Objective Morality - one method

  • 5 Replies
  • 2105 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« on: December 22, 2013, 07:46:07 am »
I was thinking one method I'd accept for a universe with an objective morality (for that particular universe) is where the creator of it goes and makes it the only minds that can form in it are ones that follow the morality he lays out. Either making it that only that type can evolve, or more crudely perhaps intervening during a childs development in the womb.

The thing about this is that the creator takes on the task of making his creations follow his morality. Ie, he takes on the responsibility of that and should one stray somehow from his model, then the creator takes it that they are at fault (they simply didn't implement the morality enforcement properly)

Thoughts?

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2013, 08:46:55 am »
I do not understand how someone could " stray somehow" from his model. This creator must have flaws then?

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2013, 11:14:41 pm »
I do not understand how someone could " stray somehow" from his model. This creator must have flaws then?
Well, either he does have flaws or bam, he forces all the morality to work just as he wants.

I just mention the flaws part so as to attribute responsibility for failure to him. I'm not saying he has to have flaws. I'm just saying who the the responsibility sits with.

sologdin

  • *
  • Suthenti
  • *
  • Posts: 47
    • View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2013, 01:57:57 pm »
it could be a flaw (negligent product design or manufacturing, say, reflecting an incompetence in deity vis-a-vis duty in deploying its tekne). but it could also be an intentional aspect, the ability of product to deviate from objective morality. we might regard it as a flaw, but if product as manufactured matches the design, and the design meets the divine purpose, then there is no claim under the law of products liability (no one will say that there's a warning defect, after all.). one might then say that the purpose is evil, if the product was intentionally designed to be damned--but we have already conceded that the morality of the setting is objective, so there it is.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2013, 02:03:06 pm by sologdin »

Callan S.

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • Warrior-Profit
  • Posts: 671
    • View Profile
    • Philosopher Gamer
« Reply #4 on: December 24, 2013, 02:37:04 pm »
'Evil' is such ambigous ground.

What'd seem clear is that that is having shirked responsbility for the result.

Or are you saying the creator deliberately makeing a being do something which the creator hates?

So, a mad god?

Royce

  • *
  • Old Name
  • *****
  • The Resplendent
  • Posts: 591
  • There are no facts,only interpretations- Nietzsche
    • View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2013, 12:29:01 pm »
Well, a mad god is just as likely as anything else. That is hard for believers to accept I guess.
If you look at our world, the god who projects his morality upon us, is definitely mad.

Or maybe god is projecting mixed messages, providing much "evil" and just as much "good", so that it is up to his subjects to find
the correct balance. The god with hidden agendas so to speak.