Oh yeah, definitely agree. I completely support the idea of an objective morality in that sense.
I think the problem I have is that when I actually try to apply it in real world situations then it doesn't seem extremely useful to a society and shit. Like, I can think of situations where stealing would be a rational way to go about obtaining something that would bring you happiness. But a society where people steal things doesn't sound so great. I can then try to solve this by redefining happiness by stating something like true happiness would be found by earning the item through hard work. But then I can think of situations where that doesn't fit too well either.
I suppose, in that particular scenario, I could just say that stealing is okay. And the fact that other people wouldn't want their shit stolen would cause them to just find ways of preventing it from happening. So shit would solve itself as far as society's needs are concerned. Which I can roll with. But I'm pretty sure a lot of people would disagree.
I dunno. But yeah, I guess I do support the idea of an objective morality after all.
A government is establish to protect the initiation of force in those extreme circumstances where stealing would "seem" to be or is in fact rational. The thing is, other people might also feel it is rational to steal your property. With a government set up, it makes it less rational to steal, and it makes your property safer.
I would say that stealing is rational in life-boat circumstances. I think, when forming a reality for living in the "real world," those instances can be somewhat neglected. If you are on an island and there is only enough food for one person, it is moral to kill off the others. For the sake of our morality, it should be fine say that cold-blooded murder is irrational.
And what is the essence of a life-boat circumstance? In those cases, no one really wins. You might survive, but will you really be happy afterward? Life isn't full of life-boat circumstances, and it is full of situations where everyone can win if they act rationally.
Originally Posted by Law&Order
I wanted to take it into what people in religion are turning to which is faith which even Atheist have faith in something. I was looking for a connection that envelopes everyone. So yes belief in general.
But to not believe you have to have a Faith in your ideals. You have to have a confidence and trust in your decision.
I would highly suggest not using faith to describe confidence in this thread. It makes it seem as if you are talking about religious faith, which is different than what you are trying to describe.
I have confidence in the logic. You are absolutely right on that. However, their is a huge difference between having confidence in A=A and having confidence that in an invisible god. I have confidence that A cannot be non-A because that contradict logic itself. My statement, "that would contradict logic itself" would have no meaning. Language has no meaning without confidence in logic. There is no such thing as "meaning" without confidence in logic. There is no such thing as "definition" without logic.
Try and refute the idea of contradiction itself. That's impossible, because in order to do so you have to find a contradiction somewhere.