v

[Gianna99]

There is a deep and continuing conversation between science and religion. While science uses reason and factual data to comprehend the natural world, religion frequently uses faith and tradition to investigate issues of morality and meaning. Both fields provide insightful understandings of the human condition and encourage a diverse range of viewpoints.GB Whatsapp download

[The Tanager]

In observing our thoughts, is this not where morality stems from? It may be a matter that those claiming such as "imaginary" are doing so under the assumption/misinformation as to the role of imagination, consciousness (subjective) in relation to the external reality experience (the objective).

I'm an objectivist, so I don't think morality stems from our thoughts. Feel free to make an argument to support subjectivism, though, if you wish.

In reality these positions are not mutually exclusive since our reality experience has it that both are working in conjunction with each other. Any perceived differences therefore are not in actuality "mutually exclusive" in the sense that they do indeed work with each other and together this creates the human experience and promotes the growth of human personalities.
The "tradition of philosophy" appears to require tweaking in that context.

You don't mean the same things I do when talking about subjective vs objective morality and this is confusing you. To me, saying morality is subjective, means we simply make it up, there is no real objective truth. Saying morality is objective means the complete opposite. We do not make it up in any way, but discover a real objective truth. These are mutually exclusive. You are talking about something else, using the same terms.

[William]

In observing our thoughts, is this not where morality stems from? It may be a matter that those claiming such as "imaginary" are doing so under the assumption/misinformation as to the role of imagination, consciousness (subjective) in relation to the external reality experience (the objective).

I'm an objectivist, so I don't think morality stems from our thoughts. Feel free to make an argument to support subjectivism, though, if you wish.

"Objectivism holds that reality is an absolute—that facts are facts, regardless of anyone’s hopes, fears, or desires. There is a world independent of our minds to which our thinking must correspond if our ideas are to be true and therefore of practical use in living our lives, pursuing our values, and protecting our rights.

Thus, Objectivism rejects the idea that reality is ultimately determined by personal opinion or social convention or “divine decree.” An individual’s ideas or beliefs do not make reality what it is, nor can they directly change anything about it; they either correspond to the facts of reality, or they do not. A person might think that the sun revolves around the earth (as some people do); that does not make it so."(SOURCE)

I see no reason why one has to be one or the other. I think that all things we consider objective have to be processed subjectively (through mindfulness).

In reality these positions are not mutually exclusive since our reality experience has it that both are working in conjunction with each other. Any perceived differences therefore are not in actuality "mutually exclusive" in the sense that they do indeed work with each other and together this creates the human experience and promotes the growth of human personalities.
The "tradition of philosophy" appears to require tweaking in that context.

You don't mean the same things I do when talking about subjective vs objective morality and this is confusing you. To me, saying morality is subjective, means we simply make it up, there is no real objective truth. Saying morality is objective means the complete opposite. We do not make it up in any way, but discover a real objective truth. These are mutually exclusive. You are talking about something else, using the same terms.

Whereas, I think that just because something originates within a mind, does not mean it has been "made up". Indeed, that is what being inspired also means. Being inspired does not necessarily only relate to things considered objective.

[The Tanager]

I see no reason why one has to be one or the other. I think that all things we consider objective have to be processed subjectively (through mindfulness).

Moral objectivists like me believe that moral truths are objective things that are processed by subjective minds. Moral subjectivists reject that. Both can't be true.

[William]

I see no reason why one has to be one or the other. I think that all things we consider objective have to be processed subjectively (through mindfulness).

Moral objectivists like me believe that moral truths are objective things that are processed by subjective minds. Moral subjectivists reject that. Both can't be true.

Can you give an example of both an objective moral and a subjective moral?

[The Tanager]

Can you give an example of both an objective moral and a subjective moral?

This question doesn't make sense to me. Either abusing a child is an objective moral (and, thus, an act wrong for any human to commit whether they like abusing children or not) or it is a subjective moral (and, thus, an act liked by some and disliked by others in exactly the same way ice cream flavors are liked and disliked but we can't say anyone is wrong for disliking abusing a child). It is impossible to give a different example of each because all moral acts are either all one or all the other.

[William]

Can you give an example of both an objective moral and a subjective moral?

This question doesn't make sense to me. Either abusing a child is an objective moral (and, thus, an act wrong for any human to commit whether they like abusing children or not) or it is a subjective moral (and, thus, an act liked by some and disliked by others in exactly the same way ice cream flavors are liked and disliked but we can't say anyone is wrong for disliking abusing a child). It is impossible to give a different example of each because all moral acts are either all one or all the other.

So when you use the term "objective morality" and identify as a "moral objectivist", you are speaking about actions, rather than about where the sense of morality is sourced?

[The Tanager]

So when you use the term "objective morality" and identify as a "moral objectivist", you are speaking about actions, rather than about where the sense of morality is sourced?

Yes, the objective/subjective debate is about the nature of the actions and where that nature is sourced.

[William]

So when you use the term "objective morality" and identify as a "moral objectivist", you are speaking about actions, rather than about where the sense of morality is sourced?

Yes, the objective/subjective debate is about the nature of the actions and where that nature is sourced.

So the actions are the objective morality and the source of the motivations which trigger the actions are subjective morality.
Unless you are also arguing that morality does not exist unless it is shown to exist through actions?

[The Tanager]

So the actions are the objective morality and the source of the motivations which trigger the actions are subjective morality.
Unless you are also arguing that morality does not exist unless it is shown to exist through actions?

I do think morality is just about the action itself, not the motivations. But even if you want to say that motivations are part of the morality of an action, the traditional objective/subjective disagreement is not about the difference between an action and the motivation behind it. It's about whether something is good/evil apart from the people's personal opinions or whether good/evil is really just a synonym for people's personal opinions.

[William]

So the actions are the objective morality and the source of the motivations which trigger the actions are subjective morality.
Unless you are also arguing that morality does not exist unless it is shown to exist through actions?

I do think morality is just about the action itself, not the motivations. But even if you want to say that motivations are part of the morality of an action, the traditional objective/subjective disagreement is not about the difference between an action and the motivation behind it. It's about whether something is good/evil apart from the people's personal opinions or whether good/evil is really just a synonym for people's personal opinions.

So, how does that tie in with the idea that under atheism rape of a child would not be regarded as morally evil?