Is there such a thing as objective morality?

[Parrot Face]

Is it possible to experience 'objective' reality? Or to experience anything 'objectively'?

No, it's not possible.For who would do that?

Can consciousness see itself? no it can't.
The conceptual mind cannot "see" anything unless it is converted into an object.
And object is a conceptual separation.

[Feral_Punctuation]

What are the best arguments in favor of their existing an objective morality?

Would it be possible to argue that pain is intrinsically bad and happiness intrinsically good, and from that you can derive a utilitarian moral system, of some kind?

[Rum]

What are the best arguments in favor of their existing an objective morality?

Would it be possible to argue that pain is intrinsically bad and happiness intrinsically good, and from that you can derive a utilitarian moral system, of some kind?

An excellent starting point and one I have not considered before. However I do think that morality, however non 'objective' is a social and evolutionary construct/consequence.

[Coito ergo sum]

What are the best arguments in favor of their existing an objective morality?

Would it be possible to argue that pain is intrinsically bad and happiness intrinsically good, and from that you can derive a utilitarian moral system, of some kind?

It's possible to argue anything. But, some people like pain.

[Feral_Punctuation]

Crap. Didn't think of that.
EDIT:
On second thoughts, that could be accounted for. Presumably (emphasis) the pain causes pleasure, as opposed to people enjoying the pain itself.

[Parrot Face]

Morality.


http://vimeo.com/10726299

[Geoff]

NO .

Shall I lock the thread?

No, that would be immoral.

[Feral_Punctuation]

So, to all you moral relativists (I assume that's what you are if you don't think objective morality exists), could you expand on your position? If a society thought there was nothing wrong with murder (far out example, this would never happen, of course), would murder be morally OK for them? This is always the kind of picture I've had of moral relativism, although as far as I know it could be a strawman.

[Trolldor]

If they thought murder was okay, then it would mean they thought murder was okay. It doesn't make murder okay, it doesn't make murder anything. Murder is - objectively - valueless.

[Feral_Punctuation]

That makes more sense.

[Parrot Face]

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” ~ Buddha

You are not your thoughts, feelings, emotions, you are the observer of all this phenomena.
Reality is the residue of thought.
The only real essence of the observer is infinite love.
Everything else is knowledge of vibrational non reality. Dream or illusion.
The true nature of reality is the outcome of the thoughts of the observer.
So, what kind of thoughts are YOU creating?

[hiyymer]

I voted no.

If by objective you mean scientific reality. Morality arises out of the experience of our biological regulation and the illusion of agency. It's pretty similar for every member of the species. It's archetypal, but not objective.

[hiyymer]

“We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts, we make the world.” ~ Buddha

You are not your thoughts, feelings, emotions, you are the observer of all this phenomena.
Reality is the residue of thought.
The only real essence of the observer is infinite love.
Everything else is knowledge of vibrational non reality. Dream or illusion.
The true nature of reality is the outcome of the thoughts of the observer.
So, what kind of thoughts are YOU creating?

I wonder if Buddha would have the same opinion if he lived in 2010.

[Pappa]

NO .

Shall I lock the thread?

No, that would be immoral.

Or evil if DP did it.

[Trolldor]

Maybe.