How do you feel about an objective moral compass?

there is no objective morality, but there is a moral compass. the moral compass is pointing towards ’‘dont do things to hurt the tribe you belong to’’

there is no objective morality though. even if there is a god, a capital god that decides what is good what is bad what is noble and respectable, and he did indeed create us all and gave us the same morals as his or her own, these morals are still only the subjective opinion of said god.

i would challenge anyone here, to tell me why: murder, rape, stealing and any other ‘bad’ thing is bad in an objective manner, without being able to show any kind of self interest in some form or another in your argument, or without using any emotionally based arguments. morals are most certainly subjective.

I think the moral compass is the internalized voice of the parent or primary caretaker, elaborated by time and experience and empathy into a set of internal “rules” which cause a lot of discomfort (anxiety) when violated. There is nothing less objective than a process such as this.

However, there are such things as trans-cultural norms (incest taboos, for one example) which may go deeper because they conferred an evolutionary advantage. These may have more objectivity.

My homework alarm is buzzing.

@dpworkin i knew there was a reason i like you. very good argument indeed.

however, i would point out that empathy is still in fact related to self interest. i would be willing to bet that people who are thinking about killing them selves dont feel empathy when exposed to videos of people jumping to their deaths.

i would say empathy is a kind of refined and improved version of fear, combined with the ability to understand what bad things could potentially happen to us.

elaborated over time and experience, this would suggest thought and subjectiveness to me, rules are a product of thought too.

the discomfort and anxiety while indeed caused by and objective chemical release are still interpreted emotionally and psychologically.

so, i think that still is not really enough to call it objective. but of course, thats only my subjective opinion.

I developed my objective moral compass many years ago, and it has remained relatively unchanged over the years.

I believe that it is everyone’s right to:

1. Engage in any voluntary activity whatsoever, either alone or together with other consenting individuals.

2. Possess, use, or trade any property that you created out of your own labor, or acquired through voluntary free trade with other consenting individuals.

3. Enter into any formal contract with one or more other consenting individuals, including any contracts in which you surrender any or all of your rights therein.

I believe that it is everyone’s responsibility to:

1. Refrain from harming (physically assaulting) other individuals, except for self-defense from harm (physical assault) from others.

2. Refrain from taking (stealing), using (trespassing), or altering (vandalizing) the property of others without their consent.

3. Fulfill your obligations as part of any and all formal contracts that you willingly and knowingly entered into with other consenting individuals.

I believe that it is the responsibility of the state to:

1. Investigate the reported violations of any of the rights and/or responsibilities specified above.

2. Conduct a trial by jury for any person accused of any such crime, regardless how minor.

3. Solicit jurists from the public at large to hear all facts, without restriction or censure, proffered by all interested parties so as to render a verdict of guilt or innocence.

4. To confine those judged guilty of crimes of physical assault from society in reasonably safe accommodations so as to protect the public form further violence.

5. To extract payment from the guilty to compensate the victim(s) and also to defray the cost to the state in holding the trial.

6. To extract payment from false witnesses to compensate the acquitted, and also to defray the cost to the state in holding the trial.

7. To confine those accused of crimes and awaiting trial in safe, clean, attractive, pleasant, and comfortable accommodations, and to provide those so confined with prompt and speedy trials.

@HungryGuy Those are prescriptions for behavior, but what makes them moral or immoral or amoral?

@dpworkin – I suppose one could say that the only standard of behavior that’s truly moral and/or objective is the law of the jungle, or anarchy. You could challenge any moral code with your question.

OTOH, I think my list is a fitting definition of “objective morality” because it’s independent of culture or bias. Simply put, it gives everyone the right to do anything they want except to commit force or coercion against others.

I don’t think there are objective morals.

However, “morals are subjective” is too simplistic.

I think morals evolve over time, like other ideas. And some moral systems are better adapted to societies than others. Societies with certain morals “live longer” and “reproduce more” than societies with other moral systems.

Of course, societies change over time, largely from technological change. So morals that may well have been adaptive for bronze-age nomads are not at all helpful in a post-industrialial society with birth control.

There is no objective moral compass.

@Qingu the only objective part i can really see in any of this is the physical brain. other than that as soon as our opinions or ideas come in to it, the entire thing becomes subjective.

@HungryGuy All you have done is redefine “objective” to suit your needs. Your list is no more objective than Hammurabi’s Code, or the Ten Commandments.

@dpworkin – Then I don’t know how to reply to your replies that will meet with your semantic approval…

You don’t need my approval. We are having a discussion, and I am offering my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but back it up.

@dpworkin – What’s to back up? The question asked for examples of our individual moral compasses, whether based on religion or whatnot. I gave mine, and the reasons why I think it’s valid as a moral compass (independent of culture or personal bias). I said above in reply to you that I suppose that there really is no truly objective moral compass except for the law of the jungle.

So what’s your moral compass based on (whether objective or otherwise)?

The question asked if there is an objective view of right and wrong, and you may scroll up to read my answer, which is essentially “no”.

I believe that there’s something akin to an objective morality. I’d say that the Pentateuch outlines it well enough for navigation.

How is that objective? Could a Martian adopt it? Why or why not?

@dpworkin
I think that I’ll answer that another day; I’m approaching empty.

I believe that there is an objective moral compass, but it only goes so far as to draw a line somewhere…

@Nullo – Many of the laws in the OT were health restrictions (like don’t eat pork) that made sense in their environment, but not in another (say, the Norse areas or the Pacific islands, where pork was eaten with delight). That’s pretty much the definition of subjective.

But more importantly, a significant amount of old Jewish moral law was “our neighbors, those godless heathens, do X, so we, in this land, shall not do X.” Thou shalt have no other gods before thee is a great example: those evil Egyptians and Mesopotamians have many Gods and Goddesses, so to differentiate ourselves, we will worship the One God. Again, this is the very flower of subjectiveness. One God is great for the Jews, but would not be great for other groups with other views.

@Nullo – Don’t mind @dpworkin…he likes to challenge everyone’s assumptions…I get a little testy with him sometimes because of that, but he’s mostly harmless :-)

He doesn’t have to “mind” me. He should just be prepared to back up these flat assertions that he makes which seem to have little meaning.

Objective, no, but there are agreements made by majorities of people. Here’s an example of a good universal moral compass:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights

@Nullo, you said, “I’d say that the Pentateuch outlines it well enough for navigation.”

So you believe that slavery should be legal (Leviticus 25:45), virgin rape victims should marry their rapists (Deuteronomy 22:28), and genocide is not just an acceptable but occasionally mandatory practice in warfare (Deuteronomy 13:12, 20:16).

@laureth

I’ve developed a nice lecture that addresses precisely that point. I keep forgetting that posting it does not mean that everybody’s read it.

Here’s the rough draft, since I can’t seem to find the one that I decided that I liked:

“The Mosaic Law can be divided into three major categories: ceremonial, civil, and moral.
The ceremonial parts (particularly with regard to things like sacrifices) no longer applies because of Jesus’ death (a sort of infinitely big sacrifice) and resurrection. The civil parts -things like dealing with interpersonal conflicts and how far away you go from camp to do your business, don’t have much traction outside of ancient Israel -jurisdiction and such. But the moral parts (things like prohibitions of theft, blasphemy, etc, which in the Law have civil and ceremonial ramifications), reflect God’s standard of morality, and are not safely deviated from” You could extrapolate from the severity of the consequences just how much better or worse something is.

@Qingu
Certainly not. See the above.

@Nullo, do you disagree that the so-called “civil laws” are the wisest and most just laws available to humanity and that America would be a better place if we followed them? As Deuteronomy 4:6 says,

See, just as the Lord my God has charged me, I now teach you statutes and ordinances for you to observe in the land that you are about to enter and occupy. You must observe them diligently, for this will show your wisdom and discernment to the peoples, who, when they hear all these statutes, will say, ‘Surely this great nation is a wise and discerning people!’ For what other great nation has a god so near to it as the Lord our God is whenever we call to him? And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today?

Are you arguing that a nation that allowed slavery and forced rape victim to marry their rapists would not be a “great” nation with the most “just” laws? Are you saying our laws are better than God’s?

Also, you seem to be contradicting Jesus’ position on following the law in Matthew 5:17:

Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever breaks one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, will be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

You’re advocating breaking the “civil” laws regarding slavery, marriage and rape, but even breaking the least of the laws makes you least in the kingdom of heaven, according to Jesus. Do you disagree with him?

Aw heck, I was all set to rant with Matthew 5 and then saw that @Qingu already made my point!

It leaves me wondering which is the greater authority on Christ’s words and mission, though – Matthew or @Nullo.

Looking back on my response, I realize it sounds a little more flip than I intended. It’s really only about ⅔ flip.

It’s like this. Either a religion changes and evolves to suit the needs of the adherents, or it doesn’t. If it doesn’t change, as the Matthew verse suggests, well then, all those old Jewish laws are still de rigeur for Christians who really want to go by the Book.

On the other hand, is a religion what’s in a Book, or is it what’s in the heart of the people who believe? Modern people are not Roman-era Jews, and a lot of the same beliefs may no longer apply. Just as @Nullo said – many of the old laws no longer have traction outside of that culture and time. But if some of the laws can change and evolve, so can ones about gay people.

There have been so many splits and schisms in Christianity and now we have umpteen versions of it – Baptists, Calvinists, Amish, Methodists, Anglicans, Greek Orthodox etc., what have you. Each branch has taken what it will of the words of the past and made something out of it that makes sense to them here and now. Perhaps in the future, the idea that gay people are so horrible will be realized for the cultural artifact it is – and it will go the way of the prohibition against mixed fiber clothes.

I think it’s an absolutist theory. Morals are subjective. One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.

@laureth
@Qingu
As I said, that was the rough draft.
The Law remained unchanged, even by Jesus, as He said. The moral parts are still true, and the ceremonial bits – sacrifices and what – have all been paid (as it were) in advance. The civil portions are an application of the moral ones, and thus are somewhat secondary. Some sources say that the civil Law was adapted from the advice of Moses’ father-in-law, himself the leader of a large family.

It sounds like you’re saying, again, that although all of the law is still valid, some of it is not valid.

@laureth
I suppose that what I’m saying is that we’re dealing with the letter vs. the spirit of the Law. I am, sadly, better at thinking of things than I am at expressing them :\.
With that, I refer you to a more competent source than myself.

@Nullo – I took a look and read both of your links. Looks like the devil (no irony intended) is in the details, as usual. I can grant a translation quibble – there are several of those in the Bible, despite the fact that it is supposed to have been perfectly understood and translated every time.

At any rate, having looked at the information, I can only come to the conclusion that, as it says there, that “The key to understanding this issue is knowing that the Old Testament law was given to the nation of Israel, not to Christians”, “None of the Old Testament law is binding on us today. When Jesus died on the cross, He put an end to the Old Testament law”, and “We are to love God and love our neighbors. If we obey those two commands faithfully, we will be upholding all that God requires of us.”

Those concepts would seem to imply that lots of things that people decry as being against God or immoral because they were found in Mosaic law (such as homosexuality being immoral) just aren’t binding any more, though. Is that what you mean to convey?