Morality: Does it have an Objective Standard?

[Defender of Truth]

This is a thread where we can discuss whether morality has an Objective standard, or a Subjective standard.

I don't think anyone would claim that there is no such thing as morality, but if someone wishes to, they may do so here.

Morality: Right or wrong conduct
Subjective Standard: Morality is different for different people/societies/nations
Objective Standard: There is one universal set of morals for all people and all time periods.

[TheMessage]

I'll contend that that isn't necessarilly true. Let's assume a little story here:

There's a man in a loving and committed relationship. He is complete secure in his relationship to his spouse and never once doubted that the feelings were mutual and that his affection would be answered whenever needed. He is driving down a highway one night and finds an attractive female hitchhiker. Driven by pure lust and opportunity he rapes her. Note that he is well aware that as soon as he gets home he will be 'getting some boom-shaka-laka' and that it will be based on true affection, so he has no fear of 'not being loved'.

How has fear driven this man to perform such a deed?

First of all, rape has nothing to do with love or even lust. It is a desire for power. Rapists feel powerless and fear this powerlessness. This fear is temporarily assuaged by exerting power over another human being and making her feel powerless.

While this is often the case, it isn't always. Let's assume the individual in question is also a CEO and is very secure in his power.

[TheMessage]

And I'm not talking about romantic love. I'm talking about a spiritual state in which you recognize your connection to all things. To harm another would be the same as harming one's self.

I just realized that I forgot to respond to this. First, 'recognizing your connection to all things' isn't part of any conventional definition of love... it sounds like some specific variation of the term 'understanding'. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.

Second, to harm another is not the same as harming yourself. While certain cases could cause you mental anguish or guilt (Or maybe even physical harm in very elaborate and rare situations), this is far from being the only option. We all share the same matter and energy, but the self is an individual conglomeration of that matter and energy.

[kayky]

While this is often the case, it isn't always. Let's assume the individual in question is also a CEO and is very secure in his power.

You're going to have to choose a different example. Psychologists agree that rape is an act of rage from one who has been made to feel powerless in his own life. I don't want to argue about rapists.

[kayky]

I just realized that I forgot to respond to this. First, 'recognizing your connection to all things' isn't part of any conventional definition of love... it sounds like some specific variation of the term 'understanding'. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.

Second, to harm another is not the same as harming yourself. While certain cases could cause you mental anguish or guilt (Or maybe even physical harm in very elaborate and rare situations), this is far from being the only option. We all share the same matter and energy, but the self is an individual conglomeration of that matter and energy.[/quote]

Your definition of love is too limited and could never form a foundation for morality. Your understanding of the human condition is totally materialistic and can create a morality that never rises above a mere "social contract."

[TheMessage]

While this is often the case, it isn't always. Let's assume the individual in question is also a CEO and is very secure in his power.

You're going to have to choose a different example. Psychologists agree that rape is an act of rage from one who has been made to feel powerless in his own life. I don't want to argue about rapists.

Fine then, theft. The same individual, utterly secure in his state of 'having', finds an opportunity to take something that isn't his.

[TheMessage]

I just realized that I forgot to respond to this. First, 'recognizing your connection to all things' isn't part of any conventional definition of love... it sounds like some specific variation of the term 'understanding'. It has absolutely nothing to do with love.

Second, to harm another is not the same as harming yourself. While certain cases could cause you mental anguish or guilt (Or maybe even physical harm in very elaborate and rare situations), this is far from being the only option. We all share the same matter and energy, but the self is an individual conglomeration of that matter and energy.

Your definition of love is too limited and could never form a foundation for morality. Your understanding of the human condition is totally materialistic and can create a morality that never rises above a mere "social contract."

I never supplied a definition of love, I'm saying that 'connectedness to all things and the understanding of that' isn't one of them. You can make it one, but nobody else will understand what you're talking about until you explain it to them, which defeats the purpose of picking a word for the concept if you have to provide the full definition anyways.

You seem overly connected to the term 'love'. Fine, but the way you're using it isn't how it's used, so for you saying the universe is love you might as well say the universe is a horse.

And you're right, can't form a foundation for morality... you're the one that claimed that any form of love can create a foundation for morality. Also, if we requite something to 'create a morality that rises above a social contract' then it isn't object, it's man-made.

[kayky]

Fine then, theft. The same individual, utterly secure in his state of 'having', finds an opportunity to take something that isn't his.

Thank you. This is a much less emotionally charged example. If you are a kleptomaniac and cannot resist this opportunity, I would say you are not capable of making a moral decision about it. So it would not be a moral issue. It is impossible for this person to be "utterly secure in his state of 'having'" if he decides to steal this whatever. He obviously feels that his state of "having" will in some way be enhanced by taking it. This indicates a feeling of lack to some extent, even if it is to a small degree. Otherwise, it would never enter his mind to take it.

[kayky]

I never supplied a definition of love, I'm saying that 'connectedness to all things and the understanding of that' isn't one of them. You can make it one, but nobody else will understand what you're talking about until you explain it to them, which defeats the purpose of picking a word for the concept if you have to provide the full definition anyways.

You seem overly connected to the term 'love'. Fine, but the way you're using it isn't how it's used, so for you saying the universe is love you might as well say the universe is a horse.

And you're right, can't form a foundation for morality... you're the one that claimed that any form of love can create a foundation for morality. Also, if we requite something to 'create a morality that rises above a social contract' then it isn't object, it's man-made.

There are many different kinds of love--and a feeling of connectedness to one person or the whole universe could certainly be described as love. And I never said the universe was love. I would never consider calling it a horse either! The universe is a physical space with planets and stars and whatnot. What I have shared with you is that I have experienced something that transcends the physical universe and that that experience was one of love.

I also never said that "any form of love" could create a foundation for morality. Many forms of human love can be quite self-centered. But recognizing your interconnectedness with all things is the strongest foundation for morality that I can imagine.

I don't understand your last sentence. Perhaps you can explain it a little more clearly. By the way, on a personal note, your aversion to the word love can probably be explained by your gender. That word always seems to make men nervous...

[TheMessage]

Fine then, theft. The same individual, utterly secure in his state of 'having', finds an opportunity to take something that isn't his.

Thank you. This is a much less emotionally charged example. If you are a kleptomaniac and cannot resist this opportunity, I would say you are not capable of making a moral decision about it. So it would not be a moral issue. It is impossible for this person to be "utterly secure in his state of 'having'" if he decides to steal this whatever. He obviously feels that his state of "having" will in some way be enhanced by taking it. This indicates a feeling of lack to some extent, even if it is to a small degree. Otherwise, it would never enter his mind to take it.

Eh, depending on the individual, it could just become instinct to take any opportunity rather than so much to steal. He's a powerful businessman and he has gotten this far by taking whatever come his way. He doesn't need this, doesn't want it, but it's there and he takes it out of habit.

Interesting point about Kleptomania though. Why would they be immune to morality as it pertains to their stealing? Once someone becomes a habitual murderer are they no longer commiting immoral acts? If you make exceptions for odd psyches you create all sorts of problems with the already problematic issue of morality.

[TheMessage]

I never supplied a definition of love, I'm saying that 'connectedness to all things and the understanding of that' isn't one of them. You can make it one, but nobody else will understand what you're talking about until you explain it to them, which defeats the purpose of picking a word for the concept if you have to provide the full definition anyways.

You seem overly connected to the term 'love'. Fine, but the way you're using it isn't how it's used, so for you saying the universe is love you might as well say the universe is a horse.

And you're right, can't form a foundation for morality... you're the one that claimed that any form of love can create a foundation for morality. Also, if we requite something to 'create a morality that rises above a social contract' then it isn't object, it's man-made.

There are many different kinds of love--and a feeling of connectedness to one person or the whole universe could certainly be described as love. And I never said the universe was love. I would never consider calling it a horse either! The universe is a physical space with planets and stars and whatnot. What I have shared with you is that I have experienced something that transcends the physical universe and that that experience was one of love.

I also never said that "any form of love" could create a foundation for morality. Many forms of human love can be quite self-centered. But recognizing your interconnectedness with all things is the strongest foundation for morality that I can imagine.

I don't understand your last sentence. Perhaps you can explain it a little more clearly. By the way, on a personal note, your aversion to the word love can probably be explained by your gender. That word always seems to make men nervous...

A feeling of connectedness to one person is most certainly love... the whole universe not so much. If you allow the term to grow so all-encompassing it loses a lot of meaning. And understanding a 'connection' has nothing to with the emotion 'love', so whenever that pops up in your definition it further complicates things. You seem to be using the term in a different sense than what the term actually means.

My last sentence seems to have been more muddled than I thought it was. Basically, if we need something create a foundation for morality, such as love, then it is a man-made creation and is not objective morality.

Aversion to the word love? What aversion? All I've done is point out where your use of the term doesn't connect well with the actual definition of the term. Besides, that's a pretty silly stereotype unless you're applying it to immature boys.