re: Is Morality Fluid?

quote:

---

One of the reasons for discussion is to persuade. The art of persuasion is all we have short of violence, which I am afraid is coming.

---

I'm a negotiator quite often in my line of work.

I teach my fellow negotiators. You don't present options that are not options. You see that approach all the time and it's always an error. People do it when buying a car. "I want to keep it under 15K but I might could do 15.5K" LOL.

Well, this is a lot like that.

quote:

---

There is a name for a person who refuses to listen to facts or reason. In that sense, you are right, any discussion would be useless.

---

it's more a matter of it literally not mattering.

My point is. So what? So you prove that there's no moral absolutes? Then what? There literally is NO "then what". ALL "then whats" are bull shite in this discussion.

quote:

---

I think you are right with everything you said. Once I determine that I am talking to someone who keeps "moving the target" I move on. It literally doesn't matter at that point. However, you never know who might be close by, or lurking on a message board, listening. Maybe a light will go on for that person. I don't know, maybe.

---

Maybe.

I think for me, I focus on the "then what" aspect of the discussion.

Does answering the question further anything? Does establishing that morality really isn't absolute mean anything? Does it being not absolute mean I need to change my behavior?

My answer to all of those is nope. Not even a little bit.

quote:

---

Is Morality Fluid?

---

Absolutely.

quote:

---

Christians have had various worldviews throughout the ages but the "Christian" (Biblical) worldview has remained consistent. Like I said previously, those who stay faithful to the scriptures will turn out very similarly. It is those who deviate from it that start looking like everyone else in regards to their worldview and morality.

---

Nonsense. Y'all haven't even settled on a correct translation, let alone a universal interpretation.

quote:

---

I try to prove the futility of subjective morality

---

Subjective morality is all that's available.

quote:

---

I try to prove the futility of subjective morality.

---

does not lead to

quote:

---

If everyone really understood that their moral code is objectively no better or worse than Hitler's in the final analysis

---

That's what I've posted about several times.

It's a false "if-then" proposition.

quote:

---

Slavery - right or wrong?

---

Wrong. Part of the "more or less".

quote:

---

That's what I've posted about several times.

It's a false "if-then" proposition.

---

I've only read a few of your posts on the subject. Seemed to me you were denying that subjective morality means no morality, which I would deny. Morality exists even in a subjective state. However, a subjective moral standard cannot be objectively (universally) better or worse than any other.

I liken it to the concept of survival of the fittest and the definition of "fit". "Fit" is defined as best suited to survive the conditions an organism finds itself in. What is "fit" in one environment may be "unfit" in another environment. You can't compare the attributes of two different organisms in two different environments and say one is better or worse than the other. They can only be compared to the environments they find themselves in.

Subjective morality, therefore, is contextual. It's only as good or bad as the people who accept it think it is. Those who say it's cultural or based in culture aren't wrong. However the application of that notion requires that people understand that different cultures, different peoples, different groups, etc. can impose their own moral standards on themselves and cannot receive legitimate condemnation for those aspects that differ from our own standards. We can't "judge" Hitler because his standard was fine for his people. Our standard is fine for us but is viewed as terrible by people in the Middle East. Subjective morality is still morality, it's just logically incapable of cross-cultural judgment because no standard is objectively "better" or "worse" than another.

quote:

---

they have their own subculture that defines right and wrong for them. humans are pack animals and we've evolved traits that are conducive towards a cooperative environment.. but it's a long jump from there to morality.

---

Honest question: do you have kids? I've got kids and they didn't learn defiance, lying, and violence from other kids. They were doing things like that prior interacting with other kids in that "subculture".

It's directly related to morality, because they know what is "right" and what is "wrong", they just base that on their own wants and needs. They know that another kid stealing their toy is wrong because it makes them cry. They have to be taught why things are right and wrong and why their own standard is right or wrong.

quote:

---

Honest question: do you have kids? I've got kids and they didn't learn defiance, lying, and violence from other kids. They were doing things like that prior interacting with other kids in that "subculture".

It's directly related to morality, because they know what is "right" and what is "wrong", they just base that on their own wants and needs. They know that another kid stealing their toy is wrong because it makes them cry. They have to be taught why things are right and wrong and why their own standard is right or wrong.

---

i don't have kids. and your kids acting defiant, lying, violent, and having to be taught that other peoples desires matter too.. is evidence that there is no real set of morals that innately exist in humans.

morality isn't being upset at someone stealing your toy. we're talking about an inherent knowledge that it is 'wrong' for you or someone else to steal another kids toy.