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?

[Masterblaster]

Hello POI

There is a problem that constantly permeates discussions about objective morality.

Otseng regards objective morality as something that is objectifiable. In this way violence is in the world. ( objective like 'its there'). Theist usually infer that it's creator and source is a Roman-Greek- Jewish guy with a frown)

When I speak about objective morality I speak about a blanket morality that is untainted by subjectivity. Objective morality is arbitary and often brutal. The world is objective for all things ,including humans. ( objective= not subjective).if I believe that God is an intrinsic dynamic of our world then I announce that this objectivity can be assimilated and built upon to achieve a balanced human morality that makes useful sense)

People need to deliberate clearly what they are talking about or else it becomes a burlesque tango of the absurd..

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

I think it's a mix. It's partly an inherent instinct reciprocity (which is found even in some animal groups - sympathy for group members) with a reasoning faculty to extend this to others, even those we don't have a relation to. I saw this as a kid when some other kid was told 'How would you like it if that was done to you?' and they looked ashamed. They got right and wrong.

Then there's learned instinct. It's how we learn to tie shoelaces and ties (those of us who have ever worn them) without thinking and indeed finding we can't do it if we have to think about it. We learn a worked out (and ever changing) system of rules. It is supposed to be a better and fairer way of society working and, like other rules, in games, and in sports,law,politics - even religion, there is conflict between the letter of the rules and what you can get away with to win (just see the exploitation of penalties in formula 1 racing) and the 'spirit', playing fair, not what you can do to cheat without being banned.

Even in religion, as I say "Hey, what do a few untruths matter if some souls are saved?" Already we are talking of 'spirit' as if it was an innate objective cosmic standard of morality, but it isn't.

Revelation is what pops into our lead; what we have learned or come to believe, and it may feel like some cosmic pow'r is dictating it to us, but it is us, Instinct, social moral codes, and our own thoughts about it.

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "They got right and wrong"

----

Right and wrong is subjective morality.
My God sends a Flood in the OT.....I say that is a natural disaster. Unlucky for some. It doesn't matter a toss who is taken out. It was never considered.

When people attach a subjective moral narrative to natural phenomena they accomplish the following

- they misrepresent God
- they construct lies and confusion
- that is why theists talk themselves into living on seismic fault lines.

That is why the guys threw the simpleton into the volcano thousands of years ago. Anything was better than moving.

Thanks

[Masterblaster]

Hello

Objective morality can only be guessed at and approximated , by the human mind, by continuous observation of our immediate surroundings.

We can sense a cohesion that is God ( if we choose) and we can sense the workings of this God as a basic concept of morality.
' Thy will be done'....whatever!

This crude observation of an obvious complexity, can only hint to us at the possibility of creating a functional pattern of morality for our human groupings. This ' made thing ' is subjective morality.
This is a hologram that fits its circumstances...it is culture.

If you examine the patterns and processes of objective morality within the world as an entire entity, there is little correlation between it and what we actually justify to ourselves..

Thanks

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "They got right and wrong"

----

Right and wrong is subjective morality.
My God sends a Flood in the OT.....I say that is a natural disaster. Unlucky for some. It doesn't matter a toss who is taken out. It was never considered.

When people attach a subjective moral narrative to natural phenomena they accomplish the following

- they misrepresent God
- they construct lies and confusion
- that is why theists talk themselves into living on seismic fault lines.

That is why the guys threw the simpleton into the volcano thousands of years ago. Anything was better than moving.

Thanks

Ok. That'll do. Without going into another dissertation (as the collapse of the morality argument for a god (not that it stops the denialist repeat of it) morals and ethics is a human games plan with rules to make societies work. People do not always keep to the rules and we know that as well as we know that we need them to 'stop civilisation collapsing' as the appeal to religion as a clue that keeps civilisation from collapse has it.

The only 'objective' aspect is the evolved instinct humans built on and which is seen in many animal groups..

But no dissertation (again) on the failure of the moral argument for a god, which is where we seem to agree.

[TRANSPONDER]

Hello

Objective morality can only be guessed at and approximated , by the human mind, by continuous observation of our immediate surroundings.

We can sense a cohesion that is God ( if we choose) and we can sense the workings of this God as a basic concept of morality.
' Thy will be done'....whatever!

This crude observation of an obvious complexity, can only hint to us at the possibility of creating a functional pattern of morality for our human groupings. This ' made thing ' is subjective morality.
This is a hologram that fits its circumstances...it is culture.

If you examine the patterns and processes of objective morality within the world as an entire entity, there is little correlation between it and what we actually justify to ourselves..

Thanks

And you were doing so well. You seem to have twigged that morality might (we wish) need a god to make it all work perfectly, but bthat it doesn't means we did it ourselves and a god is nothing to do with it, and I propose that you leave well alone the miserable atempts of the denialist believers to excuse why the morality of God looks like the morality of humans.

The fact is that humans have moved (and are still moving) morals along in the face of denial by religion, which (as with science) fights it, gives in to avoid becoming a laughing - stock or object of contempt (except in the former confederate states it seems) and then pretends it was saying so all along.

What your post is, is afamiliar self delusion similar to Anselm's Ontological argument - we can imagine a higher ideal; that ideal must be true and that must be God. Sorry, humans see how things do not reach the ideals we hope for, but proposing a god with some kind of perfection (which doesn't exist except in our own imaginations) is just the lazy thinking of the primitives.

You can do better than this...but you have to want to.

As they say of the mental illness that religious Faith is often compared to 'The infected has to accept that they are sick before they can be helped to cure themselves'.

[1213]

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?

Objective meanings:
1) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
2) Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
3) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

If more than one has the same gut feeling, is it objective?

Can gut feeling be observed?

Is gut feeling always influenced by prejudices?

[Masterblaster]

Hello TRANSPONDER

You say - "What your post is, is a familiar self delusion similar to Anselm's Ontological argument - we can imagine a higher ideal; that ideal must be true and that must be God. Sorry, humans see how things do not reach the ideals we hope for, but proposing a god with some kind of perfection (which doesn't exist except in our own imaginations) is just the lazy thinking of the primitives."

------
You are gone off on a tangent again. I purposely stated that objective morality was arbitary and often harsh., no kind of Utopian Idealism here. It is actually an attempt at realism. I am not eulogizing about a world morality, I am stating that it is in motion in front of our eyes and that we are still essentially captive to it.

Add that one of yours to POI's list ie perfection...you are good at this theology stuff.
Thanks

[Masterblaster]

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?

Objective meanings:
1) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.
2) Based on observable phenomena; empirical.
3) Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices

If more than one has the same gut feeling, is it objective?

Can gut feeling be observed?

Is gut feeling always influenced by prejudices?

Hello 1213

This is a tricky one for me.
1) Existing independent of or external to the mind; actual or real.

There is that old logic that it is all in the mind and that nothing is not mind and that our mind cannot penetrate that which is not our mind. It is a Rubik Cube with beige squares.
I settle for this. We have faculties that allow us to observe natural patterns with as much dispassionate objectivity as is required to retain it's original truth. When we start to consider this revelation it becomes subjective.

A natural forest fire is an awesome show but if I attach the concept of destruction to it then the moment becomes subjective. I can't even do Cubes with 6 colours.
Thanks