The questions I had were: How does one know for sure what is right or wrong if the belief of right and wrong in other people can differ? Is the concept of objective morality something to convince the believer that their thoughts and actions are validated by an external force as an alternative to justification from subjective morality? And of course the "irredeemably and insufferably idiotic" question: Why would anyone bother to believe in subjective morality out of convenience if a person's opinions and desires can still be held regardless of objective morality.
Morality vary but globally, there is some constancy through all human societies and civilization such as don't kill, don't hurt, don't steal or don't cheat. I don't know if I answer right. English is not my native language, neither the first language I learned.
It' alright VotreAltesse, I can understand what you said. That is true, morality varies from one culture to another. And there are some consistancies. What I'm trying to see is how others who believe our conscience tells us right from wrong, explain the variations in our personal sense of morality.
A part is instinctive. We're social animals. The natural environment of human is the group. Even me, as an autist, I regulary search for human contact. How a group can exist ? With rules. Dogs for instance have a lot of rules in their dogs pack. Here come the notion of fair and unfair. About the variations of our personnal sense of morality, I would say personnality, experience and reading. An easily angered personnality will often fight with their fists mor easily, but will get less offended if someone, while angry hit them. We have difficulties to understand other people, their different way, and so we understand rules with our personnalities.
We don’t. Notably we don’t know which of our individual beliefs are right even if there is some objective morality. I think it’s undeniable that is one of the common ways the principle has been applied. Even when that is in place (notably in religions of course), there is typically disagreement on fundamental principles and all sorts specific details. You seem to be assuming this is some kind of conscious decision. I think it’s fairly clear that we come to moral positions automatically and instinctively. Nobody can simple decide they’re going to believe in an objective morality (or not) from now on.
Morality of the individual is less important than that of society as a whole. An individual can be a moral person or not moral,so individual morality only matters when relating to society.
Morality of a society is based on a concensus of morality of it's constituents. When the morality of the members of society change the morality of the society changes.
I agree. Originally I actually asked this question to the forum user, Yguy. He stated that those who do thing he "knows" to be morally wrong, do them knowing it is wrong. To clarify here is his statement on objective morality. The first post of page 15: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/where-does-morality-come-from.503140/page-15 Here was my response and our conversation found all throughout page 18: http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/where-does-morality-come-from.503140/page-18
Nope sorry it is the individuals that drive the collective not the collective driving the individuals.
That what I just said. This is what you said: " Yes, which is why individual morality is less important than the collective."
You keep saying that without explanation. The only way I can see collective morality being important is it's impact on making laws or religious doctrine. And of course individuals can always ignore those laws or doctrines if their own morality differs. As a simple example when collective morality made abortion illegal people still got abortions and as the concensus of individual morality changed the law was changed. Collective morality is against cheating on a spouse and yet is is done and America even elected a serial cheater. The examples are endless the most recent of course the changes in the way gays are treated both legally and socially.
Thanks, you just explained why individual morality is less important than collective. Collective morality affects everyone and is used to make laws. Individual morality does not.
Except of course that as stated the individual can choose to ignore the collective morality and thus the individual morality triumps over the collective. And of course your logic is circular since you are assuming that collective morality is more important than individual morality in determining individual behavior.
How does individual morality triumph over the collective? If someone breaks a law they can go to prison.....how is that triumphant?
I think collective does in fact matter more. I can infer this by looking at my own situation. My sense of "morality" (or perhaps lack of?) has no effect on society. You and all other Standard Psyches are dominant and make the laws.
I cannot honestly and logically deny that subjective conscience actually exists. Indeed, any explicit attempt to deny it implicitly affirms it. What's more, by definition, if contingent (subjective) conscience actually exists, necessary conscience must exist.
Who and what controls our thinking has a strong influence on what we 'think' is right and wrong. I think of the fellow that either did or was going to shoot up a pizza restaurant because he believed that Hillary and some other adults were keeping children there as sex slaves. Also, it's just like us folks here on this forum: I can't understand how any one could support trump just as the trump supporters can't understand how I'm not able to support trump. Most decisions an adult makes are the result of some outside influence. My dad only bought Fords, I'd never buy a Chevrolet - - - - -
Morality is about a set of laws God put in our hearts (from my own speculation, it's in our spirits). On the other hand, we can be educated (mostly by our custom and culture in a society), while our hearts can be hardened. The crucial point is rather when our soul/spirit is formed and since then what is the starting point of education and by whom. Our soul/spirit formed when we were in wombs. It's almost a scientific fact that a child in womb can already receive education one way or another. Now it boils down to who has the capability to educate us when we are in wombs. No doubt, a powerful figure such as Satan can do so. David thus said that we have sins in us even when we are in wombs. Our judgment however is based on the version God put inside us. Not the altered one through the education of Satan or our own culture nor the one hardened by your own hearts.
I feel the same. For myself though, my decisions are possibly more influenced by "what" rather than "who". The example you mentioned about Donald Trump is accurate in terms of how we think.
That is an interesting take, Hawkins. Though if any laws such as those are inherent, I've never felt them. Also, I have my own disagreements with the ideology presented by Christianity. Though what you mentioned could quite possibly explain about how and why we think as we do.
People of faith have always been able and willing to hold to their faith despite oppression by the collective. They win because their beliefs are not changed.
