Got moral obligations?

[olavisjo]

If you believe that there exists an obligation to behave in a proper way then to whom or what is that obligation to?

[Vanguard]

I have repeatedly, for over a year, asked olavisjo to present just one example of an "objective moral value". To this date what few have been offered were not shown to be objective.

What about that it is not ok to kill just anyone?

[Goat]

I have repeatedly, for over a year, asked olavisjo to present just one example of an "objective moral value". To this date what few have been offered were not shown to be objective.

What about that it is not ok to kill just anyone?

If someone is going to kill your family, and you can either let your family be killed, or kill them... is the objectively wrong?

How about if they are in terrible agony with no chance of survival?? Do you let them suffer?

[Vanguard]

All I was trying to do is is try to hit my 1000 post milestone! You know, "don't mind me I'm just lurking in more obscure areas of the site trying to get an easy 80 posts so that I can be a member of the 1000 post club". But oh no, Mr. 11,000+ posts will have nothing of it. Life's not easy for a Christian...

I have repeatedly, for over a year, asked olavisjo to present just one example of an "objective moral value". To this date what few have been offered were not shown to be objective.

What about that it is not ok to kill just anyone?

If someone is going to kill your family, and you can either let your family be killed, or kill them... is the objectively wrong?

How about if they are in terrible agony with no chance of survival?? Do you let them suffer?

I'm not sure how this addresses my question? Unless I am mistaken, you seem to be arguing there are examples where it would be appropriate to kill. That being the case, you have no argument from me.

The point of my previous post was to suggest that all men at all times have understood it was not ok to kill just anyone indiscriminately. Though the neighboring tribe was considered fair game some 1000+ years ago, it was generally understood that it was not right to kill one's own. I would posit that this has always been the case. The only difference between "way back when" and now is that the definition of "one's own" has expanded to include virtually the world's population. In other words, the one constant (or objective moral if you will) has been that killing is not to be indiscrimate but rather only against those who are not in the inner circle so to speak.

I remember having this exchange once with byofrics when he was an active poster. It was an enlightening one and it is too bad he is no longer active.

[olavisjo]

If someone is going to kill your family, and you can either let your family be killed, or kill them... is the objectively wrong?

How about if they are in terrible agony with no chance of survival?? Do you let them suffer?

I don't think that our use of the term "objective" is the same.

Would gravity be an example of an objective law of physics or would 2 + 2 = 4 be an example of an objective mathematical truth?

[ChaosBorders]

The point of my previous post was to suggest that all men at all times have understood it was not ok to kill just anyone indiscriminately.

I am quite certain there are numerous serial killers, warlords, and dictators throughout history who deeply disagree with this statement.

[Vanguard]

The point of my previous post was to suggest that all men at all times have understood it was not ok to kill just anyone indiscriminately.

I am quite certain there are numerous serial killers, warlords, and dictators throughout history who deeply disagree with this statement.

Fair enough. I should amend my comment to say that it has been generally accepted that one is not to kill just anyone indiscriminately. I'm sure there are plenty of examples among socio-paths and such who's actions seem to contradict this belief. If the expectation is that literally every man believe this then the argument is unsupportable. Because there are exceptions however does not constitute an acceptable refutation.

[ChaosBorders]

The point of my previous post was to suggest that all men at all times have understood it was not ok to kill just anyone indiscriminately.

I am quite certain there are numerous serial killers, warlords, and dictators throughout history who deeply disagree with this statement.

Fair enough. I should amend my comment to say that it has been generally accepted that one is not to kill just anyone indiscriminately. I'm sure there are plenty of examples among socio-paths and such who's actions seem to contradict this belief. If the expectation is that literally every man believe this then the argument is unsupportable. Because there are exceptions however does not constitute an acceptable refutation.

Does it not? That there are exceptions suggests that the reason it is held to be true is that most societies have decided that it should be, not that it is actually an absolute moral truth.

[Crazy Ivan]

The point of my previous post was to suggest that all men at all times have understood it was not ok to kill just anyone indiscriminately.

Is the same any more "understood" between other animals? It's easy to observe no animal kills "indiscriminately", and I think this shows it's not a matter of "understanding" at all. It doesn't logically follow that "not doing" something demonstrates there's some kind of "rule" set against it. It just demonstrates the "desire to kill indiscriminately" does not occur.

[ChaosBorders]

The point of my previous post was to suggest that all men at all times have understood it was not ok to kill just anyone indiscriminately.

Is the same any more "understood" between other animals? It's easy to observe no animal kills "indiscriminately", and I think this shows it's not a matter of "understanding" at all. It doesn't logically follow that "not doing" something demonstrates there's some kind of "rule" set against it. It just demonstrates the "desire to kill indiscriminately" does not occur.

Please make sure the person in your quote box is the one who said it.

[olavisjo]

The point of my previous post was to suggest that all men at all times have understood it was not ok to kill just anyone indiscriminately.

I am quite certain there are numerous serial killers, warlords, and dictators throughout history who deeply disagree with this statement.

I think that we are losing the meaning of objectivity. Objectivity does not mean that all people through all time and cultures agree on something as most atheists and even some theists seem to be suggesting, but rather it means "independent of mind".

So, even if society degraded to the point where all people feel it is okay to kill just anyone indiscriminately, it would not make indiscriminate killing moral, if it was objectively wrong to kill indiscriminately in the first place.

If morals are subjective then if you feel it is okay to kill indiscriminately then it is fine for you and nobody can tell you otherwise (however they can kill you or do whatever they believe is right for them to do to you).

And even Stalin, Dahmer, Bundy and others would probably not have thought it fine if someone would have killed their parents, children or other loved ones.

I can understand the confusion between objective and subjective, because even objective scientific truths can only be known by our subjective observations.

So, just as we know objective scientific truths through our subjective observation we can also know objective moral truths through our subjective observation. And just because some people get their morals wrong does not nullify what is truly proper moral behavior.