Objective morality, Virtue, and Gray areas

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
ThePainefulTruth
Sage
Posts: 841
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 9:47 am
Location: Arizona

Objective morality, Virtue, and Gray areas

Post #1

Post by ThePainefulTruth »

I think objective, universal, morality exists and is basically a refined statement of the Golden Rule--which, BTW, is expressed in some form by every major religion, even though it's swamped by extraneous, non-applicable add-ons which inevitably draw most of the attention.

Morality should deal ONLY with our interactions with each other. All else is subjective, individually determined virtue. Not working or going to church on the sabbath are not moral issues, but if you think they're virtuous behavior, that's entirely up to you. Virtue should never be legislated, although it will always be subject to social pressure, though some will pay a price if they buck the pressure.

As for the fine tuned Golden Rule, it is: "Honoring the equal rights of all adult humans of sound mind, to life, liberty, property and self-defense, to be free from violation through force or fraud".

That's it. Subjective morality doesn't exist, but there are some gray areas lurking in the qualifiers (adult, human, of sound mind) that have to be dealt with.

Specifically, I'm referring to cases such as the differing degrees of humane treatment given to animals, when does an embryo acquire the right to life, and when do children/adolescents, the mentally handicapped or criminals, come to possess (or loose) their rights. These gray areas deal with the degree of consciousness, intelligence, self-awareness possessed by a given individual; and they're gray because there is rarely a specific time, or stage of evolution between point A when they don't have a particular right, to point B when they do. For example, children acquire the right to liberty gradually, yet we use a specific age when they're suddenly no longer considered a minor and have full legal rights as adults. The point is to recognize that picking a specific, arbitrary point for legal purposes can obviously have negative consequences. How can we allow for extenuating circumstances yet maintain equal protection under the law? Should, say, an arbitrary first trimester limit on abortion be lengthened if, for instance, the fetus has developmental problems? When does the right to life of a fetus override the right to life and liberty of the mother? For animals, is humane treatment for a dog the sames as for a chicken, or a lizard or cockroach? It isn't immoral to put (lock up) a child in playpen, restrict an adolescent from selling his TV, drinking alcohol, or making them do chores, and you don't give a child a gun to handle bullies, etc., but when do they acquire those liberties?

When we look at the extremes, 1 day old vs. 9 mo. old fetus, dog vs. cockroach, healthy adult vs. one with Alzheimers, we have little trouble making judgements. This isn't an argument against arbitrary limits, but the transition can be very problematic for deciding what's moral, and how we should deal with these issues legally. Sometimes we just don't have the information we need to make an informed judgement, and the first step is to recognize that. Some fundamentalists believe that the right to life begins at conception, but that's strictly a matter of arbitrary faith. Should a 13 year-old girl who is one day pregnant as the result of being raped by her father be forced to carry the baby to term? Others believe we can abort a healthy baby even when it's in the process of being born, but that's just as much a matter of blind faith, and should actually be considered murder.

These gray areas are gray because we don't have definitive answers for them, and the point is we need to recognize them for what they are and deal with them calmly as much as we can in our laws. All we know for sure is if a crime can have no victims, it isn't a crime. All absolute immorality stems from an adult establishing a moral double standard for himself or his family, clique, group, race, religion or country.

(I know there are questions such as under what assumptions do we adopt the Golden Rule, what would motivate society to adhere to it, and how do we enforce justice with objective morality but subjective punishment. But this is a long post already so I'll deal with those as they arise.)
Truth=God

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #71

Post by Bust Nak »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: There are people here who use their own subjective opinion to determine objective Truth--ironically calling it subjective. Wonderland does exist in the minds of some.
That's not ironic at all. Ironic is when people here who use their own subjective opinion to determine objective truth and think their opinion objective.

This, along with Goat's, would be the third challenge for you to demostrate that "objective morality/Truth has to do with equal justice for all."

User avatar
Danmark
Site Supporter
Posts: 12697
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 2:58 am
Location: Seattle
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #72

Post by Danmark »

ThePainefulTruth wrote: I wonder if your even convincing yourself. I rest my case.
Moderator Comment

Please review the Rules.
This one-liner makes no productive contribution to the debate.

______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

Elijah John
Savant
Posts: 12235
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2013 8:23 pm
Location: New England
Has thanked: 11 times
Been thanked: 16 times

Post #73

Post by Elijah John »

ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote:
Goat wrote:
ThePainefulTruth wrote: [
If everything is subjective, the ones with the guns. Historic examples of reason conquering force are so rare as to be miniscule....if it weren't for the US. And of course the US isn't perfect....even less so of late.
Let me add another one.. Ghandi. Has nothing to do with the U.S. what so ever.
Not at all sure what you're getting at, but Ghandi and objective morality both cross hairs on Truth. And objective morality/Truth has to do with equal justice for all.

Is that true?? Why is that so? It certainly isn't objective, because that is what you feel about it.

It seems like the folks in many places in the middle east don't htink so.

oh.. and the Sudan. We must not forget the Sudan.
I wonder if your even convincing yourself. I rest my case.
Moderator Comment

This is considered a "one liner" and does not advance the debate. Also please refrain from making personal remarks regarding regarding the effectiveness of another's argument.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.
My theological positions:

-God created us in His image, not the other way around.
-The Bible is redeemed by it's good parts.
-Pure monotheism, simple repentance.
-YHVH is LORD
-The real Jesus is not God, the real YHVH is not a monster.
-Eternal life is a gift from the Living God.
-Keep the Commandments, keep your salvation.
-I have accepted YHVH as my Heavenly Father, LORD and Savior.

I am inspired by Jesus to worship none but YHVH, and to serve only Him.

Post Reply