Gut Feelings Equals Objective?

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

[otseng]

Hello otseng

You say - "And I believe it is primarily through our intuition that we know objective morality exists. For instance, we all have this sense that things needs to be fair. It is not something that is taught to us, but we instinctively expect things should be fair"

Isn't that the same as this?

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

Then , why this?

No, because I did not define objective morality by a list of rules. And where is there even a rule that says people should be fair?

It is good to see you down from the mountain, otseng,...you should get out more.

More ad hom.

Most people expect fairness so that is objective morality???If enough of us think it should be then it is???? If it needs to be , then it should be????

What do you think? Should things be fair?

The world is not 'fair' ,otseng,...neither is God..

Never said the world is fair.

I think I see where you are coming from...you think that God has laid out a row of crumbs that are strategically placed to lead us somewhere. It is your perception of how God works that is leading this convoluted 'reasoning'...I told you as much, 2 days ago.
Was I even close????

No, not even close. I'm not even bringing up God in the discussions here, you are.

If you emphasize the personal notion of God (as Christian Doctrine notoriously, does), you project subjectivity on to God's every action. You make a story about God that is based on your deepest desires.
Thanks

Who is even mentioning about God in this thread? Not me. I'm just debating about objective morality and intuition.

[Masterblaster]

Hello otseng

You Enquire - "We need to go back and hash out some things. What is objective morality and does it exist? Objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations. Do you agree with this definition?
I believe objective morality exists, do you?"

------
Personally, I agree with the definition in so far as it goes.
I also agree that objective morality exists.
Do you really want to hash things out?

Now, what is it, this objective morality?

You have to include all things,otseng. Do you not see that. If you do not , you go all Biblical on us again and we are back in the exclusive morality pact between us and God that you cling to so dearly. There is no justification for such a stance except faith and belief. You are being eaten alive by the atheists when you admit that your position is simple faith and nothing else.

Otseng - "I operate this forum because I believe Christianity is true. If Christianity is false, I'll let someone else run another forum (and save a lot of my money and time as well)."

Objective morality is available for whales, ants, trees and perhaps even some aspects of the inanimate world. I do not know.

You want to hash things out, why are chimpanzees not to be included in this objective morality? A simple answer will do, for me.
Objective morality is an ongoing event before our very eyes. Subjective morality for us is an extraction made from what we see. If we detect subjective fairness then it has been displayed to us through a semblance of balance in the objective world.
If we ignore, modify or misuse these moral promptings, we revert to the simple organisms that we probably are, and the objectivity consumes us.The morality experiment for the apex species is over. Just, let us not kid ourselves with apologist nonsense.
When were we ever collectively and purposely 'FAIR'?
Was Jesus tortured and crucified by chimpanzees?
Thanks

[Mae von H]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

That’s quite a strange comparison. “Gut feelings” are generally not associated with moral choices at all. A woman has a gut feeling not to walk down a certain street or a man has a gut feeling to call his mother. If it’s your “gut feeling” telling you that stealing that car is wrong, you’ve got a very weak conscience.

[TRANSPONDER]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

That’s quite a strange comparison. “Gut feelings” are generally not associated with moral choices at all. A woman has a gut feeling not to walk down a certain street or a man has a gut feeling to call his mother. If it’s your “gut feeling” telling you that stealing that car is wrong, you’ve got a very weak conscience.

That's a good point. I have heard curious tales about someone who got a feeling not to fly on that day, and the plane crashed. But suppose that is true. It means we have Data of a phenomenon we can't explain. Just as once, we couldn't explain instinct (1) premonitions (if they are real) are unexplained, and Unexplained is not evidence for a god, never mind which one.

But Homo Tessellatianus (pattern -making humans) are good at fooling themselves, never mind doing it on purpose, to confirm a bias (one apologist appealed to 'joining the dots' to try to create a map of the Exodus, based on Faith and not much more). Even without telling tall tales (Mr Trans once swore a deceased aunt had appeared to her in a dream, telling her this or that, just to win an argument - I told you she was crazy as a coot) we can fool ourselves into imposing patters where there aren't any. Just counting the hits and ignoring the misses is a known one, but usually ignored when it comes to picking out a couple of extraordinary coincidences and ignoring the many that didn't happen or wouldn't have happened. If said bod. had a premonition not to take a plane and nothing happened to it, we will hear nothing about it.

(1) This struck me with the Herriott books 'all creatures great and small', where the vet delivered a lamb which immediately went to suckle. "Ow do they know?' asked the shepherd."I don't know" replied the vet. We name it 'instinct' and we know we have it as much as the animals. We also learn it, and may forget it In my climbing and caving days, I learned a lot of knots. I have forgotten how to tie them now. I could see how it worked as an evolved instinct and maybe the 'scholars' had seen it, too, but nobody knew the mechanism. So it was still a 'gap for god' I suppose. Then DNA was discovered, and that Gap is not closed. Instinct is not now evidence for a god (name your own) not that it ever was.

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

That’s quite a strange comparison. “Gut feelings” are generally not associated with moral choices at all. A woman has a gut feeling not to walk down a certain street or a man has a gut feeling to call his mother. If it’s your “gut feeling” telling you that stealing that car is wrong, you’ve got a very weak conscience.

I think what Otseng means is that we inherently know 'right' from 'wrong' and that it is God who gives us our moral compass to know so. We 'intuitively know' it is wrong to steal, kill, rape, etc...

But as I asked you elsewhere, if your intuition tells you X is wrong, but I inherently think X is right, how would we know? Even IF you referenced the Bible, IF the Bible was the authoritative source, the Bible might not still address that particular subject, (as it does not address every conceivable scenario).

[William]

I do not claim all morality is objective. What I do claim is morality consists of both subjective morality and objective morality.

I think we all agree subjective morality exists. So, the issue is if objective morality exists. And I believe it is primarily through our intuition that we know objective morality exists. For instance, we all have this sense that things needs to be fair. It is not something that is taught to us, but we instinctively expect things should be fair.

Your for instance appears to be sourced within rather than externally. Why do you understand such as being 'objective' (which usually means an external thing)?

We need to go back and hash out some things. What is objective morality and does it exist?

Objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations. Do you agree with this definition?

I believe objective morality exists, do you?

I think your definition requires expanding upon before I can agree in the actual existence of morality which is objective (re its source/where it derives.)

As far as I am aware there is no absolute morality which "applies to all people at all times at all locations" so, examples of such would have to be given in that regard.

[POI]

Otseng stated the following: "Objective morality is more an intuitive sense and it's not defined by a list of rules."

For debate: Seems Otseng is stating that if one has strong intuition(s) about something or things, it is objectively moral?

No, I'm not stating that and it's just more twisting of my words. I have never stated if one has strong intuitions about things that it makes it objectively moral. To see what I have stated about ethics, can start here:
viewtopic.php?p=1136039#p1136039

Maybe you want to respond to post 65 in this thread? Or I can follow up by saying we all have 'gut feelings' about countless situations. Say an "authoritative source" is established. Let's not concern ourselves with what that source is, at the moment. But let's say that 'authoritative source' has no mention of the situation in question. Does this automatically mean the situation is not wrong, because the 'authoritative source' does not currently mention anything about it? How might one know if a specific situation is deemed right or wrong, if the 'authoritative source' does not directly weigh in upon it? Does it boil down to our intuitive senses on the matter? If so, why do our intuitive sense not all agree? Case/point, there may exist many topics in which such an 'authoritative source' may not directly weigh in upon enough or specifically, such as: abortion, euthanasia, alcohol consumption, gun rights, etc...

If the 'authoritative source' has no law about it, does this mean they are all okay? Or, do we follow what our gut tells us? And if so, why does our reactions differ so much? Or, is there ANOTHER method to determine the rightness or wrongness of a topic, aside from the 'authoritative source' telling us so, or our 'gut' telling us so?

[Masterblaster]

Hello

The level of enquiry here is very poor.

We have professed atheists being sucked into discussing the most mundane of Biblical logics.

Please look around you at the world we live in and attempt better.

Man cannot own objectivity unless we wish to continue to self-inflate our delusional egos.

This is all very sad as we starve ourselves of objective reference and we then start to play with abusing morality among ourselves.

Gandhi once said that you can measure the morality of a Nation by how it treats its animals.
"
, 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. He said 'I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man,' and 'I abhor vivisection with my whole soul."

What would that clown know?

Is it Red Nose Day around here?

Thanks

[otseng]

Objective morality would be morality that applies to all people at all times at all locations. Do you agree with this definition?

I believe objective morality exists, do you?

I think your definition requires expanding upon before I can agree in the actual existence of morality which is objective (re its source/where it derives.)

As far as I am aware there is no absolute morality which "applies to all people at all times at all locations" so, examples of such would have to be given in that regard.

Then what definition do you propose for objective morality?

As for examples of objective morality, I proposed these:

Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

The level of enquiry here is very poor.

We have professed atheists being sucked into discussing the most mundane of Biblical logics.

Please look around you at the world we live in and attempt better.

Man cannot own objectivity unless we wish to continue to self-inflate our delusional egos.

This is all very sad as we starve ourselves of objective reference and we then start to play with abusing morality among ourselves.

Gandhi once said that you can measure the morality of a Nation by how it treats its animals.
"
, 'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. He said 'I hold that the more helpless a creature, the more entitled it is to protection by man from the cruelty of man,' and 'I abhor vivisection with my whole soul."

What would that clown know?

Is it Red Nose Day around here?

Thanks

Garbage.The level of argument there is very poor. Either citing the Bible or Ghandi, who was instrumental ibn Indian independence, but doesn't make him a role model. I need no lectures from You, Ghandhi nor indeed the Bible ,on Morals, Western Eastern or anywhere else.