Most religions have a set of morals they follow and laws. The funny thing out of all of them is that even the religions that claim to be revealed by God follow the two fundamental laws(for the most part) I've talked about constantly.
In Islam it is ok to hit your wife...well according to the two fundamental laws it is not. Christianity says the same thing about subduing your wife...against the two fundamental laws. The idea that morals are subjective, that you can make them up and that there are no universal morals. That would be wrong, all our morals are based off the two fundamental laws 1) Do all that you have agreed to do and 2) Do not encroach on other people or their property: All morals follow those two laws.
How cool is that? Most religions, philosophies and cultures follow those two fundamental laws. So how do you know what is truly moral? Ask yourself is what I am doing going against or following the two fundamental laws.
Id give a slightly different two laws, myself.
1) Do no harm to others
2) Live your life as you chose
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I am using what is defined in Natural Law (Higher Law for religious people). It follows that there is natural order to the universe and that there are certain laws that the universe follows. Common Law was used to discover the natural laws and orders but since common law has been replaced by static law that says that whoever has the power makes the laws; thus we have found no more natural laws because no one is trying to discover them.
You can't say all philosophies, because socialism certainly doesn't follow number 2.
--Mike
Check out the ProgU News Feed:
http://www.progressiveu.org/news
Keep an eye out for the new FAQ and Topic of the Week, coming this fall!
Yeah, I need to fix that. alright, most philosopies.
Would you please define for us the meanings you ascribe to the words "objective" and "subjective?"
Based on the usual meanings of those terms, I don't think your claim is accurate.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
I mean that as much as we say that we can choose our morals, that is true, but our morals are based off of natural order and law. All our morals are based on natural law and order that are objective. help or not?
Also how is my claim no accurate? Just wondering, helps me to evolve my ideas.
objective - "of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind."
subjective - "characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind."
At the most basic level, a "moral" is a judgement in the mind of an observer about the ethical appropriateness of an action. The action being judged is an objective event, but the judgement as to whether that event is "right" or "wrong" is a purely mental exercise...a secondary reaction to the actual event.
I'm also a bit confused by your use of the term "natural law." There are actually two kinds of "natural law" in philosophy, a "natural law moral theory" and a "natural law theory of law." (LINK). The concept of "objective morals" as an element of natural law refers to the idea that certian characteristics are inherent in humans, a concept that was expressed by Thomas Aquinas when he wrote, "the rule and measure of human acts is the reason, which is the first principle of human acts." However, even this definition relies again on the quality of human reason, which is of course something that happens purely in the mind.
It seems to me that in order for a "moral" to be considered objective, you would have to be able to demonstrate its existence outside of the human ability to consider and then choose the appropriateness of an action based on circumstance.
percivale
-------------------------
"cdesign proponentsists" - (LINK)
How in the hell am I getting such a low score? What is wrong with what I wrote?
I gave you a five. I was the second vote. The first was a two.....
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
And someone else gave me a 1 so, geez, guess my spelling and grammar is awful, lol.
I think it's partly because your blog is a little difficult to understand... even percivale had to ask for clarification.
~C
Read the news
Nominate a featured blogger!
It's hard on the subjective and objective parts, but that only...because the subjective and objective parts depends entirely on your definition of subjective and objective and even I never thought of what definition I was using.