[Adjutant Stormy~]

anakronisM, on 14 February 2010 - 12:07 PM, said:

jitsukerr, on 12 February 2010 - 02:39 PM, said:

If God as an eternal being has developed perfect goodness (and from the definition of 'eternal', we must conclude that this state was attained _before_ creation), how then can it be justified that he would create a hell, and consign the vast majority of humanity, whom he professes to love, to it for eternity? As John Stuart Mill says,

Hi Jitsukerr, you've raised a good question. There are a few things i would like to comment on before we discuss this further.

First of all i'm curious about what you mean by hell. What is your interpretation of it, and yes there are several interpretations of hell in the bible which there's difficulty coming to an absolute answer to as what hell really is.

There are indeed many interpretations of hell. From the simple, "Hell is other people" to the complex "Hell is distance from God" to the vindictive "burning Hellfire" of evangelical bent, hell is defined in truly the most variegated sense. But, the implication of hell, nearly universally, is one of deserving punishment for transgressions committed in one or more lifetime.

Quote

Thirdly, does God send the "vast majority of humanity" into hell? What do you base this on? Do you know this for a fact? I for one can't say how many or who will be sent to hell. There's no absolute telling from the bible, we have guidelines but not the whole picture. Only God could know this.

And most importantly, you must show that's there some explicit incoherence between God's goodness and the reality of a hell.

To quote a particularly intelligent remark on the subject, there are at least two religions on this earth that hold that idolaters and the unconverted will go to hell, simply for not worshipping their god. The implication being that everyone will be going to hell. Unless you read it very loosely indeed, the Bible does put out a quite a few dos-and-don'ts that the majority of people pretty much ignore every day of their lives (except Sunday). Then there's the mortal sins (courtesy of the Pope) and a great deal of sect-based regulation that invariably gets disregarded to greater and lesser degrees.

Well, as to the whole goodness dissonance with hell, there's the whole punishing people, by many accounts literally violently, for believing something different than what He has proclaimed (the actual Word having been since DROWNED in history). Let us take a less controversial analogy. A man most people respect, Ghandi. On the road to independence, he met much opposition. However, Ghandi didn't smite his enemies. His cause was just, his morality unassailable, and he won his victories by change of conscience. We use Ghandi as a societal metric for good, so why is the source of Ultimate Good appear to have a place to send his enemies? What about all the Old Testament smiting that went down? Is hell anything more than a prison or a punishment? Is that acceptable as the pinnacle of goodness?

[anakronisM]

@ Adjutant Stormy:

The way i see it there are many different interpretations open for discussion what hell is, that there will be a hell and a heaven is pretty clear taken inductively from the Bible. The way Christians have used the idea of hell as a scare-tactic to make people "saved" is utterly wrong in my opinion. There wouldn't be much of a free choice then. I think there should be more emphasis on the positive side about heaven.
I'm more into the idea that its the relationship with God your missing in hell, and not that you are being physically tortured in eternity.(Not that i think that torture is anywhere justifiable as an interpretation about hell). And this would then be the worst place because God won't be there.

Also there's a doubleness here, there is clear statements that without belief in Jesus Christ as Saviour you won't be saved. So far there's no confusion, this is the guideline we can measure it u, but there are also a couple of verses that states in a sense that everybody will be saved universally in the end. One thing is for sure, from a theological point of view, we can't really be sure to say who is saved or not. Christians can't make claims about other people if there saved or not, if they are going to hell or not. Therefore i'm saying that i'm putting all my hopes in that reality that as many as possible would live for eternity, even though an understanding of the Bible forces me to believe that not everyone will make it.

So theology gives us a few guidelines that we can understand, and also there's no way we can say who are saved or not. There's something more to be measured than our limited understanding as humans. There's the measurement of the heart that only God can see.

As for the Ghandi analogy i think you have a good point there, still Jesus did in essence the same thing only he died for all mankind. And that states that God himself died for the possibility to live with him in eternity.

And another point, Gods judgment in the end of time is a great thing because all the evil there ever was will be judged. There will be justice in the end, I for one see a great comfort in this idea that God will set the record straight with all the evil people and end all the suffering in this world.

Well alot of theological talk there. I understand if there's alot of words and ideas it you've already heard and got tired of. Still i can vouch for a sound theological approach to the Christan faith to be something that you've might not encountered many times before.

This post has been edited by anakronisM: 19 February 2010 - 04:49 PM

[Terez]

anakronisM, on 19 February 2010 - 04:43 PM, said:

The way i see it there are many different interpretations open for discussion what hell is, that there will be a hell and a heaven is pretty clear taken inductively from the Bible. The way Christians have used the idea of hell as a scare-tactic to make people "saved" is utterly wrong in my opinion. There wouldn't be much of a free choice then. I think there should be more emphasis on the positive side about heaven.

You can't really get away from it, though. People are religious because they fear death; you won't change that by emphasizing different propaganda.

[stone monkey]

tbh I find "the sound theological" approach to be as objectionable as any other. It still all pretty much boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong and you'll be going to hell for it..."

I mean, if you don't accept Christ as the son of God and Saviour, most Christians are pretty firm on the idea that you (or, in this case, me ) are going to be suffering for all eternity in whatever hell there may be as a result. And it actually doesn't matter how you've lived your life. And as the vast majority of all the people who've ever lived, whether they were saintly or depraved, did not believe this then they're surely doomed to an eternity of torment. That doesn't strike me as justice of any sort.

Although actually there would appear to be two strands of thought about this in modern Christianity; Catholicism and some of the older forms of Protestantism are firmly in the "do good works" camp, whereas the Evangelical movement seems to be mostly in the "believe and it'll all be fine" camp. From a strictly utilitarian perspective it strikes me that actually attempting to make the world a nicer place for everyone is the way to go. The other way gets you into that truly appalling "Gospel of Prosperity" stuff.

And emphasising the heaven aspect doesn't actually make it any better imo. "Do this because you want to go to heaven, 'cos heaven's ace!" would appear to me as an equally impoverished argument. It's just replacing the stick with a carrot. Choosing to be good to those around you because it's better than not doing so, without basing it on promises of a reward after death seems to me an altogether much more honest way of going about your life.

And as an aside, it's a curious fact that quite a lot of atheists tend to be fairly well informed about religions; quite often more so than their adherents. I, for one, have heard most of the arguments (scriptural, theological, philosophical or whatever) before, but I was educated by Jesuits... It's something of an illusion held by quite a lot of believers, amongst the many they tend to hold about us, that atheists are atheist because they just don't know anything about what the religious believe and why they believe it. In my experience, it's just the opposite; most of the atheists I've ever encountered have thought hard about and researched deeply into religion and have come out of the other side still not believing.

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Well put sm, there is definitely reason to make the snap judgement on atheism. I mean, there are a lot of under-informed trash talking people, and it might seem that the trend would continue into religion (the argument could certainly be made).

[Powder]

Due to repeated scenes, both here and elsewhere, and the literature I have read on the subject I think it is a farce to try to argue/inform/debate people into belief. As such it was never my intention to do so within this thread. My primary purpose was to show that not all Christians are crazy, their beliefs are not nonsensical, nor is every christian a mindless follower. At the end of the day people encounter God or they do not. If you do not it is quite understandable that you would not believe in his existence. Others, like myself, have encounter God and the supernatural and so it is natural for us to believe in it.

There are only two ways that a person who has not yet encountered God can come to faith, IMO, either A. They encounter God in a powerful way, or B. They trust another individual, and accept this other persons experience/conception of God as good enough for them too (Example being Powder says God exists, and that he has experienced God in a very tangible way, Powder is a person I trust, so I trust that when he tells me these things he is not lying/trying to trick me/manipulate me/etc). If one of these two conditions is not met I do not know how anyone could know a God/god(s)/no-god/cheese/science/anything else you can think of, at least in the epistemological sense of knowing something...

The ironic implication: Gem (sorry to mention you but the irony is too good) in another thread is accused of wanting the whole of evolution videotaped and shown to her, or conversely being personally shown evolution happening. Which is of course fulfilling case A above. However, most of the other people in the thread insist that Gem accept their information because it is backed by specialists (in this case scientists in the field), and to take them at their word, in other words to trust them and their sources.

^This is not intended to be incendiary, I am often misinterpreted I am just using this to show that we are all dealing with a similar issue.

-Powder

[Cause]

Powder I believe you are mistaken. The situations are not the same at all. We are not asking Gem to trust us, or Dawkins or any scientist for that matter. We are asking her to look at the data, the metaphorical video tape of evolution she keeps asking for and make a judgement on it. One based on fact, not emotion or bias. The evidence speaks for itself. We are asking her to agree with the evidence based on fact and reason and rational thinking. Or disagree with it based on the same. Anyone who reads Gems criticisms of evolution can see that whether she will admit it or not her personal bias and opinions are effecting her decision.

In the same way I would expect to be converted to religion with proof god exists, the bible is true, written by god etc. or that the religion will improve my life. Not based on stories involving co-incidence. Or with threats and promises of rewards and punishments.

This post has been edited by Cause: 22 February 2010 - 10:31 AM

[stone monkey]

Just a small correction, she was "accused" of wanting that because that's what she said she wanted. The irony there, if any, was that she was asking for the equivalent of a religious, revelatory experience that it's impossible to have in that context. Science doesn't follow the religious paradigm.

Also, whilst I trust Powder when he says that he believes God exists; whether or not God actually exists, absent Powder's own personal belief in him, is another matter altogether. I have access to the same physical world as Powder but I don't have access to his perceptions; I can trust that he perceives God but as I know that even my own perceptions are untrustworthy what I can't do is trust that his perceptions are valid.

As one's relationship with God is allegedly an entirely personal matter, how could anyone reliably trust another's experience/perception of him, except by way of a comparison with one's own experiences or lack thereof?

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 22 February 2010 - 03:42 PM

[Powder]

stone monkey, on 22 February 2010 - 03:32 PM, said:

Just a small correction, she was "accused" of wanting that because that's what she said she wanted. The irony there, if any, was that she was asking for the equivalent of a religious, revelatory experience that it's impossible to have in that context. Science doesn't follow the religious paradigm.

Also, whilst I trust Powder when he says that he believes God exists; whether or not God actually exists, absent Powder's own personal belief in him, is another matter altogether. I have access to the same physical world as Powder but I don't have access to his perceptions; I can trust that he perceives God but as I know that even my own perceptions are untrustworthy what I can't do is trust that his perceptions are valid.

As one's relationship with God is allegedly an entirely personal matter, how could anyone reliably trust another's experience/perception of him, except by way of a comparison with one's own experiences or lack thereof?

It is also what some people in this thread have wanted from me. They have wanted me to give them God or else they will not believe me. SM I really like your posts you can be really insightful! Bringing up perceptions is huge, you do not trust mine and I do not trust yours and so we are both left apart from one another. God is not an entirely personal matter, I was trying to expound on that in my last post. I was more speaking to epistemological concerns, how one knows anything at all. One either experiences it, or trusts another's experience of it. Otherwise you know nothing.

Cause, you are working under the paradigm of Modernity where things like 'objective facts with no bias' exist. I am not. There is no such thing as a purely objective fact. Everyone has biases, everyone has presuppositions scientists included. They may have data, but even that data is biased. Data really means nothing unless you interpret it and how you interpret data is subjective. This is evidenced by the questions one asks in order to get said data in the first place, or what one does with the data when one has it. You cannot escape bias.

Yet your post is most accurate about why NOT to become a believer. All of the reasons you mentioned are in fact awful reasons to become one, and you said as much in a clear and succinct manner. To be frank I came to faith through the good reasons you gave, both through my experience and through the experience of others whom I trust.

-Powder

[Gem Windcaster]

stone monkey, on 22 February 2010 - 03:32 PM, said:

Just a small correction, she was "accused" of wanting that because that's what she said she wanted. The irony there, if any, was that she was asking for the equivalent of a religious, revelatory experience that it's impossible to have in that context. Science doesn't follow the religious paradigm.

Just a small correction: I don't want evolution video taped, neither do I claim I need that to believe in it, what I said was that you would need to video tape in order to prove it. Which is another thing completely. And I wasn't asking for the equivalent of a religious experience as much as comparing evolution to religious belief. I would readily admit I am not the best person to compare them, though. Lastly Science doesn't follow Christian paradigm, but it has it own paradigm, certainly.

Now, please, stop trying to paraphrase me - it's somewhat rude. And please leave me out of this thread.

- Gem, notorious discussion board catalyst.

[stone monkey]

Arguably the scientific paradigm means that you don't have to take another person's word for it. If you're prepared to put the work in, you can access the raw data (as they consist of observation and experiment) and draw your own conclusions which may or may not match another's but at least use a framework that is independant of either of you. Which itself is purposely designed to minimise individual bias.

I would also argue that the religious experience is personal (as God isn't in any way provable, or non-provable for that matter) and therefore would seem to be inherently inaccessible to anyone but the believer themselves because the framework for it is so personal. It has to be because it depends so much on individual faith. The best we can ask for a believer's description of it. Which, as we know, is based on their perceptions. And that gets us back to where we started.

Epistemology is going to be something of a sticky wicket here, I think, because it's entirely possible for one to believe one knows things that are actually wrong. Science is a good case in point here. If he or she is going to be rigorously honest, everyone has to admit that all scientific knowledge is wrong and has to be for the scientific method to work. Conclusions must be tentative. It's more a matter of how wrong it is, which should be testable against the observable universe. So, as time goes on, our knowledge of what we're wrong about gets more and more refined. Personal bias is inevitable, but the system itself puts limits on how much bias there can be. Not the case, I should think with religious belief, where the system (such as there is) magnifies personal bias. After all, everyone does think God agrees with them.

@Gem - I'm going to ignore that because this really isn't the place to be digging out quotes and getting into it.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 22 February 2010 - 09:01 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

DB + Gem => KABOOM

But in all seriousness, Powder, SM's truth argument parallels a major conflict - epistemological in nature. I recall a 10 post battle intervening between Gem and CI on the topic - and it's truly a 'sticky wicket' because philosophical underpinnings are something that can't be argued, they must be agreed upon - at least for argument's sake.

Science uses truth in a fashion that is rather distinct: something is accurate if we're 95% sure of it. It's not capital T True, but lowercase t true. We either agree on one, or the other.

[Advent]

Adjutant Stormy, on 11 February 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

The problem of subjective morality is not that there ceases to be right and wrong. There will always be 'more right' and 'more wrong' in any cognitive system. The thing that makes society function is the fact that the whackjobs (people who, per your stellar example 'split your head in two with an axe and torture your children' by their moral conviction) are largely balanced out by many people who've got subjective morals that appear more sane. When those people murder indiscriminantly - the rest of society protect themselves in the fashion as they view morally right.

That actually *is* what the problem with subjective morality is - morality is reduced to personal preference like different tastes in food.

And for something to be "more right" or "more wrong" there'd have to be an objective standard you're measuring it against. It makes no sense to say someone's morality can be more right or wrong than someone's elses if there's no objective standard you are comparing it with.

[Powder]

I decided to give the situation the benefit of the doubt and hope that it would'nt make a big kaboom.

As to science, yes I could get similar results to someone else if I ask their question. Yet that question, for which you do research is subjective, how you phrase it, where you start looking for data, which data gets removed, how the theory gets reworked, none of these are purely objective. Further still data by itself is useless, unless that data is interpreted it is worthless. Two people can look at a block of wood. They have the same exact data. One goes and carves a statue out of it, decides that the purpose of wood is to make statues. Another looks at the same block of wood, and sets it on fire, this person decides that the purpose of wood is to make fire and keep oneself warm. Are either of them wrong? No. Have they exhausted the possibilities of the data, in this case, block of wood, no. They have each come to a subjective conclusion which is different by looking at the exact same thing-scientists do this too. Pure objectivity is dead.

-Powder

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Advent, on 23 February 2010 - 01:39 AM, said:

Adjutant Stormy, on 11 February 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

The problem of subjective morality is not that there ceases to be right and wrong. There will always be 'more right' and 'more wrong' in any cognitive system. The thing that makes society function is the fact that the whackjobs (people who, per your stellar example 'split your head in two with an axe and torture your children' by their moral conviction) are largely balanced out by many people who've got subjective morals that appear more sane. When those people murder indiscriminantly - the rest of society protect themselves in the fashion as they view morally right.

That actually *is* what the problem with subjective morality is - morality is reduced to personal preference like different tastes in food.

And for something to be "more right" or "more wrong" there'd have to be an objective standard you're measuring it against. It makes no sense to say someone's morality can be more right or wrong than someone's elses if there's no objective standard you are comparing it with.

People's morals aren't inherently more right, or more wrong. Morality is ultimately personal, subjective. Actions can be called 'more right' or 'more wrong' based on a moral system, but the morality itself if impossible to judge in any kind of rigorous fashion.
I said "within any cognitive system." You can define the system how you like, but amongst like-minded individuals (or in the strictest case, for each individual) there are qualitative metaphorical signposts that dictate relative goodness. Let us say that in my morality, actions are defined as either better or worse than eating fried chicken. There is a predictable complication due to the simplicity of the example, but it can still function measurably as a valid moral compass. Now, the average person has many, perhaps hundreds of these signposts on their moral landscape, and if one can find (at least some of) the correlated points on their own moral landscape, then an adequate comparison of morality could be made. Comparison, but not judgement. Moralities are comparable, even reconcilable, but not inherently better than one another.

@Powder
Actually, what these two people have done is generate two data points on the properties of wood. It burns, and it can be made into carvings. They have performed two separate experiments. The questions are both "what does wood do?" their observation is the data, the experiment is the operation on the block of wood, and their conclusion is some combination of burning and sculpture. The real activity of science is reconciling the data into a bigger picture that holds together - like the carvability and flammability of wood, explained by it being made largely of cellulose.
Actually, the problem of question is extremely important to scientific endeavor: some questions cannot be simply answered in a scientific fashion. Purpose cannot be established scientifically, because purpose is a cognitive construct of mankind. It is not a property of the material.

The thing that cannot be made subjective, the one part of the scientific method that cannot be betrayed by the honest human brain is the observation. We make a measurement or observation, or a hundred, or a thousand. We collect them, and we disseminate them. And each time we may interpret them. And each time, save the last, we may be wrong. But we did make the measurements and whatever interpretation comes out the other side had better match them, because that is the only honest part of science. The only objective part of science is the part that does no speaking.

In short, objectivity can be maximized, to scientifically acceptable levels, under repeatable experimental conditions.

[Powder]

You seem to be mostly on the same page as me, though IMO you do not go far enough. Even things that we measure are not truly objective, what we measure, how we measure it, and what we choose not to measure are all subjective. What we choose to continue work on, what we choose not to work on, whose data we include in our research, are all subjective as well. The reason I am going through such pains and push so hard for this is because most people consider all science to be 100% objective. In a sense they say science says it, I believe it, that settles it, kind of fashion. Anyone who has read this thread knows how much this type of attitude drives me up a wall. The following is equally irritating.

Scientist does not believe in God.
Does research in biology with this presupposition.
Finds evidence of progressive changes in birds, apes, and other such things.
Comes up with a theory to explain said changes.
Scientist concludes that there is no God.
Publishes a book on or 8 on it.
People go around shouting form the rooftops that science has disproved God.

Why do people go around shouting it? They do so under the presupposition that science is 110% objective and therefore this must be true. And the kicker of all kickers is that as you say science can do nothing in the way of purpose, but that is what it is used to do every single day. Another point of delicious irony, so science can be wrong up until the last time that it is tested, then scientific facts today are not 100% certain. Say they are 99.99% certain now. What fills up that last .01% of belief? Faith, one must have faith that scientific principals are sound. One must have faith that the scientists are being as objective as possible. One must have faith that they are relaying that information as best as they can.

Also, not all scientists are Atheist by any means. The leader of the human genome project is a believer and if I am not mistaken it was his research that pushed him that way. Newton, Pascal, and others were also believers. Science is not incompatible with religion. Nor does it usher in the end of religion. It is quite possible to be a believer and highly educated.

-Powder

[stone monkey]

Absolutely! There are any number of scientists out there who believe passionately. Which does not serve to make them less (or more) intelligent. Newton btw is a really bad example to use, not only was he living at a time when it was very difficult not to be a believer if you wanted to avoid opprobrium, but also he believed all sorts of things that were quite (and by "quite" I mean "extremely") wrong; his personal theology, like Leibniz's, would be nigh on unrecognisable as having anything in common with standard Christian belief too. From what I can gather, Newton steered very closely to the Arian Heresy...

But (and it's a big "but") a scientist's personal belief has no place in doing actual science. It can serve as an impetus obviously (as in the case of the Pillars of Islam, one of which is for the individual to learn as much as possible about God's creation), but as soon as it starts to influence the work they do, they cease to be doing science. The supernatural is not a postulate when applying the scientific method. It can't be because science is about looking for material causes; once you admit the supernatural, all bets are off. So science can say nothing about the supernatural except to exclude it from particular phenomena that are seen to have natural (i.e. material, in a rather specialised sense of the word) causation.

This is, of course, why the ID guys try to convince neutral observers that they're actually involved in scientific endeavour by carefully not specifying (or rather hilariously not, in at least one case), to their science audience at least, what or who their proposed Intelligent Designer is. The flaw being that if their theoretical "other" designer is not supernatural, you're left with the same problem you started with and you've learned exactly nothing. They are also deliberately quiet on drawing inferences about what can be learned of the nature of their theoretical designer and what constraints they might work under. Which makes the excercise both rather futile and somewhat disingenuous. For their religious audience they're pretty specific about their mission (as evidenced by the "Wedge Document" and the whole "cdesign proponentists" imbroglio) Which makes the excercise more one of obfuscation and completely dishonest at it's core, but there we go...

Of course they haven't actually produced any science, they're more concerned with whinging about the "great conspiracy" of evilutionists; but that's very obviously not what they want to get out of it...

I suspect you're having a go at Dawkins here and, whilst I hate to defend him because he is a bit of an arse on occasion, if you look at the work he did back when he was productive (which, interestingly enough, was not on the various links between animals but more about the survival strategies of individual genes and their effects on the entities that they build) he didn't introduce his personal philosophy into that, he let the work and concepts speak for themselves. Which is how you do science. And this work has been built upon, by people who cover the spectrum of beliefs, and informs the subject (to a lesser or greater extent, depending on who you speak to; everyone disagrees on the details ) to this day. Personally, I far prefer the books of his where he keeps the philosophising down to a minimum and just gets on with the job of explaining the concepts.

Good grief, I'm going edit crazy here...

Anyway, the issue with science it that it works and it goes on working right up to the point that it stops working. There's a quote, which I can't place at the moment, that says that you know you have a mature scientific theory because it actually tells you the conditions in which it doesn't apply (in physics it's usually where you can't get rid of all the infinities that pop up - General Relativity in the strong limit does this...) The process is inherently flawed, but paradoxically this flaw is one of its main strengths; science is prepared to burn its bridges and learn from its mistakes when confronted with the world; it has to be, or you're not doing science. Have a look at the history of physics in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries; they thought they'd got the world pinned down, then all of a sudden Quantum Theory and Relativity come along and change everything at the deepest level possible. It's happened before and I would hope I live long enough to see it happen again; I like the uncertainty.

For a lot of people, that's unconscionable behaviour, because what they want is certainty. Arguably this is the religious urge at play; religions are always right. It's always God at the end of everything and that doesn't and can't change because it's built in from the outset.

This post has been edited by stone monkey: 23 February 2010 - 10:51 PM

[Adjutant Stormy~]

Well put SM, and the central point of my argument on science is that to really be doing science, you record everything, and look at all of the available data, and from there you come to a conclusion that encompasses as much of your observation as possible (the more the better, obviously - and in the ideal case everything).

The way, like I said, you maximize objectivity is under legitimate experimental conditions. And this is where I become hypercritical of science, as befits the scientist. You must have controls, standards of measurement, known error on those standards, well defined experiment scope, publicized aggregate data, rigorous statistical treatments, repeatable precise clear methodology, and a personal (non-anonymous) publication / report for accountability.

And the thing that's annoying you powder, in the scenario outlined, is the jump from step 4 to step 5. And it annoys me too, because that's not science. That's beyond the scope of the experiment. That's like doing research on black holes, gathering mass, orbital period, spectra, and other data, proposing an astrophysical mechanism - and then implying that it means that Bacon is the source of all evil.

And as for the last 0.1%, it's not filled by anything. We accept that there is that likelihood that we're completely wrong. In fact, I find it extremely comforting that our science is without certainty.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 24 February 2010 - 01:49 AM

[Advent]

Adjutant Stormy, on 23 February 2010 - 09:40 AM, said:

Advent, on 23 February 2010 - 01:39 AM, said:

Adjutant Stormy, on 11 February 2010 - 09:16 AM, said:

The problem of subjective morality is not that there ceases to be right and wrong. There will always be 'more right' and 'more wrong' in any cognitive system. The thing that makes society function is the fact that the whackjobs (people who, per your stellar example 'split your head in two with an axe and torture your children' by their moral conviction) are largely balanced out by many people who've got subjective morals that appear more sane. When those people murder indiscriminantly - the rest of society protect themselves in the fashion as they view morally right.

That actually *is* what the problem with subjective morality is - morality is reduced to personal preference like different tastes in food.

And for something to be "more right" or "more wrong" there'd have to be an objective standard you're measuring it against. It makes no sense to say someone's morality can be more right or wrong than someone's elses if there's no objective standard you are comparing it with.

People's morals aren't inherently more right, or more wrong. Morality is ultimately personal, subjective. Actions can be called 'more right' or 'more wrong' based on a moral system, but the morality itself if impossible to judge in any kind of rigorous fashion.
I said "within any cognitive system." You can define the system how you like, but amongst like-minded individuals (or in the strictest case, for each individual) there are qualitative metaphorical signposts that dictate relative goodness. Let us say that in my morality, actions are defined as either better or worse than eating fried chicken. There is a predictable complication due to the simplicity of the example, but it can still function measurably as a valid moral compass. Now, the average person has many, perhaps hundreds of these signposts on their moral landscape, and if one can find (at least some of) the correlated points on their own moral landscape, then an adequate comparison of morality could be made. Comparison, but not judgement. Moralities are comparable, even reconcilable, but not inherently better than one another.

Some moralities are inherently better than others. Would you claim that a culture that as habitually practices female genital mutilation as opposed to a culture that doesn't are on equal moral footing in that respect?

Morality is ultimately personal, yes. Subjective? No, not at all. And, of course, if you are committed to something like "all morality is subjective" then that is self-refuting.

A consequence of your moral system seems to be that we should not "force" our morality onto others, y'know judging them and all. Let me ask - how do you reconcile this moral view with any judicial system?

[Adjutant Stormy~]

I didn't say they weren't comparable, but you'll never convince any genital-mutilators that they're moral code is corrupt. They would likewise think that you're absurd for not doing so. But it's not that I don't agree with you, it's just that I don't have any way to quantify the difference. It's not that it's impossible, but it is unfeasible in the highest degree.

And on judicial systems, the guiding principle on most of them is a largely mutually subscribed-to code of behavior. By vote into law, it's at least in theory minimizing the "forcing" of people into morality.

This post has been edited by Adjutant Stormy: 24 February 2010 - 03:26 AM