Relative, Absolute, Objective, Subjective.... Confusion.

This is a common point of contention that I would like to discuss, away from
the arguments that it gets embedded in.


This can be in discussions about morality, or meaning, or other things I can't
think of right now.

But lets take morality as a an example for the moment.


Many if not most religions espouse Moral Absolutism.
They have a set of moral rules or laws which are absolute and invariant.
It doesn't matter who you are or what circumstance you find yourself in [the]
acts proscribed by these laws as immoral are always immoral.
Regardless of the consequences.

It is often claimed by those who hold to such systems that the alternative is
Moral Relativism.
That 'if you don't have Absolute morality the alternative is morality that is
subjective and relative. And that nobody can claim their morality is any better
than any other and one culture can't criticise any other for their morality because
none can be said to be better than any other.' [It is also claimed that such morality
must be subjective and that their morality is objective]


This isn't true.

Moral Absolutism and Moral Relativism are not exhaustive and exclusive.
And being Absolute doesn't mean that the morality isn't Subjective.

A moral system is Subjective if it is based simply on the views/feelings/whim/command
of a mind, and not on anything measurable in the world/reality.
A moral system dictated by a god is based on the views/feelings/whim/command of a mind,
the mind of the god in question. And is thus Subjective, as well as potentially being Absolute.

An Objective morality IS based on measurable aspects of our reality and is not necessarily
Relative OR Absolute. What is wrong in one situation might be right in another.

Such a system can fall under the heading of Moral Universalism and/or Moral Objectivism.

As with anything in philosophy you can go down the rabbit hole with all the different variations
and subsets, but my point is that having a moral system that isn't absolute does not mean
that you must necessarily then have a moral system that is relative or subjective.


This was particularly prompted by the discussion in that thread "If no God - What Meaning ?"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157510

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is a common point of contention that I would like to discuss, away from
the arguments that it gets embedded in.


This can be in discussions about morality, or meaning, or other things I can't
think of right now.

But lets take morality as a an example for the moment.


Many if not most religions espouse Moral Absolutism.
They have a s ...[text shortened]... ead "If no God - What Meaning ?"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157510

Originally posted by sonship (OP)
Now I would really like to know what difference any kind of life makes if there is no God. I don't know to start a new thread. Maybe, I'll just ask it here.

Now if God does not exist then what difference does it make that anyone lived, anything existed, how we behaved, what we "lived" for ?

Honestly. What difference does it make ? Thread 157510

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by sonship (OP)
Now I would really like to know what difference any kind of life makes if there is no God. I don't know to start a new thread. Maybe, I'll just ask it here.

Now if God does not exist then what difference does it make that anyone lived, anything existed, how we behaved, what we "lived" for ?

Honestly. What difference does it make ? Thread 157510

Wow, fastest possible attempted hijacking.

http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/absoluterelativemorality/index.htm

There is no one succinct quote.

Other sources should be consulted prior to any serious discussion.

It should be noted that relativism is most often attributed to the morality of others whose morality differs from ours.

Originally posted by JS357
Wow, fastest possible attempted hijacking.

http://www.rsrevision.com/Alevel/ethics/absoluterelativemorality/index.htm

There is no one succinct quote.

Other sources should be consulted prior to any serious discussion.

It should be noted that relativism is most often attributed to the morality of others whose morality differs from ours.

An assist to efficiently view another contributor's thread which googlefudge employed as the catalytic basis of his thread.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
Originally posted by sonship (OP)
Now I would really like to know what difference any kind of life makes if there is no God. I don't know to start a new thread. Maybe, I'll just ask it here.

Now if God does not exist then what difference does it make that anyone lived, anything existed, how we behaved, what we "lived" for ?

Honestly. What difference does it make ? Thread 157510

will you live in despair or not?

one should make the best of one's life, regardless of whether god exists or not. since you cannot know for sure of his existence, what does it matter if oblivion greets you? as long as you did your best.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
will you live in despair or not?

one should make the best of one's life, regardless of whether god exists or not. since you cannot know for sure of his existence, what does it matter if oblivion greets you? as long as you did your best.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
will you live in despair or not?

one should make the best of one's life, regardless of whether god exists or not. since you cannot know for sure of his existence, what does it matter if oblivion greets you? as long as you did your best.

With tranquility of soul sharing God's Perfect Happiness each day and with Him for eternity; how does one "make the best of one's life, regardless of whether god exists or not."? On what basis do you claim that "you cannot know for sure of his existence, what does it matter if oblivion greets you."? Does "as long as you did your best." refer to 'good works'?

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is a common point of contention that I would like to discuss, away from
the arguments that it gets embedded in.


This can be in discussions about morality, or meaning, or other things I can't
think of right now.

But lets take morality as a an example for the moment.


Many if not most religions espouse Moral Absolutism.
They have a s ...[text shortened]... ead "If no God - What Meaning ?"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157510

So GF how's this thread going for you so far?

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is a common point of contention that I would like to discuss, away from
the arguments that it gets embedded in.


This can be in discussions about morality, or meaning, or other things I can't
think of right now.

But lets take morality as a an example for the moment.


Many if not most religions espouse Moral Absolutism.
They have a s ...[text shortened]... ead "If no God - What Meaning ?"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157510

the problem that you may face is dealing with qualia, in that its not whether something is absolute or relative nor whether its measurable as a 'reality' (you can measure the length of a wave of light and how it is received in the retina and how it impacts upon the nervous system, but you cannot measure the experience of it being received nor describe it to another who has never seen it so that they can fully comprehend it) but that it ultimately must be experienced which no amount of measuring in 'real' terms can aspire to reach.

Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
An assist to efficiently view another contributor's thread which googlefudge employed as the catalytic basis of his thread.

I had already posted the link to that thread, which you would know if you
had read my OP.

Do you have anything to say about the actual content as opposed to taking it
upon yourself to act as moderator in other peoples threads?

Originally posted by JS357
So GF how's this thread going for you so far?

Peachy. 😞

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the problem that you may face is dealing with qualia, in that its not whether something is absolute or relative nor whether its measurable as a 'reality' (you can measure the length of a wave of light and how it is received in the retina and how it impacts upon the nervous system, but you cannot measure the experience of it being received nor describ ...[text shortened]... ultimately must be experienced which no amount of measuring in 'real' terms can aspire to reach.

Fortunately it is perfectly possible (directly or by proxy) to measure stress
levels and health and happiness.

Not least [although not exclusively] because you can ask people about how
they feel, which is one advantage you have in dealing with sentient entities.

However that's a little bit of a diversion from the main point that I had that
simply because I am an atheist I need not have a relativist view of morality,
and I suspect few of us do have such a morality.

Originally posted by googlefudge
I had already posted the link to that thread, which you would know if you
had read my OP.

Do you have anything to say about the actual content as opposed to taking it
upon yourself to act as moderator in other peoples threads?

"This was particularly prompted by the discussion in that thread "If no God - What Meaning ?"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157510" (OP)

or

"Honestly. What difference does it make ?" Thread 157510

.... which of the two are readers of this thread most likely to avail themselves of in the event they wish to contribute in context? Impression was you would appreciate an initiative intended to benefit the conversation. I'm pondering the OP.

Originally posted by googlefudge
This is a common point of contention that I would like to discuss, away from
the arguments that it gets embedded in.


This can be in discussions about morality, or meaning, or other things I can't
think of right now.

But lets take morality as a an example for the moment.


Many if not most religions espouse Moral Absolutism.
They have a s ...[text shortened]... ead "If no God - What Meaning ?"
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=157510

Sam Harris Author, Neuroscientist: Toward a Science of Morality

"Over the past couple of months, I seem to have conducted a public experiment in the manufacture of philosophical and scientific ideas. In February, I spoke at the 2010 TED conference, where I briefly argued that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science. Normally, when one speaks at a conference the resulting feedback amounts to a few conversations in the lobby during a coffee break. I had these conversations at TED, of course, and they were useful. As luck would have it, however..."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

googlefudge, does Sam Harris' argument "that morality should be considered an undeveloped branch of science" support your point "that having a moral system that isn't absolute does not mean that you must necessarily then have a moral system that is relative or subjective."? Additionally, have other academic disciplines also contributed to human morality?

Originally posted by googlefudge
Fortunately it is perfectly possible (directly or by proxy) to measure stress
levels and health and happiness.

Not least [although not exclusively] because you can ask people about how
they feel, which is one advantage you have in dealing with sentient entities.

However that's a little bit of a diversion from the main point that I had that
si ...[text shortened]... need not have a relativist view of morality,
and I suspect few of us do have such a morality.

Is it not the case that for a morality to be measured in 'real terms', it must be experienced? for example, its not simply enough to cerebrally acknowledge that killing is bad, one must feel the pangs of conscience that its morally reprehensible to take someones life unjustifiably, that it does not belong to us to take that life? to measure stress levels, serotonin levels etc is simply not enough because not everyones conscience functions in the same way, it may be suppressed or entirely defunct and thus a serial killer like the 'ice man', has absolutely no pangs of conscience about 'icing' people whereas someone with a sensitive conscience would feel remorse about running over a deer on a country road, i relate this to you because it seems to me to be utter folly to try to assess the 'reality', of a morality on the basis of whether its measurable in material terms. Whether you actually do have a relativist view of morality remains to be seen although i would suspect that you do, proving it is another matter though.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
will you live in despair or not?

one should make the best of one's life, regardless of whether god exists or not. since you cannot know for sure of his existence, what does it matter if oblivion greets you? as long as you did your best.

... since you cannot know for sure of his existence, what does it matter if oblivion greets you? as long as you did your best.

There are two types of Agnostics that I know of:

1.) One says - "I do not know if God exists. Maybe someone else knows."

2.) The other says - "I do not know if God exists. And no one else knows either."

I regard your statement to represent the second type of Agnosticism.
How do you know that you can speak for everyone that "you cannot know for sure of his existence"?

It should be normal that a person does know for sure that God is real.
You have to ask people if they know God.
I know God. I have "tasted" that the Lord is good. There is no need to apologize for this.

" As newborn babes, long for the guileless milk of the word in order that you may grow unto salvation.

If you have tasted that the Lord is good." (1 Peter 2:2,3)

Please notice that the Apostle Peter says tasting that God is good is an experience in the ongoing growth of spiritual growth. The tasters here are new born babes. Growth, maturity, deeper development await them.

But they have tasted God. They know God is real.
Peter is alluding to Psalm 34:8 which invites man to experience God, to taste God -

"Taste and see that the Lord is good; Blessed is the man who takes refuge in Him." (Psalm 34:8)

So I think an agnostic should be of the first type. He admits God he has not experienced. But he leaves the possibility open that others maybe have experienced God.

Either way, those who have tasted the reality of God abound, albeit as babes needing further growth in that experience.