Objective Moral Values

well, in my personal [subjective, of course] view, human beings have no morals to begin with. [have you read lord of the flies?]. man needs food, water, and sex [heh] to survive. other than that, morals are just the icing on the cake. morals are not a necessity but a way for humans to organize themselves in a more coherent manner. a biological necessity is, for example, the acquisition of a higher redblod cell count when living at higher altitudes etc. if you havent noticed, human beings hava not evolved to be moral. put man into a desert and he becomes the same animal he was thousands of years ago. therefore, your arguement is null. morals are, furthermore, a a personal experience as i said earlier. for fundamentalists it is moral to kill in the name of god. for buddhists killing anythign is a grave offense.

but hey, if you find a box of morality for me to have with my milk for breakfast, by all means share some with me. or maybe this is just a crazy rant by a 17 yr old. or is it? eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holograph

well, in my personal [subjective, of course] view, human beings have no morals to begin with. [have you read lord of the flies?]. man needs food, water, and sex [heh] to survive. other than that, morals are just the icing on the cake. morals are not a necessity but a way for humans to organize themselves in a more coherent manner. a biological necessity is, for example, the acquisition of a higher redblod cell count when living at higher altitudes etc. if you havent noticed, human beings hava not evolved to be moral. put man into a desert and he becomes the same animal he was thousands of years ago. therefore, your arguement is null. morals are, furthermore, a a personal experience as i said earlier.

---

I still contend that the principles that underlie moral values are based on those same fundamental needs that you mention. Humans are animals, and morals codify that into rules that lead to the most people surviving to pass their DNA on to offspring.

Quote:

---

for fundamentalists it is moral to kill in the name of god. for buddhists killing anythign is a grave offense.

---

I was going to let this slide, but I just wrote eleven bad Haikus, so I have to do something to put that behind me. Fundamentalists come in all shapes, types, and sizes. Making such a broad comment about all people who are termed fundamentalist shows great ignorance. There are fundamentalist Christians, fundamentalist Buddhists, fundamentalist Jews, fundamentalist Shintoists, fundamentalist Moslems, fundamentalist Sikhs, fundamentalist Jains, etc. I am quite certain that no fundamentalist Jain would even consider killing anything in the name of any god. Most fundamentalists of most religions would find killing in the name of their god(s) repugent, and that includes most fundamentalist Moslems. I think that you meant to type Jains rather than Buddhists. While Buddhism discourages killing, killing is not absolutely forbidden, while Jains practice ahimsa, which is not harming any living thing, and that practice is fundamental to Jainism.

i was only trying to create an analogy peter. nothing more. and my statement was far from being politically correct. but thank you for the info, honestly. and i agree with you on that one. this was purely exemplary.

oh, and your quote i like very much, and live by.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

Oh no, I was being very careful when I gave that example.

---

So the moral motivation of Greenpeace is as valuable in your eyes as that of Christianity? Perhaps you were careful in other aspects but missed the negative implication of your statement. Or perhaps such implication is necessary to your cause in this debate and you overlook the offence delibrately?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

ALL communities build their codes of behavior upon the idea of inter-subjective morality. We call it custom because the community has upheld patterns of behavior it deems acceptable and rallies around as 'required' forms. The "we," then, are products, mere representatives of those communities which we are naturally part of.

---

Yes, and we're back to the Durkheim debate: the social-construct of knowledge. Though I have defended this view before, you must admit that, as I found, this will inevitably end up as the argument of Belief, or Faith, and, so long as there are willing parties, it will never end. Maybe we should try really considering the opposite argument and get somewhere. Unless you're here only to win ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

For example, you may be a member of some community that accepts the term "supernatural" as something identifiable, tangible, that others will accept as a meaningful idea and respond accordingly in a dialogue format such is this. Whereas the community I am part of considers all things deemed supernatural to be vulgar. And once that little word is injected into the mix, we begin to speak past each other, not with each other, and the dialogue, hence, ceases.

---

Are you suggesting that if we were of different believes, we would not be able to have any valuable dialogues together about our believes? If I considered "supernatural" a tangible value, and you did not, that would prevent any civil interaction between us; and the same would apply to our communities? If that is so, then how do all these different communities interact since, according to you, they are different communities due to their difference in "customs"? How do you explain the similarities in "customs" between communities that never interact in their entire history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

So I'm very happy that you put it in 'what if' terms.

---

Don't worry; for the sake of good debate, I would not want you to speak past me, hence must myself behave accordingly. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

I'm not sure I understand what you mean when you say, "supernaturalness of acceptance and application." This is a typical example of the devoid nature of this term.

---

My apologies; I was simply replacing a word with another word in order to make a different point, that someone of the opposite belief could also use your argument of that post with the same sufficiency.

A question from my first post lingers: Inter-subjective morality comes from common individual moralities, yes; but what causes those commonalities, mere chance? Is there really nothing moral before the very first subjective morality was formed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holograph

i was only trying to create an analogy peter. nothing more. and my statement was far from being politically correct. but thank you for the info, honestly. and i agree with you on that one. this was purely exemplary.

---

The matter of biological necessity related to morality is not an analogy; it is a direct connection.

Whether one is politically correct, depends on whose politics one observes.

Regardless of what you are writing, having the data correct is always a good idea. That's the only way that you being seventen has anything to do with anything else. You haven't had enough time to acquire all of the evidence that you will need.

moral implies ego ,ergo subjective .
Implication is also subject to subjectivity .
Who would have it any other way unless they could be a stone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PeterL

The matter of biological necessity related to morality is not an analogy; it is a direct connection. Whether one is politically, depends on whose politics one observes.

Regardless of what you are writing, having the data correct is always a good idea. That's the only way that you being seventen has anything to do with anything else. You haven't had enough time to acquire all of the evidence that you will need.

---

heh. usually, when i do not tell others i am 17 i earn more respect than when i tell them my age. [peter, another thing i believe is that pure wisdom is not something acquired with age, which is what people tell themselves to make aging a more graceful process.] yes, data is important [i know that first hand from working in a science laboratory for over a year now]. nothing beats nice stats. but my personal perceptions and convictions will only be highlighted by the data that i acquire. i understand that throughout life my convictions and understandings will change, but in truth the more knowledge that one acquires, the less on truly understands, and the more confused one becomes. sometimes an internal truth values more than one acquired from statistics and "hard" facts. your enlightening me that jains in fact is the group i refer to, and "fundamentalist" was a bad word choice still does not change my core understanding of anything nor does it change my idea. i dont have much time to research in response to my comments, but perhaps next time ill consider thinking a little more. but why? hehe your commetn just underlined that objective morals DO NOT EXIST. :lol: but perhaps your facts aren't as straight as you think them to be---NO branch of classic buddhism condones killing. NONE. buddhism and killing are antithetical.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holograph

heh. usually, when i do not tell others i am 17 i earn more respect than when i tell them my age. [peter, another thing i believe is that pure wisdom is not something acquired with age, which is what people tell themselves to make aging a more graceful process.] yes, data is important [i know that first hand from working in a science laboratory for over a year now]. nothing beats nice stats. but my personal perceptions and convictions will only be highlighted by the data that i acquire. i understand that throughout life my convictions and understandings will change, but in truth the more knowledge that one acquires, the less on truly understands, and the more confused one becomes. sometimes an internal truth values more than one acquired from statistics and "hard" facts. your enlightening me that jains in fact is the group i refer to, and "fundamentalist" was a bad word choice still does not change my core understanding of anything nor does it change my idea. i dont have much time to research in response to my comments, but perhaps next time ill consider thinking a little more. but why? hehe your commetn just underlined that objective morals DO NOT EXIST. :lol: but perhaps your facts aren't as straight as you think them to be---NO branch of classic buddhism condones killing. NONE. buddhism and killing are antithetical.

---

While it is true that "NO branch of classic buddhism condones killing," many Buddhists have been involved in killing in a big way.

While data may not change the essence of your personality or character, it probably will affect how you express it and details of that essence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holograph

another thing i believe is that pure wisdom is not something acquired with age.

---

"Pure wisdom"? What's that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

"Pure wisdom"? What's that?

---

"Pure wisdom" is the understanding that god is dead!...didn't you know? Just kidding Reg. :) Come on, lighten up guys! It's time for a little philosophical humor, what do you say?

Descartes walks into a bar and the bartender asks if he wants a drink. Descartes answers, "I think not!" and then he disappears. :confused: :lol: Now which one of you philosopher kings will admit you didn't get my darn funny joke?! :lol:

haha. thanks jon. :santasmil

but just to answer your question reg, "pure wisdom" is innate wisdom that is possessed before birth (not by all, unfortuntely, or we would all be better individuals). now, reg, if you possessed it, you would know what it was. :brow:

and well said peter. :cool:

A priori knowledge is pure wisdom because it's untainted by real experience.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by holograph

"pure wisdom" is innate wisdom that is possessed before birth (not by all, unfortuntely, or we would all be better individuals).

---

Perhaps a little explanation is called for? Unless you really think that the above definition is satisfactory, in which case I am sorry I asked for it.

:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

So the moral motivation of Greenpeace is as valuable in your eyes as that of Christianity? Perhaps you were careful in other aspects but missed the negative implication of your statement. Or perhaps such implication is necessary to your cause in this debate and you overlook the offence delibrately?

---

The moral motivation of any man, woman, or organization is as valuable in my eyes as that of any organized religion. Why? Because Greenpeace is concerned about this world, the one here and now that endures, the one we can measure and project into our children's children's future. Do I owe a heightened care not to offend when I do not intend to offend? Or if I did, why should it matter to a god-loving Christian? She goes on believing in God and I go on believing that the moral motivation of Greenpeace matters more so. If a god-loving Christian told me that the project of Greenpeace was not as important as the Church, I would say "Phooey!" and that would be the end of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

Yes, and we're back to the Durkheim debate: the social-construct of knowledge. Though I have defended this view before, you must admit that, as I found, this will inevitably end up as the argument of Belief, or Faith, and, so long as there are willing parties, it will never end. Maybe we should try really considering the opposite argument and get somewhere. Unless you're here only to win ;)

---

You say "faith" but what does faith have to do with Objective moral values?
Please explain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

Are you suggesting that if we were of different believes, we would not be able to have any valuable dialogues together about our believes? If I considered "supernatural" a tangible value, and you did not, that would prevent any civil interaction between us; and the same would apply to our communities? If that is so, then how do all these different communities interact since, according to you, they are different communities due to their difference in "customs"? How do you explain the similarities in "customs" between communities that never interact in their entire history?

---

I am suggesting that at the end of the day we can only have a valuable dialogue IF god and doctrine is left out of it. I am infinitely grateful for Thomas Jefferson's penning that line about a "wall of separation between church and state." I think too that that wall must exist between secularists and religious folks for civilizations to endure. Sure, there are dialogues between Jews and Christians, Jews and Muslims, Christians and Secularists, but we all know there are doctrinal limits and practices that one side or the other openly rejects. These thresholds are final barriers. It is my (humble) opinion that much of the so-called 'dialogue' that goes on between sectarian leaders has more to do with the exultation of their ego than the actual desire to mend fences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Regit

A question from my first post lingers: Inter-subjective morality comes from common individual moralities, yes; but what causes those commonalities, mere chance? Is there really nothing moral before the very first subjective morality was formed?

---

This is a silly proposition. You are searching desperately for a root cause and you're not going to get it here. Some mentioned biological and social influences, but the idea of pinpointing what brings these forces together is speculative. Only a person with a fourth dimension view would be able to answer it. Nice theories exist and some have even been tested and proven. There's that Nature-Nurture debate too. I wonder when that'll be resolved. There are moralities, there is no Morality. Morality is built into the structure of human consciousness, and that's as good as it gets. We know this because we observe it. We also see that moralities overlap, intersect, and oftentimes conflict. Some human beings are hell bent on ridding the world of all evil; a noble cause, no doubt. But that means that some one or some group will eventually have to decide what's evil and who's evil. We've had some very clever statements made by major leaders. The "Evil empire" and the "Axis of evil," but who wants to give supreme moral authority to those knuckle heads? :D

You use this word "chance." :rage: I don't know whether there is deus ex machina or not. I think William James was on to something when he spoke about common rules being governed according to what is practical for society to live peacefully (in it's hopelessly semi-anarchical state :confused: )---that is, what people can live with and without at given points, suggesting an elasticity, a relativism toward values, which harks back to "Man is the measure of all things." Perhaps the ties that bind individuals/communities is, at least in part, practically determined, but I'm not sure. You asked, "How do you explain the similarities in "customs" between communities that never interact in their entire history?" We are part of the same species, so I'm not all that surprised we possess common beliefs and aspirations. We are finite beings as well, so it's inevitable we're going to agree on some stuff. It's the space between individuals, individuals and communities, communities and communities, that divides the whole exponentially. But, in my mind, there never was a seamless whole, ever. Or if there was we weren't built with the capacity to see the whole in itself. :D Sure, we have our erudite concepts and nimble statutory advancements. Universal human rights law is an attempt to streamline diversity via massive unification of customs. But limits are inevitable because, again, there is no final arbiter of objective moral values "beyond" generally agreed statements of justice---and even there problems exist.

I leave you with some Jim Morrison philosophy on the fate of the world: "I don't know what's going to happen man, but I'm going to have my kicks before the whole s##thouse goes up in flames, alright!"

very very well said jon. :banana: i couldn't have said it better.

reg, i use "pure wisdom" in the same sense as you use "truth" or "Morals" except in this case, "pure wisdom" exists. it is wisdom that does not result from experience. ie you open your eyes and you see the light. bam. wisdom yatta yatta. i joke, but pure wisdom surely exists. it can even be seen in those little worms we call newborn babies. :nod: experience is often correlated with wisdom, and that is where filial piety and respect for the "elders" stems from. but [i believe] that wisdom is wisdom. you either have it or you dont. you cannot acquire it if it was not there in the first place.
you can channel it or uncover it in some rare cases but usually if you are born an idiot you die an even bigger idiot. and we would like to feel like we deserve respect just because we are older and were around longer. but the fact is, that is an undeserved assumption of wisdom. ;)