All Activity

A nondualist might say morality is an illusion. The subject is the object, the observer is the observed. Action is motivated by the compassion arising from the awareness that what I do to another I do to myself. Which brings us back to a standard that may be the only universal one: does this action promote well being or suffering? Before learning religion, philosophy or social constructs, what was the basis for right action?

Using harm-benefit as an objective standard against which we can measure an action and determine whether that action is "good" or "evil" does NOT result in universal results, because we are human and each of us will value different things as part of our overall calculation. On the after life thread, the question was raised about euthanasia and abortion. Euthanasia causes a very serious harm: death. It also causes a very serious benefit: it prevents later suffering. So is it right or wrong? Well, who's making the decision? I would contend, and I'm sure many would agree, that the person doing the dying gets the determining vote. But you want that vote to be based on fact, not just speculation. I'm 55. My best years are behind me. So, what, I kill myself now? If I were to think that way in the absence of a medical diagnosis foreshadowing pain and suffering, you would probably want me to reconsider. I have a family to care for. Hm, the insurance money would come in handy, TBH. But my presence would be much more valuable than money. Lots to weigh. If I decided to take my life anyway, you would probably judge me to have been morally wrong to do so. But if my sister, whose final months of ALS were painful to watch, decided to ask for a medically assisted suicide, how could anyone deny her that right? Abortion. I can think of a million reasons abortion would be morally acceptable. All involve terminating the life of a baby. In some cases the baby would have died anyway, or lived a short and painful life. I can't imagine interfering. But where do I draw the line? And why do I get to draw it? A pro-lifer draws the line elsewhere. And one need not be religious to be a pro-lifer. If you value the life of the fetus/unborn child over the mother carrying it, you will say abortion is always wrong. If you say the mother has the right to decide whether she is willing to puther body through pregnancy, you will be pro-choice. Honest people will disagree. And we will spend the rest of humanity struggling with this question. Because I cannot be forced to surrender my bodily autonomy to save someone else's life. Is it different if that someone is a baby in your uterus? I'm not raising this to invite a political discussion but to demonstrate that there are limits to our capacity to reach agreement.

CNN?

Honestly, I don't know how anyone can not know that Biblically, adultery is wrong. Lots of OT stuff about this. And plenty in the NT also. In God's eyes, he clearly states many times: one man, one wife (at a time). The twain, the married couple, are to be ONE FLESH - not one flesh with multiple segments (other women). There were some special provisions (eg, a man was required to marry his childless brother's widow and to raise a son in his brother's name); it's unclear what happened if the surviving brother was already married. All it takes is simple reading of one's Bible, folks. Amazed that JS had to do a whole study paper- which is good, but could be better, by the way.

Maybe I should not have split the threads. But I honestly thought "what happens after we die" was a different enough question that it deserved its own thread. So, we clearly agree that there is no post-life punishment for euthanasia (nor is there a post-life reward for sticking out the suffering). Not long ago I learned an actor friend of mine took his life in a "no way am I going to suffer the way my disease prescribes" manner. The thought is terrifying to me, precisely because I don't believe ending this life ushers us into the next. I think it was Ricky Gervais who said "People think atheists have nothing to live for. They have it backwards. Atheists have nothing to DIE for. We have everything to live for." Because this is our one shot at life, so make it flipping count! If you're looking at those issues from THIS side of the final curtain, the question of whether these acts are moral becomes a little murkier. But as far as post-death accounting: there is none. We agree on that.

Thanks

When I was in TWI and prayed for someone to be healed, it never happened. I never saw a miracle result from anyone praying for healing.

g

One more word and you'd have had it, George.

"Slippin' and a sliding and playing domino Lefting and then righting, it's not a crime you know You gotta tell your story boy before it's time to go I was talkin' to the preacher, said, "God was on my side" Then I ran into the hangman, he said, "It's time to die" You gotta tell your story boy you know the reason why

It had nothing to do with flatscreens nor digital TV.

Flat-screen TVs came out in the late '90s, and digital TV was around 2007. I suspect that Raf's "22 minutes" is a clue, but I'm not getting it. Raf's a newsman, so maybe it has something to do with cable news. George

I submit that would be an oxymoron. The standard is objective. The value you place on it is subjective. A person is 6 ft tall. That is objective. If you're a horse jockey that person is too tall. That is a value. If you're a basketball player that person is too short. That is a value. Same six feet. But for one group he's too tall, and for the other group he's too short. Same six feet.

Would it be fair to say ""The objective standard for morality is, in and of itself, subjective." ?

This is not what I am trying to say. Thank you for giving me the chance to clarify. I am choosing my words and their order very carefully: To the Christian, Christianity (the Bible, God's Word) is the standard for objective moral values. To the Jew, I could make a similar comment but it would be presumptuous, so I am only doing so for the sake of argument: Judaism is the standard for objective moral values. To the Muslim, Islam, the Quran, is the standard for objective moral values. This atheist (we don't all agree) rejects the premise of "objective moral values" as an oxymoron. Moral values are subjective by definition, which is why you can't get two societies to agree on abortion, the death penalty, gay rights, etc I believe, "oversimply," that an analysis of harm:benefit forms an objective standard for moral values. Note the placement of "objective," because it is crucial: the STANDARD can be objective even though the values themselves are not. Actions are not good or evil until they are deemed to be good or evil by someone committing, affected by, observing or merely hypothesizing the action. "Thou shalt not kill." Therefore, all soldiers are evil. No, it's thou shalt not murder. Oh that's different. No it's not. It's the same act. The only difference is, you ran the latter act through a subjective filter because you recognize that not all killing is the same. Blah blah blah. Atheists do not believe our morality is objective. We believe all morality is subjective. We also believe that the (oversimplified) harm-benefit analysis standard produces subjectively superior results compared to the standard of scripture, Jewish, Christian or Muslim. Which is not to say the scriptures contain no good. There's lots of good. Some great! There's just some not-so-good, too. Harm-benefit can duplicate the good but it cannot duplicate the bad unless it is ignored.

Lemme know if I am saying this correct: To the Christian, Christianity is objective To the Jew, Judaism is objective To the Atheist, Atheism is objective But to everyone collectively, universally; there is no objective moral truth...

What happens when you die v. Are these actions right or wrong. Very different questions, and neither answer depends on the other.

Did that adequately answer your question? We would you care to post a rebuttal?

Sorry I don’t get the difference. My bad.

I don't mean to be snide, but it's not universal until everyone agrees, and I don't think we can get EVERYONE to agree on ANYTHING. So we can get widespread agreement on, say, "murder is wrong." But rape? No, humanity grew into that one. For a long time, women were considered property, and so the rules against rape reflected the belief it was a crime against the property owner: her husband or father. I think we would be hard pressed to find anyone who believes Jennifer Love Hewitt is less attractive than Sandra Bernhard. But that doesn't make her OBJECTIVELY more beautiful because no matter how you slice it, beauty is a matter of taste, opinion. I'm saying morality is like that: even if one were to find a universally accepted moral tenet, that would not make it objective.

Objective

Define universal

Oh! Well, shoot! Saw an ad last night during the CWS. It used the same language as WW's description. Apologies. Carry on.

So then, if I'm understanding you correctly, you are saying that there's no such thing as universal moral values?

According to Wikipedia, ESPN launched in 1979. George