Are Objective Standards for Morals Superior in Practice to Subjective Standards for Morals?

[ArtieE]

You can't provide a jot of evidence that substantiates any of these claims, either. Right?

Again: "From an objective point of view there are objectively right and wrong ways for organisms with an evolved survival/self-preservation instinct to behave. The objectively right way to behave is to behave in such a way that it increases chances of survival and the objectively wrong way is to behave in such a way that it decreases chances of survival. Since we are social animals living in communities and living in communities increases our chances of survival the objectively right way for us to behave is to behave in such a way that we keep our communities healthy and well functioning. The objectively right way for us to behave is to help each other survive because that increases our chances of survival. We call behaving the right way behaving morally and behaving the wrong way behaving immorally."

Why don't you tell us where I'm wrong?

 

[ArtieE]

Are you serious? Do you really need a dictionary to define words only? You cannot define words from the contexts in which the words are given?

By now you should understand the same word CAN HAVE multiple contexts.

I have yet to see a context where genocide is not a crime and does not refer to a human being COMMITTING the act. That is there are no animals committing genocide.

Please provide a source where genocide refers to non human beings.

You should be able to think for yourself without running to dictionaries or WIKI.

The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
genocide - definition of genocide in English | Oxford Dictionaries

Are you trying to say that when people deliberately kill a large group of people it's genocide but when a god, a non human being, does it it isn't genocide?

 

[ArtieE]

The desire of an organism to avoid death is not acquired by a change in allele frequency.

Then where did the desire of an organism to avoid death come from?

 

[Logikal]

The deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic group.
genocide - definition of genocide in English | Oxford Dictionaries

Are you trying to say that when people deliberately kill a large group of people it's genocide but when a god, a non human being, does it it isn't genocide?

If GOD does or dogs or lions or space aliens kill a multitude of human beings the act IS NOT GENOCIDE.

Yes I am saying only HUMAN BEINGS can commit GENOCIDE. It is just killing human beings other wise and that does not automatically mean the killing of human beings is immoral.

 

[ArtieE]

If GOD does or dogs or lions or space aliens kill a multitude of human beings the act IS NOT GENOCIDE.

Yes I am saying only HUMAN BEINGS can commit GENOCIDE. It is just killing human beings other wise and that does not automatically mean the killing of human beings is immoral.

Genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people. If God deliberately killing a large group of people, almost every human on the planet, is not genocide, what is the proper term for it?

 

[Logikal]

Genocide is defined as the deliberate killing of a large group of people. If God deliberately killing a large group of people, almost every human on the planet, is not genocide, what is the proper term for it?

Perhaps there is none. It is the killing of human beings. Why are people uptight about the killing of human beings as opposed to the killing of squirrels?

If I wipe out all of the squirrels in NY what is it called?

Again I see you will likely appeal to humans are superior to beasts.
Well correct me if I am wrong aren't you supporting human being do what is most beneficial to them for their survival? Don't squirrels do that too?
So WHY should a superior species behave as the inferior species behave?

 

[ArtieE]

If I wipe out all of the squirrels in NY what is it called?

To exterminate them. God exterminated almost all the humans on the planet?

Again I see you will likely appeal to humans are superior to beasts.
Well correct me if I am wrong aren't you supporting human being do what is most beneficial to them for their survival?

Yes.

Don't squirrels do that too?

Of course.

So WHY should a superior species behave as the inferior species behave?

So if a squirrel tries to do what is most beneficial to its survival we shouldn't because we are a superior species? You wouldn't even be here if your ancestors didn't do what was necessary for them to do to survive.

 

[Logikal]

To exterminate them. God exterminated almost all the humans on the planet?Yes.Of course.So if a squirrel tries to do what is most beneficial to its survival we shouldn't because we are a superior species? You wouldn't even be here if your ancestors didn't do what was necessary for them to do to survive.

God has attributes that basically force his hand to do certain things. If you were to understand the concepts you would see why they are needed or required. For one thing God cannot break his word.
God exterminated people yes. This does not make him evil. There were reasons why and that is something you keep ignoring. All you care about AGAIN are the RESULTS instead of the QUALITY. Mathematical logic and scienc seems to have that effect.

Well yes I would figure if you are superior then you would do bigger and better things than the inferior species. Do you figure space aliens will be inferior you humans if the space aliens make are capable of making the trip here?
The whole space ship thing is inferior to ours is that what you think?

Yes I expect superior things aka methods coming from superior beings why is this too much to ask?

 

[Logikal]

All that and no source listed?
What happened, you get caught up in your sermon and forget to provide your source?

The fact of the matter is that you HAVE in fact seen a context where genocide was not committed by humans.

No I haven't. All you can show me is that a bunch of humans died. What no source listed for animals or non humans being capable of genocide?

Sources means NOT COMING FROM YOU doesnt it?

 

[Willamena]

We evolved a survival instinct: "the instinct in humans and animals to do things in a dangerous situation that will prevent them from dying". Collins Dictionary. Our whole notion of right and wrong behavior and morality is based on whether the behavior is advantageous or disadvantageous for survival.

Not. Things "right" more likely advantage the survival of the mind first, and body second.

 

[shunyadragon]

So you disagree with Artie's idea that the instinct to survive among humans provides us with objective moral rules by which we conform our behavior.

Yes, I disagree with Artie's view. There is no objective evidence for any so called objective moral rules. There are clearly morals and ethics in all human societies and cultures that have objective and subjective attributes.

And evidently you are unable to substantiate your claim of some sort of special genetic survival instinct in humans. Artie can't seem to figure out whether humans "evolved a survival instinct," or had this instinct "as we evolved." Presumably you are likewise confused.

The genetic relationship to the survival instinct and purpose in humans as well as all animals and plants in the history of life is documented in the thousands of academic books and journals, which you choose to ignore based on an ancient religious agenda, voluntary self imposed ignorance, and mythology.

Being killed in the course of trying to defend one's herd or offspring is not the same as suicide.

As cited there is abundant documented records of both suicides, and self-sacrifice of animals to protect the young and the heard.

 

[shunyadragon]

Again: "From an objective point of view there are objectively right and wrong ways for organisms with an evolved survival/self-preservation instinct to behave. The objectively right way to behave is to behave in such a way that it increases chances of survival and the objectively wrong way is to behave in such a way that it decreases chances of survival. Since we are social animals living in communities and living in communities increases our chances of survival the objectively right way for us to behave is to behave in such a way that we keep our communities healthy and well functioning. The objectively right way for us to behave is to help each other survive because that increases our chances of survival. We call behaving the right way behaving morally and behaving the wrong way behaving immorally."

Why don't you tell us where I'm wrong?

Your misuse of objective.

 

[ArtieE]

God has attributes that basically force his hand to do certain things. If you were to understand the concepts you would see why they are needed or required. For one thing God cannot break his word.
God exterminated people yes. This does not make him evil. There were reasons why and that is something you keep ignoring. All you care about AGAIN are the RESULTS instead of the QUALITY. Mathematical logic and scienc seems to have that effect.

Well yes I would figure if you are superior then you would do bigger and better things than the inferior species. Do you figure space aliens will be inferior you humans if the space aliens make are capable of making the trip here?
The whole space ship thing is inferior to ours is that what you think?

Yes I expect superior things aka methods coming from superior beings why is this too much to ask?

This post is so weird and irrational and incoherent that I'll skip answering it.

 

[ArtieE]

Your misuse of objective.

Right... is that it or is a more detailed and useful answer forthcoming?

 

[LuisDantas]

Suppose there were objective standards for morality. Putting aside, for the moment, just how problematic that would be (after all, what would it mean, an "objective standard"?), do you think the existence of objective standards for a morality would be any more effective in practice at getting people to comply with that morality than subjective standards for the same morality? Why or why not?

Yes, I would say that such is exactly the case in reality, including the existence of such objective standards.

However, that there are such standards does not deny the need for individual interpretation and in fact individual contribution and actualization of morality.

While it is easy to mistake this state of things with subjective morality, I don't think that is an accurate perception.

Why so? Because a true subjective morality would be ultimately fully arbitrary, making morality meaningless.

For all the challenges involved, such is not the case. Morality has definite meanings (and is often definitely misrepresented and mishappen, mainly by being confused with the following of rules of some variety) and in fact can not help but be definite and objective, because it is the discipline of understanding, extending and employing the relationship between actions (and omissions) and their consequences in the quality of existence for sentient beings.

That is challenging enough that it ends up being deeply tied to the intellectual actualization of the moral agent and therefore appears to be subjective at the most superficial level. But that is really the only sense in which it could appear to be subjective or even non-objective.

 

[LuisDantas]

If you know know so much then prove me wrong please. Show me what field does morality fall under. Morality has nothing to do with religion. Morality is possible without a GOD. The academic field for morality is philosophy. Show me otherwise.

On the contrary. Morality is supposed to be a main interest, arguably the core interest, of religion.

It is very much possible and in fact usually far easier to attain without a God, of course. But that says essentially nothing about how it relates to religion, as should be obvious.

 

[Logikal]

On the contrary. Morality is supposed to be a main interest, arguably the core interest, of religion.

It is very much possible and in fact usually far easier to attain without a God, of course. But that says essentially nothing about how it relates to religion, as should be obvious.

I 1000% disagree. Morality exist outside of GOD rationally. If morality depended upon GOD then morality would be Authoritative. That means only the beings in power would decide what is moral. This would be a problem. There are already humans that think GOD chose them to lead other humans and everything the chosen person does is from GOD. Thus rejecting the said chosen person is an instance of you rejecting GOD. This belief is objectively wrong.

In GODs view we are all equal. There is not supposed to be authorities the way we currently have. There should be no one on the Earth with a GOD complex where what ever this clown say goes. We cannot be equal if I am treated inferior. If GOD says we are equal then no person ought to rule over me every second of my life. There are limited times where authorities are needed and those chosen need to know where their authority ends.

GOD is perfect and would not ABUSE his authorities as every single human who has had GOD GIVEN authority has done. Beloved King David had a man sent off to war to get killed so the GOD chosen authority could sex the mans wife. The GOD chosen one even made the wife pregnant! To put morality only in the hand of the authorities is foolish. We don't need authority when we have GOD. To assume you are a Christian and mean this would still cause problems. What you suggest is that only GOD could declare what is moral. Is act x moral or immoral because GOD said so OR are there objective reasons why GOD is correct? How would us lowly humans know what God is thinking? Please don't hand me the GOD messengers or authorities garbage I just disposed of with King David. All humans are sinners even the chosen ones from GOD. No human will be 100% on the up and up with unlimited power because of sin. Thus morality would not be possible on Earth if morality were only from GOD (or religion as you put it). Hence morality exists outside of GOD. GOD knows what is moral or not but we don't get it from HIM.

 

[McBell]

No I haven't. All you can show me is that a bunch of humans died. What no source listed for animals or non humans being capable of genocide?

Sources means NOT COMING FROM YOU doesnt it?

Now you are merely chasing your own tail.

You feel free to Humpty Dumpty the word genocide to your hearts content.
Since that is the only leg you have to stand on.

 

[LuisDantas]

@Logikal : When you begin to talk abot God as if he had well established atributes, your argument enters quite quickly into the realm of all-out fantasy with no connection to reality.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Make up your mind. Rape of children isn't a joke where one should use a funny emoticon for it.

The emoji has nothing to do with the scenario you've presented and everything to do with your assertion that because I don't believe morality is objective that I support such a scenario...

Of course it is. Here's the objective truth: One should not cause another creature to suffer simply for one's own temporary pleasure.

That objective truth is deduced from the Golden Rule.

There is no need to be so confused.

This is what you believe. That's great. I get that.
Now, show me how/why it's an objective rule.