Here's the use of the word the American Dream: — René Descartes

What does the verticle axis represent?

To some extent, yes. But for the most part the relationship is that capitalism occasionally breaks down. Socialism is imported as a fix. — frank

Socialism was born out of societies in Europe in which death through poverty was common. People were worked to death, on wages to small to buy enough food.
That is unmitigated capitalism.
What you, in your life, have experienced is a society in which the basis needs of people have been met by the socialist policies on the state; free education, social housing, progressive taxation, public health provision, town planning, police, fire service, minimum wage, and even free prisons (yes back in the old days you even had to pay your way in chokey).
When, what you laughingly call "occasionally breaks down", is risible.

Capitalism (and Socialism) is (are) amoral. — Kitty

No. Socialism is a moral response to the immorality of capitalism.

Why are you asking. You know the answer.
A life devoted to killing people? Are you kidding?
The majority of people you will be responsible for killing shall be non combatants, including children.

Capitalist morality is driven by profit.

Curious statement.
Capitalism is driven by profit; true. I don't think the phrase "capitalist morality" makes much sense at all.

Deirdre McCloskey argues that capitalism both requires and cultivates virtue. You might look into her ideas for another perspective. — Thorongil

Sounds like a naive and silly person.
Unless you actually says capitalism NEEDS to cultivate virtue.

Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. — CuddlyHedgehog

The divine Gore Vidal.

What an absurd thing to say. — Sapientia

Almost completely absurd except to say that whilst all morals are responses to the emotional states of human interaction; ethics is the analysis of morality, and therefore an attempt to rationalise moral statements.

How do you account for the fact that religious liberal arts colleges do an excellent job of teaching critical thinking? — Bitter Crank

But they don't because when all is said and done the answer from religious colleges is always and predictably the same.
It's pointless taking different roads if the destination is always the same place.

he collective morality is built on cross sections of experience, history, increased intelligence, local and globalised needs, protecting a society's progress and order, to name a few. — dermanhuby

You forgot to mention its main function: social control of the masses by the elites.

So the transition that society would experience from the simplicity of being offerred clearly defined answers to a world of uncertainty and no answers is the factor i'm considering. — dermanhuby

But you are assuming that a godly society make any sense to the people. I doubt that.

If religion and faith become less important to people, and the idea that there is a "reason" for the universe loses plausibility or interest, then how best can we approach the path of collective morality? — dermanhuby

Our moral sense predates God. Morality has never relied on God. In varying degrees we have emotional responses to acts committed upon our fellows. Our responses are innate and subjective, but as we share the same genes they can be for the most part similar to other people.
Without god anything is possible, even love. For the first time we can freely love whom we chose without the threat of punishment or the promise of reward.
The invention of god was nothing more than a system to codify behaviour. We still have the law of the land which places our rewards and punishments to a more immediate and pragmatic level. And it is here that our 'collective morality' resides. No different from any time since the invention of god, except that the law of the land do not involve the lie of the supernatural.

There is no problem here. Life has never been better, and criminality predicts high among the godly. perhaps were we to abandon god more thoroughly, crime would fall further?

The sense of sight always belongs to a subject, and yet it does not follow that the object seen is not objectively real. — Samuel Lacrampe

This is such a poor response. Morality is not "OUT THERE". You can't see it, and get agreement from others that only see a house or a car. Morality has no physical substance. It's all conceptual, and emotional.

We can stand in front of an object and agree it will persist after we walk away. Moral matters we take with us in our minds.

You cannot make a single moral statement that can get an agreement of all people and remain constant after they walk away.

No of course not. The "net gain" criteria is closer to a last resort, not the first. Equality in treatment, or justice is the first.
— Samuel Lacrampe — BlueBanana

This is a laudable aspiration, but plays no part in 99% of morality.

How do you now judge the merciful act to be morally good? — Samuel Lacrampe

It's interesting that you ask such questions, yet still see morality as somehow objective.
It's not only "how", but "who" and through which arbitrary set of criteria.

God at all, and so I am not using the existence of God to demonstrate that morality is objective. — Samuel Lacrampe

That's not what I am saying. I am saying that the fact that you think there is a god, prejudices you to the disposition of objective morality.
If you were open to the possibility of a natural universe you would see the absurdity of your position immediately. God and morality are human conceits.

I am adding this one to my list of museums, parks, zoos and other interesting places to visit on street view. — Sir2u

being there is person is the only way.

Morality is about how people emotionally respond to social interaction.
Emotions are about feelings and that means subjective values are brought to bear on ALL moral situations.
Morals are subjective. Laws are objective.

Your arguments are poorly executed and emotionally fueled. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

This is a false statement.

In fact I've no need to remain anonymous or ask for loot if I were to claim to be a guru on a word safari. Just buy me a cigar, make a cartoon of my wanderlust to search for words as if they were cookies

I say this without criticism or irony - I am thankful to be of an age when I am unlikely to experience any of these again. What language or languages? — T Clark

The wonderful thing about English is that is there is not a word to describe something we invent one or borrow one.
English is a smorgansbord! A veritable meze of tapas delights.

My word of the day is LITERALLY.
My blood literally boils when someone misuses it.

is a false statement. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Is a false statement.

Which I think is false if you take into account that the universe was created — Mr Phil O'Sophy

Creation is what god did, init? The Big Bang was a spontaneous natural event.

Definition...
The action or process of bringing something into existence.
"creation of a coalition government"
synonyms: design, formation, forming, modelling, putting together, setting up, making, construction, constructing, fabrication, fabricating, fashioning, building, erection, erecting; More
2.
the creating of the universe, especially when regarded as an act of God.
"the big bang was the moment of the Creation, and therefore the work of God"

The Universe was not "BROUGHT" in to existence.
There was no one to bring it.

So if the existence of God does not follow from my position that morality is objective, then why did you bring it up in the first place? — Samuel Lacrampe

Indeed, no. Your assumption that god exists makes you think morality must be objective.
If you were to challenge your false belief then you can see how both god and morals is so obviously man-made.
It is evidently so.

↪charleton If you think I speak like a true trumper, then you have perceived nothing about anything I have written. Plus, you aren't very good with non-literal statements. Kind of a sour-puss, actually. — Bitter Crank

What else do you expect with stupid comments like "lip-syncers all. Sad".
Take a step back.

Society is an additional foreground perspective that dictates the objective "truth" of a group of people. Even still not all people see eye to eye with societal definitions. — Vaskane

Indeed. I think that with matters that relate to moral and emotional value, objectivity can be no more than the people in the room at the same time agreeing.
In the real world people have opinions.

I follow my moral code for my own sake, not for anyone else's, so I certainly have no anxiety about it if you decide not to follow it. It's your problem as far as I'm concerned. — Agustino

Me too. But the difference is that you think yours is absolute.

Not really. The beautiful side of it was all the naive hopes of 19th Century liberals. It was all about trust in nature and devotion to freedom. Pure capitalism failed spectacularly. It produced the cultureless wasteland of early Chicago. — frank

The mechanisms of capitalism regardless of a narrow idealistic viewpoint is more likely to lead to the horror I suggest. Te question is who owns the word?

Why not address this anxiety — Agustino

Why not address your subjective assumptions?

Big Bang denier? — Agustino

The Big Bang is not an example of creation.

1. murdering children is objectively wrong. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

On what grounds?
And what do you mean 'objective' in this context?

The same is true of ideal capitalism. — frank

No way. Ideal capitalism is one massive fat person owning everything in the world; the end game of competition, with the rest of the world dancing hand and foot on his every whim hoping to make enough money to buy enough to live on.

Usually, when someone belligerently clings to absurdity, it means that they are trying to avoid what they perceive as a much bigger danger if they were to let go of absurdity. — Agustino

That just about sums you up perfectly. Your absurdity is the claim that your narrowly focused and narrow minded moral code is universal in some way. This could not be more funny.

Can you not see the flaws I am pointing out? — Mr Phil O'Sophy

You are only pointing out your own flaws my friend.
and you continue to avoid answering the question; please furnish the thread with some examples of objective morality.
I am happy to claim that my observations on the morality of the world is based on my experience of the world; my studies; my life.
But since you have yet to offer any kind of observations on the details of 'objective morals' or "objective moral laws', you are wasting the time of all who contribute to the thread.

I grew up in a protestant christian congregation. — yupamiralda

Maybe you need to get out and see something of the world.
Go here!
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@13.4123884,103.866747,67m/data=!3m1!1e3
Sit in the centre of the temple and a man in an orange cloth will come to talk to you. You will not know his language but he will know yours.
In that moment your petty Protestant world will be as dust on a flea.

Supernatural: That which exceeds the powers and capacities of the created world. — Agustino

This perforce is false since the "world" is not created, nor can it be said to have 'powers', and that would involve some sort of volition.

Not sure why it's funny. We may be talking at cross purposes here. I believe I've ably explained why "all men are mortal" is not tautologous. Anyone reading this can draw their own conclusions — Arkady

Please refer to the post I made above.

These are three examples of Objective moral claims you have made. — Mr Phil O'Sophy

No they are not. They are the result of my experience with these issues, and are therefore subjective.
It's like you don't know what objective means.

Kind of an important distinction regarding our conversation... — Arkady

LOL Define definitional!!

Why are you acting dumb? I couldn't have denied them as I haven't made any claims about any historical facts. — BlueBanana

If you are going to use this absurd line of reasoning how can you claim that moral law is objective? When it is demonstrable that morals are different across time, culture, nation, and tribe, and between persons within those categories.
It is you that is acting stupidly, not me.