The Objective Morality Debate

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah perhaps i'm wrong but that's what i remember reading, about socretes. (possibly plato, but almost sure it was soc)

even if you search around on the internet for that stuff, you can find stuff that says it.
eg, just a forum but ' Socrates was a flaming queen who 88888 all the little boys he could. That's how he was corrupting the "youth."There were plenty of rational thinkers in Socrates' time, and they weren't exucuted in the same fashion. I suppose he crossed a line in the man-boy love association. Probably 8888 some higher-up's boy-toy."
but yeah i remember reading it in the original text.

==

edit:
also,
"Socrates' love of Alcibiades, which was more than reciprocated, is held as an example of chaste pederasty.[citation needed] Phaedrus, in the Platonic dialogue the Symposium states:

For I know not any greater blessing to a young man who is beginning in life than a virtuous lover, or to a lover than a beloved youth. For the principle, I say, neither kindred, nor honor, nor wealth, nor any motive is able to implant so well as love. Of what am I speaking? Of the sense of honor and dishonor, without which neither states nor individuals ever do any good or great work… And if there were only some way of contriving that a state or an army should be made up of lovers and their loves, they would be the very best governors of their own city, abstaining from all dishonor and emulating one another in honor; and it is scarcely an exaggeration to say that when fighting at each other’s side, although a mere handful, they would overcome the world.[45]

Plato in his Laws, blamed pederasty for promoting civil strife and driving many to their wits' end, and recommended the prohibition of sexual intercourse with boys, laying out a path whereby this may be accomplished.[46]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece

According to Plutarch, Alcibiades "feared and reverenced Socrates alone, and despised the rest of his lovers".[11]

Socrates also comments on the importance of pederasty in his own life. He says, “My love for this fellow [Agathon- another member of the party who is a beautiful young boy] is not an insignificant affair.” Yet another member of the party, Alcibiades, also loves Agathon and tries to discredit Socrates when he says, “…Socrates is lovingly fixated on beautiful young men, is always around them – in a daze….”
http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Evils%20in%20America/Sodomy/greek_homos.htm

Edited June 5, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wonder if socrates, the poster here, knows of the tendencies of the original socrates...
having that assocation, the poster here with a peodofile philsopher unbeknownst to someone like the poster... to me, that's comical.

Edited June 5, 2011 by dairygirl4u2c

[stevil]

[quote name='Didacus' timestamp='1307292480' post='2250169']
Truth does not change pending the observer, it remains as truth and it is unmovable. So as two different observers of truth may differ in opinion (subjective), the object (truth) remains the same throughout the observations.

It is in this essence that objective morality is based; morality, right and wrong, remains so regardless of who interpretes or scrutinizes it. We may take different opinions with regards to what is right and what is wrong, but that which is Truth, right and wrong always remains the regardless of the opinions held upon observing them.

Per the axiom above, it is impossible that Truth changes per the observers for the reason that it is illogical that Truth be two different things at the same time.


Make sense?
[/quote]
This absolutely makes sense.

But the problem is that the observer needs the ability to know the truth.
As an analogy,
In space we don't have a point of reference to know what a stationary object is. We can know if something is moving relative to us or not, but we can't know if anything is staying absolutely still. If you inject god into the equation, you could say that god knows what a stationary object is. This is all fine and dandy for god, but for us, we have a problem. God is non interactive and non observable. We cannot ask god to show us a stationary object and get the answer. Thus we must use other tools at our disposal. Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity, since we cannot know what a stationary point is we must model the universe relative, this means that distance and time also become relative and speed of light becomes absolute. This may not be the most accurate way to look at our universe especially from god's point of view, but it is the best we can do.

So coming out of the anology you could say that god knows the truth. Which is fine and dandy, but how can we know the truth? If we can't see an absolute point of reference then we must use other tools at our disposal. With god being non interactive and non observable we must default to a society driven morality, this morality is subjective.

Please explain how this morality could be absolute (objective)?

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307267669' post='2250115']
When you say that murder is an objective immoral does this mean that some immorals are subjective?

I think Euthanasia is a good example for a little focus. Particularly because I am currently of the opinion that I am strongly for this one. Abortion isn't so clear cut.
By my thinking, if we have a terminally ill Atheist suffering a long and painful road to imminent death, then I am really struggling with the thought that this atheist can't choose a compassionate controlled and medically supervised termination of life. It seems that other peoples belief in gods and stance against Euthanasia is preventing this becoming legal.

How could an atheist understand the objective morality with regards to Euthanasia. If natural law comes into effect, then how does a person tap into that? You cannot simply ask mother nature and expect a succinct answer. My innerself, my reasoning and my compassion tells me that it is OK for the person to choose Euthanasia.

Please tell me how I would expect to know what the objective morality would be in this circumstance.
[/quote]

[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]I want to kill my wife and shack up with my neighbor's 14 year old daughter. [/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]It seems that other people's belief in gods and stance against murder and statutory rape is preventing this from becoming legal.[/size][/font][font="Arial"] [/font]

Edited June 6, 2011 by Papist

[Papist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307358372' post='2250394']
So coming out of the anology you could say that god knows the truth. Which is fine and dandy, but how can we know the truth? If we can't see an absolute point of reference then we must use other tools at our disposal. With god being non interactive and non observable we must default to a society driven morality, this morality is subjective.
[/quote]
If morality is subjective, then morality does not exist.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1307376057' post='2250431']
[font="Tahoma"][size="2"]I want to kill my wife and shack up with my neighbor's 14 year old daughter. [/size][/font][font="Arial"][size="2"]It seems that other people's belief in gods and stance against murder and statutory rape is preventing this from becoming legal.[/size][/font]
[/quote]

If you didn't believe in god, would you?

Or is it god that keeps you from wanting those things?

[ParadiseFound]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' timestamp='1307227367' post='2250003']
Murder is the direct intention to kill an innocent person.
[/quote]
Is anyone innocent?

[Papist]

[quote name='xSilverPhinx' timestamp='1307376728' post='2250436']
If you didn't believe in god, would you?

Or is it god that keeps you from wanting those things?
[/quote]
No b/c it is against the law.

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1307379475' post='2250450']
No b/c it is against the law.
[/quote]

So you feel that you would need a law (divine or secular) to tell you not to do those or can you find good reasons not to do those because you don't want to harm others?

[xSilverPhinx]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307358372' post='2250394']
This absolutely makes sense.

But the problem is that the observer needs the ability to know the truth.
As an analogy,
In space we don't have a point of reference to know what a stationary object is. We can know if something is moving relative to us or not, but we can't know if anything is staying absolutely still. If you inject god into the equation, you could say that god knows what a stationary object is. This is all fine and dandy for god, but for us, we have a problem. God is non interactive and non observable. We cannot ask god to show us a stationary object and get the answer. Thus we must use other tools at our disposal. Einstein came up with the general theory of relativity, since we cannot know what a stationary point is we must model the universe relative, this means that distance and time also become relative and speed of light becomes absolute. This may not be the most accurate way to look at our universe especially from god's point of view, but it is the best we can do.

So coming out of the anology you could say that god knows the truth. Which is fine and dandy, but how can we know the truth? If we can't see an absolute point of reference then we must use other tools at our disposal. With god being non interactive and non observable we must default to a society driven morality, this morality is subjective.

Please explain how this morality could be absolute (objective)?
[/quote]

That's a good analogy

[Papist]

God wrote in my heart not to do those and I choose to cooperate with it. I don't have to struggle with myself to prevent me from doing such things. If God does not exist, why should I give a rats arse about if others get harmed?

[sixpence]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='[url="http://xisbn.worldcat.org:80/liblook2/resolve.htm?res_id=4826&rft.isbn=1307383343&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:book"]1307383343[/url]' post='2250463']
God wrote in my heart not to do those and I choose to cooperate with it. I don't have to struggle with myself to prevent me from doing such things. If God does not exist, why should I give a rats arse about if others get harmed?
[/quote]

lol... you would because you know your community would prolly be super annoyed with you for randomly killing people and having sex with their daughters.... you might want to continue living peaceably with the rest of society and not be killed by your neighbor...

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1307383343' post='2250463']
God wrote in my heart not to do those and I choose to cooperate with it. I don't have to struggle with myself to prevent me from doing such things. If God does not exist, why should I give a rats arse about if others get harmed?
[/quote]
It seems that god did not write on my heart that Euthanasia is wrong.

Most atheists (who don't believe in gods) do not go around wanting to commit murders. They tend to ascribe to a simple and social view of the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. The consequences of breaking the law is also a deterrant.

I would think that if god had written moral law into our hearts then there wouldn't be any moral disputes, we would all just know the common truth, but this isn't the case.

Edited June 6, 2011 by stevil

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1307376544' post='2250435']
If morality is subjective, then morality does not exist.
[/quote]
Yes, hence I don't like to use the words "moral" or "immoral"

[fides' Jack]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1307387695' post='2250499']
It seems that god did not write on my heart that Euthanasia is wrong.

Most atheists (who don't believe in gods) do not go around wanting to commit murders. They tend to ascribe to a simple and social view of the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. The consequences of breaking the law is also a deterrant.

I would think that if god had written moral law into our hearts then there wouldn't be any moral disputes, we would all just know the common truth, but this isn't the case.
[/quote]

St. Aquinas started most of his arguments in his Summa with the words "It seems," or "It would seem," and then argued against it. Things are not always what they seem.

I would argue that you're wrong - that it was written on your heart that Euthanasia is wrong, and that you've simply chosen to ignore that, based on what you have heard from biased sources. But you're not alone. We all do that - convince ourselves that maybe something we're doing or that we want to do, or that we've already done isn't as bad as we think it is. Maybe that's taking something that doesn't belong to us, or what we did with that girlfriend a while back, or how we treat our spouses or kids, etc...

Why is the "quality of life" all of a sudden more important than life itself? Someone once said that "The will to live is stronger than anything." Even most animals, though severely mutilated, will try to protect their own lives as much as they can. Why don't humans understand the same concept?