Morality is not subjective

[Ana.J]

I recently came to the conclusion after some reading and thinking that the idea of morality being subjective is absurd. When I say morality is objective I mean that moral goodness exists independent of what people do or think.

Any non-theists here who agree with me?

IMO morality is completely subjective. Every person has their own moral boundaries and understanding the right and wrong. The question is: Can we judge orpunish the person just because they do not think like we do?

 

[ArtieE]

IMO morality is completely subjective. Every person has their own moral boundaries and understanding the right and wrong. The question is: Can we judge orpunish the person just because they do not think like we do?

The Law Dictionary defines immoral as "Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency."
http://thelawdictionary.org/immoral/

We don't judge or punish people "just because they do not think like we do" we judge or punish them if they do something "Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for thepublic welfare, order, and decency."

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Since God, being pure love, we were given morals so we would know what's considered good and evil in God's eye's, not man's eye's. Moral absolute does exist, because God who is pure love, exist.

Shame nobody told the Nazis.

 

[PeteC-UK]

Hi Folks...

My Father - is actually if anything - AMMORAL from a human perspective - as in ACTUALLY - my Father has NO MORALS that compare to these fully MORTAL notions...

It is the SOURCE of all these things we call morals - but its experience is above and beyond them all - has NO PREFERANCE AT ALL as to "good action" or "bad action" - for ACTUALLY - my Father is ONLY ever seeking the COMPLETE SELF UNDERSTANDING - ALL OF IT - good bad indifferent - its ALL my Father....Let it sink in - see the implications...

LOOK CLOSELY - my Father is EVERYTHING !! It is NOT PURE LOVE - NOT that alone - it is pure love that is a COMPLIMENTARY ASPECT of another state of Being (the opposite state, pure hatred for lack of a better term) - and the EMOTION itself FULLY ENCOMPASSES BOTH POLARITIES always....That which we call "EVIL" exists because it is NATURAL and complimentary to that which we call "GOOD"....The emotion we cal love could not even be experienced unless we ALSO have the emotion we call hate to COMPARE it to and thus DEFINE the experience we have....All of Creation comes forth AS this DUALITY of complimentary OPPOSITE states - Yin AND Yang TOGETHER form ONE WHOLE CONCEPT - take away Yin and Yang has NO DEFINITION and ceases to exist - and of course remove Yang and likewise Yin loses it character also and so ceases to exist...All about the Divine Mind defining its LIVING EXPERIENCE - Gnosis..do we see...???....

ALL the "negative" things we call evil, bad etc etc - FULLY VITAL AND NECASSARY - they are part and parcel of the OPPOSITE scale and cannot be seperated one from the other....This applies to EVERYTHING of course - ALL OF EXISTANCE is a DUALITY....Light exists and is ONLY experienced as Light if we can also experience its opposite "dark"...Heat - only exists and is experienced AS heat simply because its OPPOSITE also exists to DEFINE it thus....Look - Remove Light - there is now NEITHER light nor dark - just "same state no change"....Similarly - remove heat there is now "no cold" only an experience of the SAME STATE without change....

The duality and complimentary aspects are NATURAL - the pure logic of Divine Creation - and no one aspect is more vital or more crucial or more important than any other...My Father therefore has NO MORALS that we mortal can identify with - my Father has no PREFERRED experience - it simply wants ALL experience as it is all vital for this Self understanding drive - Gnosis pushes ALL creation to be expressed.. We mortals though DO have a distinct preference for experiences - we crave the things we call "good" and "love" ALWAYS - and so WE make such moral judgements upon OUR mortal experiences - but my Father is above such comparison totally, SOURCE of ALL that we EXPERIENCE.. My Father is therefore NOT PURE LOVE - BUT - the EXPERIENCE of being in a direct communion with its essence IS the MORTAL emotion that WE define as Love....ALL these definitions are MORTAL - and once free from the mortal limitation of life itself then these "moralistic emotional issues" will be experienced in whole new ways entirely..The SELF will be directly experienced in whole new ways entirely - not merely Human - but eternal, Divine

 

[Nous]

So neither of you dispute that there is no logical requirement that those acts that in every country of the world today that, if committed, would be considered murder be illegal. Is that right?

For a country to legalize the act of someone killing another person merely because the perpetrator wants the person's jewelry is not like trying to create a square circle. Right?

Murder is per definition illegal. If they weren't considered murder the acts could be considered legal.

That is correct. Legalizing murder would be like creating a square circle. You can't legalize something that is per definition illegal but you can theoretically take the illegal act that was previously murder and legalize the act so that it can't be called murder any more.

So, Artie, are the questions I asked to painful for you to address?

I think everyone else has understood that there is no logical obstacle to a country legalizing an act such as killing a person merely because one wants his jewelry, and therefore no sentences I have written constitute a tautology.

 

[ArtieE]

I think everyone else has understood that there is no logical obstacle to a country legalizing an act such as killing a person merely because one wants his jewelry, and therefore no sentences I have written constitute a tautology.

Of course they can legalize that act. But you wrote and I quote: “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder." Murder is per definition a crime Nous. You can't criminalize the acts that constitute murder, if they constitute murder they are already illegal. A country can criminalize some acts and call them murder, but they can't then criminalize one more time the acts they have already criminalized and called murder. One time is enough.

 

[Milton Platt]

Murder is per definition illegal. If they weren't considered murder the acts could be considered legal.

isn't the discussion about morality rather than legality?

 

[McBell]

isn't the discussion about morality rather than legality?

The thread started off about morality, but just like most every other thread, this thread has a tangent or two.

 

[Nous]

Of course they can legalize that act. But you wrote and I quote: “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder."

So what is your complaint? Every country in the world criminalizes the act of killing another person simply because one wants his jewelry. There is no tautology in that statement. There is no logical requirement that the act of killing another person merely because one wants his jewelry be illegal. Any jurisdiction can make that a legal act. No country does make that a legal act. The disapproval of such an act is not relative to countries.

 

[Nous]

isn't the discussion about morality rather than legality?

As Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "The law is the witness and external deposit of our moral life. Its history is the history of the moral development of the race."

The reason that we criminalize certain acts is because of our (highly consistent across diverse cultures) moral disapproval of those acts. The reason we speak of "rights" is because of our moral disapproval of acts that violate those rights.

 

[McBell]

The reason that we criminalize certain acts is because of our (highly consistent across diverse cultures) moral disapproval of those acts. The reason we speak of "rights" is because of our moral disapproval of acts that violate those rights.

I wonder how many places it is illegal to smoke within 8 feet of an entrance?

So much for your "highly consistent across diverse cultures"....

 

[ArtieE]

So what is your complaint?

You wrote and I quote: “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder." There are no acts that constitute murder before they are criminalized and called murder. And if the acts constitute murder they've already been criminalized.

 

[Nous]

You wrote and I quote: “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder." There are no acts that constitute murder before they are criminalized and called murder. And if the acts constitute murder they've already been criminalized.

So you do not dispute that there is no tautology in the statement: "Every country in the world criminalizes the act of killing another person simply because one wants his jewelry." And you do not dispute that there is no logical requirement that the act of killing another person merely because one wants his jewelry be illegal. Right?

 

[Nous]

I wonder how many places it is illegal to smoke within 8 feet of an entrance?

Cite all of the criminal laws you know of that make it a crime "to smoke within 8 feet of an entrance."

 

[ArtieE]

So you do not dispute that there is no tautology in the statement: "Every country in the world criminalizes the act of killing another person simply because one wants his jewelry." And you do not dispute that there is no logical requirement that the act of killing another person merely because one wants his jewelry be illegal. Right?

When you quote a whole post of mine I expect you to comment on what I said in the post instead of repeating what's already been answered.

 

[McBell]

Cite all of the criminal laws you know of that make it a crime "to smoke within 8 feet of an entrance."

They just passed it not to long ago in Indiana.

Indiana is the only one I know who passed it.

Michigan doesn't have it.
Nor does Ohio.

so once again..
So much for your "highly consistent across diverse cultures"....

 

[Nous]

They just passed it not to long ago in Indiana.

Cite that criminal statute: http://iga.in.gov/legislative/laws/2016/ic/

What is the prison sentence for violating that law?

Indiana is the only one I know who passed it.

Michigan doesn't have it.
Nor does Ohio.

Nor does any other state as far as I know. I'd say that's pretty consistent--Indiana is (allegedly) the only jurisdiction in the world that through its criminal code expresses any moral disapproval of a person smoking within 8 feet of an entrance. Moral disapproval of that act is no more relative to cultures than is the moral disapproval of the act of killing a person just because wants his jewelry.

 

[Nous]

When you quote a whole post of mine I expect you to comment on what I said in the post instead of repeating what's already been answered.

Hopefully that means you have finally understood that my statement was not a tautology.

And the point is: the moral disapproval of acts such as the act of killing a person merely because one wants his jewelry--which is an act that would be classified as murder in every current nation--are not relative to societies.

 

[ArtieE]

Hopefully that means you have finally understood that my statement was not a tautology.

Hopefully at some point you will have finally understood that the statement we all commented on was “Every country criminalizes the acts that constitute murder."?

 

[Rick O'Shez]

Morality is a product of the human mind and therefore inherently subjective.

Belief in "God" is also a product of the human mind of course.