Is it possible to derive an objective standard of morality from completely secular bases?

Ficino

Ad Honorem
Apr 2012
6,646
Romania
#21
This does not help as "good" and "evil" are likewise subjective .... as for the reference to God since he is supposed to be the origin of everything then he is also the origin of evil per definition....
Yes ... to regard happiness as good and misery as bad is very subjective...
 
Likes: Fox
Jan 2015
5,176
Ontario, Canada
#23
so you think that a society that agrees on killing homosexuals because of homosexuality are in no way worse than a society that allows them to live with dignity like any other citizens?
That isn't an objective moral standard, that is just an appeal to consequences. But it isn't done correctly, because there would be no consequences for the people doing the killing in that scenario.

In the grand scheme of things the society hasn't been affected in any significant way.
 
Last edited:

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,833
Korea
#24
Obviously I gave a simplified answer to keep it short
Acknowledged.

This said, the "no kill " rules tend to converge once there is interaction between different societies...
To some extent, this is true -- though we should be clear about the limited extent to which its the case, as is evinced by the fact that even individual states in the United States of America having strongly differing attitudes on the topic, with some having had the death penalty abolished for years, and others still actively pursuing it; with some wanting to moderately restrict the right to engage in violence in certain situations, and others aggressively pushing notions like "Stand Your Ground" laws -- but that probably has more to do with cultural convergence over time than any sort of "objective" underlying moral principle. After all, you see notions like pro-migration sentiment, pro-abortion sentiment, "LGBT rights" sentiment, and so forth spreading and converging in many countries these days as well. Would you consider those to be "objective" moral principles? Or would you simply consider them to be the current cultural trend? We should be cautious about treating moral truth as a "democracy"; the fact that many cultures might, at any particular moment, be trending in a certain direction regarding a certain topic, does not necessarily imply any sort of underlying "objective" moral truth at work.
 

Fox

Ad Honorem
Oct 2011
3,833
Korea
#25
Yes ... to regard happiness as good and misery as bad is very subjective...
This seems extremely correct to me. Indeed, to the extent that there are a number of ostensible dysfunctions in modern society, at least some of them seem to trace back to the fundamental error of "emotionalizing" morality, deeming something "wrong" simply because it causes some measure of misery or displeasure in the moment, or perhaps worse, deeming some course of action "right" or even "morally necessary" because it seems to promote happiness or reduce misery in the moment.
 
Apr 2018
1,312
Mythical land.
#26
That isn't an objective moral standard, that is just an appeal to consequences. But it isn't done correctly, because there would be no consequences for the people doing the killing in that scenario.

In the grand scheme of things the society hasn't been affected in any significant way.
In grand scheme of things nothing we do ever matters,nothing humans do currently has any ramifications on cosmic scale.
My question was limited though.

I am asking you question that do you criticize any society to be homophobic(like islamic,asian,etc)societies in general or its moral because society has done it?
i mean you can't criticize any genocide by majority to the minority by this standard,its just what society decides.

and my morals aren't based on what society decides,its based on human well being,consequentialism and empathy.
after these 3 basic things i can get objective standards.
Although the basics in themselves are arbitary and subjective.
but i have reasons to justify why these 3 can serve a better moral guide than pretty much any moral system on earth.
 
Jan 2015
5,176
Ontario, Canada
#27
Sure fair enough. But that is not an objective moral standard, it is a subjective moral standard which you have decided for yourself.

Genocide could actually be detrimental if the society destroys itself in the process. But in a scenario in which the society suffers no penalty then they have no reasons not to do it, if they want to do it.
 
#28
tomar said:


This said, the "no kill " rules tend to converge once there is interaction between different societies...

Fox said:
To some extent, this is true -- though we should be clear about the limited extent to which its the case, as is evinced by the fact that even individual states in the United States of America having strongly differing attitudes on the topic, with some having had the death penalty abolished for years, and others still actively pursuing it; with some wanting to moderately restrict the right to engage in violence in certain situations, and others aggressively pushing notions like "Stand Your Ground" laws -- but that probably has more to do with cultural convergence over time than any sort of "objective" underlying moral principle. After all, you see notions like pro-migration sentiment, pro-abortion sentiment, "LGBT rights" sentiment, and so forth spreading and converging in many countries these days as well. Would you consider those to be "objective" moral principles? Or would you simply consider them to be the current cultural trend? We should be cautious about treating moral truth as a "democracy"; the fact that many cultures might, at any particular moment, be trending in a certain direction regarding a certain topic, does not necessarily imply any sort of underlying "objective" moral truth at work.
Do you reject "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" unilitarianism?
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
7,966
#30
Do you reject "the greatest happiness of the greatest number" unilitarianism?
Yes I reject it,

It fails it's own standards. To be useful you need to know the end result of actions which is often just far too hard.

It's also inconsistnet, favouring this action now, but the reverse latter, or this for that person but the ooposite for another.

So it's a morass of shifting changing actions that follow no set rule that reuiqres knowldege you simply don;t have.

It slides just all so easily into justifying almost any actions. It's made for people to fall down the slippery slipe,
 

Similar History Discussions