Animals Doing What Animals Do...

[Darth Executor]

The dictionary assumes humans (sentient beings) are the agents. I thought that was obvious. Moral conduct has to do with how humans treat one another. I'm not sure if you are just being pedantic for the fun of it, or if you really don't understand this.

I'm not being pedantic, you're being dishonest. Humans being the agents =/= it concerns the well being of sentient beings.

[Paprika]

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. "Do not harm" is such an objective standard.

I agree. So is reciprocity. As a moral principle, reciprocity 'works' whether one believes it or not.

So reciprocity of harm 'works' too?

[pancreasman]

So reciprocity of harm 'works' too?

No. In terms of greatest good to the greatest number.

[Paprika]

No. In terms of greatest good to the greatest number.

Ah, so you add a utilitarian modifier.

Oh, and by the way, since you've found it in yourself to continue posting here, mind answering my earlier question?

[pancreasman]

Ah, so you add a utilitarian modifier.

Oh, and by the way, since you've found it in yourself to continue posting here, mind answering my earlier question?

I forget what it was and I can't be bothered looking. If it's important like continuing debates on the legitimacy of various moral philosophies I'm sure it will come up again.

Whoops, that sounds a little rude. Explanation:I'm lying on my bed with my tablet and im tired and very hot. Heat wave.

[Paprika]

I forget what it was and I can't be bothered looking.

I doubt whether any thread started by Seer can ever lead to anything good. I shouldn't have said anything at all. My mistake.

Perhaps you should learn self-control.

[pancreasman]

Perhaps you should learn self-control.

You're probably right.

[seer]

And what if there was a God but no afterlife?

But there isn't.

[seer]

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. "Do not harm" is such an objective standard.

No, by definition is it an opinion, a subjective opinion. "Do no harm" is a subjective moral goal. Some men, even a significant number through out history, have a different ethical goal - one that harms men for personal power and wealth. I could claim that their standard is just as objective as yours - as the saying goes - "He with the most gold rules." So now we have two "objective" ethical goals - so which one is correct? The point is Enjolras, if I follow your reasoning I could invent any ethical system and call it objective.

[Kelp(p)]

No, by definition is it an opinion, a subjective opinion. "Do no harm" is a subjective moral goal. Some men, even a significant number through out history, have a different ethical goal - one that harms men for personal power and wealth. I could claim that their standard is just as objective as yours - as the saying goes - "He with the most gold rules." So now we have two "objective" ethical goals - so which one is correct? The point is Enjolras, if I follow your reasoning I could invent any ethical system and call it objective.

The reason do no harm works and "it's ok to kill whoever you feel like" doesn't is because somebody will come after you the moment you let your guard down or show signs of weakness. Who wants to live their life that way? Pol Pot, Saddam, Richard Ramirez, think about the way their lives ended. Were these really happy people, regardless of whatever lies they might have told themselves?

[Kelp(p)]

But there isn't.

Not the point. My point is that your morality is just as based on happiness as secular morality is. When you start to sound like you care more about living forever than you do about serving God, you're proving my point.

[Enjolras]

No, by definition is it an opinion, a subjective opinion. "Do no harm" is a subjective moral goal. Some men, even a significant number through out history, have a different ethical goal - one that harms men for personal power and wealth. I could claim that their standard is just as objective as yours - as the saying goes - "He with the most gold rules." So now we have two "objective" ethical goals - so which one is correct? The point is Enjolras, if I follow your reasoning I could invent any ethical system and call it objective.

As long as any system you invent says that "something is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so," you are correct, that would be an objective system. "Follow the teachings of Jesus" is also objective, as is "obey the dictates of sharia law," or "treat everyone with cruelty," or "give everyone you meet a donut," for that matter. They are objective because they say "something is good or evil independently of whether anybody believes it to be so." On the other hand, "Do whatever feels good to you" or "always look out for your own self-interest" are subjective systems of morality because they do not regard evil or goodness independently of the subject. All I am doing at this point is clarifying the difference between objective and subjective. To say something is objective is not to say it is correct. It just means it is independent of the subject.

[The Pixie]

But there isn't.

Right.

God has said there is. And we know God never lies because God has told us he never lies. Even though it would be perfectly good if he did lie.

[seer]

Not the point. My point is that your morality is just as based on happiness as secular morality is. When you start to sound like you care more about living forever than you do about serving God, you're proving my point.

Yes, I want to spend eternity with my Lord and friends and loved ones who have passed. Is that a bad thing?

[whag]

Yes, I want to spend eternity with my Lord and friends and loved ones who have passed. Is that a bad thing?

What if they're not there?