What was supposed to be the point?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?
- Thread starter Sunstone
- Start date
Prove it.
It's actually only individual persons who purposely act. Killing one's child so that one can have more food might increase one's chances of survival on a deserted island, but there is still nothing "objectively moral" about it.
If no other option was available the objectively moral thing to do would be to kill yourself so that your child could eat you. It would increase the chances of the survival of the child and the continuation of the species. Which is why parents sometimes give their lives for their children in the first place. If you meant killing your child so that you can have all the food it would be objectively immoral since you would reduce the number of survivors from two to one.
Last edited:
So, the "objectively moral" act in that situation would not be the act that increases one's chances of survival.
And for the rapist who is about to be caught, would the "objectively moral" act for him be to run and escape punishment, according to your survival/well-being enhancement criterion?
No. The objectively moral act doesn't necessarily increase YOUR chances of survival. It increases the chances of SURVIVAL. Why do you think we honor those who give their lives so others can survive? Because they have done the objectively moral thing.
What do you think would be most beneficial for the well-being and survival of the society and the people in it? To have rapists running free or have them under control? The objectively moral thing to do for a rapist is to face the consequences of his act.
But in the scenario, the child undoubtedly wouldn't survive on the deserted island.
Since the rapist is increasing his own well-being and survival, and is not killing anyone, I assume you would say that running away would be the "objectively moral" act for him.
The next day a boat might show up. As long as the child is alive there's hope.
Having rapists running free is hardly beneficial for a society and the people in it. When we talk about what is objectively moral we talk about what is generally beneficial for the well-being and survival of the society and as many as possible of the people in it. This is how moral normal people see it. But there are many people with antisocial personality disorders, such as psychopaths and sociopaths. If for example you were one of those "our survival", "your survival" or "their survival" would be irrelevant the only thing that would matter to you would be "MY survival". And everything you say about morality would come from that perspective. Whereas when I make a moral judgement I try to do the objectively moral thing which is what is most beneficial and least detrimental for the well-being and survival of my society and it's citizens.
So you can't determine what would be the "objectively moral" act for the parent to do in that scenario? The parent can't bank on the child being rescued tomorrow.
What? He will surely produce a bunch of children if he's allowed to continue!
The thing is, humans are not really on the verge of dying off. Just the contrary.
I am unaware that a "society" or species or culture or nation, etc., has any moral status. And again, there is no moral imperative that Homo sapiens survive.
But your sentence could be easily tweaked to just be a version of the Golden Rule.
The objectively moral thing to do is to try to make the child survive as long as possible in case of rescue.
You are very good at thinking like a psychopath or a sociopath. No concern for the well-being of the rape victims or what the children might have to go through or the negative effects on society.
Again, any objective observer can only conclude that the objectively right way to behave for a species with a survival instinct is to behave in a manner that increases chances of survival.
Of course. The Golden Rule is just a simple guide and if people generally follow it it's beneficial for the well-being and survival of the society and its citizens.
Let me enlighten you and correct your theme here: "Again, any PRACTICAL NEANDERTHAL observer can only conclude that the PRACTICAL HUSTLER way to behave for a species with a survival instinct is to behave in a manner that increases chances of survival.Of course. "
See how I fixed that quote for you? You mistyped yourself. So I put the correct words you were thinking in the correct spot for you. You are welcome!
So does the parent eat one of the dozen coconuts on the island, or does s/he allow the child to have them all?
You're claiming that you are providing us with the standard for "objectively moral" acts, yet you can't seem to articulate the standard in a simple scenario such as I have noted.
I'm just pointing out some of the blatant flaws in your idea that moral behavior among humans is a product of the will to survive. It's truly a goofy idea.
Humans did not acquire any special “instinct to survive” by natural selection. Indeed, one of the prominent causes of death among humans these days is suicide, in contrast to any other animal. I am certain that lions possess every ounce of “the instinct to survive” that humans do, yet they do not punish their rapists and murderers. Psychopaths and sociopaths--to the extent that any such categories of persons exist--are no less endowed with the will to survive than nuns are; the difference is that the former are indifferent to the suffering they cause others, while the latter lead lives of selfless, possession-less service to others.
You can't even seem to decide who or what are to be the recipients and perpetrators of moral acts--societies, species, next-of-kin. The fact is that it is individual persons who choose to act (or not act) morally, and one can treat another individual with utmost deference and moral regard while violating the dictates of one's society. E.g., the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 was a US federal law that criminalized giving aid, food or shelter to any fugitive slave, yet many people risked their freedom and livelihoods in doing so. Such moral acts have nothing to do with the “instinct to survive”.
How does holding yourself to a personal subjective standard differ from being you?
I dunno. But your question doesn't answer my question, which was: So I can't have my own personal (subjective) standard for determining great architecture?
I believe I can have a personal subjective standard for what buildings are examples of great architecture. My list of criteria for such a standard might not match the criteria for an objective standard.
It's not a subjective standard, regardless that it might be personal. If it's something you "hold yourself to," in other words hold up to measure yourself against, then you've objectified it.
Since I don't build buildings, I don't "hold myself to" my standard for great architecture. I only have developed the standard of what I consider to be great architecture. Other people can have different standards, and there can be an objective standard that is still different.
Regardless, you hold the standard up and measure a building against it. It's objective.
How silly. A person can have his/her own subjective standard for what makes an excellent pie crust. That doesn't mean it is an objective standard. It means it's a list of criteria for what s/he likes. the definition of standard
3. a rule or principle that is used as a basis for judgment:
They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
They tried to establish standards for a new philosophical approach.
Obviously there is no logical obstacle for a standard being a subjective rule or principle.
A person can have their own personal opinion of what makes an excellent pie crust. But there's no good reason for calling that a "standard.
Edit: ...Unless they are going to objectify it in order to use it as a basis for judgement.
By the way, rules and principles are both objective.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yes. But it doesn't define it as objective. And even philosophically while many do take the position of trying to define/defend objective morality, it is impossible to defend beyond a vague concept of having, as social animals, evolved a sense of pro-social behaviors that includes codes of conduct. But outside of this genetic coding there is nothing to suggest there is a objective definition of morality. And nor should their be. That is bad science and philosophy. People, even academically, claim it is hard to defend subjective morality, but subjective morality gives us the chance to realize and accept our errors and improve.
What you describe has many subjective attributes, because it is of course, common to all cultures and religions 'in one form or another, and how the Golden Rule is effective in persuading people to treat others a little more nicely than they might otherwise.' is in reality a highly subjective of how the groups and individuals interpret the 'golden rule/'