What is moral truth and who gets to decide what it is?

[ding]

Natural law is an animals eats and drinks or it dies. It steps off a cliff and it falls. It is an ineffective law of nature that can be violated. Where was moral truth when Genghis Khan was running around?
Your answers so far have not looked beyond the human perceptual limitations, but remain totally immersed in them. This may be because it is a difficult area for humans to comprehend and what I have expressed is not clear enough. What I have been putting forward, however, is not religious or even philosophical. It is the reporting of scientific examination of our sensory apparatus and the 'physical' universe, quantum science saying that there is no "physical", only information.

I've addressed this like a thousand times already. Man does not do evil for the sake of evil. Man does evil for the sake of his own good, but rather than abandon the concept of good and evil, he rationalizes that he didn't do evil.

Genghis Khan did not do evil for evil's sake. Genghis Khan did evil for the sake of his own good and those he loved. Therefore, Genghis Khan did not believe he did evil at all. He rationalized that he did good.

The fact that Genghis Khan did not create the moral law and that he can't get rid of (i.e. abandon) the moral law ought to raise your suspicion that the moral law is hardwired into man and that the moral law came from nature.

I am not putting forward a religious or philosophical argument. I am making an argument based upon observation. One that was recognized over 6,000 years ago and was recorded in the account of Genesis and can be confirmed at any point since then including today.

You speak of human perceptual limitations but what you are really saying is that man is subjective. Yes, man is subjective, but he doesn't have to be subjective. He can die to self and see objective truth. We do it all the time. Just not usually for ourselves or for things that we have a preference for an outcome.

Yes, moral laws are not like physical laws. The effect of violating a physical law is immediate and deterministic. The effect of violating a moral law is not necessarily immediate, all though it can be at times. Violating a moral law is more probabilistic.

You need to think about moral laws as standards which exist for a reason and that when we lower these standards and normalize our deviance from these standards the probability of a negative consequence (i.e. predictable surprises) will increase. This is why it is hard for some to see that moral laws (i.e. standards of conduct) really do exist. But the existence of these laws is real and is outside of man. The existence of these laws is dictated by nature. There are successful behaviors (i.e. standards) which naturally lead to success. There are failed behaviors (i.e. deviance from the standard) which naturally lead to failure. We can see this principles in societies which behave with virtue where they are peaceful, orderly and harmonious. And in societies which are devoid of virtue where they are disorderly and chaotic. These outcomes are not dictated by men, they are dictated by nature because these are natural laws.

Furthermore, these laws existed before space and time itself. Everything which exists or is capable of existing was a potentiality before space and time because the laws of nature existed before space and time. We know this because space and time were created according to the laws of nature which had to be in place before space and time itself.

I agree that the physical universe is made up of mind stuff. That before space and time there was only mind stuff that created space and time such that beings that know and can create would eventually arise.

Man does not do evil for the sake of evil. Man does evil for the sake of his own good, but rather than abandon the concept of good and evil, he rationalizes that he didn't do evil.

And this is the reason why we have raving lunatics running around shooting up children, and voting for Socialism. Both are EVIL, but marginalized as this statement makes it.

I don't believe that statement marginalizes evil. Evil is not extant. Evil is the absence of good.

 

[ding]

Morals, all, are human constructs made of words. Of course they exist, in the only way anything 'exists'; we identify it.

No morals are standards which naturally exist in nature. When we normalize our deviance from these standards, predictable surprises will occur.

 

[ding]

We (humanity in its grandest manifestation) have outgrown morality, religion and restraints on the human spirit. The masses remain in the mud with the troglodytes, but the new species rises above the fray.

What new species would that be exactly?

 

[ding]

As long as it doesn't negatively effect another person. Well, the individual should decide it!

We live in a shared society with shared consequences. Everything is connected.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"What is moral truth and who gets to decide what it is?"

Great question, really. In the end, we decide.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

we instinctively know what is moral - what is "right or wrong".

By what standard? I just speared the neighboring tribesman because he looked at my territory funny-like. Morally "right"? You can bet it would be YOU doing the stabbing, if this was the environment you grew up in.

 

[JohnPrewett]

In this world for the worldly, "might makes right" .... "end justifies the means" ..... "can't make an omelet without breaking eggs" .....

Those about to kill millions and end the current world order justify themselves with the claim they are doing what they do to create a wonderful New World utopia

 

[there4eyeM]

"Evil " and "good" are opposites that we create with words/thoughts. If there were no "good", there would be no "evil".

 

[ding]

"Evil " and "good" are opposites that we create with words/thoughts. If there were no "good", there would be no "evil".

Then there is no up and down, in and out, alive and dead, light and dark, hot and cold, love and hate, etc.

Words like numbers are a representation of something which is extant.

 

[Likkmee]

Another case that no matter what we tell ourselves, we instinctively know what is moral - what is "right or wrong"...

Rubbish. Babies instinctively know right from wrong? Yeah, right.

Like puppies. Only after a slight asz whippin to clarify things.

 

[there4eyeM]

Just because a word exists does not mean that an objective reality does.
The explanation for why some things can burn and some can't used to be how much "phlogiston" was present.

 

[ding]

Just because a word exists does not mean that an objective reality does.
The explanation for why some things can burn and some can't used to be how much "phlogiston" was present.

It is redundant to say objective reality. Reality is. Truth or perception of truth is a different matter. Truth can be subjective or it can be objective. Objective truth is reality. Subjective truth is a rationalization for an altered reality.

Reality does not hinge upon anything as reality is. We use words as a means to describe reality. Just like we use money to serve as a numerical representation of intrinsic value. As the value of a currency changes the numerical representation changes but the intrinsic value doesn't.

As to your point that the explanation for why some things can burn and some can't used to be how much "phlogiston" was present means that objective truth is discovered. Usually it is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. But make no mistake, error eventually falls. So it is only a matter of time before objective truth is discovered.

 

[there4eyeM]

Just because a word exists does not mean that an objective reality does.
The explanation for why some things can burn and some can't used to be how much "phlogiston" was present.

It is redundant to say objective reality. Reality is. Truth or perception of truth is a different matter. Truth can be subjective or it can be objective. Objective truth is reality. Subjective truth is a rationalization for an altered reality.

Reality does not hinge upon anything as reality is. We use words as a means to describe reality. Just like we use money to serve as a numerical representation of intrinsic value. As the value of a currency changes the numerical representation changes but the intrinsic value doesn't.

As to your point that the explanation for why some things can burn and some can't used to be how much "phlogiston" was present means that objective truth is discovered. Usually it is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. But make no mistake, error eventually falls. So it is only a matter of time before objective truth is discovered.

There is only one reality, true; the one in each person's perceptions. Objective reality would be what existed if no human were there to witness it, an absurd and meaningless supposition. We use "objective reality" in that sense, to identify that hypothetical, impossible to verify, external 'reality'.
There is nothing redundant about it. The simple fact that you and others are confused about it remains to be corrected.

 

[G.T.]

"What is moral truth and who gets to decide what it is?"

Great question, really. In the end, we decide.

Yeah, and even we have to determine the standard of which we base that decision. Sam Harris has a great take on it.

 

[G.T.]

Religion believes it has a hold on objective moral standards. That's a canard. The old covenant and the new, for example, prove relativity even for God. The ordained genocide, right there in the text and commanded by God.....is disgusting by any human standard.

Not only that, but the term objective itself and what that entails...... not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. If God is the arbiter of reality, of morals, he's necessarily basing it on his feelings or opinions. Not only that, but it also makes morals relative in that they're relative to his/her/its ideas of moral. Also to his whims. Morals are relative whether you're a fundy or not.

 

[there4eyeM]

Religion believes it has a hold on objective moral standards. That's a canard. The old covenant and the new, for example, prove relativity even for God. The ordained genocide, right there in the text and commanded by God.....is disgusting by any human standard.

Not only that, but the term objective itself and what that entails...... not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. If God is the arbiter of reality, of morals, he's necessarily basing it on his feelings or opinions. Not only that, but it also makes morals relative in that they're relative to his/her/its ideas of moral. Also to his whims. Morals are relative whether you're a fundy or not.

All words are relative, no matter who one might be. That's the 'fundamental' of language.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Sam Harris has a great take on it.

Agreed, and I agree with him 100% that there are objective standards to human well-being.

 

[ding]

Just because a word exists does not mean that an objective reality does.
The explanation for why some things can burn and some can't used to be how much "phlogiston" was present.

It is redundant to say objective reality. Reality is. Truth or perception of truth is a different matter. Truth can be subjective or it can be objective. Objective truth is reality. Subjective truth is a rationalization for an altered reality.

Reality does not hinge upon anything as reality is. We use words as a means to describe reality. Just like we use money to serve as a numerical representation of intrinsic value. As the value of a currency changes the numerical representation changes but the intrinsic value doesn't.

As to your point that the explanation for why some things can burn and some can't used to be how much "phlogiston" was present means that objective truth is discovered. Usually it is discovered through a conflict and confusion process. But make no mistake, error eventually falls. So it is only a matter of time before objective truth is discovered.

There is only one reality, true; the one in each person's perceptions. Objective reality would be what existed if no human were there to witness it, an absurd and meaningless supposition. We use "objective reality" in that sense, to identify that hypothetical, impossible to verify, external 'reality'.
There is nothing redundant about it. The simple fact that you and others are confused about it remains to be corrected.

Nope. There is a final state of fact for all things. It is independent of perceptions.

What was redundant was your description. Reality is.

 

[there4eyeM]

How can it be less than obvious that we cannot know anything except by our perceptions? That is "reality". All "proof" is based upon perceiving it. All perceptions are internal and subjective. We have to live with that. If one has faith that there is a reality outside of that, and admittedly we function in the day-to-day as if there were, that's fine. Remember, someone may offhandedly say, "Prove it!".

 

[ding]

How can it be less than obvious that we cannot know anything except by our perceptions? That is "reality". All "proof" is based upon perceiving it. All perceptions are internal and subjective. We have to live with that. If one has faith that there is a reality outside of that, and admittedly we function in the day-to-day as if there were, that's fine. Remember, someone may offhandedly say, "Prove it!".

I never said we don't know things from our perceptions. I said it is possible to be objective. According to you, you can never be objective about anything. If you make an honest assessment about every single observation you have ever made, I'm certain you will find plenty of times that you were indeed objective.

Let's not play words games, OK?