What I have discovered is that the way to hell literally is paved with good intentions. What you discover though is that the "good intention" was really a self serving intention in the end.

Right and wrong are so subjective because there are almost no absolutes in life that to determine right and wrong is almost impossible. Murder is wrong except in self defense. Thievery is wrong except in the "Robin Hood" type situation. Etc....

And some of what is wrong is only wrong if you get caught or so it seems.

Religious morality which is not the best morality from my observations, is really a social movement or change in the socially "accepted" moral code in society. Not making it right, definitely, just making it what everyone is told is right and they act on it.

As to the laws of the land, they really shouldn't utilize the religious morality at any level. I have to say most because I do not know all, most religions are not based from the just treatment of humans, it is based from the religious moral code. Which religious moral code is not just and fair and they do not care to be. Because if they did, these most religions, they wouldn't have the bylaws they do have that are unjust.

Reaction is subjective also depending on past experiences.


I want to say that intention does signify how harshly we judge others but intention is hard to gauge correctly. Someone can claim good intentions always and not be truthful and noone can determine the lie.

Yes, I agree but most of our actions don’t consist of such obvious outcomes. For example, we fly through most of our tasks, we are a very busy people, and in so doing we focus only on the task we want to accomplish. Some of the worst behavior I have ever seen is in the grocery store – Do we really think that any harm caused by our own lack of consideration, is excusable simply because the harm was not intended? Or was the harm intentional because of the conscious lack of consideration?

In other words, whenever we are in a social situation shouldn’t our first priority be to the social aspect, and therefore be respectful of others – wouldn’t that be the sense of ‘ought’ which is the intention behind our actions?

Not really. Several of my friends work in a soup kitchen one day a week. They have done so for many years. I have heard them, on occasion bemoan the fact that they can’t do something because they have to go the kitchen. But you ask, then why do it, they will tell you they feel obligated to share their time with other in need.
Obligation and a sense of what one ‘ought’ to do does not always equate to a self-serving end. BUT it certainly can be that way.



Yes, you have touched on the ‘exceptions’. The greatest problem with exceptions is that people make them quite in opposition to their philosophy or ideology. But when you bring up their normal ideology and ask them to explain what situations are exceptional to it, we find a great deal of illogical thought processes involved.
So I have to agree with you and Creative – subjectivity rules the interpretation of the action.

But how can we guard against that? Personally, I think we need begin in early education. Bring the epic of the good Samaritan up to date and teach children what it is to be a good citizen (citizen equating to person, not to country). It would actually be in accord with many religious teachings but taught with relevant models, meaningful to the age bracket. Just one idea.






This is true, religious morals do change over time but I don’t think its due to any kind of agenda.
Using Christian scripture as an example here.

It would not be out of the range of logic to abstractly compare and contrast the Constitution of the United States with biblical scripture. Both have been written in such a way as to be open to interpretation.

That gives them BOTH the flexibility needed to assure their continuance. The effects of new technology, medicine, and theories create greater knowledge and different experiences which influence change. If the Bible and the Constitution are totally inflexible the people will be unable to relate to either document in their current lifestyle. That is exactly why the Amish are still with us – no flexibility in how they can interpret their Bible.

So it stands to reason that fundamentalists (of any ideology – even Constitutionalism) will fight change in preference for sameness. But there is no logic in doing so, because history clearly reflects that evolving concepts and interpretations of ideologies persist or the ideologies would no longer be with us.

So should we have a built in ‘sense’ of ‘ought’ which allows us to accept changes or adaptations to fundamental perspectives simply because doing so assures that the ideology will go on?

In some respect there is a psychological advantage to such a sense of ought, because we never have to admit we were wrong we only have to say we were right for the time at hand, but new information shed new light and its time to change.

=============================================================
Right and wrong are so subjective because there are almost no absolutes in life that to determine right and wrong is almost impossible. Murder is wrong except in self defense. Thievery is wrong except in the "Robin Hood" type situation. Etc....
===============================================================

Oh but right and wrong is not subjective. Murder is wrong no matter the case, heck self defence is wrong, we are to turn the other cheek. And the Robin Hood example is wrong nevertheless of what Robin was doing. Stealing is stealing, it is WRONG. Two wrongs don't make a right.

How is it you have decided that murder is wrong - who told you that? Or where does it say that murder is wrong?

Murdering someone is ending someone's life on this earth. Who are you to judge when they are to leave? It's possibly causing someone a lot of remorse over the lost person. So you didn't just take this person's life away but you also effected and hurt others as well.

People only get one life on this earth. ONE. They could be great in their life, cureing some diseases people can't cure to this day, saving someone's life, untelling what that person could have done if that someone handn't taken their life. And possibly destroying someone else's life, eg., spouse........ some spouses take the death of a loved one so hard, they have to be put into institues and many other possibilities and reasons it's wrong.

And coming to relevent terms with these things can be quite difficult. It involves rigor which, concerning language/meaning, has it's fair share of problems with exactitude. I am actually currently working on a thesis concerning morality.



I appreciate and share the sentiment. We are doing better compared to recent history. The process of assimilation has been quite trying and rewarding, simultaneously. And you? How *is* the lovely Di?



The concept of morality has been historically equated to 'ought statements' through such things supposedly being representative of one's own moral convictions. Although I find that this is a misrepresentation of what constitutes morality, it nevertheless accurately represents conventional (mis)understanding.

An 'ought statement' presupposes consequences. That necessitates volition, which in turn, necessitates prior belief from which to infer. Often, an 'ought' is referred to as being "categorical", meaning without exception. However, throughout history there have been reasonable arguments given for an exception to the 'rule'. Add to that Hume's irrefutable argument against 'ought statements', and morality has been left without empirical grounding... as belief and belief alone. All unprovable belief rests upon equally subjective grounds.

Strictly speaking Di, "the sense of ought" is a phrase intended to express the totality of one's beliefs about behavioral expectation. It is not truly a sense, as in being one of our physiological sensory mechanisms. Of course, I realize that you are already aware of this, but other readers may not be. Rather, it amounts to the sum total of one's personal belief about behavior - after language. That temporal distinction is critical, however, here in this forum, suffice it to say that I need not get into why that is the case, but could and will if you so choose.

Because of the inherent ambiguity, I am less inclined to use it(the sense of ought) nowadays for it most often requires stating it in another way, which if that way would have been used to begin with the meaning would have been just as clear without having to clarify a prior ambiguity. Not that I mind doing so, for I am of the strong belief that if one cannot put their own thought into sensible terms, then they do not know what it is that they are thinking.

In an attempt to avoid the possibility of an irrelevent argument I will add this: While I could imagine one arguing against that notion, I cannot imagine how one could possibly argue against it in a sensible manner without using language, which they are necessarily arguing is unnecessary, as a means for explanation. If it takes language to communicate a thought - and it very well does - and one claims to have a sensible thought that, for whatever subjective reason, just does not bode well with language, then they cannot possibly describe the thought. If one cannot describe their own thoughts, then what could possibly constitute sufficient reason for myself, or anyone else for that matter, to believe?

Simple enough.

Back on topic...

Actually Di, the sense of 'ought' and all belief for that matter, develops in the exact same way, regardless of the individual particulars. However, after a belief system through common language has been formed, the 'categories' are filled with a rather diverse set of experiencial variables - those of which that constitute the empirical basis of individual belief. Nevertheless, every real and imaginable belief system begins and develops using the exact same set of conceptual determinations... or "way", as it were, and continues to do so regardless of whether or not the subject is aware of it(the universally applicable, objectively demonstrable method).

That way *is* universal objective morality.

Indeed, we do begin our journey into 'ought' at birth. The empirical premise here being, of course, that humans are born void of knowledge/belief/understanding of and about this world into which we are all born. The method is critical here, for an empirical basis is the most reliable means available to humans from which to build an understanding.





It basically amounts to one's coming to terms with that which constitutes sufficient reason to believe, or academically speaking the answer involves logically establishing warrant.

The logical positivists such as Ayer, Russell, and the like have lead the way in effectively establishing that in recent history. The realist perspective. However, their thinking also claims that all moral statements are necessarily emotive and therefore cannot possibly be true, in the strictest sense of the word. Hence, we have come to accept the notions of subjective morality, relative morality, and the like...



If by this you mean that societal law is meant to represent our knowledge concerning reality, which is emergent in that knowledge is dynamic, by the laws reflecting upon our knowledge of the universe, then perhaps that is true, but I cannot really say here. The concept of scientific(philosophical) law requires meeting the criterion of being universally applicable, and without exception. That description itself, lies solely and purely within the domain of philosophy, as all methodology does... necessarily so. However, the transition from what is to what ought to be still exists within the realm of Hume's guillotine, and that *is* the problem inherent in what constitutes conventional morality and the pattern of thinking that history began and most still continue.



Different individuals accept things for different reasons, however, the primary common denominator in all belief, regardless of the specifics, is truth.

I believe 'X' means I believe that 'X' is true, necessarily so. It is humanly impossible to knowingly believe a falsehood. Thus, this constitutes the very reason that delusion is quite prevalent in our species, especially in those who hold absolute and unshakable conviction in demonstrably false belief, in spite of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.



I would not necessarily agree that we are all of these things just because we have or follow societal laws. Morality, both traditionally speaking and objectively(my own thesis) speaking is absolutely necessary for social behavior. The distinction between personal and societal moral code(law) invokes ethics. The most common ethical foundation in the western culture(s), and even in some Eastern is usually Utilitarianism, which basically stems from Kantian morality. The greater good, and it still has it's fair share of problems.



Perhaps, but not necessarily.



Your touching upon a few distinctly different things here Di, not the least of which being the idea of an unshakable conviction in belief. In general, if a society comes to a place in the collective understanding where old standards are determined as no longer applicable, it requires showing why that is the case; the 'monkey trials' immediately come to mind here. That can include a history of negative effects/affects but not necessarily. Again, in today's day and age that usually involves a Utilitarian perspective, that being "unnecessary harm." And again, we have the very same inherent constitutional issues in that as well, meaning what constitutes being called "unnecessary harm".

It is much more convincing to show beyond a doubt that something is one way or another with undeniable evidence, rather than invoking an emotional argument by continuing to pursue conventional morality on it's own terms, which are still misguided as an unfortunate consequence of morality having been wrongfully attached to God for so long. God does not entail morality, rather, it is the other way around.



I hope only Di, that I can invoke some meaningful relevent discussion, for mankind's future depends upon it.

Well, you have an opinion and you come by that opinion by considering a lot of emotional information. You could be causing remorse, you have affected others, the dead person could have done great things and so on.

The question Who are you to judge when they are to leave? Isn’t really an explanation because there could be many valid reasons why a person would make that choice – protecting their children might be one reason to end another person’s life because that child might go on to do great things and loosing that child would cause sadness.


But others would have a different opinion and may even apply some of the same concepts to explain their opinion – as I have done by showing that your thought process can be used to support murder as well.

Knowing that your reasoning can be used to deffend murder then we could say that murder is wrong but sometimes is justified. But to say murder is wrong can restrict your actions to defend your self, and anyone seeking to do you harm can have their way -- wouldn't you be committing murder on yourself by choosing not to defend yourself?

But we all agree that murder is wrong - but only in certain cases. Would you agree? If you do agree than we have to decide WHEN is murder wrong? correct?

No murdering is never ok or justified. And yes even defending yourself is wrong. I have something for you to ponder on for a while. You can defend your physical self and kick everyone's butt who ever puts a hand on you. But this is wrong in God's eyes, so you don't make it to heaven for this. Or you can not do anything about it and let someone kill this mortal body. You'll then make good favor in our Father's eyes and receive the gift of heaven. And you'll NEVER have to feel any form of pain again. But this person that treated you this way when they pass away on this earth ceases to exist and never has any more joy or love or anything because they just simply don't exist anymore in anyway.

This was a bit extreme and i'm not the judge of anyone's souls anyway. Just i know this physically harming someone weather it's self defence or not is wrong, and the only reward for sin is death.

I would disagree here, much like suicide, refusing to protect your body from harm cannot be a good thing

I believe we are not to be VENGEFUL, but i doubt that would extend to allowing another to physically harm us while doing nothing .

exodus 22:2
"If the thief is found breaking in, and he is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt for his bloodshed."

I think it is only INTENTIONAL killing that carries guilt,, defense does not

You quoted a verse from old testament, again people were judged on earth for their sins and the only reward for sin is death.

We judged each other on earth according to the laws of the old testament. Since the word *new testament* became flesh we are not to judge anyone. The word *Jesus Christ* is the judge now.

I seem to know more about what's in the thumpers manual than the thumpers who thump away..

http://bible.cc/exodus/22-2.htm

New International Version (©1984)
"If a thief is caught breaking in and is struck so that he dies, the defender is not guilty of bloodshed;
New Living Translation (©2007)
"If a thief is caught in the act of breaking into a house and is struck and killed in the process, the person who killed the thief is not guilty of murder.

English Standard Version (©2001)
If a thief is found breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no bloodguilt for him,

New American Standard Bible (©1995)
"If the thief is caught while breaking in and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account.

GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
"If anyone catches a thief breaking in and hits him so that he dies, he is not guilty of murder.

King James Bible
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

American King James Version
If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

American Standard Version
If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten so that he dieth, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.

Bible in Basic English
If a thief is taken in the act of forcing his way into a house, and his death is caused by a blow, the owner of the house is not responsible for his blood.

Douay-Rheims Bible
If a thief be found breaking open a house or undermining it, and be wounded so as to die: he that slew him shall not be guilty of blood.

Darby Bible Translation
If the thief be encountered breaking in, and be smitten so that he die, there shall be no blood-guiltiness for him.

English Revised Version
If the thief be found breaking in, and be smitten that he die, there shall be no bloodguiltiness for him.

Webster's Bible Translation
If a thief shall be found breaking through, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.

World English Bible
If the thief is found breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there shall be no guilt of bloodshed for him.

Young's Literal Translation
'If in the breaking through, the thief is found, and he hath been smitten, and hath died, there is no blood for him;

Doesn't matter what translation you use. Still from book of Exodus, which is in the old testament.

Verse Exodus 22:2 to be exact.

These are philosophical questions which experienced a great deal of discussion during the scientific revolution, a time when the old ideologies of God and Church were called into question by new knowledge.

"By new knowledge"

That is understandable.

The scriptures say, "...Obey the law of the land..." The laws do change. "Heaven and earth may pass away but my word shall stand." Jesus in many of his verses turned the question back onto the one asking the question. This one guy showed Jesus a coin of the time and Jesus asked him whose picture was on it. Then Jesus said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's." If Jesus had my English teacher in school she would have admonished him for answering a question with a question, The challenge of the Christian in today's world concerns new knowledge, too. One might need Jesus on speed dial to answer some of these questions.

Di:


Creative


So laws are a type of morality and any given law warrents belief when we accept that society requires laws for civil behavior. In the case of civil law the ‘ought to follow’ is subliminal as we know that law has built-in consequences. Correct?

In some cases, individuals may internalize a law, if that law reflects a deeper subjective morality, or because of a subjective spin that makes the law ‘seem’ to reflect that same personal morality. Does that sound right?

Di:


Creative


OK – ok, so I am beginning to see the error of my logic here – Hume’s guillotine, exactly what I was getting to with my next discussion with Cowboy. I was going to try to take it slow so as not to get lost in emotion or to allow him the same opportunity.

Actually, what I was referring to was how societies assign different meaning to different terms – relative – to the changes which have occurred in cultures through evolving knowledge and new technology. So it could be argued (as you have done) that these changes or shifts in thought ( and thus subjective or relative… morality) are not, necessarily, universally applicable.

Definitely makes a huge difference when attempting to merge subjective ideals of morality with an all encompassing human ethics. MY BAD, I will have to do better.

Di:


Creative


So belief is dependent on our acceptance that the premise on which that belief is based is true.
Thus begins irrational logic and off-hand justifications which must, necessarily, be used to support truths which cannot be validated beyond a subjective belief.

Therefore, we face a dilemma in that subjective beliefs render it impossible to create, much less agree with, any philosophy which attempts to define an absolute, universally applicable, human ethics.

Am I getting it professor? Boy is my philosophy getting rusty (too much algebra)


Di:


Creative


I always felt that Utilitarianism did not do justice to Kant’s idea of the greater good. I think in Kant’s view, the greater good is the closest facsimile we can achieve (in human ethics) as long as humans view reality from within the context of only their own cultural experience. Culture is reflected in the law (invokes ethics) which also serves to influence subjective belief systems within that culture and all of the moral codes are relative to that society.




This is one reason why I take such an interest in the study of psychology. [ Undeniable evidence, rather than invoking an emotional argument ] humans are really more fragile than most of us would like to believe. Emotional response may not be an outward action, it may be directed inward. Science (psychology) may yet prove that the emotional argument may be undeniable.

Thanks for all the help – and don’t stop, it feels good to be reminded, and then to recall, some of what I’ve learned, but have not had much opportunity to apply.

You have offered no grounds, but your own opinion. Where, in the Bible is your justification for your particular belief in this matter?

In another vein - in your opinion are the words – kill, and murder – synonymous? In other words can one word replace the other word in every single context? Does “to kill” equate with “to murder”?

Almost all of the Bible invokes thought - answering a question with a question is a great way to invoke thought.

Parables NEVER have but one interpretation, why do you suppose that is? (think and then reply)

Likewise, the 10 commandments leave so much room for interpretation that it's impossible NOT to put your own subjective spin on them to form your opinion. Even when accepting the opinion of others, most people will come up with their own justifications to support that same opinion. But if the justifications come from differnent perspectives, is the opinion really the same as the one you think you have adopted?