Who's to say? Is there moral truth?

B

BidenPresident

Verified User
So, who’s to say? My answer is ‘nobody’. Not God. Not your culture. Not mine. Not moral gurus. And not – heaven help us! – professional moral philosophers like me. We should resist the assumption that anyone has special unquestionable authority with respect to moral matters.

Moral questions are not decided by authorities or settled by fiat. Instead, in truth, we’re all sitting around in the moral fog together, trying to muddle through as best we can. Let’s reject ideas that do not stand up to critical scrutiny, regardless of who proposes them.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/156/Whos_To_Say
 
What is moral?


Supporting life

Working to encourage your other world inhabitants to be kind to each other and to live


Setting up a system that avoids harming others and encourages life


Morality really isn’t such a big mystery to me
 
BidenPresident said:
So, who’s to say? My answer is ‘nobody’. Not God. Not your culture. Not mine. Not moral gurus. And not – heaven help us! – professional moral philosophers like me. We should resist the assumption that anyone has special unquestionable authority with respect to moral matters.

Moral questions are not decided by authorities or settled by fiat. Instead, in truth, we’re all sitting around in the moral fog together, trying to muddle through as best we can. Let’s reject ideas that do not stand up to critical scrutiny, regardless of who proposes them.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/156/Whos_To_Say
Click to expand...

there is no moral fog or ambiguity about what is and isn't moral. morals come from human decency and respect. for example, it is highly immoral to force anyone to submit to another for any reason. it is immoral to take the life of someone who is no threat another being. it is immoral to mistreat or murder another living being that has no voice of their own.

these have been around since the time that man was created. any body trying to argue differently is just making excuses for their cruelty and seflishness
 
BidenPresident said:
Someone who committed a crime should not submit to arrest by a police officer?
Click to expand...

define crime? should anyone be subject to arrest for driving without a license? should anyone be arrested for resisting arrest if there was no other crime that occurred?

if someone commits a crime that does harm to another, that person then gave up their right to be in control of themselves.

are you able to see that distinction? or does your low IQ require a manual about humanity?
 
BidenPresident said:
So, who’s to say? My answer is ‘nobody’. Not God. Not your culture. Not mine. Not moral gurus. And not – heaven help us! – professional moral philosophers like me. We should resist the assumption that anyone has special unquestionable authority with respect to moral matters.

Moral questions are not decided by authorities or settled by fiat. Instead, in truth, we’re all sitting around in the moral fog together, trying to muddle through as best we can. Let’s reject ideas that do not stand up to critical scrutiny, regardless of who proposes them.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/156/Whos_To_Say
Click to expand...

We're probably not even really here- We just think we are.
 
We should resist the assumption that anyone has special unquestionable authority with respect to moral matters.
Click to expand...
^Strawman fallacy. Nobody actually believes there's a person like that. Even Catholics defy the dictates of the Pope.



The fact that the world's religions started to converge towards a sophisticated common ethical framework suggests to me that human free will and conciousness bends towards a natural law that exists above written law.


Bhagavad-Gita, chapter 16
Fearlessness, purity of being, knowledge, generosity, discipline, sacrifice, sacred study, austerity, honesty, non-harm, truth, non-anger, letting go, peace, non-slander, kindness to living things, non-greed, gentleness, modesty, non-caprice, energy, forgiveness, resolve, cleanliness, non-aggression, non-arrogance -- those exist in one born to godly assets.

Zhuangzi:
Humans who have freed themselves from the slavery of conventional standards of judgement and desire can no longer be made to suffer. So the Daoist remains within society but refrains from acting out of motives that lead conventional humans to struggle for wealth, fame, reputation, success, security. He maintains a course of action that is not purposefully motivated by any gain or reward. In such a state human action becomes spontaneous and effortless. Humans become one with heaven, and merge with the Dao.

Jesus, Sermon on the Plain:
Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. Blessed are the meek, for they will inherit the Earth. Blessed are the pure in heart, for they will see God. Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called the Sons of God. Love your enemies and turn the other cheek. Treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't judge and you won't be judged, don't condemn and you won't be condemned, forgive and you will be forgiven, give and you will receive. Remove the log from your own eye before attending to the splinter in your friend's. A good tree does not produce bad fruit and a bad tree cannot produce good fruit, each tree is known by its fruit.

Analects of Confucius, Chapter XVI-10:
Confucius said, “There are nine things upon which a gentleman focuses his attention: in regard to using his eyes, he is anxious to see clearly; when listening, he focuses on being discerning; in his countenance, he is anxious to be amiable; in his demeanor, he focuses on being reverent; in his speech, he focuses on being dutiful; in his actions, he focuses on being respectful; when in doubt, he focuses on asking questions; when angry, he focuses on thinking about the the difficulties he may cause others ; and when he sees gain to be had, he focuses upon righteousness
Click to expand...
 
SmarterthanYou said:
there is no moral fog or ambiguity about what is and isn't moral. morals come from human decency and respect. for example, it is highly immoral to force anyone to submit to another for any reason. it is immoral to take the life of someone who is no threat another being. it is immoral to mistreat or murder another living being that has no voice of their own.

these have been around since the time that man was created. any body trying to argue differently is just making excuses for their cruelty and seflishness
Click to expand...



It’s ok to kill those who have a voice?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top