Very cool, if true

Well, mostly. Definitely NP, occasionally on the E side, and once even on the F side. But definitely NP.

From:

I want the option "There is a right way and a wrong way, but it's not in our nature to adhere to them, and nor should we." But then I believe in an objective morality in people's heads that they nonetheless can't actually follow.

From:

objective _and_ in people's heads?

Does everyone have the same objective morality?

I'm somewhat confused.

From:

No. Everyone, in their head, has objective rights and wrongs. But very few of us actually act on them, constantly compromising our own objective morals. And the ones who don't are usually morons and also lying. And that is as it should be. But we still need those objective morals to strive towards otherwise we descend into utilitarian hell.

From:

Two points spring to mind - if they're difference for each person, and based on internal feelings, then surely they're the very epitome of sujective, rather than objective?

And secondly, I don't have that much of that - I have a few moral drives - but they're not coherent enough to act as a set of actual morals - they contradict in numerous places, and they certainly don't produce a clear "right action" the vast majority of the time.

From:

hfnuala.livejournal.com

Also, I tend to be absolutivist for myself and situationist for everyone else. As in, I try to have a consistent set of values I follow but I'm willing to be pragmatic about the actions of others.

From:

You're right, I meant that the individual sees them as objective - ie, they don't believe that someone else's morals are right unless they're the same as theirs. I should have used the word 'absolute' probably.

And I think you do. Maybe you just have fewer of them. I mean, I'd bet that you believe that it's always wrong to, say to pick a button, rape someone, right? In every circumstance, no matter what? Sure, if someone wasn't thinking straight or was mentally compromised or very,very drunk and not paying proper attention you might find it possible to show them some understanding, but you'd still consider the act itself to be utterly, 100% no exceptions wrong, right? Surely?

And yes, the fact they contradict each other is what makes them impossible to actually follow. That doesn't make them any less absolute - to me, anyway.

From:

natural20.livejournal.com

Ideally there would be a right way and a wrong way, because I really believe that would make life better for people. However that's the ideal and I will also acknowledge that such an ideal might actually be awful from a free will point of view.

From:

There are things I'm 100% against, rape being an obvious one. But so long as we're saying that it's subjective, and just me disliking rape a lot, that's ok :->

From:

I think this point is semantic.

From:

You mean, it has meaning?

From:

.

From:

I'm serious though - clearly the distinction has meaning to me, and so we're discussing the different meaning to each of us. If the distinction isn't meaningful to you, then that's fine - but it does matter a lot to me.

It's like being accused of being an atheist - I hate that too, but many people don't see why I care.

From:

I respect your right to use whatever words you please.

From:

laserboy.livejournal.com

I guess it depends on how you define yourself.

From:

Oooh, interesting - can you elucidate?

From:

laserboy.livejournal.com

(I will struggle - not well at all).

Basically how you define yourself, whatever box you choose to put yourself in, will come with its own boundaries and points of acceptability. Right/wrong depends on that self perception. How strongly you identify or wish to be identified with this image will define how far you are willing to go beyond the boundaries.

From:

Gotcha - so in your view right/wrong stem from perceptions of what applies to your self-image. I can see that.

From:

channelpenguin.livejournal.com

Yes. Reminds me of old conversations. :-) There may be things i might like or enjoy if i tried them, but since i do not want to be the type of person who enjoys that type of thing then I will pass on that (unless and until my opinion changes). I think most people work this way? Thinking of the experiments you recently posted on how folks are most effectively persuaded to not drop litter/steal rocks etc.

From:

Ooh, tell me why you hate being accused of being an atheist.

From:

Because atheism says there definitely is no God, and I see no proof of that. I'm an agnostic - I have no idea if there is a God.

I'm functionally atheist on a daily basis - because I don't positively believe in the existence of God either - and so don't worship, find the vast majority of believers pretty silly, etc. But I have an open mind to the possibility that there is, somewhere, actual proof.

From:

Aaah. I get annoyed because it has theist in it, and is negative definition, and all the having to mention god to say you do not have these beliefs etc.

I get quite annoyed that it has to be a negative thing, that you _do not_ believe in something. Makes it sound all negative and base.

From:

Well, I guess the question being asked is "what God do you believe in?" and your answer is "None of the above."

You could answer "Humanism" if you wanted a more positive answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism

From:

I do like humanism in general, but feel it's still a bit too organised for me.

I do want a humanist funeral however. None of that god bothering shite, more focussed on the life of the person and telling stories about them.

From:

red-phil.livejournal.com

I chose option 1. Not because I want someone to tell me what to do.
I want there to be a clear correct thing to do that I can choose to do without making any compromises.

Sometimes this happens, but rarely.

From:

broin.livejournal.com

One of the big name atheists likes to say he's not an a-theist, you're a-rational.

From: