Is creating false guilt for profit by religions a good moral tenet?

[thedoc]

I think the disagreement comes with "objective." Maybe if we go with "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," things will make more sense. I'd posit that the wrongness of genocide (for example) is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," ergo objective.

If the Ferengy shielded their planet and sent it to destroy the earth, you would likely applaud the Klingons for genociding the Ferengy ass and destroying their planet to save ours.

Genocide, in that case is good and that is why morals are subjective and not objective.

Regards
DL

How is destroying one society in order to save another, in any sense "good"? Who is to decide that human society is more worthy to survive than the Ferengy society? I agree that it is the perspective of each society that determines what is good for that society, but overall there is no good or bad in morality.

[Greatest I am]

If the Ferengy shielded their planet and sent it to destroy the earth, you would likely applaud the Klingons for genociding the Ferengy ass and destroying their planet to save ours.

This is an excellent example of being "influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts." That is, subjective. The very reason I would "likely applaud" the Klingons is that they prevented my genocide by causing that of another. Very much subjective.

Genocide, in that case is good and that is why morals are subjective and not objective.

Surely you can come up with a better rebuttal to my claim than an appeal to Star Trek. Are you telling me the only people you can think of who could commit genocide in a manner of which you would approve are... fictional? If that's the best you've got, you might as well concede.

I could have used jihadists and Americans and how it would look to the victims of the jihadists.

You can think I need to concede but you are pre-mature. Let your head shrink to normal size.

Regards
DL

[Greatest I am]

I think the disagreement comes with "objective." Maybe if we go with "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," things will make more sense. I'd posit that the wrongness of genocide (for example) is "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts," ergo objective.

If the Ferengy shielded their planet and sent it to destroy the earth, you would likely applaud the Klingons for genociding the Ferengy ass and destroying their planet to save ours.

Genocide, in that case is good and that is why morals are subjective and not objective.

Regards
DL

How is destroying one society in order to save another, in any sense "good"? Who is to decide that human society is more worthy to survive than the Ferengy society? I agree that it is the perspective of each society that determines what is good for that society, but overall there is no good or bad in morality.

Is the U.S. killing jihadists seen by their victims or potential victims as good or evil?

Note how there is good in genocide when well directed.

Regards
DL

[thedoc]

How is destroying one society in order to save another, in any sense "good"? Who is to decide that human society is more worthy to survive than the Ferengy society? I agree that it is the perspective of each society that determines what is good for that society, but overall there is no good or bad in morality.

Is the U.S. killing jihadists seen by their victims or potential victims as good or evil?

Note how there is good in genocide when well directed.

Regards
DL

I would say that the Jihadists are only a portion of any particular society and destroying them would not really qualify as genocide if we leave the bulk of that society in place. However destroying a whole society to eliminate a small portion of it, would qualify as genocide.

[Greatest I am]

Let us hope we are bright enough to end all religious beliefs to rid ourselves of the minority who go to evil.

That genocide of ideas I would vote for.

Better to convert fools to intelligent thinking than kill them though.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

I could have used jihadists and Americans and how it would look to the victims of the jihadists.

No, because that is not genocide. Even if it were, our stated goal is not kill all jihadists, because we understand that's immoral (even if it's what we end up doing). You are confusing ends with means.

You can think I need to concede but you are pre-mature.

No, my point stands: if all you have are fictional characters, you're in bad shape. That you shifted to jihadists shows you agree (at least implicitly).

-----
To add more to the debate, if there are no objective truths, then the unjustified killing of another is wrong only if a society determines it to be so. As such, there would be nothing objectively wrong with a group that managed to pass a law legalizing murder, according to your position? You would then support that move because it's now what that society holds to be right?

As a practical example, you support the oppression of women in Saudi Arabia as right because that's what they've decided as a society? After all, if there are no objective moral truths, you certainly can't condemn it. It must be hard not to believe in human rights.

Remember, if there are no objectives moral truths, then you cannot claim to be right to oppose murder. The best you might be able to do would be to express a preference in the matter. But something tells me that, when it comes to you and those you love, you would absolutely find the passing of pro-murder legislation to still be wrong if it were your society. And in that moment, what would you be appealing to other than a sense of objective rights and wrongs? I don't think you fully understand the implications of an absence of objective moral truths.

tl;dr: On your position, the Nazis were right to try and exterminate the Jews. After all, it was what their society held to be proper moral behavior.

[ReliStuPhD]

Better to convert fools to intelligent thinking than kill them though.

Not if there are no objective moral truths. Killing them is just as good as converting them. Might even be "better" since it's quicker.

[ReliStuPhD]

Another implication of your position: Germans who opposed the Holocaust were, by definition, sociopaths.

[Greatest I am]

Way too much here for me to correct.
You have filled my mouth with way too many of your words.

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

You have filled my mouth with way too many of your words.

No, what I've done is explore the necessary implications of your position. I certainly don't believe that you think Germans who opposed the Holocaust were sociopaths. I also don't think you would support murder if laws were passed legalizing it. But that's because I believe, despite what you suggest above, that you do hold to objective moral truths. For example, I believe you would hold that an unjustified killing (murder) is never OK. I also think you would fight tooth and nail to prevent genocide. That is to say, I think you're a good person, but I think you're that way because there is objective good.

The problem with subjective morality is that, if true, there are no grounds for holding that x or y are right or wrong other than just how one happens to feel. If our moral sensibilities are not grounded in objective reality (e.g. it is never right to commit genocide or take a life for no justifiable reason) then the necessary implications are that you must agree that genocide and murder are good if a society decides they are. On the other hand, objective morality is what allows us to try Hermann Göring at Nuremburg and hang him for crimes against humanity.

So, just to be clear, I am not saying that you believe the things I posited in the posts above, but rather that if you double down on the point that morality is not objective, they are the logical implications of such a position. So in all of this, please don't take me to be saying you're a bad person. I just don't see that your position allows for what I imagine are the strong types of moral stands you (and I) want to take.

PS It occurred to me the other night that I've made one serious mistake that could be why we appear to disagree, so let me correct it now. I am not holding that I know, with absolute certainty, what all of the objective moral truths are. I'm also not holding that all of the moral truths I hold to be objective are necessarily so. I could certainly be mistaken. Perhaps genocide is right at some points. I don't think so, but but I'm willing to be shown I'm wrong. That would not, however, undermine my primary contention that there are objective moral truths. All it would do is undermine that I was right about X or y being an example thereof.

[Greatest I am]

We need to consider the terms we are using.
You think though shalt not murder to be an objective moral position.

Is this murder or suicide?

Is suicide murder of ones self?

Is it justifiable?

If you know the story, the last few minutes is all you need for a reminder.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1VBLYRki74

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

We need to consider the terms we are using.
You think though shalt not murder to be an objective moral position.

No, I think "murder is wrong" is an objective moral position.* I'm not concerned to tie this to religious principles. (And technically it's "Thou shalt not kill." An important distinction.)

Is this murder or suicide?

I used the word murder because I was talking about murder, not suicide. They're not synonymous:
Murder: "the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another."
Suicide: "the action of killing oneself intentionally."

Is suicide murder of ones self?

As we can see from the definitions above, suicide is, by definition, not murder, so no.

*If we're being technical, based on the definition of murder I would back off this "murder is wrong" as an objective moral truth and refer instead to "unjustified killing is wrong." After all, laws are based on societal norms and may not conform to objective moral truths (e.g. Nazi Germany). Still, "murder" is not always used in the strictly legal sense, so there's room to wiggle I guess.

[Greatest I am]

Was that clip depicting a murder or a suicide?

Regards
DL

[ReliStuPhD]

Was that clip depicting a murder or a suicide?

I've provided the definitions, so you should be able to answer that. Does Gloria shoot herself? No. I'll leave the rest to you.

Now, let's drop the red herring of suicide you've introduced and get back to the actual point of morality. If you want to make the case that Robert is justified in killing Gloria, fine. It's a weak case, but it would still not undermine the contention that unjustified killing* is wrong. In offering justification for his act, you would be maintaining that it was not unjustified, so not an objection to my point.

Also, to return to a previous point, if you're getting your morality from movies and fictional Star Trek episodes, you're doing a great deal to undermine yourself.


*nb I've shifted from "murder" since it's a legal definition and I'm after morality not legality (though one hopes they correspond). I don't think the shift is unfair, but if it is, I'm happy to assent to the proposition that murder is not objectively immoral. That leaves 6 others for you to wrestle with.

[Greatest I am]

I call it assisted suicide and he would go free.

He would not conform to mens rea and I think a court wold let him walk.

They should see it as a mercy killing. Hardly a red hearing.

"but it would still not undermine the contention that unjustified killing* is wrong. " Perhaps, but all I wanted to show that that killing or murder was still subjective and not objective.

As to where I get my morals, from many sources and media like Star Trek have a decent way of simplifying the message.

---------------------------
" I think "murder is wrong" is an objective moral position"

Are right and wrong not subjective judgements?

----------------------------

I have been a busy boy but what other 6 points are you talking about?

List them again please as I am beat and may not get back till tomorrow.

Apologies for the request but you are quite the intense type of guy and likely have them at you fingertips.

Regards
DL