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?

[Crazy Ivan]

deleted

[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.

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"..

You are correct about Objectivity. However, just because most people and cultures agree on something also does not make it 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.

Conversely, if killing indiscrimnately was the right thing in the first place, then it does not make it okay that society as a whole has rejected that in favor of living in relative peace.

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).

They can also try to persuade you to adopt goals that would make killing indiscrimnately counter-productive. But you are correct that it is 'okay' from an objective stand point.

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.)

You are assuming they have any 'loved ones'.

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

Which is why some are moving towards the label 'collective subjective' and avoid the issue of actually trying to prove something is truly objective at all.

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.

I don't think this argument flies when you add in the concept of collective subjectivity.

[olavisjo]

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"..

You are correct about Objectivity. However, just because most people and cultures agree on something also does not make it independent of mind.

Obviously if all is not enough, then most will certainly not be enough.

I think that what you are trying to say is that if we say something like "most people believe the holocaust was absolutely wrong" it sounds like the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. But what we are saying is something like "most people are rational and well enough informed, and a rational and well enough informed person will conclude that the holocaust was absolutely wrong".

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.

You are assuming they have any 'loved ones'.

That is not such a far fetched assumption, I am willing to believe that we all love someone at some point in our lives. Even Jeffery Dahmer loved people, he thought they were delicious. Other than that I found little evidence that he loved anyone. But it is very possible that he did still know that what he did was wrong as he said...

"I feel it's wrong for people who commit crimes to try to shift the blame onto somebody else, onto their parents, or onto their upbringing or living circumstances. I think that's just a cop-out. I take full responsibility."

Ted Bundy loved someone enough to propose marriage and the rejection could have been what triggered his murders. Anne Rule was his friend and biographer...

Around the same time, she volunteered at a suicide hotline center and met a young, charming law student named Ted Bundy. They often worked alone together until 3:00 in the morning and he always walked her to her car. Her marriage was breaking up at the time, and she found herself telling everything to Bundy. She said, "He was one of those rare people who listen with full attention...you could tell him things you might never tell anyone else."

In 1975, she signed a contract to write a book about a series of unsolved murders in Seattle, and while she was writing it she learned that the main suspect for the murders was Ted Bundy, the man she'd found so charming.

Bundy was eventually arrested for the murders of more than 30 women in five states. Rule had a hard time believing that her friend could actually commit the crimes he'd been charged with, and she found that no one else could believe it either. Bundy was loved by nearly everyone who knew him. By the time he was arrested he had become chairman of the Seattle Crime Prevention Council and had even been considered a rising political star in the State of Washington.

When Rule finally saw the conclusive evidence that her friend was guilty, she was horrified. She did extensive research into Bundy's background, and found that most of his victims had resembled his ex-girlfriend, who'd turned down his proposal of marriage.

Even Joseph Stalin loved someone...

Stalin had many wives and mistresses, but the one that stands out most was his first wife who he loved more than any thing in the world, more than breathing, more than life. His disposition and ruling quality changed immensely after she was gone. At her funeral, Stalin allegedly said that any warm feelings he had for people died with her, for only she could melt his ’stony heart’.

Which is why some are moving towards the label 'collective subjective' and avoid the issue of actually trying to prove something is truly objective at all.

Who was the 'collective subjective' before life began on Earth? Father, Son and the Holy Spirit?

And I am not trying to prove that moral values are objective. Given that any victory in this debate is very rare, I find satisfaction in having the non-believer admit to not believing in the existence of objective morality, in that he is basically admitting to being amoral. And I believe that the difference between amoral and immoral is very small because when a man has no great desire to be evil, it is not hard to be good but when he does desire to do something evil what is going to restrain him if he does not even believe that there is such a thing as good and evil outside of his own opinions? I think that is the main reason why polls consistently show that half the voters in the US will never vote for an atheist, as voters understand what evil lurks in the hearts of all men, something that the atheist appears to be oblivious of.

[ChaosBorders]

I think that what you are trying to say is that if we say something like "most people believe the holocaust was absolutely wrong" it sounds like the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populum. But what we are saying is something like "most people are rational and well enough informed, and a rational and well enough informed person will conclude that the holocaust was absolutely wrong".

On what rational basis was it wrong? I personally find what happened disgusting and deplorable, but that is my opinion. If my religious beliefs are correct, it may also be objectively true, but I can never honestly say that is the case with 100% certainty.

That is not such a far fetched assumption, I am willing to believe that we all love someone at some point in our lives. Even Jeffery Dahmer loved people, he thought they were delicious. Other than that I found little evidence that he loved anyone. But it is very possible that he did still know that what he did was wrong as he said...

Cognitively knowing that other people think what you did was wrong and acknowledging that is very different from believing it yourself.

Who was the 'collective subjective' before life began on Earth? Father, Son and the Holy Spirit?

The concept of collective subjectivity is based on the idea that there is an objective reality, but the best humans can do regarding knowing that reality is a collective subjective view of it. So before life began on Earth (not factoring in the possibility of other life not on earth) there was no collective subjective. God is omniscient so automatically knows the objective truth.

And I am not trying to prove that moral values are objective. Given that any victory in this debate is very rare, I find satisfaction in having the non-believer admit to not believing in the existence of objective morality, in that he is basically admitting to being amoral. And I believe that the difference between amoral and immoral is very small because when a man has no great desire to be evil, it is not hard to be good but when he does desire to do something evil what is going to restrain him if he does not even believe that there is such a thing as good and evil outside of his own opinions? I think that is the main reason why polls consistently show that half the voters in the US will never vote for an atheist, as voters understand what evil lurks in the hearts of all men, something that the atheist appears to be oblivious of.

Statistically speaking, Christians are scarcely any better at performing 'moral' behavior, so it does not seem religion has done as great a job restraining people as one would hope :\

Though on a personal level your point holds some weight. There was a single desire that kept me from doing considerable 'evil' for pragmatic reasons back when I was in a moral nihilist state of mind. Had I not sought out the religion I now hold, I am unsure how much longer it would have been before the contempt I had held for humanity would have resulted in...unpleasantness.