Is morality objective or subjective?

[Gary Childress]

It reminds me of a "We Believe" poem penned some years ago by a journalist:

We believe in Marx, Freud, and Darwin.

We believe everything is OK as long as you don’t hurt anyone to the best of your definition of hurt, and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.

We believe in the therapy of sin.

We believe that adultery is fun.

We believe that sodomy’s OK.

We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything’s getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.

The evidence must be investigated. And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there’s something in horoscopes
UFO’s and bent spoons.

Jesus was a good man just like Buddha,
Mohammed, and ourselves.

He was a good moral teacher though we think
His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same-
at least the one that we read was. They all believe in love and goodness. They only differ on matters of creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing.
Because when you ask the dead what happens
they say nothing. If death is not the end, if the dead have lied, then its compulsory heaven for all excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Kahn.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What’s selected is average.
What’s average is normal.
What’s normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed. Americans should beat their guns into tractors. And the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good. It’s only his behavior that lets him down.

This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that
is right for him. Reality will adapt accordingly. The universe will readjust. History will alter.

We believe that there is no absolute truth excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds and the flowering of individual thought. If chance be the Father of all flesh, disaster is his rainbow in the sky and when you hear

State of Emergency!

Sniper Kills Ten!

Troops on Rampage!

Whites go Looting!

Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshipping his maker.

Seriously! You consider this shit poetry?

Not really.

But I do consider it a rather scathing and accurate indictment of the regnant prejudices of our age...which is what I cited it for.

Our age doesn't seem remarkably different from any other I've read of, except now people can fly across the Atlantic ocean (among others) instead of using a boat.

As far as I'm aware there's no time in past history that anyone had things substantially more right than we do now. History is full of mistakes and that probably won't change anytime soon for sake of future generations not being able to go back and talk about how misguided we were about something.

[Immanuel Can]

But let's accept that. Then what would it take to move you from agnosticism to belief?

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would move me from agnosticism to affirmative belief in a sentient creator of everything.

Right. Fair enough.

But then, you've really got no justification at all to complain that you haven't found God. You've already made it impossible.

[Immanuel Can]

...I do consider it a rather scathing and accurate indictment of the regnant prejudices of our age...which is what I cited it for.

Our age doesn't seem remarkably different from any other I've read of, except now people can fly across the Atlantic ocean (among others) instead of using a boat.

You should read some more modern history, then, I'd suggest. As recently as the middle of the last century, most people in the modern West still believed in God, went to church or synagogue, believed in basic morals in common...the "Judeo-Christian" consensus, as they used to call it. It used to be the basic requirement of being a sort of respectable, law-abiding citizen.

That's not entirely how it is now, though the waning vestiges of that world are still with us. Increasingly, we're committed to the extreme alternatives: on the one hand, complete, irrational, amoral profligacy, and on the other, increasingly totalitarian coping mechanisms.

[Gary Childress]

But let's accept that. Then what would it take to move you from agnosticism to belief?

I can't think of anything off the top of my head that would move me from agnosticism to affirmative belief in a sentient creator of everything.

Right. Fair enough.

But then, you've really got no justification at all to complain that you haven't found God. You've already made it impossible.

If God is out there, then s/he'll have to come up with some special way to prove it. I can't think of what it would be, but if s/he's God, maybe s/he can figure something out. As it stands now. I'm not entirely sure why the creator of the universe would be particularly concerned whether I believe it exists or not. If it's for no other reason than to receive my praise and adoration, then sure, I'll tell it whatever it wants to hear if the penalty for not doing so is some form of horrendous torture or something.

[Gary Childress]

...I do consider it a rather scathing and accurate indictment of the regnant prejudices of our age...which is what I cited it for.

Our age doesn't seem remarkably different from any other I've read of, except now people can fly across the Atlantic ocean (among others) instead of using a boat.

You should read some more modern history, then, I'd suggest. As recently as the middle of the last century, most people in the modern West still believed in God, went to church or synagogue, believed in basic morals in common...the "Judeo-Christian" consensus, as they used to call it. It used to be the basic requirement of being a sort of respectable, law-abiding citizen.

Yes, and there were "witch trials", wars, injustices, and corruption back then too. History seems little more than an endless series of corrections and refinements trying to do things better because the previous ways all showed themselves to be flawed in various respects. Germany went through romanticism (idealizing the past), it reached pretty high intensity around Hilter's time. Therefore, I don't see much reason to believe that idealizing the past is necessarily going to bring about some kind of utopia. Human beings are perpetually trying to improve the world because the world has always left plenty of room for improvement as far as human needs and desires are concerned.

[Harbal]

But I do consider it a rather scathing and accurate indictment of the regnant prejudices of our age...which is what I cited it for.

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.

Absolutely scathing.

[Immanuel Can]

If God is out there, then s/he'll have to come up with some special way to prove it. I can't think of what it would be, but if s/he's God, maybe s/he can figure something out.

How about something really, really spectacular...like Incarnation?

[Immanuel Can]

Our age doesn't seem remarkably different from any other I've read of, except now people can fly across the Atlantic ocean (among others) instead of using a boat.

You should read some more modern history, then, I'd suggest. As recently as the middle of the last century, most people in the modern West still believed in God, went to church or synagogue, believed in basic morals in common...the "Judeo-Christian" consensus, as they used to call it. It used to be the basic requirement of being a sort of respectable, law-abiding citizen.

Yes, and there were "witch trials",

In the 1950s?

wars,

Vietnam, Korea, Cuba WW1 and 2, the Cold War, the Russian Revolution, Cambodia, Angola..? All obviously secular conflicts. Apparently the human propensity for war is not related to religiosity.

Germany went through romanticism (idealizing the past), it reached pretty high intensity around Hilter's time.

Romanticism, meaning the official artistic movement, was long over before then. That was the era of things like Abstract Expressionism and Dada, actually.

[Immanuel Can]

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.

Absolutely scathing.

And just how well has the sexual revolution worked out? And how is the state of the family today, as a result?

[Harbal]

We believe in sex before, during, and
after marriage.

Absolutely scathing.

And just how well has the sexual revolution worked out? And how is the state of the family today, as a result?

What have those things got to do with each other, and who are we to tut, tut at what consenting adults get up to?

[Immanuel Can]

Absolutely scathing.

And just how well has the sexual revolution worked out? And how is the state of the family today, as a result?

What have those things got to do with each other, and who are we to tut, tut at what consenting adults get up to?

Nobody's "tutting." That would be a waste of time, since people will be profligate if they wish to be profligate. I'm just observing the consequent social and familial disaster, and commenting on it. You can observe it for yourself.

[Harbal]

And just how well has the sexual revolution worked out? And how is the state of the family today, as a result?

What have those things got to do with each other, and who are we to tut, tut at what consenting adults get up to?

Nobody's "tutting." That would be a waste of time

Well if you were not condemning it by applauding the "scathing" reference to it in that thing you described as a poem, then I don't understand what you were getting at.

since people will be profligate if they wish to be profligate.

What is profligate about sex?

I'm just observing the consequent social and familial disaster, and commenting on it. You can observe it for yourself.

But you haven't explained why you blame sex for what you perceive as a social disaster.

[Immanuel Can]

What have those things got to do with each other, and who are we to tut, tut at what consenting adults get up to?

Nobody's "tutting." That would be a waste of time

Well if you were not condemning it by applauding the "scathing" reference to it in that thing you described as a poem, then I don't understand what you were getting at.

Condemning is a good deal more than "tutting." "Tutting" is what you do when your dog soils the carpet.

since people will be profligate if they wish to be profligate.

What is profligate about sex?

About sex? Not necessarily anything. It depends on with whom, when, and under what circumstances, of course. Are you married?

The sexual revolution wasn't about "more marriages."

[Harbal]

What is profligate about sex?

About sex? Not necessarily anything. It depends on with whom, when, and under what circumstances, of course. Are you married?

I used to be.

The sexual revolution wasn't about "more marriages."

What are you getting at?

[Immanuel Can]

The sexual revolution wasn't about "more marriages."

What are you getting at?

That it was never about love. It was certainly never about commitment. It also turns out it wasn't about children. It wasn't about a new society. Or personal health. Or new freedom for women. Or about most of the things it was promoted as being about.