My definition of Morality and it is objective
Posted by Mindless-Law8046@reddit | Libertarian | View on Reddit | 16 comments
Morality is used to judge the things we DO. We can treat it as a science if we define it clearly.
Judging involves comparing an action against the virtues that lead to the intended goal. The actions are contain in the moral code as the virtues which will provide the best chance of attaining the goal of the moral code.
Components of a moral code:
- The goal of the moral code
- The actions (the virtues) that give the best odds of attaining the goal.
- a virtue purity rule unique to the moral code.
Man's Survival Moral Code has the goal of a man's survival. The species will survive if a man can survive.
The survival virtues are:
- Choice
- Seeking the truth
- Self Defense
- Creating a survival identity.
its virtue purity rule is: an act is not a virtue if it initiates an attack on any of man's survival virtues.
Incidentally, the propterties of man's survival identity are normally referred to as man's property rights. They are not rights, they are the properties of man's survival identity.
Lanky_Barnacle_1749@reddit
God gives us an objective moral code. Whether everyone affirms its origin or not it remains true.
Mindless-Law8046@reddit (OP)
Lanky, God (your creator, whatever it is) gave you a nature as a living creature. God did not give you a survival identity, you have to create one. If you don't, others will have to take care of you. In such a case you prey on those others unless you provide them with some commensurate benefit. If you're in the wild, alone, you will die if you fail to create a survival identity. Preying on others in that context is not an option, there ARE no others theres. By definition, if you survive in the wild, alone, you none of the identified actions are acts of human predation. That is why the wilderness is the only context where man's survival virtues can be identified. If that doesn't make sense to you I don't know what else to say.
Lanky_Barnacle_1749@reddit
You are looking through a secular lens, denying God, it’s no wonder you have no idea what I’m even saying. And you make it obvious you don’t care to know. Facts remain facts in the Face ID your denial.
Chris_The_Guinea_Pig@reddit
The problem is that i am yet to hear anyone prove the existance of god, and i don't mean provide evidence of their god (there's some evidence of the resurrection, for example, thus why I'm agnostic, but nothing definitive), i mean prove, irrefutably.
Lanky_Barnacle_1749@reddit
Salvation is a gift to those who have FAITH. You realize there were many people who witnessed miracles in real time and still didn’t believe? The definitive proof idea is a fallacy.
Chris_The_Guinea_Pig@reddit
There were many people who were convinced they witnessed miracles.
From the first Vatican council
God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of human reason, through the things that he created. (Dei Filius 2)
Mindless-Law8046@reddit (OP)
And what of the church's practice of burning people at the stake who claimed that the earth revolved around the sun? Was the church's morality used to justify such acts? What does that say about its moral code?
SerenityNow31@reddit
Dude said God, you replied with the church. See the problem?
Mindless-Law8046@reddit (OP)
Are you saying that the church is not synonymous with the idea of God? He spoke of God giving man an objective moral code ... did he email it to us or was it written down by someone in the church who got it during a skype call?
SerenityNow31@reddit
Sure, I see your point, but the premise is that a God exists and that is where morals come from. A church is imperfect and who's to say which god is the correct god.
Lanky_Barnacle_1749@reddit
So you blame God for failures of men, supreme stupidity at its finest. Just tell me you hate God and move on, at least I could respect your honesty.
SerenityNow31@reddit
It's not objective because you just defined it. Every single person would have to accept it if you want to call it objective.
Mindless-Law8046@reddit (OP)
Oh, so you think its the result of a unanimous vote? Have you heard the story of the child who pointed at the naked person on the horse and said he had no clothes on? Nobody dared to speak out until the child broke through the lie by being innocent and honest.
SerenityNow31@reddit
If everyone agrees to a set of rules, are you saying that's not objective?
Mindless-Law8046@reddit (OP)
If the observation that all people agreed about something, as long as the observation is truthful, then the observation is objective. But that objectivity has nothing to do with what everyone agreed about. The observation being true does not mean that what everyone agreed about is rational or even true. The two are separate.
SerenityNow31@reddit
If it has to be truthful then who decides if it's true? You're putting yourself in a loop.