From the Main Blog: Objective morality -- really?

[webmdave]

By Rebekah ~

Some people seem to feel very insecure about the idea there's no objective morality by which to control others. Yet, the question isn't if we want there to be some transcendent objective moral code; it's whether or not one actually exists anywhere. If we believe in one, yet it doesn't exist, then we have a problem because everybody will be simply elevating and conflating their own subjective values to the level of the one true objective morality. This is how many terrorists acts, the crusades, witch hunts, and religious wars have come about such as the Catholics and Protestants killing each other brutally because each believed their subjective interpretations of the supposed objective morality is the correct one. If there were actually an objective morality in the Bible, people wouldn't need to apply their own values and interpretations to it

One difference between believing there is an objective morality to be learned and an alternative view that we have evolved on our own, often overlapping (i.e., subjective moral values based on our genetics, environment, and life experiences) is that the latter comes with more room for compromise, and the former adds fuel to the feeling that only one side is objectively correct and any opposition to it is evil.

When it comes to subjective values, we do feel strongly about our own and are willing to act upon them, but we also don't have the same level of conviction that the other side must therefore be evil and objectively wrong. Which is how religious aderents are so often willing to believe the 'others' deserve ridiculously severe punishment.

Ultimately, if it can't be demonstrated that an objective morality exists anywhere, then the shared subjective values hypothesis is closer to the reality of the situation, and believing that which is closest to reality sets us up to make wiser choices and cause less harm.

View the full article

[◊ Weezer ◊]

The closest thing to objective morality i can think of is to love (Respect, care about) your neighbor as yourself.  That is assuming you know how to “Love” yourself.  There is evidence shown in a few studies that that improves human relationships and how organizations function.  And not respecting (loving, caring about) others, individually or in groups, in one form or another is at the core of most of the world’s human problems.  If we REALLY cared about ALL humans, wouldn’t we research healthy human growth and development and apply it so we could have a better world??  But it seems people are more interested in power, control and money than having emotionally/mentally healthy people and relationships. 

 

if the research is accurate, and if everyone would follow the concept, wouldn’t that be objective morality and improve the world? 
 

in a sense, it seems like we have had some objective morality for eons, (golden rule, love) but human egos ignore it.  Is there a way to rationalize a way around the “love” concept/morality the same way humans rationalize about what is evil??  And what is good??     Food for thought??  
 

[pantheory]

On 1/15/2024 at 2:20 PM, webmdave said:

By Rebekah ~

Some people seem to feel very insecure about the idea there's no objective morality by which to control others. Yet, the question isn't if we want there to be some transcendent objective moral code; it's whether or not one actually exists anywhere. If we believe in one, yet it doesn't exist, then we have a problem because everybody will be simply elevating and conflating their own subjective values to the level of the one true objective morality. This is how many terrorists acts, the crusades, witch hunts, and religious wars have come about such as the Catholics and Protestants killing each other brutally because each believed their subjective interpretations of the supposed objective morality is the correct one. If there were actually an objective morality in the Bible, people wouldn't need to apply their own values and interpretations to it

One difference between believing there is an objective morality to be learned and an alternative view that we have evolved on our own, often overlapping (i.e., subjective moral values based on our genetics, environment, and life experiences) is that the latter comes with more room for compromise, and the former adds fuel to the feeling that only one side is objectively correct and any opposition to it is evil.

When it comes to subjective values, we do feel strongly about our own and are willing to act upon them, but we also don't have the same level of conviction that the other side must therefore be evil and objectively wrong. Which is how religious adherents are so often willing to believe the 'others' deserve ridiculously severe punishment.

Ultimately, if it can't be demonstrated that an objective morality exists anywhere, then the shared subjective values hypothesis is closer to the reality of the situation, and believing that which is closest to reality sets us up to make wiser choices and cause less harm.

View the full article

 

As for me, I don't see how most of the Biblical fairy tales can be disproved. To this extent I think we must trust in our own logic; does it make sense to the reader or listener concerning supposed factual events? Is there sufficient evidence to support it? As ex-Christians and westerners most of us have somewhat similar ideas of subjective morality. As a complete atheist my ideas of subjective morality are also similar to others here in that it's just a matter of opinion, and as Rodney King once said "can't we just all get along?"