Shouldn't "truth" be amoral?

Religion tends to be usually held as the highest “truth”.

But why is “truth” moral?

One of the few “highest truths” that was amoral would be “science”; I believe this is one of the main appeals of the belief-system, besides its less-dogmatic structure, rendering it capable of change & reform in more ways then most other religions would be. Can’t really be called a “religion” in the classic sense of the word.

Do you know of any religions which do not have moral codes?
Shouldn’t “truth” be an amoral set of facts?

Given that most religions (I’d say all, but there has to be an oddball out there) provide a system for learning to live, I would argue that a moral code is implicit in that.

As for truth being amoral, I guess that depends. When I say ‘wanton killing is bad’ I am making a moral statement, but with respect to social stability, I am also stating a fact.

I believe it was Robspierre who argued that all of the most important moral commands of religion can be arrived at through logic. I guess that depends on what you consider to be the most important, but given what he meant by that statement, I am inclined to agree.

Strait facts imply no action.

Morals imply action or non-action during situations.


I would argue that by stating a fact, we have created a matrix for understanding and that understanding requires action.

Those who claim to understand what a good person is, yet fail to actualize this, do not truly understand what it is to be a good person.

I find opinion more troublesome and difficult to deal with then fact. If someone presented me with a set of strait facts/statistics, it would be different then a preachy, emotional essay containing “views” and judgmental adverbs.

That is where you start to get into foundational issues.

If you accept the fact that there is a God and God has given these commandments, then it is self-evident that they ought be followed.

If you accept the fact that there is no God, then creating a moral structure is more difficult (unless there is a surrogate authority-figure of some sort).

In either case, you still have to justify your reasonings. See the different interps of various Christian doctrines, as well as secular views on things like sexuality, humanity, ect.

Given the emotional content that is implicit in one’s foundational ideology, ‘fact’ becomes a very fuzzy issue in philosophy.

Take for example my earlier statement about wanton killing being wrong. I think we can pretty much all agree on that. Yet, what if we are performing wanton killings for a reason? I think that Sherman’s march to the Sea counts as wanton killing, yet many people would argue that it was justified given the situation. What about fire-bombing Dresden? Dropping the A-bomb? Destroying the WTC?

All of these wanton killings were justified within the cultural matrix in which they were perpetrated. So, where do we go from there? Enter opinions and views of the truth.

Next it comes into play how we put the truth into action. Do we take a utilitarian approach? If so, what are we maximizing? If not, what sort of approach is best suited for the task, given the facts that we know?

Dan, moral opinion is every bit as much a part of our lives as scientific fact, and one can’t escape from it. On the one hand, you could say that morals are objective, and that religions are, in part, an attempt to provide those moral facts that science is incapable of delivering, or on the other, you could say that morality is opinion, and religion is in part an attempt to create moral structures that will lead to beautiful, long-lasting or otherwise pleasing societies. Even if morals are subjective, unless they arbitrary, they can still be supported by facts.


Remember, what Voltaire said Dan? Morals are like geometry… there is only one, and it’s not Amoral, like it’s not Ageometry.

I can’t count the wonton killings of all species and inanimate forces on earth. Please.

Is reality wrong? Because it happened, so it’s wrong? Reality can be wrong?

Moral “good and bad” judgments don’t need to be stuck on any facts.

“Cause and effect”, or more accurately, components of the autocracy, can be explained without “good/bad” judgments.

Then you’ve entered into an amoral universe.

That is acceptable, but how do you propose creating a society in an amoral context?

While you can argue ‘cause and effect’, without the added metric of ‘good and bad’, the effect has little meaning.

Morality/ethics provides us with a goal in terms of effect.

Bah, the idea of an amoral universe is just pomp. People decide the universe is immoral because they’re tired of being told something they’re doing is wrong, and since our world-view exists within ourselves, we’ve decided it’s easier to change our worldview than our behavior. Take any amoralist, strip them of their luxuries and make them live like the little people for a while, and eyes will be opened.
I think Dan, that you know I’m right about the above. But hey, if insist that you want to be taken seriously about the idea that morals shouldn’t be a consideration, we can investigate that possibility in a real philosophical way. I don’t think it will stand up to scrutiny, though.

And people should think for themselves, making their own morals for the facts, instead of getting both.

It’s the difference between education and mind-control.


You just came here to argue, didn’t you?

Materials and energies are amoral, and our universe is made of these.

If “truth” is some form of morality, it is then also a mere extension of human desire, only “true” to the species or the individual.

Actually, I’ll put a large condom over my left arm, and run into a bomb-shelter. Too many leftist-spirited-vagabonds about.

Why is that beneficial? What you are describing is a society without any sort of an underpinning. That is madness!

Xun Zi argued:

Human nature is such that people are born with a love of profit If they follow these inclinations, they will struggle and snatch from each other, and inclinations to defer or yield will die. They are born with fears and hatreds. If they follow them, they will become violent and tendencies toward good faith will dies. They are born with sensory desires for pleasing sounds and sights. If they indulge them, the disorder of sexual license will result and ritual and moral principles will be lost. In other words, if people accord with human nature and follow their desires, they inevitably end up struggling, snatching, violating norms, and acting with violent abandon. Consequently, only after men are transformed by teachers and by ritual and moral principles do they defer, conform to culture, and abide in good order. Viewed this way, it is obvious that human nature is bad and good is a human product.

I am inclined to agree.

It seems to me that morality deals with both the intellect and the will. But even if one’s will is good, untruth with it would make futile the attempt at the fruitification of one’s actions.

It is good for religion to present moral codes because the intellect errs especially in moral matters if it has not been properly informed. So religion should at least get you to the point where you can start to answer moral questions “philosophically”.


Fuck, was he a Christian or something?

Is love and honesty so unnatural, and taught?
Is fear, hate, suppression and submission so natural, and untaught?

The opposite is real.

What we call “child hood innocence” is a human, unaltered.

Also, I will not even begin to describe the neurosis of persons feeling guilty over things that they are not even doing.

Moralist philosophies are preached as the sower tart lies in defeat, using words as weapons, trying to make the world fit his desire, instead of his desire fitting the world.

…“Don’t do this, do this, instead”.
“Do as your told. I’m a moralist. I’m God’s right hand. I’m an old tattered fart from 5000 years ago, who still gets to be used partially to control your life, and it’s for your own good, because you’re too fucking stupid to think for yourself, because nobody ever encouraged you to think for yourself, and they want conformity, instead.”

Descructive, nihilistic seeds of doubt can be seen in anywhere from Christianity, to Islam, to Buddhism. These fruits remind you firstly of how small and mortal you are, then say how terrible the world is, trying to scare you and make you think less of yourself, pulling you towards an overly-submissive & blind altruism for the wrong reasons. It’s disempowering and unnessessary.

Yes, and how many grabby children do you know? Children who scream and cry when they do not get what they want? Or are they all well behaved individuals who act in perfect accordance with society?

Innocent, yes, but hardly moral.

Inexperienced. Immature, etc. But hopefully unsuppressed, and not as insane as later.

You are all taking a leftist piss.

Every single one of you came to contradict me for no good reason.

I says the truth isn’t a commandment by god or men, it’s a fact that exists with or without mankind.

I’m not going to reply to this thread anymore, because you’re just here to argue.

We place postive value their unsurpressed nature.

We also place negative value on their immaturity and inexperience.

It is just a matter of scale at this point. For you, you place a greater value on the unsurpressed nature of the child. I assign a greater weight to their immaturity and inexperience.

We did not come here ‘just to contradict you for no good reason’, we came here to discuss what you stated, that truth ought be an amoral set of facts.

I would argue that, with respect to morality, there needs to be a step beyond mere facts, because how the facts are interpreted and are applied can be very, very different. Given the subjective nature of morality, the whole idea of ‘moral facts’ is very, very slippery.

Now, with respect to the truth outside the context of morals, but the truth as the Truth, I actually think I agree with you . . . if I am correctly understanding what you are saying.