The nature of good and evil

[Dark Virtue]

Hey Mr. Bill, you're going to love this essay.  It's too long to post here so I will provide a link:

On the Nature of Morality

Excerpts:

Quote[/b] ]There has long been a discussion in philosophy regarding the nature of morality, where some have argued that there is such a thing as an objective morality and where others have disputed this, instead advocating a view which sees morality as a purely subjective phenomenon. I belong to the second camp, and the purpose of this essay is to clarify on what grounds.

Quote[/b] ]By objective morality is meant a moral view which claims that there exists a morality which is external to human beings. Much like the existence of a law of gravity, there is a moral law which exists independently of any conscious being. Hence, morality is not a human fabrication - it merely awaits to be detected. In contrast, subjective morality denotes the view that moral views are nothing but human opinions, the origin of which is biological, social, and psychological. Without conscious beings, there would be no such thing as morality. Furthermore, on the subjective view, it is not possible to deem a moral opinion "true" or "false" - since such assessments require some objective standard against which to assess.

Quote[/b] ]First, someone may ask, What does it matter if ethics is objective or subjective - is not the first-order ethics the relevant issue to be discussing? This question seems to imply that the difference between objective and subjective morality is solely a semantic one. In a sense, this may be correct. Note that either subjective or objective morality is correct: both cannot be true. If there really is an objective ethics, this changes nothing, at least not in the present, since no one can argue convincingly what it is. If all ethics is subjective, then that changes nothing either, since, e.g., a subjectivist thinks that those who think there is an objective ethics, which they follow, just have a subjective variant which they happen to term "objective". (As an example, the behavioral rules of the Bible are seen as the subjective views of some Jewish tribesleaders who lived thousands of years ago.)

I haven't made it through the whole thing, but the bits I've read are good.

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 05 2004,4:19)]

Quote[/b] ]Now, admitedly this circumstance is ridiculously far fetched, but my purpose in this is the following: Would you, in this position, change your opinion on what good and evil were, or would you say to god that he was the evil one.  I think the former would be true, which proves that god cannot be the basis of good and evil; it is something else that decides what these are, independent of god or anyone else's opinion.  Hence, my arguement for objective morallity comes into play..  

Give it some thought; believe me, this is complicated.

Let me do what I do best and make it MORE complicated

I have asserted that Morality is flexible, fluid, but this is in contrast to God's view of morality.  God after all, is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.  Or is He?  There are many instances of God changing His mind in the Bible.  God ruled with a heavy hand in the OT yet is virtually non existent in the NT.  Does God's definition of morality change?  Do you think it changed during the course of the Bible?

Yeah I would say that his views on morallity changed, which is just another hit on why he cannot be the derivation of good and evil. God doesn't seem the type to change his mind, and yet in the OT he's not a very nice guy compared to the NT. But the point is I think it is clear through my illustration that the devine command theory is false; morallity comes from somewhere independant of god's opinion.

Something else that's interesting. Seems to me that christians wouldn't want to believe in the divine command theory, since if we are to praise god for being good, and god makes the rules on what is good and what isn't, then he's not all that spectacular, is he?

 

[Mr.Bill]

Quote[/b] (Dark Virtue @ Oct. 05 2004,7:19)]Hey Mr. Bill, you're going to love this essay.  It's too long to post here so I will provide a link:

On the Nature of Morality

Excerpts:

Quote[/b] ]There has long been a discussion in philosophy regarding the nature of morality, where some have argued that there is such a thing as an objective morality and where others have disputed this, instead advocating a view which sees morality as a purely subjective phenomenon. I belong to the second camp, and the purpose of this essay is to clarify on what grounds.

Quote[/b] ]By objective morality is meant a moral view which claims that there exists a morality which is external to human beings. Much like the existence of a law of gravity, there is a moral law which exists independently of any conscious being. Hence, morality is not a human fabrication - it merely awaits to be detected. In contrast, subjective morality denotes the view that moral views are nothing but human opinions, the origin of which is biological, social, and psychological. Without conscious beings, there would be no such thing as morality. Furthermore, on the subjective view, it is not possible to deem a moral opinion "true" or "false" - since such assessments require some objective standard against which to assess.

Quote[/b] ]First, someone may ask, What does it matter if ethics is objective or subjective - is not the first-order ethics the relevant issue to be discussing? This question seems to imply that the difference between objective and subjective morality is solely a semantic one. In a sense, this may be correct. Note that either subjective or objective morality is correct: both cannot be true. If there really is an objective ethics, this changes nothing, at least not in the present, since no one can argue convincingly what it is. If all ethics is subjective, then that changes nothing either, since, e.g., a subjectivist thinks that those who think there is an objective ethics, which they follow, just have a subjective variant which they happen to term "objective". (As an example, the behavioral rules of the Bible are seen as the subjective views of some Jewish tribesleaders who lived thousands of years ago.)

I haven't made it through the whole thing, but the bits I've read are good.

Hehe, thanks DV. Yeah this is exactly the kind of thing I'm basing this thread on. Can you tell I'm studying morallity in my philosophy class? : )

 

[Dark Virtue]

Been there, done that

I minored in Philosophy and took a Philosophy of Religion class in the process.