Temple of Kraden News:
| Greetings, heathen. Perhaps some fortuitous blessing of Kraden's grace hath led you to our humble Temple, or perhaps you are simply curious about this strange and wonderful cult. Should you be willing - and dare to hope - to achieve enlightenment, the door opens before you. Lo! Leave your old life behind! For once you step through, you become something more than just yourself. You become a Kradenette. Are you willing to make the rapturous plunge? Do you have what it takes? One of us! One of us! One of us! Already one of us? Make your presence known: |
| [SSB] Does objective morality exist? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 16 2010, 01:09 AM (551 Views) | |
| Mighty Oracle | Dec 16 2010, 01:09 AM Post #1 |
|
Worthy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
What do you guys think? Personally, I'm rather torn on the issue. Logically, I think subjective morality makes more sense, but from an emotional standpoint, moral absolutism definitely sounds more acceptable. Discuss, please. |
![]() |
|
| Super Slash | Dec 16 2010, 01:11 AM Post #2 |
![]()
|
Basically what you said. I think things like rape are objectively wrong, but that's just me. |
![]() |
|
| The Sin Thesis | Dec 16 2010, 01:19 AM Post #3 |
![]()
|
Morality does not exist unless something gives it shape. If the concept of an ideal/perfect God is true, his morality is the objective morality, or the closest you'll get to one. If it does not, then humans have invented morality, and objective morality doesn't exist. |
![]() |
|
| Saturos | Dec 16 2010, 09:55 AM Post #4 |
![]()
heart-under-blade
![]()
|
Still, certain ideas are necessary for the foundation of any successful or stable society, which is why, for the most part, the major laws tend to be similar across all cultures, with some variations. I think that's about the closest you can get to "objective" morality, though like Ninja said, it doesn't really exist. >_> |
![]() |
|
| Kula Diamond | Dec 16 2010, 09:59 AM Post #5 |
![]()
atlus tracts
![]()
|
Morals, ethics, honor, laws and such cannot be objective and are always subject to change. Ancient civilizations are great examples of this. |
![]() |
|
| Moose | Dec 16 2010, 10:38 AM Post #6 |
![]()
Spirit
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
If anybody else had written that it would have been a joke. Also, No, it doesn't exist. Don't be silly. |
![]() |
|
| Adnarel | Dec 16 2010, 11:58 AM Post #7 |
![]()
I'd rather be outside.
![]()
|
I think there are some moral absolutes. Humans have evolved to have morals. We were selected from our ancestors because we had developed a "morals center" of the brain. With the exception of rape, each one of the "popular" (in the sense that it is seen across many culture) taboos: murder, assault, theft, etc., actually decreases the biological fitness of the overall population. Incest also decreases biological fitness, as it produces less viable offspring (read: mutants). tl;dr - some morals were selected for, and are written in our DNA. I think that makes them absolute. |
![]() |
|
| Lemubaby | Dec 16 2010, 04:03 PM Post #8 |
![]()
(_(_( ・ω・)
![]()
|
Otherwise there would be no such thing as autism and such. |
![]() |
|
| Super Slash | Dec 16 2010, 08:04 PM Post #9 |
![]()
|
And? >_> |
![]() |
|
| Adnarel | Dec 17 2010, 02:58 AM Post #10 |
![]()
I'd rather be outside.
![]()
|
What does that have to do with anything? |
![]() |
|
|
|
Dec 20 2010, 12:13 PM Post #11 |
|
Worthy
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
It's generally a critique for deontology and Kantian ethics. Objective Morality/Categorical Imperative give rise to a set of rules indicating to an automatic extent as to what one must do or has to abstain from doing. So in a sense if it exist, it becomes a matter of duty to up hold it. Cause the idea of "morality" is constructed as an over all good for the humankin-whoa whoa WHOA, holy shit, did she say "autism"? [radio edit]ing [radio edit] hot hunk of manmeat I swear that was read "altruism", now I just feel stupid. In that case, with "autism" I would assume she meant that if morality were to be objective, it has to be natural and innate at least among the human kind, though extreme autism can......you know, screw it, figure the rest out, cause I won't describe this crap. *goes off to blow some steam* |
![]() |
|
| Kentington | Dec 20 2010, 01:24 PM Post #12 |
|
Your Robot Overlord
![]()
|
What Satty said, to a certain extent. Some ideas (don't kill, steal, rape, etc.) are intuitively obvious and necessary for society to function, while others (treat all sexes and races equally, don't enslave anyone, sex is not evil, etc.) took longer to develop despite being critical to what we'd consider modern civilization. Though there may not be an ironclad "objective moral law", it's clear that certain ethical frameworks and societies built on them produce higher or lower levels of human happiness, freedom, or whatever you'd like to measure. So while there may be no absolute endpoint of moral progress, in the same way that there's no "perfect" piece of technology, that by no means implies that we haven't made moral progress or that one moral system can't be called superior to another. It's a shame that so many people (in America, at least) think of morality as something static, or worse, want to return to "the good old days" - or, on the other end of the political spectrum, think that it's a form of bigotry to tell (for example) parts of Africa not to mutilate women's genitals. I suppose that, given complete knowledge of the human psyche (perhaps by reverse-engineering the brain?), it might be possible to construct a moral framework that maximizes human happiness, but that's beyond the scope of near-term technology. It's also interesting to note that quite a bit of our "built-in" moral intuition is just dead wrong - we're hardwired to favor our "tribe" (whether you define that in terms of family, race, nation, religion, or what have you) over others, a tendency that any modern ethical system would condemn. |
![]() |
|
| Nakun | Dec 23 2010, 02:43 PM Post #13 |
![]()
|
I am going to post this back to life because it is so interesting. Anyway, I would have to start by saying that I'd really really like there to be an objective moral frame work for the universe. Ideally this is my objective moral frame work. However, for the sake of rational discussion, we will assume that I am not the sole adherent to an universal truth, thus making me better than everyone else. Furthermore, I don't think it could exist. First point, there is a large divergence between eastern and western cultures in terms of morality. Western cultures focus on the good of the individual, where eastern cultures focus on societal good (read: are utilitarian.) This was not always the case though; Plato's Republic was set in a utilitarian or utilitarian-esque model. Second, there is a large difference in attitude between people of the same culture. I believe, and have seen in contrast with other people my age and with my younger brother and his friends, two differences in attitude: lack of general respect and presence of narcissism. These may be connected. The point is that as the world becomes more "me" focused through websites like Facebook (and here, I'll qualify to make it clear, I'm talking about people who are on Facebook up to and including ten hours a day updating with frivolous shit to boost their self esteems when people respond) with this focus, people's opinion of themselves becomes over-inflated and they feel that they do not have to address anyone with any respect because they are the most important thing. To the point, this demonstrates a change in morality from the perspective that we owe others something (ie respect) just because they are people (or in some cases just because they are alive.) Third, on the topic of societies needing certain laws to function, and thus be societies, I will agree to an extent but disagree mostly (sorry you've caught me in something that I've done a lot of recent reading about.) The point at which I will agree is that in order to form civil societies, people need to subjugate their id so that they are not killing or raping all the time. (Note: This idea is from Freud's Civilization and its Discontents.) You may not agree with Freud, I know I don't on many aspects. I do not think that there is a simple breakdown of the human psyche that could just denote people as targets for either killing or raping. First, its a little absurd and second, its an either or fallacy. To offer more perspective on this, I will turn to Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals, in which he talks about the good old days when the good were the strong who did what they wanted to and it was good, even if it was killing and raping. Nietzsche further states that the idea of evil comes from the transference of this historical good, so that the historical bad may now be seen as good (in contrast to good's new evil.) tl;dr Shame on you that was really important stuff. But anyway, it could be broken down into the idea that morals change. We saw civil society come about because of subverting our id. However, this has led to many different conflicts over morality. I would maintain that if a universal morality does exist, it can not occur until society chooses to subjugate its newly inflated ego. |
![]() |
|
![]() Our users say it best: "Zetaboards is the best forum service I have ever used." |
|
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |





![]](http://z1.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)















7:39 PM Jul 10






