Morals are seen as subjective because they are not "rooted" in the physical world like, say, gravity or digestion. And in a culture with a strong secular element, Divine Authority is not universally agreed upon, so again, morals can be seen as relative.
One could say that from an evolutionary viewpoint, some morals work better than others in fostering a long-term, peaceful and prosperous society (eg, murder: bad). But as a rule, people don't consider evolution when discussing moral behavior.
Originally posted by Genesis-SoldierUltimately, that would depend on what values a society holds, and generally speaking, humans apparently value conditions which promote physical and psychological well-being, for themselves, for family. As such, respecting one another is a good place to start, eg, the Golden Rule.
thats a good point, so what would define as the "right" morals to live by or uphold?
Originally posted by Genesis-SoldierFor reasons noted above, I would say yes, especially if one believes morals/ethics originate from a transcendent source.
but are morals really relevant ?
Religions consider morals to be objective and not subjective.
I tend not to agree with this view but may have stumped myself by thinking that there is the one objective moral.
The one that says that the needs of the many are always to be put before the needs of the few.
My second question is this.
After years now of trying to get Christians and Muslims to think and debate some of their immoral tenets, unsuccessfully for the most part, could it be possible that those in those religions know that they have no arguments for the immoral tenets they follow?
Is their delusion of following the best God leading their mortal or is it just their delusions?
Regards
DL
Originally posted by Prof. T.C McAbe
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
Even biblically, it only applied to those within the faith.
Our concepts of morality are largely cultural, which itself is largely an evolutionary byproduct. It's important to keep that in mind; we only possess these concepts in the first place as survival mechanisms. The philosophical quandries of morality are an emergent problem resulting from evolutionary trends, and not necessarily an intended end of the developments in the first place. If you're building a case for relative morality - or, more radically, morality as an artificial construct in a deterministic, morally-devoid universe - that would be where I'd start.
That said...
I think there's probably a system of objective morality that could be judged based on primal opposites like suffering and happiness. In practice, we haven't the ability to do this perfectly. How would we begin to weigh one against the other in "grey" areas? However, it provides a framework from which to work, and one that needs absolutely no favorites among religions or philosophies. Does it cause suffering? Work to end it. Does it create happiness? Pursue it. The entire system could be encapsulated in a sentence and would be theoretically objective, perhaps even subject to empirical study. It could even extend beyond humans, to include any sentient being.
Originally posted by long pigI'm not so sure you're right about this and I say that because you use the word those when the "golden rule" is directed at individuals and not groups. Whether something that you are doing goes against the golden rule depends totally on who YOU are. If you are doing something to someone that you would definitely not want done to you there is no way to call it a moral act. I've never seen one example where treating someone the way that you want to be treated is an immoral act.
The golden rule can only apply to those who hold the same values are yourself, such as religious flock or those under the same oath. Otherwise, how do you know that they want what you want or have the same tastes?Even biblically, it only applied to those within the faith.
Originally posted by Genesis-Soldieralthough there are some morals that have a universal feeling
you see some bloke bashing on another fella or woman. you want to step i there
I always thought that was "morally" true until one real life incident proved me wrong & I resolved that dilemma by never interfering in someone else's problem ever again.
Years ago I witnessed this guy yelling abuse & physically restraining this woman on the street. She was screaming & crying & I instinctively ran over & pushed the guy away from her.
I held him down whilst she ran off down the street, flagged down a cab & drove off.
The guy broke down in tears.
Turns out he just found out she was cheating on him & was on her way to the airport to fly out of the country with their kids, without him knowing.
And I helped that happen, thinking I was a Good Samaritan.
So yeah, F that. I won't ever interfere in someone else's problem ever again.