Artie wrote:
All moral people live with objective morality. In every situation they try to objectively evaluate what would be the most beneficial and/or least detrimental act to our society and the people in it and do it. You have so many questions... I suggest you simply ask yourself those questions, look at them from an objective point of view and try to do what is the objectively best course of action. Surely you are capable of using logic, reason and common sense to figure it out? Right?
I was asking you these question, that doesn't mean that I don't already have my own answers for them.
The problem is Artie is that not everyone else will agree with my subjective answers.
In fact, the case of some of these questions I already revealed what my answer would be. The answer based on your definition of morality would be that most of these questions aren't even questions of morality at all.
You say:
And since you appear to have thought this out very thoroughly I just throw all your questions and statements back at you. Please answer each and every one of them using your own morals or system of morality if you have one. Because if your approach is better I would love to know what it is.
I don't claim to have a system of morality. In fact, I hold that morality is entirely a human subjective construct. So what we individually think of as right or wrong is nothing other than our own subjective opinions.
But let's take a look at how I might answer some of my own questions if you like:
I'll go back over my previous posts and answer my own questions:
My Question:
For example is allowing gay marriage and gay family units "beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society". Valid arguments can be made on both sides of this question. At the very best we would need to throw our hand up in the air and proclaim the question to be an "amoral" question. In other words, there is no clear-cut objective answer as you seem to think.
My Answer: IMHO the question of gay marriage and gay family units is neither beneficial nor detrimental to the well-being of society. Therefore this question that many people deem to be a question of morality is actually an amoral question. In other words, as far as I'm concerned it has nothing to do with right or wrong or morality.
My Question:
Same thing goes for the termination of unwanted pregnancy. It is really "beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society" to bring unwanted children into the society?
My Answer: I already answered it. It's impossible to evaluate this question in terms of the moral principles you have suggested. Therefore based on your system of morality the question is amoral. There is no moral right or wrong for this question.
My own personal opinion? I think people should be allowed to decide the answer to this question for themselves. I don't feel a need to force my opinions onto them.
Would this question ever apply to me personally? No. Why not? Because I do go around getting women pregnant with children that I want no parts of. If you think I have high moral standards for this choice so be it. For me it has nothing to do with morality. I simply have no desire to part of causing unwanted pregnancies.
My Question:
Oh by the way, what about the question of overpopulation of the planet we live on?
My Answer: Yes, I agree with science that our planet is overpopulated beyond its ability to provide resources and clean environment on a continual basis.
So I'm all for reducing the human population on planet earth. Exactly how that should be accomplished is a separate question. But if we go by your definition of morality then those who continue to procreate on a planet that is already over populated are immoral people.
Are you prepared to stand by the necessary objective result of your proposed objective moral system? :-K
My Question:
Also what about the question of polygamy?
My Answer: I believe I have already answered this. IMHO it's an amoral question. The question has nothing to do with a concept of right or wrong.
Based on your proposed objective morality this question would also need to be seen as being an amoral question. Polygamy then is not a moral issue at all.
If you want to argue that it should be, then all that would amount to are your own person subjective argument concerning what you personally think should be considered beneficial or detrimental to society.
So your system of objective morality instantly falls and becomes a system of subjective opinions once again.
My Question:
Who was the Moral President based on your idea of morality above? Barrack Obama or Donald Trump?
My Answer: IMHO Barrack Obama stood on far higher moral ground and principles than Donald Trump.
Based on your so-called objective system of morality Barrack Obama also necessarily wins in this category.
My Question:
Also Artie, what about the value of individuals in your proposed moral system?
My Answer: I personally place the welfare of individuals on very high priority. But I confess that this is just my personal subjective opinion.
You're demand for an objective morality based on the state instead of on the individuals could bring about extreme duress for many individuals.
So I wouldn't vote to support your subjective opinion to define an objective morality based on what's best for the state.
My Question:
What if a society sees a certain section of its population as not being "beneficial for the well-being and survival of a society", would it then be morally okay for them to exterminate that part of their society that is not contributing to the well-being of the whole?
My Answer: I personally favor helping the less fortunate people to get on their own feet if possible, and even showing empathy to those who are perhaps too mentally or physically incapable of contributing to society. I'm all for public welfare and assistance to those in need.
However, based to your proposed objective definition of morality I can't see any reason why these people shouldn't simply be exterminated. That could only benefit the society as a whole and why should the society as a whole give a hoot about supporting freeloaders?
My objections would be seen as nothing more than human subjective opinions apparently based on silly emotional things like empathy for others. That wouldn't even qualify as a reason worthy of consideration in your objective moral system.
My Question:
I don't believe that you have given this idea much thought at all to be quite honest with you.
My Answer: Clearly you haven't. And obviously I have.
I've answered all the question I've put to you. Now it's your turn to tell us how your objective system of morality would answer them in no uncertain terms.
Keep in mind also, that you can't be changing your mind later. If you do that, then you will have just exposed extreme flaws in your proposed objective moral system. Even if those flaws amount to nothing more than having made subjective mistakes in how you might have subjectively evaluated that issues you deem to be objective.
By the way, if you can't tell us the precise and definite answers that your proposed moral system would give to these questions, then you have no system to even speak of. All you have is an idea that you haven't even tried to think through or evaluate in any comprehensive way.
If you're going to propose an objective system of morality, then you had better be prepared to answer every moral question thrown at you in a very precise and unambiguous way that no one can even argue with.
If we can argue with your moral conclusions then this brings into question the validity of your claim that it's based on anything objective.
So take a stab at answering these question if you think your proposed objective system of morality is up to it.
