Morality Subjective or objective

In that case I only mean objective in terms of humanity. Since objectiveness is subjective to humanity I figured that would be understood.

 

mathematics is a language humans invented.

I can say that infant sacrifice is immoral. Any god that demands human sacrifice is deranged. Killing of innocent people for appeasement is the very definition of atrocity.

 

Not sure what this means, so no, it's not understood.

- - - Updated - - -

Invented to communicate absolutes.
Like 1 apple in left hand and 1 apple is right hand is 2 apples. No matter what language one speaks.
1+1=2

 

It only matters to people

 

1+1=2 is not always true in what we call reality. For instance if I had one drop of water to a drop of water I still have one drop of water. 1+1=1. 1 proton added to 1 anti proton equals annihilation. 1+1=0.

My stance is mathematics is invented not innate, as are all ideas humans have including ethics.

 

But not to all people and not with the same merit or intensity. It's all subjective.

- - - Updated - - -

You'd have to drops of water, formed to make 1 single larger drop of water. 2X the amount of water before you added the 2nd drop.

 

The problem with physical reality and math is that you shouldn't really conflate the two.

Gödel's incompleteness theorems anyone?

 

Yes. We describe the universe with it. That doesn't mean we invented the universe or the way it works. If you want to claim math is objectively true, here is anequation that is blatantly false: 3=2. Here is one that is ambiguous: x=y. Here is one which is counterintuitive, yet also true: 1=0.999 . . . Here's a math expression which can't exist in reality: the square root of negative one. So we see that science is not totally objective.

Certainly you can say that human sacrifice is immoral. And it is for the culture you live in. Morality is a tool by which we can live together and cooperate without killing and eating each other. That which is good for society we call righteous and that which is bad for society we call evil.

Though you call it an atrocity, human sacrifice has been a common practice, even up to historic times. One can only conclude that it was in some way good for the societies that practiced it.

 

Just because we invented a language to better predict our universe doesn't mean we understand anything objectively.






Certainly you can say that human sacrifice is immoral. And it is for the culture you live in.[/QUOTE]I disagree.Regardless of culture Ican say it's immoral.

Nothat is society. Moralityis not dependant on society.Society is dependanton morality.

I disagree, what may be good for society may be severely immoral.For instance exterminating all people with communicable diseases would stop their spread instantly.Clearly good for society but extremely immoral.That's dangerous thinking and leads to things like witchcraft trials.

Thefrequency in which it occursorthe common occurrence does not make it moral.

That's a rather illogical statement. It can't possibly be good for any society. It is immoral.We know this to be true. You can only say it's good if you attempt to say that all cultures are equal. Clearly they aren't.

 

If morality is subjective then it's meaningless. Because everything is both moral and immoral at the same time.

So saving a baby from a rapist and raping the baby are both moral and immoral.
Saving a woman from a burning building is both moral and immoral.
Killing a room full of prayer worshippers is both moral and immoral.
Torturing children is both moral and immoral.

If morality is subjective then it's meaningless and you can't say that your point of view of not wanting to kill the room full of prayer worshippers is any more moral or right than the person who thinks it's moral to do so.

 

Morality is subjective but based on pretty solid experience. What creates a successful civilization is an ethical and moral people with no need for an authoritarian State to enforce it. This is the problem with left wing Progressivism and the right wing Religious Right. Both try to code into law their utopian ideology of moral and ethical behavior.

With the abandonment of religious ideals comes the decay of civilization. History is replete with examples. Religion provides a framework. Without it, it is every man for their own desires.

 

Oh so correct. The society, group, civilization determines the morals they want the people to abide by. Then adopt rules, guidelines, and laws for people to follow.
And if society thinks shooting a room full of worshipers is ok, then it is. But our society deems it not ok.

And the shooter was only doing what was preplanned for him before he was born, according to the definition of omniscient God.

 

Right, hence the reason for the crusades. Muslim suicide bombers. Good framework.
Burning women at the stake. Throwing them into deep water.
Only is we all had those morals. We'd all be saintly.

 

I know, that is all you think religion is even when people abuse it.

To your analogy:

All police are terrorists because one is bad.
All men are homosexuals because one is.
All politicians are corrupt because one is.

I could go on, but all you are doing is looking for an excuse to ignore the experience of what works.

 

No, that is not all I think it is, but if it were the only thing, that's what it would become again.
And the suicide bombers, in the name of religion is existing today.
Religions are no more moral than any other source of morality.

 

David Hume

 

Every man a God instead of one set of rules for everyone that actually work in keeping society civilized.

 

Full and proper objectivity doesn't exist. And morality is a fine fine example of subjectivity because people there are as many interpretations of what is morally right and morally wrong as there are people in the world.

 

No. Society, civilization, clans, they determine the rules. As a group. That will keep society civilized.
And allowing it's citizens the freedom to be who they are, within the confines of the rules. Not forcing how each person has to live, only to respect and honor others rights and properties.
If religion was the correct morality to live by, we wouldn't have 1000s version of christianity with differing moral values between the churches.

 

You mean like Hitler's Germany or Stalin's Russia or Mao's China? That kind of rules? Those kind of rules get more people killed than anything else besides old age.

 

Now you're doing what you tried to accuse me of, Do stalin and mao represent all mankind? No, it seems most of mankind had rejected them.

BTW - which religion should we live by according to you?
Muslim - which version
Jew
Christian - which of the thousand variations
Hindu
Buddah

Which one?

 

Doesn't really matter since all of them are a conglomeration of experience. Thinking that because a few outliers use religion for foul deeds damns the religion is myopic.

 

First of all why don't you show me where Jesus teaches that God is omniscient?

But you still don't address the issue. How much of society needs to agree with something for it to be moral to that society? 50.00000000000000001%? Also, is it moral or not? See you can't say that the action of killing those people in that church was immoral. At BEST you can say that it is immoral according to the rules that are in place by our society. But to the kid who shot them down it was a completely moral act right? And both of them are equally moral... Right?

And you admit that roofs actions were moral and while you may not agree with his actions they're just as morally upstanding as your belief that it was wrong. Correct?

 

You claimed with less religion is a decay of civilization. So far all you have given is an opinion.
I say our morality has gotten better as we become more secularized.
Now buddah type religion seems to be good for morality, but most are not good. Many of them will torture and discriminate against people who don't belong to their religion or follow the tenets of their religion.

 

Why, the bible talks about it. Just because you don't believe God is omniscient doesn't mean the bible doesn't state it or that most all the christian religions teach and believe it.

Enough to agree that they will make the rules and set up a system to maintain it. It could be 99% or 10%. If many don't like the rules, they will revolt and set up a new system. Kinda like how the USA came into being. Over time, the majority will agree and get the system how they want. Those that don't like it can move, try to change it, or not follow and suffer the consequences.
Yes, I can say it is immoral, because I believe it was. Most will agree with me. It wasn't that hard for me to say. But, 100% of the people won't see it as immoral. There may be some radical racists who are actually cheering the shooters actions.
I don't know the mind of the shooter to know if he knew what he was doing was moral or immoral. If he knew what he was doing was wrong and if caught would pay a price, then he knew it was immoral, if his mind is incapable on knowing certain things, then to him it may have been moral.

What? I admit his actions are moral. NO I don't. You are correct, I don't agree with his actions, they were immoral to me and most of society.
I don't know what you're trying to say.