/pastor/parents/friends whence you got it from.Try asking the latter group of questions in an internet survey (you know like the ones which usually ask questions like "blue or red" and "chocolate or vanilla") and see what kind of answers you get.Even if one of the respondents agrees with your worldview 100% I bet their answers will differ from yours. And someone whose worldview is completely opposite from yours might surprise you and repeat your answers verbatim.We all have differing points of view and I don't think we should sacrifice them because that is the essence of debate and growth.I do, however, think that consensus is the closest thing we have to true objectivity. And objectivity/consensus is open to change and interpretation, just like science. We should all be critically thinking about the current paradigm (objectivity).That means asking hard questions like "Would you kill your mother in order to save 1 million people?" This question doesn't mean that the asker wants you to kill your mother or even that you pit her against 1 million people, but it requires that you think outside your current box in order to come to your own conclusions about life and love and whatever. That is my take on it, tho. Think about the question and not the answer.

Yes, but you accept "it most certainly is" as proof for your absolute Christian God given morality instead of the current consensus among humans that killing each other without reason (and reasons vary GREATLY throughout societies and history) is "wrong."It is not one or the other. It is not "My God is the giver of morality and none other." That is where the debate gets muddled.You have stumped no one but yourself. See my above post, but to reiterate, what standard are we using?Edited by Jaderis, : No reason given.

What? You asked a simple yes or no question and I answered the simple yes or no question. Stumped? In your dreams perhaps.Read the Bible. God commands folk to go out and kill and pillage. Those that do not follow Gods commandment are punished.In that society, to not kill and steal was immoral. So you continue to assert even when presented with evidence that refutes your position.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Ah the old shell game again. Why do you folk just regurgitate the Chick Tract arguments without thinking them through?Can I get independent confirmation of how my parents felt about me?Can I get independent confirmation of your existence?Can I even get someone who doesn't believe that you exist (for example the robot crawlers from Google that index the web) to verify the same evidence I have that you exist?Can I get independent confirmation of God's existence?Can I even get someone who doesn't believe that God exists (for example the robot crawlers from Google that index the web) to verify the existence of God?Stop and think. Don't just accept the really stupid examples that the Fundies throw out as facT.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

You are asserting that there is a single absolute moral standard.The evidence is that this is not so: different cultures have different standards, and different people within every culture have different standards.Evidence: gay rights, abortion, stem cell research, euthanasia, etc. We even have some people that think medical treatment is immoral.Conclusion: We know that such an absolute model or standard does NOT exist. Two reasons. One is the false absolutism asserted (and invalidated above), the other is an assumption that what you want to be (an absolute standard) would only come from your version of what god created.Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel AIDS/HIV, unfold Proteomes, fight Cancer,
compare Fiocruz Genome and fight Muscular Dystrophy with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

What is right, just, how should one live, why do I exist, all of these questions were covered by Socrates.Did Socrates come to any definitive and absolute conclusions concerning those questions? Has anyone since?Does this not show that such questions reveal the subjective nature of any conclusions based upon such questions?But you are right, I should have been more definitive in my reply. Without the context of that quote, it would not make as much sense as it should.Lets try using the term murder instead of music.On July 20, 1944, an attempt was made on Hitler's life.Hitler's assasination (=murder) would have been good to the Allies, bad to the Nazis, and indifferent to Franco.Therefore proscriptions against murder are not an absolute that exist somewhere "out there" independent of the individual's viewpoint. Therefore morality is subjective.Care to try this game with any other form of absolute morality you may come up with?

Hitler's death, natural or artificially produced, would benefit some, and annoy some. And it isn't really the benefit to the Allies that would have made it moral, right? It would have been the benefit to innocent citizens who were his victims. Similarly, just because Hitler's death was beneficial, would not mean it was moral. If a stray man walked over to Hitler and shot him just for fun with no idea who he was, accidental benefits would not equal moral. Morality is entirely subjective to the case at hand.Nevertheless, I think the morality of a situation is determined on some type of scale. The rpobelm with these threads is that folks want to name a moral. Murder, theft, lying, etc. are not moral of immoral, they are relative. That is what your analogy shows. Not to beat a dead horse, but I see a scale called 'love of neighbor' and theft, murder, etc, sliding up and down the scale. But remember, love of God was the first commandment. Tell an ancient Hebrew, or a modern Christian/Muslim, 'God said' and murder goes to the top of the moral to do list.Anyway...I have a game to play.How do we know who is attractive? Is that based on a standard (I know the ancients had standards of beauty) or is that subjective?
Anyone can tell you, beauty is completely subjective. It's in the eye of the beholder, right?Apparently not so. A recent study has shown that infants recognize and draw towards more attractive faces. Obviously this study is flawed. The scientists themselves must be biased to determine who is attractive in the first place, right? How do they possibly know that the baby is choosing the 'hottie' without a standard for beauty? How can they possibly pick a 'beautiful' face for the line-up without revealing their own bias.Is there a standard for beauty?
Or...is it all subjective and changing with a culture? Hm. Seems pretty obvious. The standard of beauty changes, therefore flawed study. On the other hand, there might be a standard of some basic requirements like regularity of feature?

Independent of what?Edited by Phat, : clarificationEdited by Phat, : quote box