Most and least moral posters

[Emsworth]

It's a difficult question for one to answer, as I don't believe that there is such a thing as objective or universal morality.

[Emsworth]

Fair enough angus.  One may view the 'most moral' as the one most filled with the delusion that his personal preferences constitute an objective morality.  If one views it that way then Al or any of the religious are suitable choices, and I am the best choice for least moral (which coincidentally means most tolerant).

You aren't the only person who rejects the notion of universal morality.

[Emsworth]

In any case why don't you speak up when I'm arguing with these horrible moralizers, emsworth?

Well, I have already made a post on this subject in this thread: see here.

But, in any event, I would agree with you that one cannot define "universal" or "objective" morality. By what standard would the morality of an action be judged? Any such standard would be totally arbitrary. Hence, morality is merely a system of personal preferences and values, with no universal application.

[Emsworth]

But it is that rejection that is tantamount to the concept of amorality.

I would tend to disagree. One can have morals, without believing them to be objective or universal.

[Emsworth]

My example of a 45-year-old man sexually abusing a child is a good illustration of bedrock moral standards.  Opebo claims that my disapproval of this is strictly subjective.  But he fails to look at the reasons I may disapprove of it.  I disapprove of it because a child is most likely unable to defend himself/herself against unwanted advances, and such sexual contact at a very young age is emotionally devastating for the child, and can harm him/her for life.

Okay, now I will accept that this is immoral. But that is my personal view, which need not necessarily apply to everyone else.

The fundamental problem is that there are numerous different definitions of morality. Some people define it in terms of harm done to others. Others define it based on religious scripture. Still others use logical forumlations such as Kant's categorical imperative. How can we decide which standard to use to determine what is moral or immoral? The answer: we can't. Everyone will judge morality by different standards; therefore, there is no universal morality.

Consider the case of killing, which I'm sure you agree is a heinous and "immoral" action. Some may see the death penalty as moral. Some may see war as moral. Some may see abortion as moral (strange as such a view may seem). In all these cases, different people have, by applying different standards, arrived at different definitions of morality.

Of course, in the case of child molestation, it is very difficult to imagine a standard under which one would deem such an action moral. But, objectively, there could theoretically be such a standard. Hence, the notion that there is one set of objective morals that governs all of society fails, simply because morals, by their very nature, are subjective judgments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Certainly: that is your conception of morality. Someone else's conception may be different, and we cannot objectively say that one is inherently superior.

[Emsworth]

Maybe if you had sex once or twice, and had reverted from your ways.  But if not, then no, absolutely not.  I'm sorry, but you can't be truly moral unless you abide by God's laws, or at least try to and accept Jesus as the son of god, and be saved.  Non-Religious Morality is an oxymoron.

That is, of course, your personal view; you are perfectly entitled to it. However, I would beg to disagree. Who has the authority to decide what the laws of God are? Who, in this temporal world, can objectively decide that one religious text (the Bible) is correct, while everything else is wrong? The answer: no-one can. It is a matter purely of faith, not objectivity.

Thus, while you may feel that there is no such thing as non-religious morality, others may disagree.

I don't even want to get into this argument, I'm sick and tired of dealing with this "it's ok if he's done this or that, he can still be moral" bs.  So, whatever, stick with your beliefs.  If you live by them, see where you'll end up.  I've had enough.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Emsworth]

For example, someone who feels that sexually abusing a child is perfectly okay is very likely to cause a lot more pain in people's lives than someone who is strongly against such an activity, so if we say that a set of morals is superior to another if it causes the person to act in a way that causes less pain to innocent people, then we could say that the first set of morals is superior.

But the decision that a set of morals is superior to another because it causes less pain to another person is itself subjective.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I completely agree there. There is such a thing as conventional morality, as the norms and mores of a society or culture. However, some people (in my opinion wrongly) assert that these morals are somehow universal and objectively valid.

[Emsworth]

or as I would put it, just because there are different sets of beliefs in existance, it doesn't imply that each of them must be equally valid. that task of finding out which is valid is the search for morality.

And how would you objectively determine which set is valid?