Other Philosophy: Is There A Greater Good?

[Proletariat]

We disagree windsock. I think our technical education has far surpassed our social education. I think that practical education is fine, but education should teach how to live, not just how to survive. The education system in the United States is still based off of the practical education shift in the early 40's and 50's to prepare children for factory work. Vocational education centers are both prevalent and many are excellent. I fear for the character or future generations who will be excellent STEM majors, but perhaps forget what a human being is. Man needs purpose as well as occupation, we can all be brilliant rocket scientists, but if we have lost what it is that makes us human, then was it worth it? Excellent literature teaches how to appreciate the beauty of life, how to examine the nuances of the human condition, how to become a more complete human being.

 

[Omnimon]

I recently had an in depth conversation with one of my professors about how different demographics view non-religious higher order morality and, given that I have a basic grasp of the demographics of this site, I am curious. I am not asking for an in depth explanation of your beliefs, (though I might if it interests me) but if I were to ask you, is there such a thing as a "true moral code" or a "greater good", what would you answer? To clarify, is there a secular set of morals that inherently trumps other morals, or are ethics entirely relative depending on one's background? Please leave a reply with your answer!  

Really depends on your POV , and the time and place this occurred. Nearly everything is * subjective* save for the facts ( Morals and such are fairly subjective when you look at human history as a whole )  .


Example for how morals change over time :


Slavery was *widely* accepted in the past  . It was seen as " Moral" because of ( insert religious ideals and / or political or even scientific , etc ) .......... Today ( or rather in the past 4-5 centuries )  slavery's widely looked at as " inhumane" , etc.  Thus the human conscious over time ( or rather the definition of morals) changes as time goes on .


Morally, in the future it could be considered that eating meat would be " horrific" because your ending a sentient life form ( be it chickens, cows, etc) . Its possible that in the future those who judge us currently ( say 100-200 years from now or so ) might say that we were all savages because we ate sentient life forms for meat, that we were committing murder by doing this act .


Just a few years ago, if not less then a decade or two, being gay was looked as if one were a sexual deviant, and had incredible negative connotations, and that it was immoral to be gay.  Now? Its more widely accepted across the globe .  Hence morals changes throughout time .


How POV ( Place and situation and when it occurred )  changes what one views as the " greater good"  :


If you think about the " greater good" , say if you a  person say in the Holy Roman Empire..... during 1617, you'd think that the " greater good" would be to " end" Protestantism and/or Catholicism   . In that religious war, both sides " believed" that the " greater" good would be to commit what we'd say atrocities and all . Many on both sides believed that by killing as many " heretics " that were within their own religion , that they were justified in doing so, that they were in affect carrying out " the greater good" , some of the accounts one reads about this turbulent history in Germany, shows how people ( on both sides) justified killing and torturing women, children, the old and weak......    ( This ensuing RELIGIOUS CIVIL WAR would kill , roughly 30% of an entire nation's population, something that's nearly unthinkable, even by Syrian civil war standards.  )


If you were say living in the US today, you'd think that the " greater " good would be to oppose trump ( if you were living in certain specific areas )  .


If you were living in 1932 in Spain, you would think that the greater good would be to  ensure that the Spanish government wouldn't fall into Chaos .


If you were living in 100 BC, in Carthage, you'd think that the " greater good" would be to kill off the growing new Roman Empire.


If you were living in China in Taiping in 1851 , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to spread and conquer the Ming empire. 


If you were living in the Congo during 1996, you'd think the " greater good" would be to support Rwanda  and overthrow Mobutu Sésé Seko , while if you were on the other side you'd think that the " greater good" would be to preserve the current order of things and support the dictatorship .


If you were in Belfast in 1972, as Catholic , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to support the IRA and their uprising against the British government ( who was largely protestant )  .


If you were in Portugal in 1823 , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to put down the Independence movement in Brazil by any means necessary ( massacres, brutal repression.  etc ) .


and its not just .... real life examples.


You can do this similarly with anime's and all .


If you were Naruto , you'd think that the greater good would be to defeat Madara Uchiha because he had massacred his own clan, etc..... ( early on that is later on that " greater good" goal changes )  .


If you were Natsu  in fairy tale you'd think that the " greater good" would be to defeat Acnologia .


If you were Omnimon , you'd think the " greater good" would be to delete the digital word's citizens  ( if your going by that Digivolution- x movie) that were deemed as " unnecessary" as per orders of Yggdrasil .....


Notice how as the POV changes as well as the time and place one finds themselves in , the definition of " greater good" changes.  What might be seen as abhorrent currently, might have been seen as " a sacrifice for the greater good "   in the past and in different places, etc.


" The greater good"..... it all depends how you look at it. Its subjective. much like how morals are.

 

[Shireling]

Really depends on your POV , and the time and place this occurred. Nearly everything is * subjective* save for the facts ( Morals and such are fairly subjective when you look at human history as a whole )  .


Example for how morals change over time :


Slavery was *widely* accepted in the past  . It was seen as " Moral" because of ( insert religious ideals and / or political or even scientific , etc ) .......... Today ( or rather in the past 4-5 centuries )  slavery's widely looked at as " inhumane" , etc.  Thus the human conscious over time ( or rather the definition of morals) changes as time goes on .


Morally, in the future it could be considered that eating meat would be " horrific" because your ending a sentient life form ( be it chickens, cows, etc) . Its possible that in the future those who judge us currently ( say 100-200 years from now or so ) might say that we were all savages because we ate sentient life forms for meat, that we were committing murder by doing this act .


Just a few years ago, if not less then a decade or two, being gay was looked as if one were a sexual deviant, and had incredible negative connotations, and that it was immoral to be gay.  Now? Its more widely accepted across the globe .  Hence morals changes throughout time .


How POV ( Place and situation and when it occurred )  changes what one views as the " greater good"  :


If you think about the " greater good" , say if you a  person say in the Holy Roman Empire..... during 1617, you'd think that the " greater good" would be to " end" Protestantism and/or Catholicism   . In that religious war, both sides " believed" that the " greater" good would be to commit what we'd say atrocities and all . Many on both sides believed that by killing as many " heretics " that were within their own religion , that they were justified in doing so, that they were in affect carrying out " the greater good" , some of the accounts one reads about this turbulent history in Germany, shows how people ( on both sides) justified killing and torturing women, children, the old and weak......    ( This ensuing RELIGIOUS CIVIL WAR would kill , roughly 30% of an entire nation's population, something that's nearly unthinkable, even by Syrian civil war standards.  )


If you were say living in the US today, you'd think that the " greater " good would be to oppose trump ( if you were living in certain specific areas )  .


If you were living in 1932 in Spain, you would think that the greater good would be to  ensure that the Spanish government wouldn't fall into Chaos .


If you were living in 100 BC, in Carthage, you'd think that the " greater good" would be to kill off the growing new Roman Empire.


If you were living in China in Taiping in 1851 , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to spread and conquer the Ming empire. 


If you were living in the Congo during 1996, you'd think the " greater good" would be to support Rwanda  and overthrow Mobutu Sésé Seko , while if you were on the other side you'd think that the " greater good" would be to preserve the current order of things and support the dictatorship .


If you were in Belfast in 1972, as Catholic , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to support the IRA and their uprising against the British government ( who was largely protestant )  .


If you were in Portugal in 1823 , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to put down the Independence movement in Brazil by any means necessary ( massacres, brutal repression.  etc ) .


and its not just .... real life examples.


You can do this similarly with anime's and all .


If you were Naruto , you'd think that the greater good would be to defeat Madara Uchiha because he had massacred his own clan, etc..... ( early on that is later on that " greater good" goal changes )  .


If you were Natsu  in fairy tale you'd think that the " greater good" would be to defeat Acnologia .


If you were Omnimon , you'd think the " greater good" would be to delete the digital word's citizens  ( if your going by that Digivolution- x movie) that were deemed as " unnecessary" as per orders of Yggdrasil .....


Notice how as the POV changes as well as the time and place one finds themselves in , the definition of " greater good" changes.  What might be seen as abhorrent currently, might have been seen as " a sacrifice for the greater good "   in the past and in different places, etc.


" The greater good"..... it all depends how you look at it. Its subjective. much like how morals are.

This is another one of those things where we're talking past each other. The existence of objective morality does not necessitate that humans actually abide by it. 

 

[Proletariat]

Really depends on your POV , and the time and place this occurred. Nearly everything is * subjective* save for the facts ( Morals and such are fairly subjective when you look at human history as a whole )  .


Example for how morals change over time :


Slavery was *widely* accepted in the past  . It was seen as " Moral" because of ( insert religious ideals and / or political or even scientific , etc ) .......... Today ( or rather in the past 4-5 centuries )  slavery's widely looked at as " inhumane" , etc.  Thus the human conscious over time ( or rather the definition of morals) changes as time goes on .


Morally, in the future it could be considered that eating meat would be " horrific" because your ending a sentient life form ( be it chickens, cows, etc) . Its possible that in the future those who judge us currently ( say 100-200 years from now or so ) might say that we were all savages because we ate sentient life forms for meat, that we were committing murder by doing this act .


Just a few years ago, if not less then a decade or two, being gay was looked as if one were a sexual deviant, and had incredible negative connotations, and that it was immoral to be gay.  Now? Its more widely accepted across the globe .  Hence morals changes throughout time .


How POV ( Place and situation and when it occurred )  changes what one views as the " greater good"  :


If you think about the " greater good" , say if you a  person say in the Holy Roman Empire..... during 1617, you'd think that the " greater good" would be to " end" Protestantism and/or Catholicism   . In that religious war, both sides " believed" that the " greater" good would be to commit what we'd say atrocities and all . Many on both sides believed that by killing as many " heretics " that were within their own religion , that they were justified in doing so, that they were in affect carrying out " the greater good" , some of the accounts one reads about this turbulent history in Germany, shows how people ( on both sides) justified killing and torturing women, children, the old and weak......    ( This ensuing RELIGIOUS CIVIL WAR would kill , roughly 30% of an entire nation's population, something that's nearly unthinkable, even by Syrian civil war standards.  )


If you were say living in the US today, you'd think that the " greater " good would be to oppose trump ( if you were living in certain specific areas )  .


If you were living in 1932 in Spain, you would think that the greater good would be to  ensure that the Spanish government wouldn't fall into Chaos .


If you were living in 100 BC, in Carthage, you'd think that the " greater good" would be to kill off the growing new Roman Empire.


If you were living in China in Taiping in 1851 , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to spread and conquer the Ming empire. 


If you were living in the Congo during 1996, you'd think the " greater good" would be to support Rwanda  and overthrow Mobutu Sésé Seko , while if you were on the other side you'd think that the " greater good" would be to preserve the current order of things and support the dictatorship .


If you were in Belfast in 1972, as Catholic , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to support the IRA and their uprising against the British government ( who was largely protestant )  .


If you were in Portugal in 1823 , you'd think that the " greater good" would be to put down the Independence movement in Brazil by any means necessary ( massacres, brutal repression.  etc ) .


and its not just .... real life examples.


You can do this similarly with anime's and all .


If you were Naruto , you'd think that the greater good would be to defeat Madara Uchiha because he had massacred his own clan, etc..... ( early on that is later on that " greater good" goal changes )  .


If you were Natsu  in fairy tale you'd think that the " greater good" would be to defeat Acnologia .


If you were Omnimon , you'd think the " greater good" would be to delete the digital word's citizens  ( if your going by that Digivolution- x movie) that were deemed as " unnecessary" as per orders of Yggdrasil .....


Notice how as the POV changes as well as the time and place one finds themselves in , the definition of " greater good" changes.  What might be seen as abhorrent currently, might have been seen as " a sacrifice for the greater good "   in the past and in different places, etc.


" The greater good"..... it all depends how you look at it. Its subjective. much like how morals are.

Many, many, many of these things are not necessarily questions of morality. Almost all of those are situations where the group of people specified are using religious justification or other justification to perform an act to further self interest. To claim that morality is simply a justification to further self interest is certainly a cynical point of view at best. I recognize that you are mostly focusing on the wording I used, "greater good." When I use that term I am referring to a higher order morality, an objective and universal moral code. Many of these situations were fueled by religious institutions vying for power across Europe, which is a situation dealing in power wielding and self interest. I will refer to my previous mention of the French Revolution as an instance where the French people revolted against the Ancien Regime in order to see a government founded in Liberty and protection of human right. They fought for an ideal that was bigger than the politics of the time, that was bigger than France itself, they fought for universal rights for all Frenchmen and indeed all men in general. This was not an instance where war was justified for self-interest. Yes, the Third Estate benefited from the revolution, but they viewed it as earning their self-evident rights as human beings.

 

[Omnimon]

Many, many, many of these things are not necessarily questions of morality. Almost all of those are situations where the group of people specified are using religious justification or other justification to perform an act to further self interest. To claim that morality is simply a justification to further self interest is certainly a cynical point of view at best. I recognize that you are mostly focusing on the wording I used, "greater good." When I use that term I am referring to a higher order morality, an objective and universal moral code. Many of these situations were fueled by religious institutions vying for power across Europe, which is a situation dealing in power wielding and self interest. I will refer to my previous mention of the French Revolution as an instance where the French people revolted against the Ancien Regime in order to see a government founded in Liberty and protection of human right. They fought for an ideal that was bigger than the politics of the time, that was bigger than France itself, they fought for universal rights for all Frenchmen and indeed all men in general. This was not an instance where war was justified for self-interest. Yes, the Third Estate benefited from the revolution, but they viewed it as earning their self-evident rights as human beings.

             So the french revolution was the " only" war that's initiated because it wasn't a war that wasn't justified for self-interest ? Any war could be " justified' in that manner.  All you need is  Casus belli .  When the French people revolted against the Regime, if you were a Frenchman, in particular that war, it depended on which *side* you were on , to which the " greater good" could be defined differently .  If you were on the side of the royalists , you thought that the " Greater Good" , would be to preserve order and to protect the throne . ( In some aspects, just even having a war is immoral because the simple act of taking people's lives, to which a revolution usually entails ( save for a few rare examples )  is immoral whatever the instance it may be in. )  . If you were on the side of the  " French People " ( and i use this term VERY loosely because during that time, there weren't just " one interest ", there were competing interests within the revolution )  , you believed that you were being oppressed, that  the " Greater good" would be to overthrow the regime using whatever means necessary .


                  If they fought for an ideal that was bigger than the politics of the time and bigger then France its self , then why did they have the " Reign of Terror?"   In that time, if you were even a suspected " loyalist" to the french regime, a simple word could land you a visit with the  " people's razor "  .  Even the idealist himself , Maximilien Robespierre , was an architect of such a horrific event. It was a terrible time and I'd say that during that time , that only specific portions of French society benefited from that.  If you were living under the Kaiser you'd think that the French were losing their minds and that the " greater good" would be to rally up the Church / England / Austria  and declare a war to rid the heathens of such anti-christian ideology ( which they did ) . During that time in the French revolution it wasn't just the aristocracy who was massacred or their loyalist allies,  the Christian church was widely killed enmasse as well . Not to mention the counter revolution ( those who opposed the Jacobins , but weren't allied with the European powers ) , had fought in  Vendée , a civil war within a civil war.


                When you have a war, its hard to say that " its for the greater good" , simply because you need to take A LOT of lives to achieve that goal. If one just simply defines that " Yes this  WAR is for the greater good" then in affect depending on different points of view ANY war can be justified in the manner that says that " nope  this war isn't for self interst, its for " the greater good"  "  .   There are no wars that are " free of self interest " .  There's always some kind of motive, for if there wasn't then why risk such extreme actions  ?  If you want to define the " greater good" you need to also define the basis of what is a " greater good"  ( which means your going to delve into talking about morals, and such )  .  Besides, taking a life be it for religious ideals, or political ideals or just for an ideal its self... its not moral  right ? So how can any war be " for the greater good" if it involves taking a life ? 


                Notice how that kind of argument, you can see several different point of views. Each can be valid in their own right to which is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, everyone believes that they're the protagonist in their own lives, barely anyone wants to believe that they're the antagonist and / or just a supporting OC .

This is another one of those things where we're talking past each other. The existence of objective morality does not necessitate that humans actually abide by it. 

               Well put, I'd have to concede that point. It only took someone two sentences to change my mind . While others.... well....lets just say that you sort of get the feeling that they were talking in circles or trying to prove a point by creating an echo chamber ( its kind of crazy how two sentences has that kind of affect , when I've argued with a certain other person on RP nation about this very subject, but isn't present in this thread yet , yet they weren't able to prove their point in a valid manner without getting all heated and defeated.    ) .....  More or less you did what he couldn't do in ..... probably 100 pages worth of debates or more.


              In that case, there really shouldn't be any debates about Philosophy shouldn't there ?  After all , if there is the existence of objective morality . All one needs to do is just learn what the existence of objective morality is . Right ?

 

[Shireling]

             So the french revolution was the " only" war that's initiated because it wasn't a war that wasn't justified for self-interest ? Any war could be " justified' in that manner.  All you need is  Casus belli .  When the French people revolted against the Regime, if you were a Frenchman, in particular that war, it depended on which *side* you were on , to which the " greater good" could be defined differently .  If you were on the side of the royalists , you thought that the " Greater Good" , would be to preserve order and to protect the throne . ( In some aspects, just even having a war is immoral because the simple act of taking people's lives, to which a revolution usually entails ( save for a few rare examples )  is immoral whatever the instance it may be in. )  . If you were on the side of the  " French People " ( and i use this term VERY loosely because during that time, there weren't just " one interest ", there were competing interests within the revolution )  , you believed that you were being oppressed, that  the " Greater good" would be to overthrow the regime using whatever means necessary .


                  If they fought for an ideal that was bigger than the politics of the time and bigger then France its self , then why did they have the " Reign of Terror?"   In that time, if you were even a suspected " loyalist" to the french regime, a simple word could land you a visit with the  " people's razor "  .  Even the idealist himself , Maximilien Robespierre , was an architect of such a horrific event. It was a terrible time and I'd say that during that time , that only specific portions of French society benefited from that.  If you were living under the Kaiser you'd think that the French were losing their minds and that the " greater good" would be to rally up the Church / England / Austria  and declare a war to rid the heathens of such anti-christian ideology ( which they did ) . During that time in the French revolution it wasn't just the aristocracy who was massacred or their loyalist allies,  the Christian church was widely killed enmasse as well . Not to mention the counter revolution ( those who opposed the Jacobins , but weren't allied with the European powers ) , had fought in  Vendée , a civil war within a civil war.


                When you have a war, its hard to say that " its for the greater good" , simply because you need to take A LOT of lives to achieve that goal. If one just simply defines that " Yes this  WAR is for the greater good" then in affect depending on different points of view ANY war can be justified in the manner that says that " nope  this war isn't for self interst, its for " the greater good"  "  .   There are no wars that are " free of self interest " .  There's always some kind of motive, for if there wasn't then why risk such extreme actions  ?  If you want to define the " greater good" you need to also define the basis of what is a " greater good"  ( which means your going to delve into talking about morals, and such )  .  Besides, taking a life be it for religious ideals, or political ideals or just for an ideal its self... its not moral  right ? So how can any war be " for the greater good" if it involves taking a life ? 


                Notice how that kind of argument, you can see several different point of views. Each can be valid in their own right to which is in the eye of the beholder. Besides, everyone believes that they're the protagonist in their own lives, barely anyone wants to believe that they're the antagonist and / or just a supporting OC .


               Well put, I'd have to concede that point. It only took someone two sentences to change my mind . While others.... well....lets just say that you sort of get the feeling that they were talking in circles or trying to prove a point by creating an echo chamber ( its kind of crazy how two sentences has that kind of affect , when I've argued with a certain other person on RP nation about this very subject, but isn't present in this thread yet , yet they weren't able to prove their point in a valid manner without getting all heated and defeated.    ) .....  More or less you did what he couldn't do in ..... probably 100 pages worth of debates or more.


              In that case, there really shouldn't be any debates about Philosophy shouldn't there ?  After all , if there is the existence of objective morality . All one needs to do is just learn what the existence of objective morality is . Right ?

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a debate, I'm just saying I think there is an objective morality. 

 

[Count Gensokyo]

Yes.


Gotta love concise answers.

 

[Icerex]

“The best revenge is to be unlike him who performed the injury.” 
― Marcus Aurelius


So yes, treat others as you would be treated. 

 

[Throne Trinity]

I've been told that I'm rather nihilistic. I think you know what my answer is.


Good discussions by the way. Very entertaining to read all of this.  

 

[kibou]

id say morality exists but it's a product of human thought, emotions, and empathy, and therefore is subjective and relative- but it doesn't necessarily make that sense of morality unimportant


it makes sense to me for something like a sense of morality to exist in species that are so social and rely on each other like us. it protects people from each other, benefitting both individuals and groups, and fosters positive relationships as well when you have the same general morals as another person- probably a combo of group dynamics and thinking they're a good person because of the shared morals


i also think morality doesn't need christianity/religion to exist, as religions have changed a lot over time and morals aren't anything new. i think in theory id be surprised if people thought morality hinged on christianity specifically, but that's what ive been hearing my entire life, lol. religion has definitely influenced societal norms and morals and become the basis for certain ways of thought/rules (or maybe the other way around?) but i dont think its the origin of morality or necessary for it


the disgust that people across the world share when it comes to things considered universally immoral (e.g, don't kill/maim if it's not self defense) is response that happens because of human biology as a whole, and individually as well. it's not even totally universal either.


people who don't have affective (emotional) empathy tend to not share the same repulsion at immoral stuff or even have the same sense of morality that other people do and instead have to learn from other people what's right or wrong instead of relying on their own instincts. there's usually differences in brain scans/chemistry  between people who have empathy and a sense of morality and those who don't.


which i suppose if there is an objective code of right and wrong human experience has nothing to do with it, and we'll probably never know what it is, and then even if we did i dont have much faith in humans not still relying on their own ideas and feelings and personal sense of morality anyways


although i am genuinely interested in where people that are on the side of objective morality think it comes from/how it functions? ive had one person compare it to math in that it's abstract but just exists and we might... somehow discover it some day, but i doubt you all think the same and i'd be interested in hearing how you reached the conclusion 

 

[Shelter]

IHonestly, I don't think higher good exist but that's because I don't think good and morality doesn't exist at all. It's a social construct where society lists what they value (laws or social conduct) and they disparage (punishment for breaking laws, or exclusion from society). Whatever is the higher good, could be the work of one person or one idea that doesn't represent the entirety of society.

 

[Proletariat]

id say morality exists but it's a product of human thought, emotions, and empathy, and therefore is subjective and relative- but it doesn't necessarily make that sense of morality unimportant


it makes sense to me for something like a sense of morality to exist in species that are so social and rely on each other like us. it protects people from each other, benefitting both individuals and groups, and fosters positive relationships as well when you have the same general morals as another person- probably a combo of group dynamics and thinking they're a good person because of the shared morals


i also think morality doesn't need christianity/religion to exist, as religions have changed a lot over time and morals aren't anything new. i think in theory id be surprised if people thought morality hinged on christianity specifically, but that's what ive been hearing my entire life, lol. religion has definitely influenced societal norms and morals and become the basis for certain ways of thought/rules (or maybe the other way around?) but i dont think its the origin of morality or necessary for it


the disgust that people across the world share when it comes to things considered universally immoral (e.g, don't kill/maim if it's not self defense) is response that happens because of human biology as a whole, and individually as well. it's not even totally universal either.


people who don't have affective (emotional) empathy tend to not share the same repulsion at immoral stuff or even have the same sense of morality that other people do and instead have to learn from other people what's right or wrong instead of relying on their own instincts. there's usually differences in brain scans/chemistry  between people who have empathy and a sense of morality and those who don't.


which i suppose if there is an objective code of right and wrong human experience has nothing to do with it, and we'll probably never know what it is, and then even if we did i dont have much faith in humans not still relying on their own ideas and feelings and personal sense of morality anyways


although i am genuinely interested in where people that are on the side of objective morality think it comes from/how it functions? ive had one person compare it to math in that it's abstract but just exists and we might... somehow discover it some day, but i doubt you all think the same and i'd be interested in hearing how you reached the conclusion 

I'm eating pizza 30 minutes before class so this is going to be brief. I think objective morality can be achieved through human reasoning. There are already attempts to do this that I find highly successful. Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative is one such way at deriving objective morality from reasoning. I will not explain the theory, Google exists for a reason. I also find Kohlberg's stages of moral development to provide insight here. He constructed a scenario in which the subject is presented with a moral dilemma, their response to the dilemma is supposed to reveal what stage of moral development they are in. He tested this theory across the world in dozens of cultures and although the responses he got were not always the same, the amount of similarity in the various subject's values was striking. I also assure you that the situation in his theory is not a product of human biology, morality is so much more complicated that what our instincts compel us to do for self preservation. It is because of this, because of our ability to reason outside of our biological compulsion, that I believe we can come to conclusions about objective morality.

 

[Idea]

I do believe such a thing as objective morality exists. For one thing, morality would be stripped of meaning otherwise. It makes no sense to punish or praise someone for sheer consensus.  Second, it´s logically impossible for something to be subjective (feelings are objective, in the sense that you do objectively experience them, even if the relation between those feelings and the objective value of something else is a myth). One of the major laws in logic is "nothing can be and not be at the same time under the same aspect", which would be the implication of a morality that is not concrete and objective. A third argument would be one of probability: Every single hypothesis of an objective morality would have to be wrong in order for it to be subjective. Considering there are an infinite number of those, the odds of moral subjectivism being correct are close to 0 if not actually 0.


As for what system might be, my go to is that of a relation of value dependence. If one thing is necessary for the continuity of another, the first is more important than the second, which also applies to values. For example, you cannot have freedom without life. If you are dead, you can´t be free, because freedom requires action and decisions and without either of those, you have none: so life is always more important than freedom.

 

[Farseer of Ulthwe]

I don't believe in a "greater good." I'm not a Tau.


[SIZE= 18px]But anyway, in all seriousness, I don't believe in morals (because I don't have any, but that's a whole different topic). The idea of "good" and "evil" is man-made and completely subjective. It morphs around the ideologies of individual people. So making up some universal moral code is really just shoving your ideas down other people's throats.[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 18px]And yes, even the idea of murder, torture and other quote-on-quote "heinous" deeds being evil can be considered subjective, because in my experience, no one is truly evil, and, without a shadow of a doubt, no one is truly good. There is always a story.[/SIZE]

 

[Omnimon]

I'm not saying there shouldn't be a debate, I'm just saying I think there is an objective morality. 

There is ( objective morality )  , weather or not if its advantageous to follow. That's another matter. 


After all, " Logic" or being " objective morally " comes easy to those who best espouse such words, when they have the least to lose .


Everyone has some kind of agenda , in general .  If we didn't then Ego wouldn't exist right ?  But there it is .


But that'll get a bit off topic.


" The greater good"  .... only way to define that is to define what morals are, right ?   Without having to define morals you can't get the " greater " good no ? 

 

[Borkus Lazorus]

is there such a thing as a "true moral code" or a "greater good"

Ask these guys. They got you on the back.


And yes, there is a greater good. Some cases it can be justified. Some cases it can't. 


It  think the greater good is a general term for making a choice that has an overall positive effect on the rest of society and not just a individual. But, you can ask this town for the answer as well.

 

[Proletariat]

I don't believe in a "greater good." I'm not a Tau.


[SIZE= 18px]But anyway, in all seriousness, I don't believe in morals (because I don't have any, but that's a whole different topic). The idea of "good" and "evil" is man-made and completely subjective. It morphs around the ideologies of individual people. So making up some universal moral code is really just shoving your ideas down other people's throats.[/SIZE]


[SIZE= 18px]And yes, even the idea of murder, torture and other quote-on-quote "heinous" deeds being evil can be considered subjective, because in my experience, no one is truly evil, and, without a shadow of a doubt, no one is truly good. There is always a story.[/SIZE]

You cannot argue that something does not exist because you do not possess it. I do not possess a Lamborghini diablo. I have never seen one in person either, but I can know they exist to a comfortable degree of certainty. Just because you do not possess morality in your own view, this does not mean that morality does not exist in objective form. Also, while the title may be misleading, the discussion of this thread has thus far not necessarily involved a discussion of the "good vs. evil" ideology. 


Also, if you read my post about how I believe objective morality can be achieved, it is in a sense 'man-made' by the same token that subjective morality is. Humans can use logic and reason to arrive to objective morality. As an individual, you can act in a manner so that your behavior applied to any situation would never change. For instance, I would never kill an innocent person. It doesn't matter what sort of what-if scenario you place in front of me, I just won't kill an innocent person regardless of the circumstance. This is a binding and non conditional ethical code that is not subject to the situation or my inclination at the time, it is an objective moral. 


To touch on one last thing, believing in objective morality does not incline you to shove your ideas down people's throats. I can live my by objective moral code without another soul even knowing that it exists, therefore disqualifying the notion that because I practice objective morality, I feel the need to subject others to it. 

 

[Proletariat]

I do believe such a thing as objective morality exists. For one thing, morality would be stripped of meaning otherwise. It makes no sense to punish or praise someone for sheer consensus.  Second, it´s logically impossible for something to be subjective (feelings are objective, in the sense that you do objectively experience them, even if the relation between those feelings and the objective value of something else is a myth). One of the major laws in logic is "nothing can be and not be at the same time under the same aspect", which would be the implication of a morality that is not concrete and objective. A third argument would be one of probability: Every single hypothesis of an objective morality would have to be wrong in order for it to be subjective. Considering there are an infinite number of those, the odds of moral subjectivism being correct are close to 0 if not actually 0.


As for what system might be, my go to is that of a relation of value dependence. If one thing is necessary for the continuity of another, the first is more important than the second, which also applies to values. For example, you cannot have freedom without life. If you are dead, you can´t be free, because freedom requires action and decisions and without either of those, you have none: so life is always more important than freedom.

While I am not knocking your value-dependence system, it is important to note that the value of something can be subjective. For instance, I understand that it is physically impossible to experience freedom without experiencing existence, but I also value freedom above existence. Therefore if I am not in a situation where I deem myself to be free, I will operate in a manner that I believe is free (which may get me terminated depending on the current scenario), but I would prefer lack of existence to lack of freedom. Does that work in your system, or does my set of beliefs and prioritization of value disqualify me from operating in a value dependence system as you have defined it?

 

[Idea]

While I am not knocking your value-dependence system, it is important to note that the value of something can be subjective.

On the paragraph prior to mentioning that system I explained why I believe that can]t be true. The value of something does not change just because you feel about it in a certain way. Nomatter how strongly you believe or disbelieve something that cannot change the facts, nor the value of something. Anyone who does not operate within the right objective system is just operating wrong.


This doesn´t necessarily mean my own system is right. It just means there is A system of values that is correct and no one has a say on that. Assuming otherwise (and again, there is a difference between assuming and concluding) is just pretentious. Not that I am calling you pretentious, far from it. It is a pretty common attitude to have, an assumption that a lot of people don´t really think through. Some do and still conclude that we are subjectively affecting morality. That is fine. I disagree with it, but as long as they can go and give proper reasoning to it, it´s fine. But just assuming it is, at the very least, nonsensical. Not only does it break several rules that we base reasoning itself off of, but it also empirically makes no sense. After all, we are but specs of dust in a giant cosmos, possibly multiple, grasping at straws about what we have right in front of our noses, and often wrong about even the surface level of it´s fundamental laws, yet we just assume that how we feel about it affects something as important and fundamental as what is right or wrong?

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

Morality is a human construct forged in the arrogant minds of insects who long so desperately to be closer to gods, that we bath in delusions of grandeur.


Is it a sin, or wrong, when a mother bear kills a cougar to protect her cubs? When wolves kill a bear to feed their pack and pups? Is it wrong or unjust when one male lion kills another over territory?


No... It's nature.. And whether we like it or not, we were one of those homicidal, territorial creatures not so long ago too.


We are animals, nothing more. We invented morals along with most of the other BS associated with humans.


EDIT: Hell, if you want to get deep (since I love these sorts of topics), yes there probably is a greater good, and as as the foremost developed species of this planet it is our responsibility to maintain and uphold that greater good... even if we have actually been the only problem for over three-thousand years...


The greater good is not about morality, it's not about human existance and survival, at least not entirely.


The greater good relates to our entire planet, every last species on earth. One thing I think almost any human being worth listening to can agree on. What makes us more important than whales? Polar bears? Elephants? Tigers? Or any other species? Because we use tools? Because we consume and burn and destroy everything? Because we feel a deep need to own, affect, and control everything?


No... We are a celestial cancer that blindly and selfishly consumes and destroys everything to meet our goals,  and to no other end.


If there were a greater good, the existence of mankind threatens it.

 

[Grey]

I'm a nihilist, really, which has lead me to utilitarianism as a methodology for deriving a functional ethical code because it can be founded on available scientific evidence and statistical data. And where these things might fall short, I just try to act with empathy. If I cannot do good, I would prefer to do little harm. If I cannot be good, I would prefer to be just.


But this is, of course, all arbitrary; a configuration of chemical and neuroelectrical interactions that keep the transmitters at broadly the correct balance, all predetermined by starting parameters unknown, rubberstamped by a consciousness desperate to feel like it has some say in the processes of existence. 


I perceive of myself as having chosen to believe the greater good is human health, happiness, and transcendence of our naturally evolved forms for whatever superior models we can construct because I can tell myself this is A Good Thing in those moments it becomes necessary to think about it, enjoy the chemical rush, and proceed in the belief I grasp the correct means to proceed.

 

[JRPG]

The greater good is ensuring the human population continues and succeeds, basically humans need to prolong their own species through any means necessary. Example: Space Colonialization, finding cures, Etc.

 

[M.J. Saulnier]

The greater good is ensuring the human population continues and succeeds, basically humans need to prolong their own species through any means necessary. Example: Space Colonialization, finding cures, Etc.

I think limiting any ideal of a greater good strictly to the human species is an oxymoron, and savagely indicative of human nature.


This mentality is the reason a planet exploding with millions of forms of life, will be a barren, lifeless husk 100,000 years from now. The reason we have to not just entertain the idea of interplanetary colonization, but bank our very existence on it.


And sure, all that life might be replicated on the next rock we call home, but it will never be the same... Earth is such an amazing, beautiful anomaly, against insurmountable odds, this planet gave birth to life. billions upon billions of different forms and variants both past and present. It is arguably the single most profound, beautiful and awe-inspiring event in the history of existence as we know it today.... And all of that will be gone because of one species so ignorant, so asenine and self-centered, that it destroyed it's home in order to live a little more comfortably..


Space doesn't want us... We are better left here, to face our failures and stupidity.

 

[JRPG]

@Loco Mofo Earth is one planet out of many. The universe is infinite, and there may be other planets that are like earth, or may become like earth with human aid.

 

[Windsock]

I think limiting any ideal of a greater good strictly to the human species is an oxymoron, and savagely indicative of human nature.


This mentality is the reason a planet exploding with millions of forms of life, will be a barren, lifeless husk 100,000 years from now. The reason we have to not just entertain the idea of interplanetary colonization, but bank our very existence on it.


And sure, all that life might be replicated on the next rock we call home, but it will never be the same... Earth is such an amazing, beautiful anomaly, against insurmountable odds, this planet gave birth to life. billions upon billions of different forms and variants both past and present. It is arguably the single most profound, beautiful and awe-inspiring event in the history of existence as we know it today.... And all of that will be gone because of one species so ignorant, so asenine and self-centered, that it destroyed it's home in order to live a little more comfortably..


Space doesn't want us... We are better left here, to face our failures and stupidity.

Fuck that. The prime directive of all life is to reproduce, or, more generally, to fill voids.



Space is empty of life as we know it. It's our duty to fill it with ourselves or our derivatives.