Is morality objective or subjective?

[Harbal]

If you think there's such a thing as "my logic" or "your logic," as opposed to just "logic," then you don't know what real logic is. The idea is as absurd as saying, "my mathematics," or "my natural laws," or "my truth."

I'm quite satisfied with the quality of the logic that I employed, but I can see why you don't think much of it.

Will that do?

The logic you're using can't generate a valid basic syllogism. But my approval, and even the fit with logic, is not requisite to your happiness. You can be happy without both, I'm reasonably certain.

Generating syllogisms was never my aim, so I don't regard my none production of any as a failure.

So what do you want it to "do" for?

I just wanted to show the folly of trying to mix religion and reality.

[Immanuel Can]

I just wanted to show the folly of trying to mix religion and reality.

Well, "religion" is something in which I have no interest, but reality is quite important. So you might have to take your case where it's more appropriate, I guess.

[Will Bouwman]

As time is the interval between two points, and points are features of the material world, when there is no material substance in existence then there is no such thing as time.

It's not certain that any material substance exists at all, as any idealist will tell you.

You don't take that seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be typing to me, because you'd think I was a mere figment of your imagining.

For someone who bangs on about etymology and definition, it calls your aptitude into question that you think idealism and solipsism are synonyms. And yes, I can take seriously the idea that the cause of phenomena is fundamentally mental and, far from being a figment of my imagination, it is something I can seriously think applies to you.
Do you agree that 'eternity' will be altered by your introduction?

[Harbal]

I just wanted to show the folly of trying to mix religion and reality.

Well, "religion" is something in which I have no interest, but reality is quite important. So you might have to take your case where it's more appropriate, I guess.

I don't have much choice in the matter; my case usually leads the way.

[Immanuel Can]

It's not certain that any material substance exists at all, as any idealist will tell you.

You don't take that seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be typing to me, because you'd think I was a mere figment of your imagining.

...you think idealism and solipsism are synonyms...

I do not, nor does anything I said suggest I do.

And yes, I can take seriously the idea that the cause of phenomena is fundamentally mental and, far from being a figment of my imagination, it is something I can seriously think applies to you.

You're only making that up.

[Will Bouwman]

You don't take that seriously. If you did, you wouldn't be typing to me, because you'd think I was a mere figment of your imagining.

...you think idealism and solipsism are synonyms...

I do not, nor does anything I said suggest I do.

Then you don't understand what you being a figment of my imagination would entail.
Anyway, back to your impact on eternity. Will your entry make any difference?

[Immanuel Can]

Anyway, back to your impact on eternity. Will your entry make any difference?

Well, that question presupposes a misunderstanding of what salvation is. Salvation isn't just then...it's already now.

Jesus said:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

Did it make a "difference"? I'm not sure what "difference" you're looking for: a "difference" between what and what? Between life and death? Absolutely.

[Age]

I just wanted to show the folly of trying to mix religion and reality.

Well, "religion" is something in which I have no interest, but reality is quite important.

Are you sure of this?

Not that you would be brave enough to clarify here but remember it is you who keeps claiming that God is male gendered. So, is this a 'religious' construct or the actual reality, itself?

So you might have to take your case where it's more appropriate, I guess.

[Age]

Anyway, back to your impact on eternity. Will your entry make any difference?

Well, that question presupposes a misunderstanding of what salvation is. Salvation isn't just then...it's already now.

Jesus said:

But you do not know that "jesus" said the below.

See, the reason why these people, in the days when this was being written, took so very, very long to find and discover the actual Truth of things is because of examples like this. They would continually say and write things that were, obviously, not true but express them as they were the actual Truth.

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

Although there may well be actual Truth in this, the reason you people do not yet understand this, fully, is because of your continual Wrong and/or False misinterpretations that you have and hold onto here.

Did it make a "difference"? I'm not sure what "difference" you're looking for: a "difference" between what and what? Between life and death? Absolutely.

But how would you know "immanuel can", especially considering the absolutely False and Wrong interpretations that you have and are holding onto here.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Every culture or group will have its own objectives but they are sub-objective to the generic objective of the human species.
For example there is the main objective of the digestive and nutrition system which is generic to ALL humans.
However different culture or group would have its sub-objectives in how to produce, prepare and consume the food that serve the main objectives of the digestive and nutrition system, which is a sub-objective of the greater objective of survival.

It is the same with the moral function and system within ALL humans.
The problem is the generic moral system within ALL human is very subtle and not so noticeable, thus leaving most to focus on its sub-objectives.

The world is what determines which objectives and which judgments and choices succeed.
The consequences of an act, based on subjective objectives and evaluations, is what reveals the degree of accuracy.

There is no absolute meaning to a word.

Yes, a word with no reference in a shared reality represents an idea with no real meaning.
World limits how words can be defined.

At present the terms 'morality' and 'ethics' are too loose and used interchangeably.
As I understand and will use, 'ethics' is the main term that covers whatever is deemed good conduct for the well-being and flourishing for the individuals and humanity.
Morality deal with the principles [theory], thus is the "pure" aspect.
Ethics is used again to denote the 'applied' [practices] aspect.
If we do not define and agree upon the terms, the discussion will go all over the place.

My use of morals/ethics is to differentiate what evolved and what was fabricated, relative to what evolved.

Otherwise, the modern/postmodern charlatans are inspired to reject morality as another "social construct"....you know like race and now 'gender.'

We can use these concepts to correlate:
Rae/Ethnicity....Sex/Gender....Morality/Ethics.
Genetic/Memetic.

A group with no shared morals/ethics will not survive for long.
They discipline individuals to collective ideals and a group's welfare.

Morality/Ethics..
how about pure/applied, i.e.
pure ethics [morality] / applied ethics.

what is pure ethics [morality] are moral elements evolved and inherent within human nature.
Applied ethics is how we apply [optimally] the inherent moral elements to fit into the varying conditions and circumstances of the individual[s] and humanity.

[Age]

Whatever "jiggery pockery and nonsense" IC has ...

The idea that God can know the future without the future being predetermined is pretty common in religion and Christianity.

But what is 'common' certainly does not mean that 'it' is even remotely close to the actual Truth of things.

If God, a claimed male gender thing, created the whole Universe, as some very immature and very closed individual human beings think or believe, then 'the future' was always 'predetermined' by that very 'thing'.

Is anyone able to explain how God, if God created the Universe with the intention of all living in peace and harmony forever more, could 'know the future' without the future being predetermined?

To me anyway, to claim that one could 'know a not predetermined future' is just self-contradictory.

However, in saying this, this does not change the irrefutable fact that 'free will' still exists in the 'predetermined future', nor the fact that morality is both subjective and objective.

So he's just repeating a standard line of thinking.

No matter how Truly absurd and foolish the 'standard line of thinking' may well be.

Of course, one can disagree and argue against it in a number of ways.

If a 'standard line of thinking' can actually be argued against, then it is invalid and/or unsound 'line of thinking'.

[Age]

Every culture or group will have its own objectives but they are sub-objective to the generic objective of the human species.
For example there is the main objective of the digestive and nutrition system which is generic to ALL humans.
However different culture or group would have its sub-objectives in how to produce, prepare and consume the food that serve the main objectives of the digestive and nutrition system, which is a sub-objective of the greater objective of survival.

It is the same with the moral function and system within ALL humans.
The problem is the generic moral system within ALL human is very subtle and not so noticeable, thus leaving most to focus on its sub-objectives.

The world is what determines which objectives and which judgments and choices succeed.
The consequences of an act, based on subjective objectives and evaluations, is what reveals the degree of accuracy.

There is no absolute meaning to a word.

Yes, a word with no reference in a shared reality represents an idea with no real meaning.
World limits how words can be defined.

At present the terms 'morality' and 'ethics' are too loose and used interchangeably.
As I understand and will use, 'ethics' is the main term that covers whatever is deemed good conduct for the well-being and flourishing for the individuals and humanity.
Morality deal with the principles [theory], thus is the "pure" aspect.
Ethics is used again to denote the 'applied' [practices] aspect.
If we do not define and agree upon the terms, the discussion will go all over the place.

My use of morals/ethics is to differentiate what evolved and what was fabricated, relative to what evolved.

Otherwise, the modern/postmodern charlatans are inspired to reject morality as another "social construct"....you know like race and now 'gender.'

We can use these concepts to correlate:
Rae/Ethnicity....Sex/Gender....Morality/Ethics.
Genetic/Memetic.

A group with no shared morals/ethics will not survive for long.
They discipline individuals to collective ideals and a group's welfare.

Morality/Ethics..
how about pure/applied, i.e.
pure ethics [morality] / applied ethics.

what is pure ethics [morality] are moral elements evolved and inherent within human nature.

Of which you have still, after all of this time, failed to provide just one 'objective morality', which, supposedly, is inherent within human nature.

Why is this "veritas aequitas"?

Applied ethics is how we apply [optimally] the inherent moral elements to fit into the varying conditions and circumstances of the individual[s] and humanity.

LOL If 'it' is 'inherent', then there is no need to 'apply' 'it' anywhere nor to any thing.

[Will Bouwman]

Anyway, back to your impact on eternity. Will your entry make any difference?

Well, that question presupposes a misunderstanding of what salvation is. Salvation isn't just then...it's already now.

Jesus said:

“Truly, truly, I say to you, the one who hears My word, and believes Him who sent Me, has eternal life, and does not come into judgment, but has passed out of death into life." (John 5:24)

So does God create souls knowing which ones will hear Jesus's word on a rolling basis? Or did he create them all at once?

Did it make a "difference"? I'm not sure what "difference" you're looking for: a "difference" between what and what? Between life and death? Absolutely.

Ah, past tense. So there was a point when you weren't saved and now you are. You attribute this to your own effort, even though your god knew everything that the soul he created would ever do, and yours is the kind of soul a supreme being wants to have an eternal relationship with. I can see why you might wish to believe that.

[Skepdick]

Ah, past tense. So there was a point when you weren't saved and now you are. You attribute this to your own effort, even though your god knew everything that the soul he created would ever do, and yours is the kind of soul a supreme being wants to have an eternal relationship with. I can see why you might wish to believe that.

Not much of a philosopher of science; are you? Apparently there's a multiverse; or at the very least - the many worlds interpretations to go with.

So I guess there's a version of me who's saved and a version of me who isn't.

I'm sure God knows what happens to the other-me. If other-me keeps making dumb choices he probably ends up in Hell.
Either way - my choices determine which future/world I end up in.

I'm stuck in time though so the mystery remains.

“We know the past but cannot control it. We control the future but cannot know it.” — Claude Shannon

[Will Bouwman]

Apparently there's a multiverse; or at the very least - the many worlds interpretations to go with.

Well done Skepdick, you've stumbled across another wikipedia page. Now you can tell Immanuel Can all about it.