Objective Truth - Objective Morality

Post Reply New Topic

I am not an atheist myself, but I do use the same principles applied to morality, as Atheists, ie. that just because some deity said so, it isn't neccessarily right.
And furthermore, it needs arguments (ie. which arguments should there be in favor of not eating pork? Which arguments should there be in favor of circumsition? The claim that some deity (Allah, God, Yawhe whatever) said so, is NOT an argument in and of itself!)

If there are no arguments for it, other than "god said so", it fails to make sense, and as such, I do not reckognize the law, rule whatever, regardless of who said it or who wrote it down.

That doesn't mean I am for Relative Truth or Relative Morality. Because the world doesn't work that way.

The Earth is not flat, no matter who you ask. If someone replies "it IS flat! I believe so!" either they are lying our they know no better. In any case, they are wrong, because
the OBJECTIVE truth, the truth as seen from outer space, is that the Earth is not a flat disc.

We may or we may not always know the true objective Truth. But reality does not care about our ability to discover the truth or not, it has a truth:

* The Earth is not flat.
* Gravity does exist.
* Heavy things fall with the same speed as light things, if dropped from the same distance (only air resistance may make a different result).

I could name many more objective truths. But I won't. Instead I would point to the fact that EVERYTHING has an objective Truth. The world works like this.
Again, we may not always know the Objective Truth. But it exists anyway.

Where we do not know the Objective Truth, it is where Faith/Belief plays a part, but Faith/Belief should always make room for the Objective Truth, when we come to know it.
When the Truth is disputed, arguments in favor of one instead of the other, should be the way to decide it. When you can no longer argue in favor of your cause, you have lost, until you can present counter-arguments, and win the debate.

Look up 'truth' in Wikipedia. It's mind blowing.

I believe it was the Dalai Lama who said something to the effect that if science proves some belief of Buddhism wrong, then Buddhism has to change.

I love the fact that he is one of the few highly visible religious leaders in the world that accepts the fact that scientific fact should trump religious belief.

That only depends on what you believe is science. Some scientific results are highly disputed, and experimental. These should NOT make the basis of being a "scientific fact".

^If they are highly disputed within the scientific community (i.e. not the religious or pilosophical communities), then it is a basis for where to go next in terms of research (and not yet scientific fact), so it is more of a starting point.

Inconclusive results require more research. Conflicting research requires further research. Limited research requires further research. Research that has not been independently corroborated requires further research. Research which has established nothing more than correlation requires further research. In fact a huge part of research is basing future research on the results of current and past research. Science is the pursuit of knowledge and fact.

Even established and proven scientific fact benefits from continued research, as there is always more detail that may be found.

Afaik Buddhism doesnt really make any claims that are disputable by science. Reincarnation perhaps, but what happens after death may remain a riddle for eternity for all we know.

Agreed, my favourite example of this is Newton's law of universal gravitation, which stood for centuries until it was toppled by General Relativity. It does not mean Newton was wrong, rather his Law is a good approximation, the same may well happen to General Relativity.

As to objective morals, as far as I am concerned they do not exist.

I think there's a genetic impetus for "survival" which could fit within the objective, only because to varying degrees it can be found in all of us, and probably also the rest of all living things. The subjective part of that impetus could be whatever is unique in human responses, which are far more sophisticated than any other creature. As far as I know, we are the only creature to push "survival of the species" into an afterlife, arguably a natural progression in our evolution and capacity for invention.

So, if "survival" projects an objective moral code, where does it become subjective? I think exclusivity is a part of the objective side of that moral code because survival means defense against any threat, while at the same time promoting anything that has a positive effect on survival. It becomes subjective when the exclusive group decides what is a threat and what is promotional.

Threat and survival promotion are evident in nearly every human endeavor, belief, rules, behaviors and actions. To me, these are inherently objective, yet their manifestation is governed by the subjective. It never ceases to amaze me how often threat and promotion trumps intellect.

My own subjective weakness, of course, doesn't exist.

Too many mind.

" As far as I know, we are the only creature to push "survival of the species" into an afterlife"

What do you mean by this; please explain the details. What creatures do you speak of; dogs and cats?

"So, if "survival" projects an objective moral code, where does it become subjective?"

Perhaps study the stories of the "Donner" survivors for discussions of relative morality?
Not everyone was a participant.

"My own subjective weakness, of course, doesn't exist." So you would have died? How sad.

What I mean by this is that, as we are subject to the evolutionary drive of "survival of the fittest," just as all species are, our sophisticated minds have found a way of letting our species survive, even beyond death. Thus the invention of an afterlife.


My apologies for being obtuse. I thought the emoticon would show that the last statement about my own 'subjective weakness' was meant as a joke. Of course I am subjective... we all are.

As for the Donner survivors, it could be argued that those who participated and those who didn't, each followed a different subjective morality. Just a thought, and not one I've given much consideration to.

Yeah I have heard this argument before but is does not really stick with me, even if you say that to survive is moral, then does this make self sacrifice for the survival of the group immoral? And to be honest if I am correct in understanding you that survival itself is moral then anything that promotes this must also be moral. AFAIK the concept of the survival of the species is a fallacy, So then we are talkinga bout the survival of the individual organism which kind of points in a nihilistic/sophistic direction.

Rather I would say morals are a subjective expression of the current zeitgeist.

No, I don't say survival is 'moral,' just instinctual. And we are capable of overruling our instincts to satisfy our individual morals.

'Survival of the species' is a basic fundamental of evolution. Survival of the species (as I understand it) is also hierarchical. It starts first with the individual and then extends out to the group. Where do you get that it's a fallacy?

Perhaps so, but the current zeitgeist evolved from its moral ancestry.

Survival is moral. The higher the self awareness of the species, the more it is concerned with its own survival.

Flocks of birds and schools of fish do not gather for group defense. Both are just in it for the sex, it is the place to chase tail.

Objective Morality subject to the same questioning given Truth, we live in a multi faceted Donner Party.

God demands you defend our Flag in Trashcanistan, and our company will supply everything you need, at a 1000% markup.

Thou shall not kill, Me, but those guys you have to kill, and do not talk to them.

There is a snake in the garden.

What is a moral code, and do we need one at all? What is it supposed to accomplish?