Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Pappa]

Maybe.

Maybe not!!!

[Trolldor]

CONUNDRUM!?

[Parrot Face]

I wonder if Buddha would have the same opinion if he lived in 2010.

Buddha does live in 2010 as an archetypal metaphorical fictional character. Much like you and me.

What's even more strange is how do we know it's 2010 ? .... because the calendar say's so that how

[Xamonas Chegwé]

So, to all you moral relativists (I assume that's what you are if you don't think objective morality exists), could you expand on your position? If a society thought there was nothing wrong with murder (far out example, this would never happen, of course), would murder be morally OK for them? This is always the kind of picture I've had of moral relativism, although as far as I know it could be a strawman.

Not a strawman at all. There have been societies in which murder was permitted (usually within certain parameters - the murder of slaves by their masters being sanctioned, or sacrifices to 'the gods', for instance) and from some moral standpoints, carrying out a death sentence equates to murder, as does waging war, or even eating meat. How's that for moral relativism?

Edit: PS, one could quite justifiably describe the mafia, or similar criminal organisations, as 'a society' also.

[Feral_Punctuation]

Heh. So there have.

[Feral_Punctuation]

Is moral relativism just where you think there is no objective morality, or also that morality depends on the society you're in? If only the former, does that render moral questions completely pointless? To be honest, I'm having a hard time imagining suffering to be morally neutral; my definitions of moral have practically revolved around happiness/suffering, even though there's not neccesarily a reason to think that should be the case. :sighsm:

EDIT: Whoops, double post.

[Trolldor]

It depends.

[Pappa]

It depends.

Maybe it doesn't depend.

[Trolldor]

It depends.

Maybe it doesn't depend.

The fact that you have to say 'maybe' means it does.

[Pappa]

It depends.

Maybe it doesn't depend.

The fact that you have to say 'maybe' means it does.

Maybe that's what I wanted you to think.

[Trolldor]

For you to want me to think necessitates desire and choice.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Is moral relativism just where you think there is no objective morality, or also that morality depends on the society you're in? If only the former, does that render moral questions completely pointless? To be honest, I'm having a hard time imagining suffering to be morally neutral; my definitions of moral have practically revolved around happiness/suffering, even though there's not neccesarily a reason to think that should be the case. :sighsm:

EDIT: Whoops, double post.

Just because there is an almost universally agreed human standpoint on morality on certain subjects - causing suffering and death for instance - doesn't make that morality 'objective', merely subjectively, near-ubiquitous among humanity. Sociopaths are characterised by their lack of empathy for fellow humans - they see nothing wrong in torturing and killing others for their pleasure and feel no remorse about it - from their POV, they are not doing 'wrong', or acting immorally. And, to remove ourselves from the human sphere, mosquitos don't give a shit how many humans suffer and die from malaria - they just want a little blood in order to complete their lifecycle. And if a comet one day hits this world for six, it won't care and it won't be judged by the ashes that are left.

[Feck]

No there isn't .

[hiyymer]

I wonder if Buddha would have the same opinion if he lived in 2010.

Buddha does live in 2010 as an archetypal metaphorical fictional character. Much like you and me.

What's even more strange is how do we know it's 2010 ? .... because the calendar say's so that how

Well let's put it this way. I wonder if Buddha would have the same opinion if he was versed in evolutionary biology and neuroscience.

[hiyymer]

Is moral relativism just where you think there is no objective morality, or also that morality depends on the society you're in? If only the former, does that render moral questions completely pointless? To be honest, I'm having a hard time imagining suffering to be morally neutral; my definitions of moral have practically revolved around happiness/suffering, even though there's not neccesarily a reason to think that should be the case. :sighsm:

EDIT: Whoops, double post.

Just because there is an almost universally agreed human standpoint on morality on certain subjects - causing suffering and death for instance - doesn't make that morality 'objective', merely subjectively, near-ubiquitous among humanity. Sociopaths are characterised by their lack of empathy for fellow humans - they see nothing wrong in torturing and killing others for their pleasure and feel no remorse about it - from their POV, they are not doing 'wrong', or acting immorally. And, to remove ourselves from the human sphere, mosquitos don't give a shit how many humans suffer and die from malaria - they just want a little blood in order to complete their lifecycle. And if a comet one day hits this world for six, it won't care and it won't be judged by the ashes that are left.

There is the possibility that "morality" in the sense of societal standards is fairly inoperative. I used to post and discuss with a nice elderly Christian man who had worked as a counselor in prisons for a rather good stint. His opinion was that prospective punishment and societal norms had very little to do with why people do what they do. To me morality is really about the moral choice; the moment in time when our biological motivations are in conflict and we have to choose. Eat more myself or give more to the kid. Try to pull someone from the flaming wreck or stay safe. Go hungry or try to shoplift a box of cereal. I think these choices are made subconsciously. There is no third motivation in the prefrontal lobe to break the tie, no matter how often we experience the choice as one of "reason". Certainly there must be great similarities between people, so that many people would reach nearly the same result. But there are serial killers out there. They usually have some voice telling them what to do. Maybe no one is really responsible for what they do, in the sense of controlling it, even though we will be held responsible afterward by the rest of us. The only difference between the serial killer and me is that I have "normal" biological regulation, so I get to pretend that I am driving.