objective/subjective morals/conscience?

Hello ICANT.While I basically agree with you. I do find it strange that when you go back in time, and the believe in this higher authority grows larger, the morals seem to decline. I mean, look at the middle ages, I think the whole of Europe believed in god back then. Still they weren't very nice to each other, not to mention to the "heretics" in Jerusalem.

---

I hunt for the truth

Thank you for the exchange ...It is often reasoned moral law commands us to seek the summum bonum (highest good), with increasing "happiness" as a logical result. But a problem arises when we contemplate the unpleasant fact that there is not the slightest ground in the moral law for a necessary connection between morality and proportionate happiness in a being that belongs to the world as a part of it. As Huntard as successfully pointed out, individual conscience and happiness themselves are subjective; thus, so would all of their offspring reasonably be.Additionally, some deeds are not only evil but monstrously evil; appearing immune to any kind of moral relativizing. In making such high voltage moral judgments, as when we condemn slavery and genocide, we point to a transcendent realm of moral absolutes. Otherwise, all our moralizing is pointless and groundless. Nevertheless, the 'universal' apodictic moral condemnations of such immoral men as Hitler and the likes appear to transcend tastes and mores; seemingly demanding a condemnation of supernatural dimensions.Moreover, we are not continually pressed to do the 'immoral' thing. The pressure to do one's 'moral duty' can be felt as strongly as the pressure of an empirical object. Who or what is causing this pressure? It is not enough to say that we are conditioned by society to feel those pressures. Some of the greatest moralists in history have acquired their fame precisely because they criticized the moral failings of their group, tribe, class, race, or nation. Therefore, if social subjectivism is the explanation of moral motivation, then do we have a right to criticize slavery or genocide or anything? Instinctivists and their counterparts insist all morality is merely a long development from animal instincts; mankind gradually working out its ethical system by living together in socialized communities. It is asserted human intellect developed from the physical brain of the primates, yet assumed the intellect is trustworthy. If the mind is entitled to trust, though evolved from the lower forms, why not the moral nature also?In conclusion a "preaching relativist" is one of the most comical of self contradictions; tied for first with a christian pharisee flaunting ten don't-mandments (instead of two do-mandments).One Love Edited by Bailey, : spelling

Huntard writes:Often times when instructing people I am very quick to point out that it may not be ones ability to NOT understand a certain thing verses the fact that what is being said makes absolutely no sense. People will assume they cannot understand what is being said, especially when contradictory statements are present in a SOMEWHAT reasonable format. The above is a classical example of contradictory nonsense.The mnd works as we all know on a conscious and subconscious level all the time. While trying to interpret at face value contradictory in formation the conscious mind ignores the contradictory information assuming what is being said it correct, while the subconscious mind is rejecting the information as invalid, so confusion is set up to present alternatives to the solution.A simple illustration will suffice. While driving down the road and speaking on the phone your eyes are constantly observing information by the subconscious and taking information that you are not presently aware of. At a later date someone may ask you were a certain store or place is and you subconscious will retrieve that information that you all but ignored while it was storing that information. Whats the point. Dont assume because you intially dont understand a point being made, that its your fault, it may be that what is being said is a conflict of reason and reality.To put it simply it is ridiculous to assume that free will is separate from ones ability to make a different decision than someone else. Further, it is simply silly to assume that free will is a different discussion from the one at present.To assume that morals could be absolute from the frame work of the human perspective, or a finite perspective, then say they cant be absolute because they change in that perspective is absurd, to say the least. You do understand that the determination of the question of an absolute standard cannot be determined from this perspective, correct?Any LAW or easily definable standard can exist, without everyone agreeing on its interpretation, or deciding to follow that precept. A stop sign means stop, not slow down. Now anyone can ignore that standard even though it is absolute in its content. Conscience and right and wrong from a persons perspective is not what determines whether morals are absolute, you are trying to mistakenly connect the two, when reality and reason are what actually determine its existence.Reason would ofcourse suggest that if there is no absolute standard, then there is no standard at all and one is simply playing at morality and ethics, in assuming that there can be one. All attempts to establish any degrees or variances in morality are semantics and exercise in futility.Simply put, to try and have discussion between two people on a topic that is secondary and not preliminary to common frame of reference is ludicrous. The primary or preliminary discussion ofcourse being the existence of God. If one can not agree that a being of such absolute morals exists, then the rest of the discussion between the two individuals is doomed to the worst of logical empasses.Indeed, how do you proceed past this point, when at every turn you view any action of the God of the bible as vile and evil. What platform will allow you to proceed to make this determination, that will not be understood both from your limited finite understanding and his omnipotent, eternal perspective. Even Jaywills very capable exegesis of scripture is simply dismissed as ridiculous or invalid, only to be judged by a set of morals that is so limited in character and perspective.So the above statements that I quoted from yourself seem to be incongrous witheach other, they seem to ignore even simple facts of reason. Example, "What the reason is everyone seems to act differently when the law is so absolute". Maybe I am missing what you are getting at here but it seems you dont understand that while there can be some concreteness in even human declarations and laws, like a stop sign, why it is that people can still ignore mans laws, not to mention Gods. Why is this simple principle such a sticky wicket. People act differently because they have the ability to decide for themselves to obey the law, mans or Gods. Certainly this is no great mystery to you. Im not seeing how it applies in the dismissing of the possibility of an absolute standard in reality.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.Edited by Bertot, : No reason given.

I accept your apology.Now, my usual participation on this Forum is at the Bible Study Room. I am kind of new to this room (Faith and Belief). I am beginning to see that discussion of the statements of the Bible is not profitable with you because you do not regard the facts as they are presented.So I don't think it is profitable to talk about Genesis, First John, Proverbs or any other book of the Bible with you here because you don't care what it says.With you, I don't tregard this as a problem of interpretaion. I regard it as a problem with your acknowledging of quotation.If I point out what it says you say it doesn't say that or that something is speculation. It is largely useless to debate about the Bible with a person who cannot master the facts of the Bible. If it says "Cain was of the evil one, and slew his brother" but some one says "No, the Devil did not instigate Cain to do anything" we get nowhere fast.And maybe careful examination of the text is not the custom here in this Room. I feel more comfortable to have such text specific discussions in the Bible Study Room.I would like you to list for me eight or so things which you believe prove that human morals are relative.I want to see your examples. I do not know at this time whether I will concede that you have arrived at proof or disagree. My thoughts concerning some of this are style being formed.But let me see some of your exampes of what you think prove that from time to time or society to society moral values are completely relative.I don't even promise that I will have a comment. But if you would I want to see some of your examples of evidence for your view.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

Finally, I've got time to answer, been a busy week for me.Anyqay, here we go: You're most welcome. I'm not sure this is the case. In fact, what is "moral law"? Is it the laws we as a society set up dealing with our morals? Again, what is this "moral law"? If you mean to say with this that there is no such thing as objective right and wrong, then I agree with you, but I must say that is not at all clear. Uhm yes, essentially. Although I'm not sure what you're getting at with your "offspring" part. They may appear to be so, they are not in all minds. And how do you make this fit with your earlier statement that I "successfully pointed out, individual conscience and happiness themselves are subjective"? It can't both be subjective AND "immune to any kind of moral relativizing". Now you're confusing me. Are morals subjective or not? They can't be subjective AND stemming from a "transcendent realm of moral absolutes". I say there is no such thing as that. It is. But not to the individual, or even the most part of society. Only, they aren't universally condemned. There are lots of people who still say Hitler did the right thing in gassing 6 million Jews. How do you reconcile that with absolute morals? Immoral is a subjective term to each person. What one person finds immoral (abortion for instance) another finds perfectly acceptable. Perhaps. However, when moral and immoral are different to each person, then doing the "morally right" thing for you, may be a totally immoral act to someone else. Again, look at abortion. If there is any pressure at all, it is produced by the society we live in. And even societies differ in what they deem to be right or wrong. Why not? Yes, but only in later societies, after their death. Basically, no. But who needs a right? I can condemn such actions perfectly fine, even without this supposed "right". Probably true. More evidence that it's not objective, but subjective, and changes over time. Since it's all we have, if we wouldn't even trust ourselves, we wouldn't get anywhere, now would we? I trust my moral judgement completely. There is simply no way to tell if it is "ultimately right or wrong". And this is where you lost me, I have absolutely no idea what you're getting at. Still, it was a nice post.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hello Bertot, sorry for the delay, but last week has been busy for me.Here's my answer: Could be, but if something doesn't make sense it almost always becomes very clear when examining it in a bigger light. I would simply say there are contradictory statements. If they are in fact contradictory, it wouldn't be that hard to point out. Would you mind pointing out to me where I contradicted myself? I'm sorry, but I'm under the impression that the three sentences you quoted all convey the same message. That there is no absolute morality. Not all the time. Try sleeping while being conscious. I never assume that what is being said is correct at face value, I always ask people to show me evidence for their statements. So, where is your evidence this is the case? Or am I asking for evidence subconsciously? In which case I would like to know why I ask people for evidence, and being fully aware that I am doing so, in fact, I intended to do so? Oh, ok. Yes, and is stored in your short term memory. Uhm, no. I have had this situation many times, and if I was in a truly unfamiliar place, i.e. visiting a town for the first time, and someone asked me a day later for a specific store in that town, I would not be able to tell them if there was such a store. I might be able to tell them if they asked me shortly after passing that store, but usually when I'm driving and talking on the phone, there are only two things I concentrate on, traffic, and the conversation, everything else is not important at that time, and thus, does not get stored in my long term memory. Since you were wrong, I do indeed wonder. While this is true, I have a tendency to spot erroneous arguments quite quickly. Not really. That is freedom of choice, decision, if you will. Not freedom of will. Which I think is impossible. But like I said, that's another discussion. Then please show what free will has to do with making a choice. Really? Would you mind telling me from what other perspective we could possibly view this, as not from our own? Yes it could. If everyone, everywhere and at every time thought the same things were bad and good, I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that these things are indeed absolute. Since this is not the case, I say they are not. Of course it can. It is the societies we live in that force you to live by these rules to a certain degree. There are always people who will break them. Actually, there are circumstances (at least in my country) when you are allowed to ignore a stop sign. Letting emergency services pass, is one example. As I've shown, it's not absolute at all. How would reality dictate what's right and wrong? And, since we all live in the same reality, how come it is different from person to person? Reason might be a good candidate for it, but again, we all have reason, ok, some to a minor degree, but still. Yet, again, right and wrong are different for each person. Further, I think our conscience is made up of our own morals, so I see a definite connection between the two. Only if you assume there can be one. If you let go of that idea, all those problems fade. I say there is no standard at all, except for the individual. And that is all we need. Society forces certain standards upon us, and we have a few broad things we can agree on, however, on a personal level, everybody's morals are different. Why are they futile? It will help us understand why people act the way they do if we realise there is no "absolute morality" that should account for their actions. By realizing morality is subjective, we can find answers as to why the person acted the way they did. What are you talking about? What is secondary to common frame of reference here? If you don't explain what you mean, you can;t have a good discussion, now can you? Nonsense. If there are absolute morals, they could've come from anywhere. Whether god exists or not has nothing to do with this. As I pointed out god has nothing to do with this. Absolute morals could've come from anywhere, not necessarily god. Here's a surprise for you, I don't view every action of god as evil. He did some pretty cool things too. Like freeing slaves and all, while on the other hand, not really using nice methods to do so. I mean, he's all powerful right, he could've just poofed them from Egypt to Israel, but noooo, he had to make the Egyptians suffer, even innocent babies had to die for that. So, now you know that I don't view every action as vile and evil, how do we proceed? And again you bring up this platform. So, I ask you again, what makes you think I need a platform to judge someone? First, since these are all the morals I have, I'm going to have to make due with them. Second, since when is demanding that someone stick to the text, or otherwise give evidence of what they are asserting, simply dismissing as ridiculous or invalid? Everything he says might be true, I just want him to show me evidence that this is indeed the case, all he's done so far is assume it is true. He expects me to do the same, I simply cannot without evidence. I don't see how they do this, so please give me specific examples. Ah, good. I hope we'll get some clarity from this. Because of the subjectivity of each persons morals. I'll try to explain what I meant with this sentence. If the law is absolute, and god made it, it would only be logical for him to imprint this law into every human, so it would be perfectly clear to us what we were supposed to do, and what we weren't. Since this is so obviously not the case, there are two possibilities. Number one: There is no absolute moral law. Number two: God did not imprint it into every human. Now if the first is true, the problem is solved, if the second is true, I would like to know why god did not imprint it into every human, does he want people to go to hell? Oh, and for the record, stop signs aren't absolute. I hope I made it more clear by the explanation I gave. So. God DOES want people to go to hell, nice to know. It never was, the problem is solved when one accepts that there is no absolute moral law. Unless you're saying that god wants people to go to hell, I think you do have a problem here.

---

I hunt for the truth

Hello Jaywill, sorry for the delay, been busy and stuff. Thank you. I will regards facts as facts. Statements from a book written by men are questioned by me unless backed up with supporting evidence. Anyone can claim whatever they want in a book, it is only when we examine the supporting evidence, do we see what of those statements is true. If we have no supporting evidence, we have to stick to what the text says. Since it's very clearly silent on many of the things we have discussed, I object to you inserting things of your own devising into it. You may hold them as true, that's fine by me. But in order to convince me you would have to show to me why it is true. Sure I care what it says, as long as there is supporting evidence. I can quote from books too, will you accept everything I quote as the truth? Because that's what it is. We can disagree on the interpretation, but when the text says absolutely nothing on something you're claiming, I can't help but point that out. What facts are we talking about here? The bible exists, this is a fact. It was written by men, this is a fact. Now, what those men wrote is NOT a fact. The only way you can show things in books to be facts is to show supporting evidence for their claims, else you have to stick strictly to the text. I did not say that. I said that the original text of genesis does not say that the devil made Cain do it. Regardless of what someone who lived long after believed of the event. If he is so certain this is the case, what did he base this on? Nothing in the text points to this, so, I conclude he was speculating. You take his speculation as fact, because it fits with you interpretation of the story. That's fine by me, but if you want to convince me this is indeed what happened, show me the evidence for it. Paul can claim a lot about someone he didn't know and who lived thousands of years before him, but why would I consider it to be reliable? No idea, I've never been here either. But I think it's not really a problem, else AdminNosy wouldn't have put it here. Perhaps I will make a subject on it there at a later date. For now, I'll continue this discussion. Prove is a strong word. I don't like to use it since it has a finality to it. I could be wrong about all this, I simply don't see anything that points to that. But very well, I'll make a list. Though it won't really be a list, as I think one thing will suffice here, and it's all encompassing really.Individuals don't agree on what is "right" and "wrong" on the personal level.Let me try to explain this. I assume you are against murder. So am I. I don't know how you feel about the death penalty, I am against it. If you are in favour, then we differ right there. However, I am not against the taking of a human life in all circumstances. I can think of various scenarios when I would find it acceptable to kill a human. And I'm pretty sure we won't agree on all of them. Further, I am in favour of abortion, under certain circumstances. Where, as a Christian, I am pretty sure you are against it.Now, why do we not feel the same about these things? I say that's because there is no "universal conscience" or no "absolute morals".Perhaps I can come up with other things that point to this, but I'd think this is all the evidence one needs. I've given you a few. How could you, you don't know what I will say yet. Ok, perhaps we can learn from each other. I hope they are to your liking. If not, I could provide more examples that all point to the principle I mentioned. That would be too bad, I rather enjoy our conversations. At your service!

---

I hunt for the truth

The problem is not just that people choose to diobey laws ("mans or Gods"). The key problem in relation to this argument is that no two people can even agree on what the laws actually are or even should be.There is no absolute because everyone has an individual idea of what is right and what is wrong in different contexts.If we all absolutely agreed as to what was right and what was wrong in every context but sometimes chose to act in a manner that we knew to be morally bad then your argument would be true.However as things stand it is quite common to find one person acting in a way that they consider to be absolutely morally sound while someone else considers those same actions to be morally reprehensible.And this is true of theists, atheists, agnostics and everyone else. No two people hold the precise same moral outlook.Therefore there is quite evidently no absolute standard of morality.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

How about ten?Consider the ten commandments. Are these absolute?Would all people.....In fact forget that.....Would ANY TWO people agree completely on how the commandments should be applied to a variety of contexts and situations?If the answer is 'no' then surely it is obvious that regardless of what you beleive in relation to the origins of morality from a purely practical point of view humans are inevitably morally relativistic.If the answer is 'yes' then maybe you could introduce us to these 'morality clones' such that we can test their answers to some moral questions.

The arguments over how to apply morals in a particular situation does not prove morality is all relative. An absolute moral law can exist even if people fail to know the right thing to do in a particular circumstance.A college professor may present a moral dilemma to some students like this:There are five people trying to survive on a life raft designed for only four people. If one person is not thrown overboard then they all will die. The students faced with this delimma may come up with different solutions as to who should be thrown overboard to save the rest. They may decide that morality is relative.But the dilemma actually demonstrates that morality is absolute. There would be no dilemma if morality were relative. If there were no right to life then we could solve the problem by saying "It doesn't matter. Throw everyone overboard and let them all drown. Who cares anyway who lives? They all can die."The reason for the dilemma is because there is absolute sense for the human right to life.Difficult situations in morality do not prove that there are no objective moral laws any more than difficult problems in science prove that no objective natural laws exist. Scientists do not deny that the objective world exists when they encounter difficult problems in the natural world.. They may have trouble knowing the answer.We shouldn't deny that absolute morality exists just because we have trouble knowing the answer to some difficult situations.I agree that there are differences on how people agree on how a commandment should be applied. But I think you are confusing that to mean that there is no absolute morality.Moral disagreements do not prove there is no Absolute Moral Law.Take abortion for example. Some think abortion is acceptable while others say it is murder.. BUt just because there are different opinions about abortion does not mean morality is relative.Each side, in fact, disagrees BECAUSE they are out to defend an absolute moral of protecting life and allowing liberty. The controversy is over which value applies or which takes precedences in the issue. Should we protect the baby or allow the woman to have "control over her own body"? Or does a person's right to life supersede another person's right to individual liberty?Moral disagreement does not prove morality is relative.Be back latter to see your other comments.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.Edited by jaywill, : No reason given.

I agree with you that an absolute morality exists independent of our ability to identify it, but what Straggler is talking about is morality in practice.In practive, people's moralities are relative.

Hi, Jaywill. So, exactly what would prove that morality is relative?Isn't disagreement the very essence of relativity?Would there need to be moral disagreements between supernatural beings before morality is truly relative?Wait a minute...

---

I'm Bluejay.Darwin loves you.

No, but it's a strong indication that it is. Further, it's not about how to apply morals, it's that people all have different morals to begin with. Sure it can, but if nobody knows what it is, how can we use it? We can't, which is the point I'm trying to make here. If nobody knows what these morals are, and everybody disagrees over what they are, then everybody's morals are still subjective. Yay, I love dilemmas, especially since they usually don't turn out to be dilemmas at all. Actually, the fact that they can't agree on who gets thrown off, demonstrates that their morals are indeed relative. If there would be an absolute moral, it would be clear who, if any, should be thrown off. Uhm, no it doesn't. Actually, this creates the problem. If it were absolutely clear what was to be done, they would do it. Since it is not, it is relative. They CAN all die. It doesn't matter to an outside observer. What creates the problem is their relative morals, since if it was clear, it would be done. No there isn't. If I were in that situation, I wouldn't want to be thrown off, however, in these kinds of situations, people have sacrificed themselves to save the other members of the group. Now where's the absoluteness in those completely opposite actions? These are two completely different things. One is a philosophical debate, evidenced by the fact this isn't put in a science forum. The other is a scientific problem, dealing with evidence. Also, I'd like to know what you are referring to when you say "difficult problems in science prove that no objective natural laws exist." Since I don't know of any problems that would have the potential to show there are no absolute laws to nature. So far, all the evidence points to the fact there are. Because denying that the objective world exists gets you nowhere when wanting to find out how it works. If this world were subjective, no two persons would make the same observations, rendering science useless. I don't see what this has to do with anything. I don't deny it exists, I say everything we observe in human interaction regarding morals points to the fact they are subjective. And since there apparently is no way to tell what the objective morals are, even if they exist, we can't take them into consideration. Pointing to subjectivity once again. I don't think he is. If nothing points to there being one, why should we consider it? Why consider things for which there is no evidence? This would trap us in a maze without exit. No, but they sure are a strong indication. At least to the fact we can never know what that is, and so, there's no point in considering it. Subjectivity if I ever saw it. No, but it's a strong indicator it is. Considering the fact that this doesn't apply just to abortion, but to virtually anything, I'd say subjectivity is indeed a strong contender. No. If it were clear to all what the absolute moral was, we would act accordingly. Thus, it is subjective. Since no two people will ever agree on the details of those values. Subjectivity, I'd say. Oh, and a clump of cells is not a person. No. But it's a very strong indication it is.

---

I hunt for the truth

quote:

---

There are five people trying to survive on a life raft designed for only four people. If one person is not thrown overboard then they all will die. The students faced with this delimma may come up with different solutions as to who should be thrown overboard to save the rest. They may decide that morality is relative.

​

But the dilemma actually demonstrates that morality is absolute. There would be no dilemma if morality were relative. If there were no right to life then we could solve the problem by saying "It doesn't matter. Throw everyone overboard and let them all drown. Who cares anyway who lives? They all can die."

---

That is completely and utterly wrong. People who believe that morality is relative usually still have moral values and therefore would NOT give the answer you suggest. A nihilist would, but if you rely on the assumption that all moral relativists are nihilists then your argument has lost contact with reality.So the dilemma does not prove the existence of moral absolutes.If you consider the reasons why there is a dilemma it raises problems for moral absolutism. Not only is there no agreed "right" answer, there is no way even in principle to determine the "right" answer. Nor is there even agreement on the theoretical basis for any absolute morality.Simply saying that there are moral disagreements seriously understates the magnitude of the problem.

Hi, Jaywill and Huntard. I actually agree, in part, with what Jaywill is saying.The fact that all the people agree that they should allow four of the five people to survive indicates that they do agree that the proper course of action is to maximize human survival. This points to some sort of moral code that they all agree on.It doesn't point unambiguously there, though, neither does it prove that agreement will be universal. For instance, modern people may have a psychological aversion to killing in general, and wish to minimize the amount of it they have to do. If the choice was having to kill one of five bunnies lest all of them die instead, do you think the solution would be any different?Alternately, there could be a selfish or mob-mentality issue. The more people you try to kill, the more enemies you make for yourself. So, tossing one person over with the help of three co-conspirators is a lot easier than tossing two people over with the help of two co-conspirators. Also, a person who understands the human will to survive would likely find it practical to solve the problem to the maximum positive effect.-----Also, as you’ve pointed out, Jaywill’s argument doesn’t address the reasons for the final choice as to who is to be tossed. Undoubtedly, the selection of who is to be tossed will be selfish in nature. If you were one of the five, you would certainly argue long and hard for someone else to be thrown over, so as to preserve your own life. Or, if your wife and/or baby was with you, you would also probably try to prevent them from being tossed, too.This clearly indicates that humans do not view all human life equally, and thus, also do not have an “absolute sense of the human right to survival.” No offense to you or Jaywill, but I personally feel that my wife and my baby have a greater right to survival than either of you. If my choice were between you and my wife, I’d hack your head off without hesitation (sorry).Think of other possible reasons for your selection:

Toss him, because he’s old and has lived his life already.

I don’t care if you toss him, because he’s a jerk.

Toss her, because I don’t want to hear her whining and complaining the whole time we’re stuck in this boat.

Don’t toss her, because she’s hot.

Don’t toss him, because he knows how to navigate by the stars.

Kill one of the twins, because they’re redundant in terms of the gene pool, anyway.

​

These aren’t all based on the decision that there is an absolute human right to life.

​

-----

​

But, to return to Jaywill’s argument, that we agree that maximizing survival is the superior option, I think this suffers from an issue of scale. Broaden the question enough, and you’re certainly going to find agreement somewhere.

​

For instance, two people:

​

Person A: I believe God created us and all animals in their modern form 6000 years ago.
Person B: I believe that we and all animals arose slowly, over millions of years, through a series of intermediate forms.

​

Step back one step, and you may get this:

​

Person A: I believe that there must have been an uncaused Initial Cause.
Person B: I believe that all things must have been caused somehow.

​

Step back one more step, and you may get this:

​

Person A: I believe that life, the universe and everything came into being.
Person B: I believe that life, the universe and everything came into being.

​

You see? We found agreement. Clearly, this means that beliefs in origins are not subjective.

​

The principle provided by Jaywill’s argument is the same. You can blur any belief system into near perfect confluence with any other belief system by simply contrasting them with a hypothetical third system that is very different from them, as he does here:

​

jaywill writes:

​

If there were no right to life then we could solve the problem by saying "It doesn't matter. Throw everyone overboard and let them all drown. Who cares anyway who lives? They all can die."

​

But, relative morality does not demand total sadism (which is, itself, a moral system, ironically), nor does it demand that everybody be in complete disagreement about all points. It only demands that there be some level of disagreement about all points within a large enough population. And, I guarantee, if Jaywill’s professor presented this dilemma to enough students, he would find some who did, indeed, propose to kill them all.

​

-----

​

Finally, Jaywill argues that disagreement over morality doesn’t prove that morality is relative (which I find to be a completely bizarre argument).

​

But, surely, the converse is also true, right? Agreement on morality doesn’t mean that morality is absolute. For instance, if the Muslims accomplish their goal to kill off or enslave all the non-Muslims in the world (cf. Buzsaw), they will have effectively established universal agreement on a single moral system. I doubt Jaywill will argue that this makes Muslim morality absolute in its truth.

​

So, likewise, that everyone in a class believes in the maximization of human survival doesn't prove that there is an absolute human right to life.

​

Surely, then, as Catholic Scientist suggests, we can only assess the subjectiveness/objectiveness of morality based on the views of people on the subject, because those are the only systems of morality that we can quantify (...sigh...) objectively.

​

Edited by Mantis, : No reason given.

​

---

I'm Bluejay.

​

Darwin loves you.