Should Morals Be Judged In A Cultural Context?

[Iapetus]

Reply to RuleOnu:

Exactly! Left to Human convention, societal, cultural norms and practice, concensus, moral values and duties are subjective.

Yes; that is what I am suggesting.

It is related to the lack of an agreed authority. You made a God claim which you are unable to justify and I wrote a paragraph to you about it. You ignored it.

I doubt very much that someone can make a rational argument favoring torturing a child for fun, or murder and rape. Rational agents would automatically dismiss any such arguments. Therefore, we can conclude that objective moral values and duties exist.

This is becoming annoying. My post #30 was directed specifically to you and addressed in some detail your concept of torturing for fun. You ignored it. I reminded you about this in my last post together with the information that I had expanded on the idea in a reply to Belindi. You now write as if I had said nothing. There is little point in trying to hold a conversation with you if you willfully ignore what has been written.

For instance, let's say a person is placed in a situation where he must decide, through force, between torturing one child to save another or letting them both be killed? This is consequentialism, the doctrine upon which the morality of an action, whether good or bad, is based on the results, and situational.
Or, a driver who accidentally hits someone and kills them, versus a person who premeditatedly kills their spouse out of jealousy. That would fall under deontology, the position that morality is based on rules, structure , codification.

How this sheds light on subjectivism v objectivism is beyond me. I think you are being unfair. I gave you a response to your questions about torturing, murder, rape, abortion, homosexuality and stealing and you have not offered a single word by way of response. This is not a conversation. You are making statements, ignoring my responses and then charging on with new statements. Why should I address your new situations when I have absolutely no confidence that you will respond to my comments?

Your example of the engineer on the track is a variation on the well-known and well-discussed trolley problem. You conclude:

Answering the proposition will produce numerous justifications for either choice rendering moral judgements unreliable, therefor subjective.

Do you imagine that, in the urgency of the situation, there will be time to consider all possibilities? Of course the decision will be subjective. It may not be the optimal solution. Given time – which was not available – an alternative might have been selected. There may be unforeseen consequences. That is because they are unforeseen. So what is your point? Are you trying to dredge objectivity out of this?

I believe, the question here is not whether moral values, duties and principles are consequential or deontological but whether or not moral values, duties and principles are subjective or objective.

So why have you not addressed this?

If, subjective then morality doesn't require a moral authority. In which case morality is dynamic and moral judgements are unreliable, due to the variances in human moral reasoning.

If, objective then a moral authority exists, and moral judgements are codified and reliably true.

It would be helpful if you could put together an argument based on these statements. As far as I can see, all you have offered so far is an assertion that there is a God and you ignored what I said about that.

[Belindi]

Musical values such as rhythm and melody exist inherently but do not have an authority.

But if they are inherent they have the authority of nature. True, nature is unfeeling and lacks benevolent or malevolent intentions, but it's a strong candidate for ultimate authority. Similarly with morals. If a moral feeling is inherent it has the authority of nature. I personally believe that nature is imperative.

-- Updated April 14th, 2017, 4:37 am to add the following --

Musical values such as rhythm and melody exist inherently but do not have an authority.

But if they are inherent they have the authority of nature. True, nature is unfeeling and lacks benevolent or malevolent intentions, but it's a strong candidate for ultimate authority. Similarly with morals. If a moral feeling is inherent it has the authority of nature. I personally believe that nature is imperative.

[Fooloso4]

RuleOnu:

Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value.

Since this definition is central to your argument it it needs to be addressed. If it is inadequate then any conclusions drawn from it will be inadequate. It is not that the claims of subjective morality don’t have a truth value it is that they do not have an absolute truth value.

If God exists, which I argue He does, then God would be an absolute moral authority.

If God exists … No absolute moral authority can rest on an ‘if’.

Belindi:

There are reasoned inductive predictions that torture is a bad choice quite apart from subjective disgust and horror.

That may be, but I question whether torturing a child for fun is ordinarily even a matter of choice. Morality is about choices but that does not mean that everything is a matter of choice and that we start in a position of value neutrality, with every encounter being faced with having to make a choice whether or not to hurt or kill something or someone. We do not first do a cost benefit analysis. It is not that we do not torture children because … we simply do not torture children.

Iapetus:

In any case, saying that something is ‘wrong’ – which is a very broad value judgement – is not the same as saying that it is ‘immoral’ – which is slightly more focused. The distinction is significant. If somebody with serious brain damage was discovered torturing a child, then they would certainly need to be stopped but to call their act ‘immoral’ if they had little or no capacity to determine ‘morality’, would certainly invite discussion, at the very least.

I agree that ‘wrong’ does not always mean ‘immoral’. If I get a test answer wrong that does not mean my answer was immoral. With regard to the person with brain damage I would say that they are not morally culpable, but I don’t see a problem with calling the act itself immoral.

Greta:

Musical values such as rhythm and melody exist inherently but do not have an authority.

Thanks Greta. I couldn’t think of a good example.

To build on this example: A person or group might claim that syncopated rhythms are immoral. Plato made such an argument. Those opposed to Rock and Roll made such an argument. Here the attempt is to impose morality as a corrective to nature. And so, an appeal to nature cannot on its own solve all moral problems. But we need to also consider whether if in this case there is a moral problem, or if it is just a matter of differing moral attitudes. And, of course, it is not just about music. It is about dancing, and touching, and moving hips, and ...

[Belindi]

Fooloso4 wrote:

That may be, but I question whether torturing a child for fun is ordinarily even a matter of choice. Morality is about choices but that does not mean that everything is a matter of choice and that we start in a position of value neutrality, with every encounter being faced with having to make a choice whether or not to hurt or kill something or someone. We do not first do a cost benefit analysis. It is not that we do not torture children because … we simply do not torture children.

People have tortured children, some torturers possibly are entertained by their profession, I wouldn't know .Not sure but I think there was at least one underage detainee at Guantanamo Bay Prison Camp. When we are trying to stop torture we should consider dispassionately the inefficiency of the method for gaining information. I really don't know how torture technicians are recruited and trained. Maybe they are deliberately brutalised, maybe they enjoy their work.

-- Updated April 14th, 2017, 12:49 pm to add the following --

Fooloso4 quoted Iapetus and replied:

I agree that ‘wrong’ does not always mean ‘immoral’. If I get a test answer wrong that does not mean my answer was immoral. With regard to the person with brain damage I would say that they are not morally culpable, but I don’t see a problem with calling the act itself immoral.

Yes, and its immoral to punish someone who is incapable of moral judgements. Liberal democracies generally have laws that reflect liberal morality.

Would you claim that the subject is never immoral and instead it's the behaviour that's immoral, or would you allow specific extenuating circumstances?

There is an argument that the subject is never to blame and shouldn't be punished, but should be rehabilitated in line with current morality. This however may be more punishing , more unfair, than doing time in prison.

[RuleOnu]

I think "homosexuality" is morally wrong. Many don't. What standard makes one or the other right or wrong? Considering that many states(nations) have laws against "homosexuality" who decides that they are wrong, even though, despite my justifiable admonitions against "homosexuality, I believe such laws to be wrong, do we apply force for them to change? Should we? What about abortion? Considering the opposition against the practice? Prostitution?
It would appear these situations are morally ambiguous, or relative. But, are they? And who decides?

My moral basis is conditioned and grounded upon the production of the next generation and therefrom preservation of the species. This is merely an ideal absolute moral standard.

On that basis, strong homosexuality as reasoned is an absolute moral wrong.
The argument is, if everyone is a homosexual from today or any time, then the human specie will potentially be extinct.
This is the ideal and obviously the ideal will be different from the practical.
Note this ideal is merely a guide and thus not enforceable on any one.

In practice there will always be naturally a percentile of humans who will have homosexual tendencies of various degrees [strong to weak].
Because it is natural, humanity will have to accept this fact of homosexuality.
Thus on the practical level of ethics, homosexuality should be accepted as a norm relative to the extent of the moral-ethics gap.

However humanity should always be aware of the Moral-Ethics gap at all times and manage it efficiently.
A 10% of people with homosexual tendencies is not a threat to the continuation of the species.
There is no absolute certainty. So what if suddenly something happened and within the next generation 80% or 90% of humans are homosexual [strong]. Then this would pose a threat to humanity's preservation of the species and thus something need to be done about it.

The above management of Morality and Ethics is dynamic as opposed to God's Law [Abrahamic] on homosexuality which is rigid and immutable.

The above principles of Morality and Ethics on homosexuality is thus grounded on reason and flexibility [also reasoned] is enabled within the practical sphere.

I really didn't want to get into a discussion on so-called "homosexuality". I was only pointing out how there are differences of opinion as to the morality regarding certain behavior and situations.

I have been arguing that "if" there are objective moral values and duties then a moral authority is necessary, due to the obvious differences of moral judgements inherent in Man, which are then unreliable. These moral standards would then be codified.

I've also moved from using "absolute and relative" to "objective and subjective", since the terms are not practically interchangeable.
Absolute means, regardless of the circumstances.
Relative means, varying with the circumstances.

Objective means, independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.
Subjective means, a matter of personal opinion.

I'm sure you'll agree that it's not always wrong to kill a person, self defence for instance, but always wrong to murder, premeditatedly. Making these instances subjective and objective, respectively.

On that basis, strong homosexuality as reasoned is an absolute moral wrong.
The argument is, if everyone is a homosexual from today or any time, then the human specie will potentially be extinct.

I think this shows a "strong" correlation between a biological imperative (natural law) and biblical admonitions against homosexuality. Rather than view "homosexuality" in that respect, biblically, the admonition against "homosexuality" is due to "homosexuality" being an intrinsic aspect of moral evil, and has little, if anything to do with "management or "percents". Speaking biblically, of course.

The above management of Morality and Ethics is dynamic as opposed to God's Law [Abrahamic] on homosexuality which is rigid and immutable.[

I believe this is the disagreement, that since moral values and duties are contentious among humanity, making moral values and duties unreliable, and "if" there are objective moral values and duties, such as would exist regarding the torture of children for fun, then there must be a moral authority so that moral values and duties are reliable. "If" there is such a moral authority who then states that "homosexuality" is part of an inherent moral evil, then, "homosexuality" is immoral. Now, this doesn't mean there should be man-made laws punishing the behavior, just as there aren't any for adultery, but, "homosexuality" should be viewed as a immoral. Biblically speaking, of course.

(As an aside, I would contest your assertion that so-called "homosexuality" is "natural", and that anyone has to accept the normalization, legal or moral, of "homosexuality" as "fact"". But that argument is likely better debated in a separate topic board.)
(Food for thought; if, in that separate thread, anyone could explain the existence of so-called "homosexuality" through a darwinian mechinism as a result of natural selective processes, would be a great start.)

[Iapetus]

Reply to Fooloso4:

I agree that ‘wrong’ does not always mean ‘immoral’. If I get a test answer wrong that does not mean my answer was immoral. With regard to the person with brain damage I would say that they are not morally culpable, but I don’t see a problem with calling the act itself immoral.

This is one example of why, as I stated, I am reluctant to use the terms ‘moral’ and ‘morality’. I thought that morality was concerned with judgements of people rather than of actions. If it was a judgement of actions, then a lion can be immoral. As I see it, the intentions or motives of the person carrying out the act are are an essential part of the evaluation. That, however, is my interpretation. I guess that definitions can be constructed to mean almost anything. That was my point.

[RuleOnu]

Fooloso4,
[

quote="Fooloso4"]RuleOnu:

Subjective morality is the perspective that moral claims don't really have a truth value.

Since this definition is central to your argument it it needs to be addressed. If it is inadequate then any conclusions drawn from it will be inadequate. It is not that the claims of subjective morality don’t have a truth value it is that they do not have an absolute truth value.

Subjective morality is a matter of opinion which are variable among men.

Truth is "absolute"! There can only be one "truth"!

If truth is not absolute then making the assertion, "It is not that the claims of subjective morality don’t have a truth value it is that they do not have an absolute truth value", is not true.

If truth is not absolute then no one can make any claims to knowledge.

If God exists, which I argue He does, then God would be an absolute moral authority.

If God exists … No absolute moral authority can rest on an ‘if’.

In logic a "iff" proposition is a condition wherein "A is true" on the condition "B is true". If A then If B, (iff)

"If I'm hungry, I eat. I'm eating, therefore I'm hungery". Doesn't mean anytime I eat, it's because I'm hungry, just based on the condition that when I'm hungry I eat.

"If God exists, then God would be an absolute moral authority." God would be an absolute moral authority, if, and only if, God exists!

I'm making no other claim here, such as, morality is only subject to a moral authority or judge. Or, a moral authority is the only arbituer of morality. Which seems to be the mistake many here are making, in that many have the impression that without a moral authority people cannot act morally. That's not my argument!
People can, and do, act morally, even without a moral authority.

My only argument is that without a moral authority, moral values and duties are subjective. Since objective moral duties and values exist, then a moral authority exists.

In each post here attempting to refute the fact that human moral values and duties vary, therefore subjective, no one has yet to refute the fact that objective moral duties and values exist. The only objection, I see, is when the necessity for a moral authority is introduced do people become flustered and have a problem!

It stands to reason that since objective moral duties and values exist, and the fact that moral duties and values are variable among Men, then there must be a supreme arbituer, or authority regarding the "truth" value of moral standards, values and duty.

"Without God, everything is permissable"
In "The Brothers Karamazov" (Dostoevsky), Ivan Karamazov claims that if God does not exist, then everything is permitted. If there is no God, then there are no rules to live by, no moral law we must follow; we can do whatever we want.
Yes, there may legal ramifications to actions but those are considered only after the fact.

No one man can tell another what is morally right or wrong. I've given examples of North Korea, or any communist, dictatorial state, and will include islam, ISIS. The only way the conditions produced by these ideologies are wrong, using human reason, is by consensus, or subjective reasoning. The opposition here will argue their right to their conduct using whatever rationales, and no other man has the right, let alone moral authority, to judge them otherwise!
Mao Zedong indicated killing 20,000,000 Chinese served a greater purpose, good. Was he wrong? China is now a world economic and military power. Its people educated, relatively happy, safe and secure. Does that prove the moral rightness of his murderous ideology? Do you expose your western cultural bias if you disagree?

Donald Trump recently ordered an attack on Syria in response to Assad's alledged use of chemical weapons on his own people. Really, does the US have the moral authority to take this action, or the moral will through force, to exact a desired outcome?

I can go on, but no one has yet to argue that objective moral values and duties do not exist, and that objective moral duties and values do not require a moral authority.

Conditional Proposition;
A proposition of the form “if p then q” or “p implies q”, represented “p → q” is called a conditional proposition. For instance: “if John is from Chicago then John is from Illinois”. The proposition p is called hypothesis or antecedent, and the proposition q is the conclusion or consequent.

[Eduk]

I never used to believe in time travel. But when presented with someone who has clearly come from the past its hard to argue.

[Fooloso4]

Belindi:

People have tortured children, some torturers possibly are entertained by their profession, I wouldn't know.

Yes, there probably are people who take pleasure in torture.

Would you claim that the subject is never immoral and instead it's the behaviour that's immoral, or would you allow specific extenuating circumstances?

I agree with Iapetus that competency is a necessary condition for moral responsibility. I cannot think of any exceptions.

Iapetus:

If it was a judgement of actions, then a lion can be immoral.

Only actions by moral agents are judged to be moral or immoral. A moral agent is someone competent to reason and deliberate about moral choices. A lion is not.

RuleOnu:

"If God exists, then God would be an absolute moral authority." God would be an absolute moral authority, if, and only if, God exists!

As long as God is an ‘if’ you have not shown that there is an objective morality based on the moral authority of God.

My only argument is that without a moral authority, moral values and duties are subjective.

I don't think anyone is contesting that. The issue is what you think follows from this.

Since objective moral duties and values exist, then a moral authority exists.

Unless I have missed something, you have not shown that objective moral duties and values exist.

… no one has yet to refute the fact that objective moral duties and values exist.

If you claim that there is some objective moral standard that rises above and provides the answer to all our moral perplexities then you must show it to us. You cannot make a claim and expect others to disprove it.

[Spectrum]

I really didn't want to get into a discussion on so-called "homosexuality". I was only pointing out how there are differences of opinion as to the morality regarding certain behavior and situations.

I have been arguing that "if" there are objective moral values and duties then a moral authority is necessary, due to the obvious differences of moral judgements inherent in Man, which are then unreliable. These moral standards would then be codified.

I've also moved from using "absolute and relative" to "objective and subjective", since the terms are not practically interchangeable.
Absolute means, regardless of the circumstances.
Relative means, varying with the circumstances.

Objective means, independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.
Subjective means, a matter of personal opinion.

I don't agree with any 'moral authority' like a god.

However for any Moral & Ethical Framework and System to be effective there must be fixed goals [at least till the next earthquake] thereafter refixed again as and when necessary. These fixed goal posts [within a hierarchy] are the grounding for the Moral & Ethical Framework and System.

As such what we need are absolute moral and relative ethical standards to work in complement [synchrony] within a system.

'Objective' is too loose. Objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjectivity as conditioned within a defined system. Scientific theories are objective, but only qualified to the Scientific Framework and Scientific Method which is human-made.

I equate the so-claimed God's Laws as absolutely absolute, i.e. totally unconditional. Such laws are an impossibility because existence of god is an impossibility.

On the other hand, moral laws [as defined within the moral system I proposed] are relatively absolute, i.e. they are unconditional but are derived from the highest possible reason. They are thus one level higher than 'objective.'

I agree the average human is morally and ethically weak at present since humans were mere apes not too long ago.
I believe what you missed out is, you are not taking into account there is a lot of potential for humanity [i.e. all humans] for improvements in the future.
If at the present, say the average intelligence, rationality and wisdom Quotient at present is 20% [assuming we have an idea what is 100%], there is a potential for this to increase to 80% or even 95%. This is not an impossibility and can be achieved via philosophy-proper.

Thus what I had proposed is within an effective Moral and Ethical Framework and System there are two standards to work and improve on, i.e.

1. The relative absolute moral standard - fixed grounded maxims
2. The relative ethical standard - flexible standards of the time and circumstances.

I'm sure you'll agree that it's not always wrong to kill a person, self defence for instance, but always wrong to murder, premeditatedly. Making these instances subjective and objective, respectively.

Based on what I had proposed above, thus;

1. The relative absolute moral standard - fixed grounded maxims
Moral Maxim:
It is absolutely wrong to kill another human being, period, no ifs and no buts.

2. The relative ethical standard - flexible standards of the time and circumstances.
Ethical Maxim:
It is wrong to kill another human being, except in the following circumstances [to be listed] or where it is justified.

In an effective Moral and Ethical Framework and System, the ethical maxim is a temporary one and humanity must find ways to get to the root causes of why people are still killing other humans. In addition, finding ways to increase the average intelligence, rationality and wisdom Quotient of humanity will facilitate a greater reduction on murderers [by individuals or groups].

In all cases there must be an absolute moral grounding to manage the more flexible ethical aspects.

On that basis, strong homosexuality as reasoned is an absolute moral wrong.
The argument is, if everyone is a homosexual from today or any time, then the human specie will potentially be extinct.

I think this shows a "strong" correlation between a biological imperative (natural law) and biblical admonitions against homosexuality. Rather than view "homosexuality" in that respect, biblically, the admonition against "homosexuality" is due to "homosexuality" being an intrinsic aspect of moral evil, and has little, if anything to do with "management or "percents". Speaking biblically, of course.

I think the biblical intuition has some truths to it [evolutionarily]. All humans has an inherent 'aversion' program to anything that is a threat to the preservation of the species on a broad and crude basis. The problem is the biblical approach [based on a non-existent God] is too sweeping, rigid, dogmatic and immutable [fixed] till eternity regardless of the human condition and practical norms.

The above management of Morality and Ethics is dynamic as opposed to God's Law [Abrahamic] on homosexuality which is rigid and immutable.

I believe this is the disagreement, that since moral values and duties are contentious among humanity, making moral values and duties unreliable, and "if" there are objective moral values and duties, such as would exist regarding the torture of children for fun, then there must be a moral authority so that moral values and duties are reliable. "If" there is such a moral authority who then states that "homosexuality" is part of an inherent moral evil, then, "homosexuality" is immoral. Now, this doesn't mean there should be man-made laws punishing the behavior, just as there aren't any for adultery, but, "homosexuality" should be viewed as a immoral. Biblically speaking, of course.

My two levels of standard approach will minimize contentions.

• 1. The relative absolute moral standard - fixed grounded maxims
  2. The relative ethical standard - flexible standards of the time and circumstances.

It is not impossible to develop and continue to improve on the relative-absolute moral standard, i.e. fixed grounded maxims based on the highest level of reason.
My point is it is impossible for a god to exist, thus the question for an absolutely independent moral authority is moot.
But the moral and ethical system must be grounded on something "fixed" and the only facility is human reason at its highest collective level in co-ordination with intelligence, rationality and philosophy-proper.

I have already reasoned out why 'homosexuality' is already an absolute wrong, but it is only an ideal not to be enforceable because in practice it is a natural norm in the present phase of evolution.

I have no problem reasoning out any moral standards [torturing, lying, avarice, dishonesty] to their ground.

(As an aside, I would contest your assertion that so-called "homosexuality" is "natural", and that anyone has to accept the normalization, legal or moral, of "homosexuality" as "fact"". But that argument is likely better debated in a separate topic board.)
(Food for thought; if, in that separate thread, anyone could explain the existence of so-called "homosexuality" through a darwinian mechinism as a result of natural selective processes, would be a great start.)

Not into details but roughly; homosexuality exists naturally due to the inherent properties of our DNA and neurons operating on a nano [in reality more finer] scale. At such micro scales, deviations and variations are likely to occur. This is what happen evidently with almost all human variables from the crude to the refined. Note the crossing of neurons of the senses as in the case of synaethesia where one hears music when the taste buds touche something sour. There are many cases of deviations within the human system from within the womb and in life.

[Iapetus]

Reply to RuleOnu:

My only argument is that without a moral authority, moral values and duties are subjective. Since objective moral duties and values exist, then a moral authority exists.

In all your posts on this thread I can only find two basic arguments which you have offered in favour or objective moral values. They are:

God exists so objective moral values exist and
Objective moral values exist, so a moral authority (God) exists.

Since you have offered no justification, evidence or proper explanation for either of these, then my pointing out their circularity and nonsense is not likely to have much impact on you. In any case, your strategy for dealing with criticism seems to be to ignore it and hope it goes away. So let me remind you. In my post #42 I pointed this out:

"You are not arguing that God exists; you are asserting. God does not exist because you believe that to be the case. It needs proof or clear demonstration. You don’t have that. Furthermore, you have no evidence that your concept of God coincides with all others. Are your God and Allah the same entity? I have asked many people this question and they are certainly not all in agreement. If everybody was in agreement about the existence of God and everybody was in agreement about the precise definition and concept, then you would have an absolute authority which you could call upon. But they don’t and you can’t."

So, are your God and Allah the same entity? I am not particularly interested in your personal opinion, because that would be subjective. I would like an objective response; one on which all Christians and Muslims agree. After all, if you cannot agree on an issue so simple and fundamental, how can you possibly be in a position to know anything about God’s authority, let alone be confident in it?

Even then, you cannot possibly speak for all the wretched non-believers.

In each post here attempting to refute the fact that human moral values and duties vary, therefore subjective, no one has yet to refute the fact that objective moral duties and values exist.

Nobody is required to demonstrate the non-validity of a claim. If the default position was to accept all claims, then I would expect you to believe that God exists and does not exist at the same time, that a flying spaghetti monster circles the globe sprinkling angel dust, that here is a teapot in orbit around Mars and anything else that anybody wants to dream up. If a claim is made then it needs to be demonstrated. If you want to claim objective morality, then demonstrate it. You have not begun to do so.

[Belindi]

RuleOnu wrote:

My only argument is that without a moral authority, moral values and duties are subjective. Since objective moral duties and values exist, then a moral authority exists.

I agree. You have also sort of claimed that a creator deity such as God or Allah is the only moral authority. But nature is another moral authority. If animals are inbued with animal natures such that they fell fairness and justic without being taught those qualities then nature is a candidate for moral authority.

You cannot know that absolute and eternal moral knowledge is the case whether it originates in God or in nature. However, scientists (whose business is to investigate nature) have found evidence that all animals that are capable of learning, including the young of those animals,have a sense of fairness and justice.

There is no evidence for a transcendent God's being the origin of fairness and justice.

[Iapetus]

Reply to Fooloso4:

Iapetus said:
“If it was a judgement of actions, then a lion can be immoral”.

Only actions by moral agents are judged to be moral or immoral. A moral agent is someone competent to reason and deliberate about moral choices. A lion is not.

My quote was in response to your statement that, “I don’t see a problem with calling the act itself immoral”. I do. As I explained, I thought that morality was concerned with judgements of people rather than of actions. My point about the lion was certainly clumsily worded and for that I apologise; it was not the lion itself but the lion’s act in eating somebody. But I would not equate that at all with immorality. I thought I had made that clear when said, “As I see it, the intentions or motives of the person carrying out the act are are an essential part of the evaluation”.

[RuleOnu]

I don't agree with any 'moral authority' like a god.

I believe what you or I believe is irrelevant.

As I argue, (in summation);
1. If objective moral values and duties exist, a moral authority must exist.
2. Objective moral duties and values exist.
3. Therefore, a moral authority exists.

However for any Moral & Ethical Framework and System to be effective there must be fixed goals [at least till the next earthquake] thereafter refixed again as and when necessary. These fixed goal posts [within a hierarchy] are the grounding for the Moral & Ethical Framework and System.

I agree!
No nation, state, community or kingdom can thrive without rules, or the rule of law. According to Christian tenets our world is considered God's Kingdom,. The Christian community, which has, as you state, "fixed goals", guided by "God's Law" accorded by God's moral authority.

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While germaine, they are different.
Ethics refers to rules provided by an external source.
Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.
I really don't think you mean suggest individual moral principles should be relegated to a moral authority, "hierarchy"?

As such what we need are absolute moral and relative ethical standards to work in complement [synchrony] within a system.

In philosophy objectivity means the state or quality of being true even outside of individual biases.
Your assertion is contradictory. In one instance you assert we need absolute morality, and in the next claim we don't have any.

Objective' is too loose. Objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjectivity as conditioned within a defined system. Scientific theories are objective, but only qualified to the Scientific Framework and Scientific Method which is human-made.

I believe there's a fair amount of subjectivity in scientific inquiry otherwise we wouldn't need scientific investigation, would we?
Most times the job of a scientist is to prove the other guy, theory, wrong or right, until it's prove wrong.

I equate the so-claimed God's Laws as absolutely absolute, i.e. totally unconditional. Such laws are an impossibility because existence of god is an impossibility.

Absolutely, absolute? Okay! Besides the obvious assertion fallacy you make an "is" statement; "Such laws are an impossibility because existence of god is an impossibility".
In logic, a statement either (a) a meaningful declarative sentence that is either true or false, or (b) that which a true or false declarative sentence asserts.
You are making a claim to knowledge. The claim that your "is", existence of a "god" is impossible", proposition is true. A truth statements requires justification. Justification in the form of empirical proof and/or evidence based on your dependence on a "scientific framework" an the scientific method. While I'll grant a strong or weak "belief" for the proposition that a "god" does not exist, you've asserted that you possess knowledge proving a "god" does not exist. I'd like to hear it.

S knows that p iff
1. p is true;
2. S believes that p;
3. S is justified in believing that p.
Or, what you did.
S knows that p is true
1. p is true
2. S knows that p;
3. S possesses knowledge that p.

(Atheist are great!)

Be nice to know what's relative, or nuetral, or subjective about, "Thou shalt not murder"? Or, in scottspeak, "offensive kiling".

On the other hand, moral laws [as defined within the moral system I proposed] are relatively absolute, i.e. they are unconditional but are derived from the highest possible reason. They are thus one level higher than 'objective.'

I really don't see where you proposed any "moral system", let alone one of Human convention that can't be argued to be subjective. North Korea has a moral political system. Is it wrong? How do you know? (Western bias, again)

Highest possible reason? Whose? Yours? Mine?

What's "one level higher than objective, super objective? Or, super-duper objective?

It is not impossible to develop and continue to improve on the relative-absolute moral standard, i.e. fixed grounded maxims based on the highest level of reason.
My point is it is impossible for a god to exist, thus the question for an absolutely independent moral authority is moot.
But the moral and ethical system must be grounded on something "fixed" and the only facility is human reason at its highest collective level in co-ordination with intelligence, rationality and philosophy-proper.

I agree the average human is morally and ethically weak at present since humans were mere apes not too long ago.
I believe what you missed out is, you are not taking into account there is a lot of potential for humanity [i.e. all humans] for improvements in the future.
If at the present, say the average intelligence, rationality and wisdom Quotient at present is 20% [assuming we have an idea what is 100%], there is a potential for this to increase to 80% or even 95%. This is not an impossibility and can be achieved via philosophy-proper.

Sorry, none of my ancestors were "apes", of any kind of simian, devolved, or otherwise!
Where would these "fixed grounded maxims based on the highest "collective"(seriously?) level in coordination with intelligence, rationality and philosophy-proper", come from? Evolution? The United Nations? Some world government perhaps?
What is this moral and ethical weakness you speak of? Are you saying they are morality and ethics are subjective? Is prostitution a moral weakness? Abortion? Are you, once again, laying claim to some sort of moral objectivity, and that moral objectivity is possible, and you possess such authority, and autonomy to decide what is morally objective?
You reiterate your assertion that it is impossible for a "god" to exist. I vehemently disagree so there's that point of contention.

I have already reasoned out why 'homosexuality' is already an absolute wrong, but it is only an ideal not to be enforceable because in practice it is a natural norm in the present phase of evolution.

I didn't know "evolution" came in "phases", at least not biological evolution. Phasic biologic evolution, darwinism, would imply purpose, design.


"Improvements" based on what? Do you have some codified set of instructions to follow? Or, do you have faith and a belief in some human made utopia or nirvana?

If at the present, say the average intelligence, rationality and wisdom Quotient at present is 20% [assuming we have an idea what is 100%], there is a potential for this to increase to 80% or even 95%. This is not an impossibility and can be achieved via philosophy-proper.

Percent of what? Percents are quantifiable!
I have 100% of the wisdom I currently have. And, will have 100% of the wisdom I acquire in the future. And, will have lost 100% of the wisdom I've forgotten.

Thus what I had proposed is within an effective Moral and Ethical Framework and System there are two standards to work and improve on, i.e.

1. The relative absolute moral standard - fixed grounded maxims false maxim, no such thing as "relative absolute".
2. The relative ethical standard - flexible standards of the time and circumstances. I agree

Based on what I had proposed above, thus;

1. The relative absolute moral standard - fixed grounded maxims false maxim, no such thing as "relative absolute".
Moral Maxim:
It is absolutely wrong to kill another human being, period, no ifs and no buts. I agree, exactly my point an objective moral value and duty, period.

2. The relative ethical standard - flexible standards of the time and circumstances.
Ethical Maxim:
It is wrong to kill another human being, except in the following circumstances [to be listed] or where it is justified. No confusing murder with killing, Sorry, no. Ethics refers to rules provided by an external source, such military codes of conduct, employment laws, Hippocratic Oath.

In an effective Moral and Ethical Framework and System, the ethical maxim is a temporary one and humanity must find ways to get to the root causes of why people are still killing other humans. In addition, finding ways to increase the average intelligence, rationality and wisdom Quotient of humanity will facilitate a greater reduction on murderers [by individuals or groups].
OK. Good luck with that! Evolution is sorta iffy, natural selection, and all.

In all cases there must be an absolute moral grounding to manage the more flexible ethical aspects. I agree that morality has an influence on ethics.

I think the biblical intuition has some truths to it [evolutionarily]. All humans has an inherent 'aversion' program to anything that is a threat to the preservation of the species on a broad and crude basis. The problem is the biblical approach [based on a non-existent God] is too sweeping, rigid, dogmatic and immutable [fixed] till eternity regardless of the human condition and practical norms.

My two levels of standard approach will minimize contentions.

• 1. The relative absolute moral standard - fixed grounded maxims addressed
  2. The relative ethical standard - flexible standards of the time and circumstances.

addressed

It is not impossible to develop and continue to improve on the relative-absolute moral standard, i.e. fixed grounded maxims based on the highest level of reason.
My point is it is impossible for a god to exist, thus the question for an absolutely independent moral authority is moot.
But the moral and ethical system must be grounded on something "fixed" and the only facility is human reason at its highest collective level in co-ordination with intelligence, rationality and philosophy-proper.

I find it odd, not withstanding yournliberal use of language and logic principles, that you feel, that you, and alone, have, what, faith, confidence that objective moral duties are attainable through some I'll defined human mechinism.
Government, or your "hierarchy" means force. It seems to me that you propose these moral maxims will be rationally accepted by reasoning human beings, and the world will achieve some happy balance between free will and the communal will. Sorry but I find your analyses incoherent and contradictory.
If I propose that objective moral values and duties exis, and given the provable variances in moral judgements among men, then a an objective moral authority must exist. You argue that some Ill defined moral maxims are achievable based on some phasic moral evolution. In essence you make my argument for me.

I have already reasoned out why 'homosexuality' is already an absolute wrong, but it is only an ideal not to be enforceable because in practice it is a natural norm in the present phase of evolution.

I have no problem reasoning out any moral standards [torturing, lying, avarice, dishonesty] to their ground.

Not into details but roughly; homosexuality exists naturally due to the inherent properties of our DNA and neurons operating on a nano [in reality more finer] scale. At such micro scales, deviations and variations are likely to occur. This is what happen evidently with almost all human variables from the crude to the refined. Note the crossing of neurons of the senses as in the case of synaethesia where one hears music when the taste buds touche something sour. There are many cases of deviations within the human system from within the womb and in life.

I must take issue with your liberal abuse of language and terms. Nano scale?

There is absolutely no genetic link to so-called "homosexuality" whatsoever.

Simply-Natural selection is the variable change in heritable traits over time which give an organism reproductive advantage. Stronger, better, bigger, faster, longer. "Homosexuality", or any of its variants, like transgenderism, has no selective benefit or advantage based in any darwinian mechinism.
From a darwinian perspective everything biological has a genetic predisposition and evolutionary origin. Including consciousness and "homosexuality", which results in a reproductive advantage.

Sorry, but evolution can't be redefined to fit your wants. It's gone through enough reincarnations as it is.

[Spectrum]

I don't agree with any 'moral authority' like a god.

I believe what you or I believe is irrelevant.

This is not wisdom at all and lack moral values.
Whatever one or a group believe and where their beliefs infringe on the basic rights to others, then what they believe is very relevant. Note especially what Muslims [SOME] believe and to some degrees, SOME Christians and Jews.

As I argue, (in summation);
1. If objective moral values and duties exist, a moral authority must exist.
2. Objective moral duties and values exist.
3. Therefore, a moral authority exists.

Noted it is a summary.
However the above will collapse when subjected to rational rigor.
All the terms that is bolded must be defined, justified and accepted with consensus from all parties concern.
The syllogism above will not hold water.

I agree!
No nation, state, community or kingdom can thrive without rules, or the rule of law. According to Christian tenets our world is considered God's Kingdom,. The Christian community, which has, as you state, "fixed goals", guided by "God's Law" accorded by God's moral authority.

As I had claimed 'it is impossible for God to exists' [subject to available proofs - off topic here]

Ethics and morals relate to “right” and “wrong” conduct. While germaine, they are different.
Ethics refers to rules provided by an external source.
Morals refer to an individual’s own principles regarding right and wrong.
I really don't think you mean suggest individual moral principles should be relegated to a moral authority, "hierarchy"?

As I had been defining them myself, I generally agree with your above definitions of 'ethics' and 'moral.'
But my concept of absolute moral standards is based on their emergence from the collective consciousness of ALL humans with the capacity of omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotence. This is of course an ideal and like the moral-ethical system, the ideal-practical Gap must be continually narrowed.

Example:
In a proper team situation, the individual team-members must all comply with the rules established by the team which each team-member are a part of. Therefore each individual is complying with his/her own rules and not someone's or external rules.
(btw don't bring in democracy as practiced in the present where only some individual[s] vote on a term).
As such when all team members has the capacity of omniscient, omni- (intelligent, rational, wise, etc.) then the emerged moral standards derived will have near-absolute qualities.

A working example:
Take the case of slavery.
Subliminally within the collective consciousness of humanity there is an intent to set the relative-absolute ideal of the total abolishment of slavery [Perfect Zero].
If you review the last 500 years there is an ongoing trend of sentiments of zero tolerance against slavery and various actions [external and internal] has been taken to achieve such an end.
At the present there is a significant improvement in the reduction of slavery around the world.
Whilst there is still a large degree of external enforcement [an improvement itself] the trend is moving towards the natural abhorrence of slavery as personal individual moral standard by ALL humans.

You will note in the slavery example, the two standards that I highlighted are in progress;

1. Absolute Moral Maxim: Zero Tolerance for Slavery
2. Ethical Moral Maxim: Progressing within the mind [conscience of each individual] + external judicial enforcement.

The target is to close the Gap between 1 and 2. As for the case of slavery we can close it to near zero.

As you can see there is no need for a "moral authority" [an impossibility] but the moral drive is naturally driven by the moral propensity inherent within humanity itself.
In contrast the supposedly moral authority with immutable laws condone 'slavery' till eternity.

Objective' is too loose. Objectivity is nothing more than inter-subjectivity as conditioned within a defined system. Scientific theories are objective, but only qualified to the Scientific Framework and Scientific Method which is human-made.

I believe there's a fair amount of subjectivity in scientific inquiry otherwise we wouldn't need scientific investigation, would we?
Most times the job of a scientist is to prove the other guy, theory, wrong or right, until it's prove wrong.

Note I mentioned "inter-subjectivity." Objectivity is meta-subjectivity. According to Popper, scientific theories are merely polished-conjectures.

I equate the so-claimed God's Laws as absolutely absolute, i.e. totally unconditional. Such laws are an impossibility because existence of god is an impossibility.

Absolutely, absolute? Okay! Besides the obvious assertion fallacy you make an "is" statement; "Such laws are an impossibility because existence of god is an impossibility".
In logic, a statement either (a) a meaningful declarative sentence that is either true or false, or (b) that which a true or false declarative sentence asserts.
You are making a claim to knowledge. The claim that your "is", existence of a "god" is impossible", proposition is true. A truth statements requires justification. Justification in the form of empirical proof and/or evidence based on your dependence on a "scientific framework" an the scientific method. While I'll grant a strong or weak "belief" for the proposition that a "god" does not exist, you've asserted that you possess knowledge proving a "god" does not exist. I'd like to hear it.

Btw, I am not a pure empiricist but rather an rationalist-empiricist. My basic approach is complimentariness as in the Yin-Yang principles.
I agree I made a positive assertion, thus has the onus of providing proof. Mine assertion is not empirical but rational, i.e. reason. It is too complicated [not an excuse] to present in this thread or even this forum. I agree my assertion [reasoned] is conditioned by this limitation.
On the other hand your claim 'god exists' is followed by claims of god's empirical manifestations thus theists must provide empirical proofs. I am not pursuing this here but just pointing.

On the other hand, moral laws [as defined within the moral system I proposed] are relatively absolute, i.e. they are unconditional but are derived from the highest possible reason. They are thus one level higher than 'objective.'

I really don't see where you proposed any "moral system", let alone one of Human convention that can't be argued to be subjective. North Korea has a moral political system. Is it wrong? How do you know? (Western bias, again)
Highest possible reason? Whose? Yours? Mine?
What's "one level higher than objective, super objective? Or, super-duper objective?

I have given examples above, e.g. team-consciousness based moral & ethical framework and system where all members are omniscient.
It is a relative-absolute because such absolutes emerged from humans acting collectively.
Note there are lots of absolutes [assumed constant] in science, e.g. absolute temperature. Such absolutes are always conditioned within some kind of framework and systems established by humans.
The decision of a referee in a game is normally considered 'absolute' and 'final' but that is only conditioned upon the rules set up the specific sport organization or the relevant group.

The "absolute" from a God is differentiated as absolutely-absolute because it [theoretically and supposedly] does not involve any human elements at all.

"Improvements" based on what? Do you have some codified set of instructions to follow? Or, do you have faith and a belief in some human made utopia or nirvana?

Note the example I have given on slavery. The same moral-ethic process is brewing within the collective consciousness of humanity in other moral-ethics variable.
What is needed is for philosophy-proper [collectively] to extract out the principles so that the process can be expedited without the need for any "moral authority."

I agree that morality has an influence on ethics.

Note natural interdependence and complementariness between the two.

I find it odd, not withstanding your liberal use of language and logic principles, that you feel, that you, and alone, have, what, faith, confidence that objective moral duties are attainable through some I'll defined human mechanism.
Government, or your "hierarchy" means force. It seems to me that you propose these moral maxims will be rationally accepted by reasoning human beings, and the world will achieve some happy balance between free will and the communal will. Sorry but I find your analyses incoherent and contradictory.
If I propose that objective moral values and duties exist, and given the provable variances in moral judgements among men, then a an objective moral authority must exist. You argue that some Ill defined moral maxims are achievable based on some phasic moral evolution. In essence you make my argument for me.

Note I have already demonstrated my abstracted system [re slavery] is already working in practice albeit unconsciously.
Note the co-operation on global warning [rightly or wrongly], but that co-operation is the inherent moral force within humanity that is pulsating very strongly at present.
What is needed is to extract and lay out that inherently principles and make them public like an enlightenment on the discovery of the invisible gravity.

Not into details but roughly; homosexuality exists naturally due to the inherent properties of our DNA and neurons operating on a nano [in reality more finer] scale. At such micro scales, deviations and variations are likely to occur. This is what happen evidently with almost all human variables from the crude to the refined. Note the crossing of neurons of the senses as in the case of synaethesia where one hears music when the taste buds touche something sour. There are many cases of deviations within the human system from within the womb and in life.

I must take issue with your liberal abuse of language and terms. Nano scale?

There is absolutely no genetic link to so-called "homosexuality" whatsoever.

Simply-Natural selection is the variable change in heritable traits over time which give an organism reproductive advantage. Stronger, better, bigger, faster, longer. "Homosexuality", or any of its variants, like transgenderism, has no selective benefit or advantage based in any darwinian mechinism.
From a darwinian perspective everything biological has a genetic predisposition and evolutionary origin. Including consciousness and "homosexuality", which results in a reproductive advantage.

Sorry, but evolution can't be redefined to fit your wants. It's gone through enough reincarnations as it is.

Note my point again;

Not into details but roughly; homosexuality exists naturally due to the inherent properties of our DNA and neurons operating on a nano [in reality more finer] scale. At such micro scales, deviations and variations are likely to occur. This is what happen evidently with almost all human variables from the crude to the refined. Note the crossing of neurons of the senses as in the case of synaethesia where one hears music when the taste buds touche something sour. There are many cases of deviations within the human system from within the womb and in life.

I have already directed you to examples of empirically proofs.
Re neuroscience , are you aware of how closely are the neurons in the human brain compacted together?
The existence of the many mental and physical handicap within humans are due to the slight short-circuits of neurons between certain specific programs. A burst of some small blood vessels change change a person whole lifestyle in seconds.

Thus within the continuum of gender and sexual inclinations of all humans, there will be variations and degrees which arise due to the variations [in nano scale] in neural connectivity caused by various conditions [one must be well educated in these knowledge to understand and empathize with the humans concerned].
Note in nature, the sex of crocodiles are not predetermined by a God but by the average temperature of its environment and other conditions.
Humans as species are not as extreme, but the sensitivity of the the neural and other biological connectivity do exists in all living creatures.