Happy Atheist Forum

I'm sure you guys have heard this one, just wondering what types of flaws you see in it?

for those who do not know what I'm talking about this

QuoteIf God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them. And the claim is that in the absence of God, moral values are not objective in this sense.

Many theists and atheists alike concur on this point. For example, the late J. L. Mackie of Oxford University, one of the most influential atheists of our time, admitted: "If . . . there are . . . objective values, they make the existence of a God more probable than it would have been without them. Thus, we have a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a God." 8 But in order to avoid God's existence, Mackie therefore denied that objective moral values exist. He wrote, "It is easy to explain this moral sense as a natural product of biological and social evolution . . . ."9

Michael Ruse, a philosopher of science, agrees. He explains,

Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says "love thy neighbor as thyself," they think they are referring above and beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction . . . And any deeper meaning is illusory.10

Friedrich Nietzsche, the great 19th century atheist who proclaimed the death of God, understood that the death of God meant the destruction of all meaning and value in life.

I think that Friedrich Nietzsche was right.

But we must be very careful here. The question here is not: "must we believe in God in order to live moral lives?" I'm not claiming that we must. Nor is the question: "Can we recognize objective moral values without believing in God?" I think that we can.

Rather the question is: "If God does not exist, do objective moral values exist?" Like Mackie and Ruse, I don't see any reason to think that in the absence of God, human morality is objective. After all, if there is no God, then what's so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust lost somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe and which are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time. On the atheistic view, some action, say, rape, may not be socially advantageous and so in the course of evolution has become taboo; but that does absolutely nothing to prove that rape is really wrong. On the atheistic view, apart from the social consequences, there's nothing really wrong with your raping someone. Thus, without God there is no absolute right and wrong which imposes itself on our conscience.

But the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it. There's no more reason to deny the objective reality of moral values than the objective reality of the physical world. The reasoning of Ruse at best proves only that our subjective perception of objective moral values has evolved. But if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then our gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm. Most of us think that we do apprehend objective values. As Ruse himself confesses, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."11

Actions like rape, torture, and child abuse aren't just socially unacceptable behaviorâ€"they're moral abominations. Some things are really wrong. Similarly love, equality, and self-sacrifice are really good. But if objective values cannot exist without God, and objective values do exist, then it follows logically and inescapably that God exists.

Also I just found out he will be debating Christopher Hitchens this April....

anyways, what is your assessment?

I think it is evident that objective morality does not exist by simply looking at individual cultures and the difference in what those societies' people deem moral.  If there were objective morality there would be no debate over stem cell research, abortion, canabolism, meat eating, polygamy, gay marriage, animal rights, smoking the "ism", spanking kids, and the list goes on.  So, when there is even this kind of disagreement of morality among the same people (Christians for instance) how can objective morality exist?

I am looking at the last few paragraphs and the argument makes absolutely no sense.  There was a time, not very long ago, that our society did not think it was possible to rape your own wife, therefore having sex with her against her will was not morally wrong.  So, rape is not an objective immoral act.  Likewise with child abuse, I once wore a black and blue hand print on my face to school and not one teacher askes what happened or if I needed help.  So child abuse in itself is not an objectively immoral thing to do.  These arguments are lame and are definitely subjective.  (Not to mention both are okay according to God in the bible.)

I don't think there is one example a person can suggest that would be an absolute moral.

(Edited the first part of my statement due to being lazy and not reading the full OP, I thought the argument was against absolute/objective morality.  Then added a bit after taking the time to read.  Thanks to SSY I removed foot from mouth.   )

Absolute moral values do not exist. Back in our caveman days certain things were frowned upon ( like rape, incest, stealing ) as they were, in one way or another, disadvantagious to your survival and procreation, predisposition to these behaviors was then deselected from the genepool. Modern morality, as part of a society is much more complex, though they all have boundries about what one can and cannot do, that generally serve the same function as our pre-historic morals, namley giving you the best chance at survival, without pissing off others to the point where they kill you.

VanReal's astute observations show quite nicley that different cultures have different morals. An acient greek would have no problem buggering a 12 year old boy, yet these days, it's seen as a little more taboo. Us passing judgment on them for this misses the point entirley, as does his anaology to the holocaust. our morals are just as subjective as anyone elses, 100 years from now, people may look back on our laws as draconian and evil, who is to say which one is right? No one can be objective when it comes to morals, except god ( LOL ). Saying there must be a moral code, otherwise people will go round killing each other, is just an appeal to consequence.

His argument generally is crap, he says, if morals are absolute, they must come from god ( false ), and then, his argument for the existance of absolute morals is really, quite spectacular in its idiocy

QuoteBut the problem is that objective values do exist, and deep down we all know it

That is literally one of the worst arguments I have ever heard.

His premise that only god could supply absolute morals is also wrong, if they do exist, why do they have to come from god?

Thanks so much for the responses,
The implications of a subjective and relative morality seem a bit harsh. If one does not believe in any sort of absolute moral standard than he or she has no right to impose their standard on anyone else. Who is there to say which side is right? in the example of Hitler, the Nazis thought that were doing the right thing, we didn't. if they had all brainwashed us into siding with them, would it then be right? if so, than who are we to ever tell anyone that what they are doing is "wrong"? when in fact it might be right? if morality is merely subjective, than on what basis does anyone ever tell the rapist what he is doing is wrong? is it merely wrong because I think so? because society decides it is? I don't know about you guys but when I see rape/murder/genocide ect. I would be intellectually deceiving myself if I claimed that these acts could ever be acceptable and moral.
meh, maybe thats just me

1) Who is this "WLC" and where can I watch Hitchens rip him a new one?

2)

QuoteBut if moral values are gradually discovered, not invented, then our gradual and fallible apprehension of the moral realm no more undermines the objective reality of that realm than our gradual, fallible perception of the physical world undermines the objectivity of that realm.

He seems to think that he can get away with putting words in Ruse's mouth.  Nowhere does Ruse say that "moral values are... discovered, not invented."

3) It seems that Christians (and their god) are moral relativists, too.  For literally hundreds and hundreds of years, following the word of that god as supposedly revealed in the Bible, Christians practiced slavery.  Yet now it's condemned.  Why?   If the eternal, objective morality says that slavery is allowed (if you follow certain rules as laid out in the Bible) then why stop it?  There are plenty of other examples where the so called eternal morality has changed, but I don't want to get tedious.

4) Why do we need a god to tell us what's right and wrong?  I think humans are quite capable of making moral choices without the scribblings of a group of superstitious wanderers in the desert from nearly two thousand years ago. (I'm assuming that like most Christians you will disavow much of the Old Testament, because it's eternal morality was updated by Jesus.)  In fact the main opponents of the Nazis (for their own reasons, to be sure) if you count the number of people they lost fighting Nazi Germany, were the "godless communists" of the USSR, and the role played by Christian churches during the Holocaust was not one of unequivocal opposition.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Thanks so much for the responses,
The implications of a subjective and relative morality seem a bit harsh. If one does not believe in any sort of absolute moral standard than he or she has no right to impose their standard on anyone else. Who is there to say which side is right?

It's not one person's morality being right and another's being wrong, it's something that is generally or even loosely agreed to as part of being a society.  Without society and community there would be no need for morals at all.  Does a hermit living alone in his cave have a need for morals?

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"in the example of Hitler, the Nazis thought that were doing the right thing, we didn't. if they had all brainwashed us into siding with them, would it then be right?

I think this example is a confusion of what really happened during Hitler's reign.  This was not a moral issue or a moral objective, it was a misguided attempt to form a "master race" and the holocaust was not the beginning.  Plundering the jewish communities, using them as free labor, conducting inhumane experiments on them, and then getting rid of them after they were no longer needed was a mean to an end for them, not something they considered the moral thing to do.  (This was after the baby farm failures, experiments on their own people, a coup on current government and armed forces, and much other history.)  Because people do an evil thing does not mean that they think that act is moral, maybe they don't care.  The Nazis didn't think they were doing the right thing, they simply didn't care what they did to other people while trying to reach their objective.

This is like saying a sociopath that murders people and eats the victims believes he/she is doing a moral or "right" thing.  More likely the person could care less about morals and is doing what is primal and feels right to them regardless of morality.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"if so, than who are we to ever tell anyone that what they are doing is "wrong"? when in fact it might be right? if morality is merely subjective, than on what basis does anyone ever tell the rapist what he is doing is wrong? is it merely wrong because I think so? because society decides it is? I don't know about you guys but when I see rape/murder/genocide ect. I would be intellectually deceiving myself if I claimed that these acts could ever be acceptable and moral.
meh, maybe thats just me

I think this kind of makes the argument.  If absolute/objective morals existed would any of the above have ever been deemed appropriate behavior?  Would this even be a viable argument if there were objective morals?

Quote1) Who is this "WLC" and where can I watch Hitchens rip him a new one? :lol:

Quote2)He seems to think that he can get away with putting words in Ruse's mouth.  Nowhere does Ruse say that "moral values are... discovered, not invented."

it seemed to me as though WLC was stating that the best Ruse's claim proves is that morality is discovered

QuoteWLC:"The reasoning of Ruse at best proves only that our subjective perception of objective moral values has evolved"

Quote3) It seems that Christians (and their god) are moral relativists, too.  For literally hundreds and hundreds of years, following the word of that god as supposedly revealed in the Bible, Christians practiced slavery.  Yet now it's condemned.  Why?   If the eternal, objective morality says that slavery is allowed (if you follow certain rules as laid out in the Bible) then why stop it?  There are plenty of other examples where the so called eternal morality has changed, but I don't want to get tedious.

To understand the OT and the laws I think you need to have a pretty solid understanding of the mosaic law, its purpose and its functions...its a bit off topic IMO as I'm not discussing Christianity, only theism.
But if you want to talk about that maybe we could make another thread :)

QuoteIt's not one person's morality being right and another's being wrong, it's something that is generally or even loosely agreed to as part of being a society.  Without society and community there would be no need for morals at all.  Does a hermit living alone in his cave have a need for morals?

I was using it as a small scale example but you could equally apply the same example to a society, what happens when one society come into conflict with another? is one side of the conflict ever in the right?

QuoteI think this example is a confusion of what really happened during Hitler's reign.  This was not a moral issue or a moral objective, it was a misguided attempt to form a "master race" and the holocaust was not the beginning.  Plundering the jewish communities, using them as free labor, conducting inhumane experiments on them, and then getting rid of them after they were no longer needed was a mean to an end for them, not something they considered the moral thing to do.  (This was after the baby farm failures, experiments on their own people, a coup on current government and armed forces, and much other history.)  Because people do an evil thing does not mean that they think that act is moral, maybe they don't care.  The Nazis didn't think they were doing the right thing, they simply didn't care what they did to other people while trying to reach their objective.

I'm not sure how you can say that the the genocide that took place was not a moral issue, if you claim it was bad than you take a moral position on it.

QuoteThis is like saying a sociopath that murders people and eats the victims believes he/she is doing a moral or "right" thing.  More likely the person could care less about morals and is doing what is primal and feels right to them regardless of morality.

I think your analogy is flawed, a sociopath like the one you described has numbed himself to morality ect. I think a better analogy would be a terrorist, or a  crusader. Either one of these identities believes that the horrible things they do are moral. But are they? well I think its pretty obvious and everyone here would agree that the crusades and instances of terror like 9/11 were wrong, even though the people who carried them out thought they were doing right. If we think what they did was wrong merely because its our opinion, or the opinion of our society then it really isn't wrong. its just whatever one wants to believe it is. and arguing that 9/11 ect. was wrong is an opinion you should keep to yourself.

QuoteIf absolute/objective morals existed would any of the above have ever been deemed appropriate behavior?  

not if what they did was objectively wrong.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"I was using it as a small scale example but you could equally apply the same example to a society, what happens when one society come into conflict with another? is one side of the conflict ever in the right?

If there is a conflict then that would be due to there being disagreement between what is moral/right.  So, if that conflict exists there is no absolute morality.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"I'm not sure how you can say that the the genocide that took place was not a moral issue, if you claim it was bad than you take a moral position on it.

I may think it was immoral,  but the act itself was not necessarily something that the "doers" believed was moral or right.  Not every action that is performed is performed because the person doing it believes he/she is moral or right.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"I think your analogy is flawed, a sociopath like the one you described has numbed himself to morality ect.

This would be true only if you are assuming he/she began with that moral compass.  If they never held that moral standing they would not be "numb" to it, it never existed for them.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"I think a better analogy would be a terrorist, or a  crusader. Either one of these identities believes that the horrible things they do are moral. But are they? well I think its pretty obvious and everyone here would agree that the crusades and instances of terror like 9/11 were wrong, even though the people who carried them out thought they were doing right. If we think what they did was wrong merely because its our opinion, or the opinion of our society then it really isn't wrong. its just whatever one wants to believe it is. and arguing that 9/11 ect. was wrong is an opinion you should keep to yourself.

I'm not sure I understand the point here.  They certainly do not see these acts as immoral, while the victims do.  This conflict in itself proves that there is no absolute moral.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

Quote from: "VanReal"If absolute/objective morals existed would any of the above have ever been deemed appropriate behavior?  

not if what they did was objectively wrong.

What is an objective wrong?

QuoteIf there is a conflict then that would be due to there being disagreement between what is moral/right.  So, if that conflict exists there is no absolute morality.

no,I'm saying that if conflict exists than either the one group, or the other group is wrong (or they could both be wrong)

QuoteI may think it was immoral,  but the act itself was not necessarily something that the "doers" believed was moral or right.  Not every action that is performed is performed because the person doing it believes he/she is moral or right.

that's why your analogy was a bad one, that sociopath did NOT think that what he was doing was right. But in my example Terrorists believe it is there moral obligation to do many of the things they do, they believe it is the right thing to fly airplanes into buildings in the name of Allah. They are either right in doing this, or wrong. Thats all I'm saying. If you do not believe in any sort of objective morality than what they are doing is neither good, nor bad. It is whatever we or our society decides.

QuoteThis would be true only if you are assuming he/she began with that moral compass.  If they never held that moral standing they would not be "numb" to it, it never existed for them.

If they never had any sort of moral compass why should we condem such actions? why is the sociopath at fault for acting according to his instincts?

QuoteI'm not sure I understand the point here.  They certainly do not see these acts as immoral, while the victims do.  This conflict in itself proves that there is no absolute moral.

Again, all conflict proves is that both parties cannot be in the right. one of them, or both of them must be wrong. My point is that when you say one party is right, and the other is wrong you are basing that assumption off of something, whether it be your societies standards, your own personal standards or Gods standards. The only standard which could be absolute is the last of the three. Since you do not hold to objective morality you have no justification in claiming that certain things are right or wrong, since morality is mere opinion.

QuoteWhat is an objective wrong?

Anything that violates or is contrary to God's Standard (from a theists position anyways)
I think the Objective morality exists, and if you say it doesn't I think it is only wise to be consistent with your beliefs...thats all I'm after, consistency.

Everyone so far has claimed that morality is subjective. I am trying to point out the ramifications that believing such a statement entails.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"no,I'm saying that if conflict exists than either the one group, or the other group is wrong (or they could both be wrong)

If conflict exists then they are in disagreement of what is right or wrong, there is no way to determine which is right or wrong as it depends on the individuals in conflict.  If there was an absolute right or wrong then there would be no conflict because the side going against that absolute would be wrong.  When both sides believe they are right and the action/ideas are in conflict there can't be and objective right or wrong, it's subjective.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"that's why your analogy was a bad one, that sociopath did NOT think that what he was doing was right. But in my example Terrorists believe it is there moral obligation to do many of the things they do, they believe it is the right thing to fly airplanes into buildings in the name of Allah. They are either right in doing this, or wrong. Thats all I'm saying. If you do not believe in any sort of objective morality than what they are doing is neither good, nor bad. It is whatever we or our society decides.

Correct.  It is a societal perception.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"If they never had any sort of moral compass why should we condem such actions? why is the sociopath at fault for acting according to his instincts?

Because as a society the decision has been made that the action is not acceptible.  There are even laws of "moral turpitude" that in themselves are not necessarily "wrong" but as a society the conduct is considered immoral and unacceptiable, hence illegal.  It doesn't mean that the action itself is inherently or absolutely wrong/immoral but simply against what is accepted in that society.  (Drug trafficking would be an example in the US).

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Again, all conflict proves is that both parties cannot be in the right. one of them, or both of them must be wrong. My point is that when you say one party is right, and the other is wrong you are basing that assumption off of something, whether it be your societies standards, your own personal standards or Gods standards. The only standard which could be absolute is the last of the three. Since you do not hold to objective morality you have no justification in claiming that certain things are right or wrong, since morality is mere opinion.

No, if you do not agree that morals are objective/absolute then that means they are always subject to opinion and are therefore something that the society, culture or subculture has determined as moral or immoral (right or wrong, bad or good, acceptable or unacceptable).  Ethical vegans will militantly argue that fishing as sport, for food, or farm fishing is cruel, torturous and devoid of compassion and morality.  Fisherman would be in exact opposition of this and feel that morally there is nothing wrong with fishing.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Anything that violates or is contrary to God's Standard (from a theists position anyways)
I think the Objective morality exists, and if you say it doesn't I think it is only wise to be consistent with your beliefs...thats all I'm after, consistency.

I have been nothing but consistent with my thinking that there is no absolute or objective morality.  There is no feasible example or instance in which nyone can argue that there is one without the consensus of a particular society.  If there was a standard moral code even from a God then those absolutes would be inherently known and consistent, there are none.  (There is not even a absolute/objective consensus of what is moral among people of the same faith, same church, praying to the same God, listening to the same Priest.)

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Everyone so far has claimed that morality is subjective. I am trying to point out the ramifications that believing such a statement entails.

I hear the ramifications you are speaking of as "but no one would know what was right or wrong without an objective/absolute morailty from God" yet I have not seen one example of such a moral.  I am not saying that is what you are saying, just that it's what it sounds like to me.  You are saying that morailty is objective but are not providing an example of it that can't be refuted by a culture, group or society in disagreement with that.

Thank you for your prompt reply to my post.

It seems clear that evolved ╘ discovered, and therefor, Ruse is not positing an objective morality as such and for Craig (thank you for elucidating his identity by the way) to claim that he is, at best, doing so, is a bit disingenuous.

I see that we are not discussing Christian morality, only theistic morality.  In that case, which of the hundreds (thousands?) of gods believed in by various groups of theists is the originator of objective morality?  I think the question is irrelevant.  Theistic morality posing as objective is a farce: just choose the god who suits you, and that ends up being subjective morality doesn't it?

Thank you for straightening me out on the difference between ontology and epistemology.  

 I still don't understand how morality  ceases to have meaning if it's not given by a god.  I don't think that "really wrong" (real world morality) and "objectively wrong" (god-given morality) are the same thing, but Craig insists that they are. "Objectively wrong," as in god-given morality simply does not exist, in my opinion, but that does not mean that there is no such thing as "really wrong."  In other words, why is a subjective morality inherent to human beings (which we know exists) in any way less than an  unproved (except by circular argument) objective morality imposed by some supernatural (once again, unproved) being?

I was going to ask if a god is above the morality that it promulgates, using your example of genocide as an objective wrong, and the supposed genocide of the whole human race except for one chosen family by YHVH as a clear example of that objective wrong, but I guess until you say that we actually are talking about Christian morality, that could be construed to be irrelevant.  It's clear though, by that example, that mythical beings are not subject to the same objective morality that real beings are, and therefor, to some extent even objective morality is subjective, eh?

QuoteIf conflict exists then they are in disagreement of what is right or wrong, there is no way to determine which is right or wrong as it depends on the individuals in conflict.  If there was an absolute right or wrong then there would be no conflict because the side going against that absolute would be wrong.  When both sides believe they are right and the action/ideas are in conflict there can't be and objective right or wrong, it's subjective.

both groups cannot be right, just because one (or more) group has no knowledge of the "correct" absolute standard of morality does not mean that standard doesn't exist. My whole point is that just because someone believes their "cause" to be in the right doesn't mean that they are in the right. Our goal in life is to find truth, find out which "side" (if you will) of the conflict is in the right. It seems as though you are arguing for a relative truth and if this is the case we should be debating something else entirely.

QuoteCorrect.  It is a societal perception.

Ok, now that I have a statement clearly showing that you believe morality to be the result of societies laws/interests ect. I can hopefully clarify what I'm trying to argue.
In short what i'm saying follows this basic outline
1)society "A" says that are acting morally and that society "B" is an immoral society
2)society "B" says they are acting morally and that society"B" is acting immoral
3)nothing/nobody can definitively say which society is acting morally/imorally,

if morality is based solely off of society (What is right/wrong is determined by our society)
and different societies have different standards of morality,
than we have no right to judge moral/immoral actions as doing so would be arrogant, and preposterous. Why should we somehow think that what we call moral, is moral, and what a terrorist calls moral isn't moral. If Morality is subjective, than we have no basis on which we can accuse the Hijackers or crusaders of doing wrong.

QuoteBecause as a society the decision has been made that the action is not acceptible.  There are even laws of "moral turpitude" that in themselves are not necessarily "wrong" but as a society the conduct is considered immoral and unacceptiable, hence illegal.  It doesn't mean that the action itself is inherently or absolutely wrong/immoral but simply against what is accepted in that society.  (Drug trafficking would be an example in the US).

forgive me If I am taking you out of context but I am remembering correctly you stated that morality is based off of our society, now you claim that there are actions which society defines as wrong, which are not inherently immoral, it seems as though you are arguing that society and the decisions that society makes are not absolute, which I never claimed were.

QuoteI have been nothing but consistent with my thinking that there is no absolute or objective morality.  There is no feasible example or instance in which nyone can argue that there is one without the consensus of a particular society.  If there was a standard moral code even from a God then those absolutes would be inherently known and consistent, there are none.  (There is not even a absolute/objective consensus of what is moral among people of the same faith, same church, praying to the same God, listening to the same Priest.)

Your saying that if absolute morality existed than somehow everyone would know it!? If something is true, it is true whether or not one person believes it or 100,000,000
I am arguing that for instance murder is ALWAYS wrong, it is wrong whether every person in the world thinks its fine or whether nobody in the world thinks its fine. Objective morality does not hinge upon whether or not everyone believes in it or not. I seem to be reiterating Craig

QuoteTo say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so

just because different societies/people groups disagree on morals does not mean that the objective morality does not exist. That seems a bit like saying, because we have different views on truth, objective truth does not exist, if it did exist we would all know about it. This sort of thinking style is blatantly fallacious. I agree that if everyone lived moral lives, there would be no conflict/inconsistency between groups and societies, but NOBODY lives perfectly moral lives, thus the conflict!  :hmm:[/quote]

if Absolute right, and Absolute wrong do not exist, than right and wrong become whatever you, I and society decide it to be. When this happens, we become malevolent bullies for trying to impose our idea of morality on anyone who holds any other idea of morality, we have no basis on which we can justify or condemn any act in regards to its relationship to morality.

QuoteI see that we are not discussing Christian morality, only theistic morality. In that case, which of the thousands of gods believed in by various groups of theists is the originator of objective morality?

again, we are discussing theistic vs non-theistic argument, this argument's point is to inductively prove a deity, I was wondering where you guys thought it went wrong, my goal was not to discuss what deity of these deities corresponds to a reality (or which of all the gods from all of history is actually God). I can see you are eager to discuss that and If you wish to I hope you will pm/email me. That wasn't my goal in coming to an atheistic forum. If I had come to a forum where there were hundreds upon hundreds of theists who all believed in different deities than I would be discussing what you mentioned (which is an important topic I might add)

QuoteI was going to ask if a god is above the morality that it promulgates, using your example of genocide as an objective wrong, and the supposed genocide of the whole human race except for one chosen family by YHVH as a clear example of that objective wrong, but I guess until I find out which is the true god in your understanding, that would be irrelevant.

Ahh, I assume you are reffering to the infamous "Attrocious God of the OT" that seems to be popular which makes for a very interesting discussion albeit vaguely related to the one we are having. One thing that you mentioned that is VERY relevant is morality in regards to theism, in fact, one could pose what Socretes posed to Euthyphro as mentioned in Plato's Dialog and form the "Euthyphro Dillema" here. Are things moral because God approves of them, or does God approve of things because they are moral? an Interesting question which I think has a (relatively) simple answer.
regardless I want to let you guys know I appreciate the responses, if I didn't get to everything I apologize, I will make sure to respond to anything else when I get the time
thanks!

You seem to be starting from the position that there is an absolute moral standard. Why do you beleive this?

An appeal to consequences will not satisfy me in this regard.

When talking about 2 groups who disagree on morality, you say at least one of the groups must be wrong, but this is only true if there is an absolute moral standard, which you have yet to demonstrate exists. For example, how do you know murder is wrong? How can you prove this? Do you have objective proof to back this up? Or is it just written down in some book that you happen to beleive in? Who are you to say that your book is right and the Koran is wrong?

Quote from: "SSY"You seem to be starting from the position that there is an absolute moral standard. Why do you beleive this?

An appeal to consequences will not satisfy me in this regard.

When talking about 2 groups who disagree on morality, you say at least one of the groups must be wrong, but this is only true if there is an absolute moral standard, which you have yet to demonstrate exists. For example, how do you know murder is wrong? How can you prove this? Do you have objective proof to back this up? Or is it just written down in some book that you happen to beleive in? Who are you to say that your book is right and the Koran is wrong?

I was merely pointing out the implications of not believing in objective reality, murder is wrong by its very definition (an unjustified killing) if it isn't wrong than it isn't murder, its a killing ect.
the theist can state that something is right/wrong objectively, regardless if it actually is right /wrong and hold consistent to their world view. The atheist cannot, for in doing so would contradict the very position he/she holds to.
Say for example that both a theist and an atheist witness an act of murder, both the theist and the atheist state know that the act is immoral, both parties claim something to be wrong/immoral but only the theist is justified in stating that the act is immoral, the atheist would have to conclude that "Well I think its wrong, and my society thinks it is wrong, but I don't know for sure if it is wrong, since wrong is merely opinion"  since there is nobody the atheist claims to objectively determine right/wrong claiming things to be right/wrong would simply be contradictory to what he/she believes. Consistency is what I'm after. If you would like to believe that objective morality is illusory than by all means, go for it. I'm just here to try and point out what that belief entails. I believe that if one is intellectually honest with themselves it would be much more plausible to conclude that objective morality does exist. Can I prove it does? No I can't, but then again I can't prove the existence of reality, truth or anything else for that matter.

So much wrongness in your post.

Murder is not defined as wrong, it is defined as unlawful, and laws are set only by the society in which they apply.

A theist can't state it is wrong ( well, they could, but it would be false ), they can only state it is against the moral code they happen to beleive in. An atheist can say, "I think it is wrong based on my morals, and also wrong based on the morals/laws of my society"

You seem to take it as a given that a theist can state something as objectivley wrong, when the morals they have are just as subjective as anyone elses. if you can prove that the morals of a theist come from somewhere other than another human/group of humans, then I would be all ears.

I am perfectly happy to say that the judging of an act as right or wrong depends on the people judging it. I can say the holocaust was wrong, in my oppinion, in the oppinion of practically everyone else on earth, and by all modern international law, but that is far as I can go.

Is that intelectually honest enough for you? Are you willing to be honest in stating that the morals you adhere to are also subjective?

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"the theist can state that something is right/wrong objectively, regardless if it actually is right /wrong and hold consistent to their world view. The atheist cannot, for in doing so would contradict the very position he/she holds to.

What position would it be that the atheist is violating if they state that something is immoral or "wrong"?  If the atheist believes that morality is subjective and derived from their culture or society, or quite simply something they personally feel where is the contridiction of their world view?  You are looking at this as someone that believes morals are objective and set down by an all mighty, but the atheist does not.  There is no conflict in an atheist thinking something is immoral.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Say for example that both a theist and an atheist witness an act of murder, both the theist and the atheist state know that the act is immoral, both parties claim something to be wrong/immoral but only the theist is justified in stating that the act is immoral, the atheist would have to conclude that "Well I think its wrong, and my society thinks it is wrong, but I don't know for sure if it is wrong, since wrong is merely opinion"  since there is nobody the atheist claims to objectively determine right/wrong claiming things to be right/wrong would simply be contradictory to what he/she believes.

That is just not true.  The atheist can state that the act they witnessed was immoral because they feel as such.  There does not need to be a consensus on that.  The theist would be saying it's wrong because they feel their morality on the subject is objective.  The atheist does not.  That does not mean they can't give their opinion or agreement that it's immoral.  Your saying that the atheist is not justified in making that statement is an opinion based on your belief in absolute/objective morality.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Consistency is what I'm after. If you would like to believe that objective morality is illusory than by all means, go for it. I'm just here to try and point out what that belief entails. I believe that if one is intellectually honest with themselves it would be much more plausible to conclude that objective morality does exist. Can I prove it does? No I can't, but then again I can't prove the existence of reality, truth or anything else for that matter.

We are being consistent.  We consistently believe that morality is not objective.  It may not be pallatable to you or how you  prefer to think about it but their is nothing intellectually deceptive (or fallacious as you said earlier) about it.

Look at your own example of the 9/11 terrorists.  God tells them that killing the infidels is not only moral but necessary and rewarded.  By your own admission God determines objective morality so killing those people was not immoral.  Or is that just the wrong God?

Thank you, Phillysoul11, for an interesting topic, and for your consistently polite responses here.

I think I've made my position on it clear, as have my fellow atheists theirs,  but once more for the record:

I do not accept that an objective morality, defined as god-given, exists.  I do not accept that the belief that one is guided by such an objective morality is in any way superior to the belief that one is guided by subjective morality as determined by culture or evolved memes inherent in the nature of homo sapiens as a social animal.  To put it quite baldly; objective morality is not superior to subjective morality, in fact it is inferior, because it allows one who believes in it to avoid questioning the basis for their morality and act in blind obedience to it.

There is a saying: "Legend conquers History." That may or may not be true, but I think "Reality conquers Myth" is an inevitable fact.

Finally: Theistic morality's claim to objectivity is simply a farce, given the huge multitude of variations within that realm.

QuoteA theist can't state it is wrong ( well, they could, but it would be false ), they can only state it is against the moral code they happen to beleive in. An atheist can say, "I think it is wrong based on my morals, and also wrong based on the morals/laws of my society"

You seem to take it as a given that a theist can state something as objectivley wrong, when the morals they have are just as subjective as anyone elses. if you can prove that the morals of a theist come from somewhere other than another human/group of humans, then I would be all ears.

I am perfectly happy to say that the judging of an act as right or wrong depends on the people judging it. I can say the holocaust was wrong, in my oppinion, in the oppinion of practically everyone else on earth, and by all modern international law, but that is far as I can go.

Is that intelectually honest enough for you? Are you willing to be honest in stating that the morals you adhere to are also subjective?

This is where I think we split, You think murder is something that a society defines as wrong, I think a societies job is to merely recognize that it is wrong. Its the difference between deciding what morality is, and recognizing it. My whole point was that the Theist is being completely consistent with there beliefs when they state that something is objectively wrong. Doesn't mean they are right, it just means they don't have double standards. Someone who believes that Thor is the very standard of morality makes no contradiction with his beliefs when he states that certain things are wrong because Thor says so. He is being consistant with his beliefs no matter how crazy and absurd they are. If objective morality exists, than it would be objective to all people in every people group. I already told you that one cannot deductively prove objective morality just as one cannot deductively prove reality or truth. Now that doesn't mean it is somehow irrational to believe that objective morality exists, after all if you held the same standard in assessing objective truth as you do objective morality you would be considered a lunatic. You are basically stating that because one cannot logically or deductively "prove" objective morality, than the idea of absolute right/wrong is absurd. I'm sure you fine with saying that morality is opinion based, and for all I know you might actually live your life with the same standards that you claim to be right, I doubt it but hell, I don't know you. If I stated that the morals I adhere to are subjective I would be very dishonest indeed. I believe what is right, is right regardless whether or not people or societies decide to adhere to them.

QuoteWhat position would it be that the atheist is violating if they state that something is immoral or "wrong"? If the atheist believes that morality is subjective and derived from their culture or society, or quite simply something they personally feel where is the contridiction of their world view? You are looking at this as someone that believes morals are objective and set down by an all mighty, but the atheist does not. There is no conflict in an atheist thinking something is immoral.

There is no conflict in the "thinking" that something is immoral, its when someone acts out and imposes his/her own view of morality on someone who shares a different view which I think is a both arrogant and naive accusation for someone who does not believe in objective morality.

QuoteThat is just not true. The atheist can state that the act they witnessed was immoral because they feel as such. There does not need to be a consensus on that. The theist would be saying it's wrong because they feel their morality on the subject is objective. The atheist does not. That does not mean they can't give their opinion or agreement that it's immoral. Your saying that the atheist is not justified in making that statement is an opinion based on your belief in absolute/objective morality.

when I said stating I didn't simply mean sharing an opinion, I should have been more clear and I apologize for that. What I mean't was that the Atheist has no basis by which he could ever impose his/her morals on another being which disagrees without showing inconsistency. Why should anyone listen to what I have to say, if I only think that what I have to say is true for me, my beliefs and my societies beliefs ect.

QuoteWe are being consistent. We consistently believe that morality is not objective. It may not be pallatable to you or how you prefer to think about it but their is nothing intellectually deceptive (or fallacious as you said earlier) about it.

Again, I don't know you personally, but I have my doubts.

QuoteLook at your own example of the 9/11 terrorists. God tells them that killing the infidels is not only moral but necessary and rewarded. By your own admission God determines objective morality so killing those people was not immoral. Or is that just the wrong God?

 God does not determine morality in the sense that he decides that "A" is wrong and "B" is right, if He did than you are right, it would be subjective. you seem to be on the verge of posing euthyphros dilemma. We will see ;)

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"If I believed that objective morality existed, yet found no need in finding out what that morality was I would be a blundering fool.

Once you, or anyone else has found it, though, one can reasonably assume that the search for truth, having been successful, will cease, and the true believer will cleave unto the Word, and uphold it for all they are worth, questioning no more, and will try to avoid blundering by deviating from that Word. They will heed not the promulgators of false moralities.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Claiming that since there are so many religions and so many people claiming that objective morality exists, it is highly unlikely that any of them are true seems a bit like saying that because there are so many different kinds of insects on this planet that the claiming that a ladybug exists is a laughable notion.

I do not claim that it's highly unlikely any of the various objective moralities are true, I assert that they are all absolutely true for those who believe them, and a person who has found the "correct" one will henceforth consider all others untrue, rendering them automatically into subjective moralities.

I think your simile is interesting, but to follow it though, it seems to me that the theist who has earnestly searched, and found the one true objective morality is saying, "This species, 'ladybug' is the only true insect on the planet. All other species which some may call insects are actually in a different class of arthropod, and  only seem to be insects despite qualifying in every  respect other than they are not ladybugs."

QuoteOnce you, or anyone else has found it, though, one can reasonably assume that the search for truth, having been successful, will cease, and the true believer will cleave unto the Word, and uphold it for all they are worth, questioning no more, and will try to avoid blundering by deviating from that Word. They will heed not the promulgators of false moralities.

I don't think that is true, obviously, there are people who might live there life with that ideology, but I think that morality isn't something that once you "believe" or decide on sort of world view, than you have no need to question that morality, I don't think that many moral issues are as clear cut as we would all like them to be, and because of this I think it only wise to be constantly questioning moral decisions. If there is nobody to account to than the incentive to question your morality is weakened. Not obliterated, but definitely weakened.

QuoteI do not claim that it's highly unlikely any of the various objective moralities are true, I assert that they are all absolutely true for those who believe them, and a person who has found the "correct" one will henceforth consider all others untrue, rendering them automatically into subjective moralities.

They cannot all be true if they contradict each other, it is much more likely for no world views to be correct than all of them. They all claim to be true  not all of them are true, our job is to find out which world view(if any) is true. Once you believe in one IF you actually DO believe in one, than you obviously believe it to be true, meaning that you other see other world views as false (if you thought they were true you would follow them) Most world views claim exclusivity, Atheism is not compatible with Theism. It would be absurd you Think both Atheism and Theism are both true ect.

QuoteI think your simile is interesting, but to follow it though, it seems to me that the theist who has earnestly searched, and found the one true objective morality is saying, "This species, 'ladybug' is the only true insect on the planet. All other species which some may call insects are actually in a different class of arthropod, and  only seem to be insects despite qualifying in every  respect other than they are not ladybugs.

Lets be careful with the analogies here, I have claimed that "True Objective Morality" is represented in the Ladybug, all other religions/belief systems are represented in EVERY other insect. Not all insects (belief systems) are the ladybug (objective morality), only the ladybug is the ladybug.
again, thanks for keeping the discussion going  

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

QuoteA theist can't state it is wrong ( well, they could, but it would be false ), they can only state it is against the moral code they happen to beleive in. An atheist can say, "I think it is wrong based on my morals, and also wrong based on the morals/laws of my society"

You seem to take it as a given that a theist can state something as objectivley wrong, when the morals they have are just as subjective as anyone elses. if you can prove that the morals of a theist come from somewhere other than another human/group of humans, then I would be all ears.

I am perfectly happy to say that the judging of an act as right or wrong depends on the people judging it. I can say the holocaust was wrong, in my oppinion, in the oppinion of practically everyone else on earth, and by all modern international law, but that is far as I can go.

Is that intelectually honest enough for you? Are you willing to be honest in stating that the morals you adhere to are also subjective?

This is where I think we split, You think murder is something that a society defines as wrong, I think a societies job is to merely recognize that it is wrong. Its the difference between deciding what morality is, and recognizing it. My whole point was that the Theist is being completely consistent with there beliefs when they state that something is objectively wrong. Doesn't mean they are right, it just means they don't have double standards. Someone who believes that Thor is the very standard of morality makes no contradiction with his beliefs when he states that certain things are wrong because Thor says so. He is being consistant with his beliefs no matter how crazy and absurd they are. If objective morality exists, than it would be objective to all people in every people group. I already told you that one cannot deductively prove objective morality just as one cannot deductively prove reality or truth. Now that doesn't mean it is somehow irrational to believe that objective morality exists, after all if you held the same standard in assessing objective truth as you do objective morality you would be considered a lunatic. You are basically stating that because one cannot logically or deductively "prove" objective morality, than the idea of absolute right/wrong is absurd. I'm sure you fine with saying that morality is opinion based, and for all I know you might actually live your life with the same standards that you claim to be right, I doubt it but hell, I don't know you. If I stated that the morals I adhere to are subjective I would be very dishonest indeed. I believe what is right, is right regardless whether or not people or societies decide to adhere to them.

Your argument is circular, you have said murder is wrong, becuase it is defined as such by society, and society define it as wrong, because it is wrong. Why do they define it as wrong in the first place?

Your argument about the existance of objective morality also seems a bit silly. there is this moral, objective standard, but no one knows it, and they all have their own subjective standards, rendering the objective morals that supposedly exist as completley meaningless. A world with or without objective morals would be compltely indistinguishable from each other.

I fail to see how I have double standards, could you enlighten me as to where I have shown this?

The morals you have are subjective, as you still have not given me anything other than your oppinion on why something is wrong, nothing concrete about why it is wrong. It sounds like you may have a case of the intelectual dishonesty going on here.

QuoteYour argument is circular, you have said murder is wrong, becuase it is defined as such by society, and society define it as wrong, because it is wrong. Why do they define it as wrong in the first place?

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God, A society can recognize or fail to recognize whether or not a killing is murder or not. I feel like I was blatantly clear on this and I am beginning to wonder how closely you are reading what I'm writing.

:blink:  :blink:

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God,

And yet your god has been the basis of more murder than you can possibly imagine.  

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

QuoteYour argument is circular, you have said murder is wrong, becuase it is defined as such by society, and society define it as wrong, because it is wrong. Why do they define it as wrong in the first place?

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God, A society can recognize or fail to recognize whether or not a killing is murder or not. I feel like I was blatantly clear on this and I am beginning to wonder how closely you are reading what I'm writing.

:blink:  :blink:

Sigh, I knew this post was coming.

 Murder is wrong, becuase god says it is wrong? Pfft, what if another god says it is ok? Why is it objective if it comes from god? It is still just his oppinion of it being wrong.You can't claim your morality is objective without providing any proof, what so ever that it is. You have not even proven that your morality comes from god. To prove your morality is objective, you must show there is something intrinsically wrong with murder itself, not just say "Murder is wrong becuase X says it is wrong". If it is only wrong becuase X says it is wrong, then it is still a subjective judgment.

How can you know it exists? Saying something exists, because you know it exists is a massive crock, please provide proof, or admit you have none, and are just making it up.WHY do you beleive in an objective moral code if you acknoledge there is no proof for one?

I do not have double standards. When I say something is wrong, that comes with the proviso that is only wrong in my oppinion, just like when I say something is tasty, it comes with the proviso it is only my oppinion. Thats why I dont go around spouting my morality as the best, shoving it down the throats of the young and the vulnrable as christianity does.

I can already see the reply to this post, a weak defence that you have said there is no proof, therefor my continuing insistance on one is unreasobale. Let me pre-empt you by saying, unless you can prove your morality is objective, or at the very least provide a reason as to why you think it is objective, then your morality is just as subjective as anyone elses. You seem unable or unwilling to grasp this concept.

Also, I find your use of the wall bang smiley very rude, that was the first time you mentioned god, all your previous posts about it being wrong provided no evidence whatsoever that it was wrong, other than you saying it was wrong becuase it is wrong. Using the smiley implies you have said something repeatedly that is simple and clear, and i have failed to grasp it, this does not tally with reality. For the sake of completeness, I will add that you posted this topic saying you wanted help finding the flaws in the argument of WLC, then turn around and start preaching about how atheists are imoral and how a moral objective code does exist ( without any evidence I might add ). Why were you not honest with your intentions in the first post?

QuoteMurder is wrong, becuase god says it is wrong? Pfft, what if another god says it is ok? Why is it objective if it comes from god? It is still just his oppinion of it being wrong.You can't claim your morality is objective without providing any proof, what so ever that it is. You have not even proven that your morality comes from god. To prove your morality is objective, you must show there is something intrinsically wrong with murder itself, not just say "Murder is wrong becuase X says it is wrong". If it is only wrong becuase X says it is wrong, then it is still a subjective judgment.

Where did I ever say that things are wrong because "God says its wrong" if things are wrong simply because god arbitrarily decided that they were than of course morality would be subjective. I mentioned this in post #19

QuoteGod does not determine morality in the sense that he decides that "A" is wrong and "B" is right, if He did than you are right, it would be subjective.

QuoteHow can you know it exists? Saying something exists, because you know it exists is a massive crock, please provide proof, or admit you have none, and are just making it up.WHY do you beleive in an objective moral code if you acknoledge there is no proof for one?

As I said before, to prove objective morality, you would need to prove objective truth, which is impossible, yet still rational to believe.
 

Quoteone cannot deductively prove objective morality just as one cannot deductively prove reality or truth. Now that doesn't mean it is somehow irrational to believe that objective morality exists, after all if you held the same standard in assessing objective truth as you do objective morality you would be considered a lunatic.

QuoteI can already see the reply to this post, a weak defence that you have said there is no proof, therefor my continuing insistance on one is unreasobale.
 unless you can prove your morality is objective, or at the very least provide a reason as to why you think it is objective, then your morality is just as subjective as anyone elses. You seem unable or unwilling to grasp this concept.

well here goes my weak defense
1. I think the absurdity of subjective morality is reason enough to believe in objective morality

QuoteAs Ruse himself confesses, "The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."11

it is not a deductive proof but objective morality seems to line up with reality much more than anything subjective
2.My goal was to show the implications of subjective morality, not prove objective morality exists
3. How does me not being able to prove that my morality is objective make it subjective? please elaborate

QuoteAlso, I find your use of the wall bang smiley very rude, that was the first time you mentioned god, all your previous posts about it being wrong provided no evidence whatsoever that it was wrong, other than you saying it was wrong becuase it is wrong. Using the smiley implies you have said something repeatedly that is simple and clear, and i have failed to grasp it, this does not tally with reality. For the sake of completeness, I will add that you posted this topic saying you wanted help finding the flaws in the argument of WLC, then turn around and start preaching about how atheists are imoral and how a moral objective code does exist ( without any evidence I might add ). Why were you not honest with your intentions in the first post?

I apologize if the smiley offended you, I'm a bit new to forum etiquette, but I think I have been simple and clear and VERY repetitive. Your right, I did originally start off with a different objective and the conversation did shift. I don't see anything wrong with that. If you would rather discuss WLC's argument then we can do that, it matters not to me. I never said anything about atheists being immoral, I have some very intelligent, friendly (and happy) atheist friends and to say that they are somehow more immoral than any of my Muslim, Christian, or Agnostic friends would be a mistake. I think discussing/debating objective morality was the point of WLC's argument and so I fail to see how by taking his side on the issue is off topic.
I apologize if I came off the wrong way with the smiley though. I will discontinue using them.

Quotemurder is wrong because it runs contrary to God

What is it you mean by this then?

Why is it rational to beleive in something you cannot prove? You still have not addressed this. Objective truth and morality are not the same. i can, objectivley state the sky is blue ( or more precisley, the wein distribution peak of the optical photons  is at 650nm). This is a fact, intrinsic to the photons coming from the sun and the properties of our atmosphere in scattering them. Anyone who measure he photons with a sufficently accurate detector can know his fact. It is demonstably false that te photons are of any other wavelength.

Murder has no such intrinsic property about it that says it is wrong. I would be interested to see why you think there is something intrinsically wrong about murder. Beleiving in something you can't prove, or don't even have any evidence for is totally irrational. Please provide proof or evidence that objective morality exists. You still have not done this, or even said why it is rational to beleive that objective mroality exists.

What is so absurd about subjective morality?
If your morality is not objective, then it must be subjective. As you have thus far provided no evidence about why your morality is different from anyone elses, or objective in anyway, or even from someone other than primitive bronze age men living in the middle east, I would conclude that your morality is subjective.
We all know subjective morality exists, and until we see any evidence of objective morality, it is rational to assume subjective morality is the only one that exists. Beleiving in something with no evidence is irrational.

Let me summarise your argument so far as i see it.
Objective morals exist
Therefor a christian who thinks he has them has the right to proclaim others actions as wrong, even if his morals are totally against the objective moral code that may exist
Atheists are not allowed to call the actions of others wrong, as they don't claim to be gods special little condemers.

Your first premise is just an asertion i have so far seen no evidence for.
the other two are so silly i am not even going to bother, though please correct me if I have misrepresented your argument.

I am going to sum up my whole problem with your argument as well, if you only answer one bit, answer this bit.

Even if you can't prove it, please show some evidence that objective morality exists. Beleiving in something without evidence is irrational.Failing presenting evidence, please tell me any other reason you beleive they exist.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"I don't think that is true, obviously, there are people who might live their life with that ideology, but I think that morality isn't something that once you "believe" or decide on sort of world view, than you have no need to question that morality, I don't think that many moral issues are as clear cut as we would all like them to be, and because of this I think it only wise to be constantly questioning moral decisions. If there is nobody to account to than the incentive to question your morality is weakened. Not obliterated, but definitely weakened.

Okay, let me get this straight:  We have an objective morality bestowed upon us by a thoughtful god.  Right and wrong are clearly defined by that benevolent god. The acts of humans are observed and judged by this interested god.  However the morality so thoughtfully  provided is inevitably vague enough that many moral issues are unclear.  Or perhaps some of the objective morality is hidden?  It must be because otherwise we would always know wrong from right.  So some of the objective morality is hidden by a benevolent god.  He has chosen to leave his beloved creation scratching their collective heads, tormented by terrible moral dilemmas, the answers to which are not as clear cut as the poor people would like them to be.  Not only that but they have an eternal soul which could end up in eternal torment if they, in their ignorance of the crucial hidden moral clause choose wrongly.  They end up constantly questioning moral decisions.  OK then.  I guess I was wrong. I have an admittedly primitive understanding of one particular god's morality, and it seemed fairly clear on pretty much all the important points, so one would not need to be constantly questioning moral decisions.  But I was only subject to a god-raddled education for 9 years.  I guess I missed or forgot the part about the missing moral precepts.  I stopped believing what they were teaching about religion when I was 11, and only paid enough attention to get  A's in the class most of the time. (Not hard.)

On the other hand we have some people who foolishly disbelieve in this god.  They think they have nobody to account to, but somehow have manged to decide to behave in a moral way. How?  It seems they would have to think about morality some, just to be able to make a moral decision. Without even the partially hidden objective morality supplied by a thoughtful god, one would think that questions about morality come to their minds at least as often as those lucky people who have Somebody to help guide them, however inadequately. But you say they have less incentive to question their morality.  I guess you mean the eternal torment part.  I think the decision to live a moral life in an amoral universe shows remarkable incentive, and can only work if one makes a point of seriously considering moral questions.  We'll just have to differ about that one.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"They cannot all be true if they contradict each other, it is much more likely for no world views to be correct than all of them. They all claim to be true not all of them are true, our job is to find out which world view(if any) is true. Once you believe in one IF you actually DO believe in one, than you obviously believe it to be true, meaning that you other see other world views as false (if you thought they were true you would follow them) Most world views claim exclusivity, Atheism is not compatible with Theism. It would be absurd you Think both Atheism and Theism are both true ect.

I happen to believe that the only objective truth is reasoned from objectively provable facts, while there are many varieties of truth which are entirely subjective, in that they are reasoned from, shall we say unprovable facts (among them such things as one might take on faith.)  But that is not the subject if this thread, which seems to have evolved into a discussion of the existence of objective morality.
I do not put world views into categories like true and false, since they always comprise elements of both.  No one person's view is ever entirely "true" in my opinion.  Rather, as you might have already surmised, I consider world view to be unique to each individual; subjective, in other words.  You are the only one who actually knows what the world looks like from within your skull.  We all make at least some decisions based entirely on subjective standards, and some on objective standards. We're just talking about where the line between the two lies.
I think theism, being based as it is on faith, is only true in a subjective sense.  At the same time, seeing as there is no known way to objectively prove the non-existence of gods, atheism is also only true in a subjective sense.  I hope that clears up that point.  :beer:


I just read SSY's post, and I see some convergence and agreement in our points.  I wrote my answer more slowly than he did, is all.  

Quote from: "Recusant"I just read SSY's post, and I see some convergence and agreement in our points.  I wrote my answer more slowly than he did, is all.  

I am happy we seem to agree on some things, I thought your posts in this thread have been very good so far. The considered nature of your typing also shows, maybe I should start drafting my posts. . . .

Quotemurder is wrong because it runs contrary to God

QuoteWhat is it you mean by this then?

What do you mean by this then?

If this is a response to the claim in which I said
 

QuoteWhere did I ever say that things are wrong because "God says its wrong" if things are wrong simply because god arbitrarily decided that they were than of course morality would be subjective.

then you are completely misunderstanding what I'm trying to argue. Murder is wrong, it is not wrong because god "says" its wrong, after all then it would be subjective because God could have decided to say something else. I'm not sure what you don't understand but then again you might be referring to something else so let me know if you were.

QuoteWhy is it rational to beleive in something you cannot prove? You still have not addressed this. Objective truth and morality are not the same. i can, objectivley state the sky is blue ( or more precisley, the wein distribution peak of the optical photons  is at 650nm). This is a fact, intrinsic to the photons coming from the sun and the properties of our atmosphere in scattering them. Anyone who measure he photons with a sufficently accurate detector can know his fact. It is demonstably false that te photons are of any other wavelength.

You can objectively state it yes, and you can offer compelling evidence for it, but you cannot deductively prove it. I could respond by stating that you and I are the figments of stardust who have been manipulated into believing a false reality. You can offer as much evidence as you like, but science and observation cannot prove many things.

QuoteWhat is so absurd about subjective morality?
If your morality is not objective, then it must be subjective. As you have thus far provided no evidence about why your morality is different from anyone elses, or objective in anyway, or even from someone other than primitive bronze age men living in the middle east, I would conclude that your morality is subjective.
We all know subjective morality exists, and until we see any evidence of objective morality, it is rational to assume subjective morality is the only one that exists. Beleiving in something with no evidence is irrational.

Quote"The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says, 2+2=5."

If objective morality does not exist than the rape of children would be bad only by our standards, and if it is only wrong by our standards than if someone has other standards we have no right to impose our standards on them. the 911 terrorist attacks were not really acts of evil, they were merely a conflict between two societies, nothing can say that what they did was wrong, they believe they were in the right, we believe they were in the wrong. If objective morality doesn't exist than trying to end evil deeds is a selfish unwarranted attempt at imposing your opinions on others. Why condemn a man for acting morally in his culture when it is immoral in ours?

QuoteMurder has no such intrinsic property about it that says it is wrong. I would be interested to see why you think there is something intrinsically wrong about murder. Beleiving in something you can't prove, or don't even have any evidence for is totally irrational. Please provide proof or evidence that objective morality exists. You still have not done this, or even said why it is rational to beleive that objective mroality exists.

Because by its definition it is an unjustified killing. Now you could obviously say that it is only unjustified as define by our society, but (since your asking for my opinion) I think that making such a claim is a naive one. If murder is only bad because our society has decided it is bad than it ultimately it is not bad. My point is that whether it be in our conscience or subconscience we all know that killing someone unjustly is wrong.

QuoteLet me summarise your argument so far as i see it.
Objective morals exist
Therefor a christian who thinks he has them has the right to proclaim others actions as wrong, even if his morals are totally against the objective moral code that may exist
Atheists are not allowed to call the actions of others wrong, as they don't claim to be gods special little condemers.

Your first premise is just an asertion i have so far seen no evidence for.
the other two are so silly i am not even going to bother, though please correct me if I have misrepresented your argument.

you are a tad bit off, but that is probably my fault for not being clear.
(edits in bold)

 a Thiest who believes in objective truth is being completely consistent with his beliefs when he  proclaims others actions as wrong, even if his morals are totally against the objective moral code that may exist
Atheists are not consistant when they  call the actions of others wrong, as they believe in opinion based morality

QuoteEven if you can't prove it, please show some evidence that objective morality exists. Beleiving in something without evidence is irrational.Failing presenting evidence, please tell me any other reason you beleive they exist.

it is in my opinion, irrational to believe in opinion based morality as the consequences that such a world view entails do not match up with reality. Which is what I have been (for the most) part writing about.  The only other option to the opinion based morality is morality that does not hinge upon the fragility of human opinion. Morality that is outside of our whimsical decisions. On a bit of a side note I believe that if one really believes in subjective morality and lives their life in consistency with their beliefs that one will have to (at best) settle for nihilism as it is the best explanation that logically follows a subjective morality world view. Now you might be a nihilist,( like I said I don't know who the heck you are) and if you are than good for you!  :pop:




We are sailing in uncharted waters so my replies will be of a different sort, I will take the position of a classical theist and respond as if I were one, let me break up your reply if I may and evaluate what you had to say :blush:

QuoteSpeaking of which, I think I will join you in forgoing the use of the cute little masochist (frustrated) smiley.  

if you feel as though you are frustrated with something that I am saying I would rather know.  :beer:

cheers

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"It takes faith to believe in anything, it takes faith to believe that I am not the product of a disgruntled child who decided way back to create a toy universe in which he would show his anger by creating a delusional reality in which all this universe's inhabitants would assume that they were conscious and rational beings, when in fact they were programmed puppets who were oblivious to reality.
Obviously it takes me and you VERY little faith to believe that this isn't true but I think it proves my point.

Why would it take any faith at all to believe in something there's absolutely no proof for?

It's just as easy for me to not believe in your disgruntled child as it is for me to not believe in your god, because as far as I'm concerned, there's no evidence for either one that would make me believe they exist. It takes no faith not to believe in something that has no proof, and it takes faith to believe in something that has no proof.

I don't have faith in any god, because I have been given no good reason to believe they exist.

My 2cts. We have a build in self preservation "system", so it is normal that we don't want something bad to happen to us that causes us pain, fear, discomfort or death. Like most mammals, humans are social creatures, who care for their offspring. It is only natural that we don't want bad things happen to the people we care about either. This is where then the basic "moral" rules come from, like honor your mother and father, thou shall not kill, lie, steal,  etc.

Since we can't survive on our own, we are part of various social groups that are buildup in different layers and size. The greater the group, the more abstract they become for us and the less we can emotionally "connect" to them. First group would be the family; the second group our friends and acquaintances; the third group the local community (with whom we have to deal with on a regular basis); the fourth group could be the village our part of town that we live in; the fifth group the district, etc. etc.. After the fourth group we can already see a diminishing emotional effect taking place. Reason for this is that becomes much harder for us to have emotional "ties" with people that we don't know in person. The further they are away from us, the less we can identify with them.

Apart from that we also live in different social groups, that can be identified by culture, ideology and religion. This is where  "moral" codes come from like, thou shall believe what we do, eat what our scriptures allow you to eat, wear what we think is decent clothing, judge people the way we do, treat your women like we do, have sex the way we do, etc.  etc. Some of them could make sense, but I believe that these rules are highly subjective and most of the time irrelevant from a moral point of view (unless these rules have the intention to harm other people). In these type of groups it is even more difficult to have sympathy for people, who belong to a different group than ours. After all they don't think the way we do or don't act the way we do. They are different. This website is a very good example of this. Since atheist have different opinions than deists, there is much misunderstanding between these two groups and (quite often) we show little respect for each other.

Each group has its self preservation at interest. For that reason it establishes certain written and unwritten rules of how people should behave in those groups. It will also do (almost) anything to survive. For that reason we have seen many examples in human history of wars between tribes, villages, cities, countries, cultures religions, ideologies, etc. Whenever it is "US" against "THEM", we seem to have no problems to put our basic moral "teachings" aside. Only in more recent times, rational people have seen the "light" that war in general is not such a good idea (maybe because the don't want to see their own children die in one of them). For that reason, they'll try to stop or limit them (like within the highly ineffective United Nations and the International Court of Justice); or make them less worse (like the Geneva Conventions, which even Nazi-Germany respected but many more "civilized" countries do not). But that is a different story.

It is difficult for us humans to overcome our tribal fears and instincts; and finally start to treat every other living being the way that we we would like to be treated ourselves. We need to solve that problem on our own, because so far we haven't seen any sign that we will receive any direct help from outsiders ( whether that would be a divine being or a well advanced alien civilization).

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"There is no conflict in the "thinking" that something is immoral, its when someone acts out and imposes his/her own view of morality on someone who shares a different view which I think is a both arrogant and naive accusation for someone who does not believe in objective morality.

This is the problem, those who think their morals are objective feel they are the only ones justified in taking action.  So, one who believes their morals are objective and others' are subjective create the delimmas between different groups and societies.  To use your favorite example, the terrorists of 9/11 believe their morals are objective and have no regard for those they attack because we infedels are not following those objective morals.  You think subjective morals are dangerous, it's really the other way around.  Rules, morals, codes being subjective allows for flexiblility in order for societies to thrive and hopefully eventually allow for those in disagreement to co-exist. (Although that is unlikely because some groups will continue to believe they are the objective ones so there is no need to compromise.)

Quote from: "Phillysol11"when I said stating I didn't simply mean sharing an opinion, I should have been more clear and I apologize for that. What I mean't was that the Atheist has no basis by which he could ever impose his/her morals on another being which disagrees without showing inconsistency. Why should anyone listen to what I have to say, if I only think that what I have to say is true for me, my beliefs and my societies beliefs ect.

That's just it, because we live in societies composed of many different groups of thought and behavior.  We are individuals trying to live together in groups, there has to be inconsistency because we are humans not drones, and the thought of a one true moral is what causes opression, violence, and threats to the existence of any group not willing to adhere to that inflexible agenda/ideal.

You are right, many theists believe objective morality exists and they each cling to their own thoughts of what those are.  That fact only strengthens the argument that those morals are subjective because each group is defining them according to their belief system, tradition and culture.

When you said murder runs contrary to god, what does that mean? God has murdered far more people than even the most accomplished serial killer. If you state murder is wrong, in and of itself, then god is not required for an absolute morality, as it is the acts themselves that are wrong, and people should be able to figure it out.

What do you mean by "murder runs contrary to god", I would like to know.

The photons can be proved to have a specefic wavlength by deductive reasoning. If we take the premise that

E=hf
and c=fw

Then a simple measurement of the photons energy can determine its frequency, and hence it's wavlength. The equations have been verified by countless experiments, they can be derived from the very bedrock of science and gemoetry. We also know the avlue of C and h with incredible accuracy, we could determine the wavlength of the photons to an accuracy better than 1 part in 100000.  If you accept the 4 axioms of euclidean geometry, and the wavelike treatment of photons, then these conclusions follow on naturally ( I won't bore you with many, many pages of maths ). This is as objective as it is possible to be.

Sure, I cant prove we are not part of some huge illusion or imaginary world, that is an unfalsifiable claim, but just because it cannot be disproved, does that mean you should beleive in it?  By the same argument, one would not believe in god either, as we could all just be brains in jars and "god" is just a characteristic of the life support system designed to keep us in line, one would not beleive in anything if they took this line of reasoning seriously, as there an infinite number of mutually exclusive realities, non of which are supported by evidence, that would be impossible to disprove.

Do you beleive in somthing just because it cannot be disproven?

Yes, the rape of children is only wrong by our standards. However, even with this we are still justified in locking up those who rape children. They know raping kids is against the law, if they do it, we will jail them, if they wish to pursue this activity somewhere else, where they will not be jailed, they are free to leave. In the example of the 9/11 attacks, only wrong by our standards again, however, americans would have been justified in killing the hijackers, as it was over american soil, and therefore, subject to american law. If they don't wish to be subject to american law, stay out of america, simple.

Your argument for why murder is wrong is because we "know" it is wrong. Are you joking me? Do you actually beleive in that? Let me demonstrate the madness inherent in your argument. You are a 30 foot high elephant, hiding inside a man suit. I do not have to provide any evidence for this, because I know it is true. See how that works?

So let me see if I have your response to my bit in red right.

You believe that the people in the world, act in a moral manner, you believe that subjective morals are not workable as way to guide your decisions. Therefor, in order to keep your first belief that people do act morally, there must be some toher form of morality ( other than subjective ) that is workable. You believe this to be objective morality.

Is that right? I would like you to affirm that, or point out what differs about your argument, so that when I point out the many, many things wrong with it, I cannot be accused of a strawman.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"... I will take the position of a classical theist and respond as if I were one...

Thank you.  It's much better if a position, once adopted, is advanced and defended, rather than being changed without that change being acknowledged.  It was you, after all, who chose to discuss this subject from a theist perspective. (I've understood your meaning of 'theist' to be that of one who, while not adopting any particular religion as defining their position, none the less regards at least one religion as a true view of the world and argues a defense of religion in general, rather than in specific.)  I appreciate your willingness to maintain that perspective.  If you choose to argue from a Christian perspective (and I have no problem if you do) please make that quite clear. It does seem that to some extent, we are talking about Christianity, but I'm fine with doing so within a more generalized framework.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"While certain religious institutes (Catholic, Methodist, Lutheran, Sunni, Sufi, Shiite, Buddhist ect.) heck, most of them believe that this is the case I disagree, obviously I think it is important to search for morality in the issues of this day and age, I do not think that salvation or damnation hinges upon deeds or positions on moral issues (abortion, homosexuality, capitol punishment ect.) but that's just foolish ol' me talkin.

We are talking about eternal damnation here.  Buddhism does not propose that such a thing exists. Quite the contrary, from my understanding of Buddhist dogma.  The Buddhist believes that it is impossible for a soul to be left behind or "lost," because that soul, which resides in every person, is a manifestation of the Buddha nature.  It is an inevitable fact that Buddha nature returns to itself however many eons it may take, in their belief.  Just so you know.
Reading the above quote, a question comes to mind:  If salvation does not hinge on deeds or positions, what is the incentive to find and uphold the true objective morality?  

Quote from: "Philllysoul11"

Quote from: "Romans 2:15-16"Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them

(note: I'm not sure what this forum's stance on posting religious material is; If I broke any rule please forgive, and I accept any required banning/punishments. As I mentioned before, I am new to this forums etiquette.)

I think there is no rule against quoting portions of religious works here to illustrate specific points.  The only time I've noticed complaints about including such quotes within posts was when one member of this forum routinely pasted paragraphs of "their book" (http://www.happyatheistforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2747&p=35317#p35317) which seemed not even remotely relevant to the subject of the thread.  However, by quoting the Christian Bible, I take it you are arguing from a Christian perspective, at least in this instance.  
You seem here to imply that to some extent the morals that people have are "written in their hearts" by a god.  However, sin has blurred that writing, so that even a believer must spend time deciding on moral questions.  But on the other hand, even non-believers have the writing, and so are still guided by it.  You know of course that assertions like this cannot really be disputed.  I will share my view on "written in their hearts" though:  Any morality inherent to humanity, and not learned so much as pre-programed, is a result of millions of years of evolution as a social species, not influence of any particular mythical being, or group of beings.  I have doubts that this inheritance even qualifies as morality, given the wide range of behaviors that have been considered acceptable, even in the times for which we have some sort of record. I think in fact, that behaviors we have inherited, and thus have "written in (our) hearts" can only by the roughest approximation be called morality.

Next, you ask me to provide an example of objective truth, based on objective fact.

  It is an objective truth that gravity is a property of matter, based on the objective facts obtained by observing interactions of matter.  As you can see, I'm hiding behind that old adversary of religion, science.  I don't think that we will come up with any better way of knowing the universe we inhabit than science, and so I'm willing to accept only such objective truth as can be arrived at by that route.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"It takes faith to believe in anything, it takes faith to believe that I am not the product of a disgruntled child who decided way back to create a toy universe in which he would show his anger by creating a delusional reality in which all this universe's inhabitants would assume that they were conscious and rational beings, when in fact they were programmed puppets who were oblivious to reality.
Obviously it takes me and you VERY little faith to believe that this isn't true but I think it proves my point.

We'll have to put this down to different understandings of what faith is.  As I understand it, faith exists, and is only necessary, when there is no proof for the thing believed in. Notice that I am saying faith is an attribute  of belief, not disbelief.  It is in the absence of faith that disbelief prevails.  Thus, while theism is dependent on faith, atheism is simply a lack thereof. The atheist position, since it does not assert, but denies the unprovable, does not require faith.   You seem to say that it takes faith to disbelieve something, but to me that makes no sense.  In the dictionary, it does not say, "Firm belief in the nonexistence of something for which there is no proof."  The definition (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith) consists of the words not underlined.

I would tell you if I found myself frustrated by our dialog, but I don't think that's likely.  This is the Philosophy section of HAF; I consider philosophy to be the interplay of ideas.  Once the potential for that interplay has been realized, one simply moves on to the next interesting point.
 

Quote from: "SSY"I am happy we seem to agree on some things, I thought your posts in this thread have been very good so far. The considered nature of your typing also shows, maybe I should start drafting my posts. . . .

At the risk of seeming to be a mutual admiration society, I'll say that your thoughts on my writings here are reciprocated.
I hadn't noticed any deficiencies is your typing, and in fact all I was talking about was the fact that during the time I was writing my last response, you had arrived here and posted a response of approximately the same volume and quality, and been on your way, before I finished mine.

I'm replying to the question in the OP. I have been following this thread though and I have read all the posts. My take on this is different from the atheist posters so far. I see a few flaws in "WLC's moral ontology argument". Actually the first flaw is in the first sentence.

QuoteIf God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

An objective fact is one that is discovered or discoverable rather than created by a conscious mind. That is, an objective fact does not hinge on the judgment of any human being or deity. It is simply so. The moral value of something (like a thought, statement or action) is a measure of its goodness or importance. We often talk about "our" moral values. By that we often mean those moral values we look for in a thought, statement or action to determine whether it is desirable or important. We might also be talking about a person's virtue. By those definitions, there are numerous objective moral values that do not rely on the existence of a deity. I will give two examples.

The first objective moral value relates to fairness. It is often straightforward to measure fairness objectively. For example, if I am distributing food, I can measure how much food I am giving to each person and I can adopt that as an objective moral value. I can generalize that concept of fairness and so long as I have a way of objectively measuring the cost or benefit to the people involved, it is an objective moral value. My choosing this moral value over another is subjective. But the measure of "good stuff" I give and in what proportion is not open to interpretation. It is an objective fact that I gave a certain amount to this person, and a certain amount to that one, etc.

My second example is related to "thou shalt not kill". Can we determine, objectively, whether a person is dead? In some cases there might be a interval during which doctor's will argue, especially with the advent of life support machines and the like. That may be subjective. But it is obviously the case that sometimes we can know whether a person is alive. An objective measure would be whether they can tell you their name. Not everyone will be able to tell you their name (infants for example) but the majority will. My point isn't to come up with a good way to determine whether someone is alive, just to demonstrate that there are objective measures that can tell you when they certainly are. Dead people don't speak their name. Sometimes we can be certain that a person is dead (objective measures would be if they have stopped breathing and / or have had no pulse for a certain amount of time). So when I adopt aliveness as a moral value and decide that I should not kill humans, I can call it an objective moral value with respect to any objective measure of human aliveness I want. Again the choice to adopt this moral value is subjective as is the choice of aliveness measure but the fact that people are alive or dead simply is.

You might argue that what was objective in these examples was the measure rather than the moral value itself. But that's what a moral value is. It's a measure of something ethically interesting, whether it's a measure of a person's aliveness or a measure of how closely we are following a deity's will. The choice to adopt certain moral values and not others is subjective. Fortunately the author does not claim that we require the existence of a deity in order to make such choices.

QuoteTo say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so.

A moral value is objective if it is independent of the standpoint of an observer. And nobody need actually believe it. So far I am in agreement I think. However "something is right or wrong"! We don't all make moral decisions by determining whether they are "right" or "wrong". Many people use other measures. I personally think it's rather shallow to rely on "right" and "wrong". Why give food to the hungry because it's right? I prefer to give it because they're hungry. The "right" versus "wrong" issue shows a religious bias. An objective moral value need not be "right" or "wrong". I prefer those like "alive" versus "dead" or "fed" versus "hungry". I know many (most?) people do use the concepts of "right" and "wrong". I'm pointing out that they have no place in a general definition of objective moral value.

QuoteIt is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

This is the issue of moral absolutism versus moral relativism. I am a moral relativist. I know the Nazis killed millions of people during the Holocaust, a horrible consequence and a horrible intent from my point of view. But the Nazi's may well have thought that what they were doing was good. I wouldn't bet on that though. Reading Hitler's Mein Kampf gave me the impression that Hitler may not have had sufficient respect for the Jews to incorporate them into his moral decisions. That's irrelevant to this argument though. It's easy to come up with examples of moral issues where peoples' opinions differ.

I think the author is a little confused. Moral absolutism is not the same as objective moral values. Moral absolutism would be very hard to justify without belief in the supernatural. That's why I take a moral relativist position. Nihilism is another position compatible with atheism.

QuoteAnd the claim is that in the absence of God, moral values are not objective in this sense.

So he's saying that in the absence of God, we would not be able to determine that people died in the Holocaust? Or is death subjective? Maybe the Jews are still alive! We can never know without God! Thinking that we should not kill is not the only moral value that can be objective with no requirement for a deity. To be clear, I'm not saying that the choice to not kill is objective. I'm saying that it is objective fact that millions of people died during the Holocaust and the death count is an objective moral value.

This is getting rather long and I think his whole argument hinges on the first paragraph so I won't bother with the rest unless anyone is interested. His main flaw seems to be that he has a rather narrow and somewhat confused view of what moral value means. He also confuses moral absolutism with the objectivity of moral values.

I leave for a day and I have all these great responses waiting for me ;)

Quote from: "Ihateyoumike"Why would it take any faith at all to believe in something there's absolutely no proof for?

It's just as easy for me to not believe in your disgruntled child as it is for me to not believe in your god, because as far as I'm concerned, there's no evidence for either one that would make me believe they exist. It takes no faith not to believe in something that has no proof, and it takes faith to believe in something that has no proof.

I don't have faith in any god, because I have been given no good reason to believe they exist.

I think you are arguing against blind faith (or faith that lacks any evidence) when you state that it takes no faith NOT to believe in something you are correct, but to believe in anything at all you must have faith, if you believe that reality exists, even when you nor anyone else can prove it, you have faith, albeit it takes much less. To avoid further confusion, when I refer to faith I am referring to the belief in something that has not or cannot be proven. If reality cannot be proven, than nothing can be proven. If nothing is proven, than to believe in anything requires faith ect.
now if you don't agree with my definition we can argue semantics but for now, I just wanted to give you an idea of where I'm coming from when I throw that word around.

QuoteMy 2cts. We have a build in self preservation "system", so it is normal that we don't want something bad to happen to us that causes us pain, fear, discomfort or death. Like most mammals, humans are social creatures, who care for their offspring. It is only natural that we don't want bad things happen to the people we care about either. This is where then the basic "moral" rules come from, like honor your mother and father, thou shall not kill, lie, steal, etc.

Since we can't survive on our own, we are part of various social groups that are buildup in different layers and size. The greater the group, the more abstract they become for us and the less we can emotionally "connect" to them. First group would be the family; the second group our friends and acquaintances; the third group the local community (with whom we have to deal with on a regular basis); the fourth group could be the village our part of town that we live in; the fifth group the district, etc. etc.. After the fourth group we can already see a diminishing emotional effect taking place. Reason for this is that becomes much harder for us to have emotional "ties" with people that we don't know in person. The further they are away from us, the less we can identify with them.

Apart from that we also live in different social groups, that can be identified by culture, ideology and religion. This is where "moral" codes come from like, thou shall believe what we do, eat what our scriptures allow you to eat, wear what we think is decent clothing, judge people the way we do, treat your women like we do, have sex the way we do, etc. etc. Some of them could make sense, but I believe that these rules are highly subjective and most of the time irrelevant from a moral point of view (unless these rules have the intention to harm other people). In these type of groups it is even more difficult to have sympathy for people, who belong to a different group than ours. After all they don't think the way we do or don't act the way we do. They are different. This website is a very good example of this. Since atheist have different opinions than deists, there is much misunderstanding between these two groups and (quite often) we show little respect for each other.

Each group has its self preservation at interest. For that reason it establishes certain written and unwritten rules of how people should behave in those groups. It will also do (almost) anything to survive. For that reason we have seen many examples in human history of wars between tribes, villages, cities, countries, cultures religions, ideologies, etc. Whenever it is "US" against "THEM", we seem to have no problems to put our basic moral "teachings" aside. Only in more recent times, rational people have seen the "light" that war in general is not such a good idea (maybe because the don't want to see their own children die in one of them). For that reason, they'll try to stop or limit them (like within the highly ineffective United Nations and the International Court of Justice); or make them less worse (like the Geneva Conventions, which even Nazi-Germany respected but many more "civilized" countries do not). But that is a different story.

It is difficult for us humans to overcome our tribal fears and instincts; and finally start to treat every other living being the way that we we would like to be treated ourselves. We need to solve that problem on our own, because so far we haven't seen any sign that we will receive any direct help from outsiders ( whether that would be a divine being or a well advanced alien civilization).

thank you for your assessment of the situation. If I am interpreting you correctly (let me know if i'm not) you listing reasons, which explain why humanity makes moral decisions, and I think you have some really interesting points, but I am (at the moment) concerned with the foundation in reality of moral values (moral ontology). Not how we come to know right/wrong ect (moral epistemology). Regardless it was a very interesting post and I'm glad you shared! Again, if I misinterpreted please let me know.

QuoteThis is the problem, those who think their morals are objective feel they are the only ones justified in taking action. So, one who believes their morals are objective and others' are subjective create the delimmas between different groups and societies. To use your favorite example, the terrorists of 9/11 believe their morals are objective and have no regard for those they attack because we infedels are not following those objective morals. You think subjective morals are dangerous, it's really the other way around. Rules, morals, codes being subjective allows for flexiblility in order for societies to thrive and hopefully eventually allow for those in disagreement to co-exist. (Although that is unlikely because some groups will continue to believe they are the objective ones so there is no need to compromise.)

Both those who adhere to objective and subjective morality could very well take their ideologies to a dangerous conclusion . I am arguing that subjective morality is absurd, not dangerous (although it very well could be)

QuoteYou are right, many theists believe objective morality exists and they each cling to their own thoughts of what those are. That fact only strengthens the argument that those morals are subjective because each group is defining them according to their belief system, tradition and culture.

I fail to see how a group defining their moral system according to their beliefs, makes their belief in objective morality subjective. You and I might think it is subjective, but that doesn't change the fact that it either is, or isn't objective. I'm not sure I'm quite following your logic, please clarify.  :raised:
When did I argue that things are wrong simply because we "know" they are wrong? We all have different ideas of right/wrong so arguing that would make morality subjective. I mentioned that we know (for instance) rape is wrong, but knowing this does not make it wrong, it merely recognizes it. I'm not sure if you are referring to something else...let me know.

**comments in bold**

QuoteSo let me see if I have your response to my bit in red right.

You believe that the people in the world, act in a moral manner (not always) you believe that subjective morals are not workable as way to guide your decisions.(no, they can guide your decisions, great, I'm sure they can. it just that those decisions are made up of your personal opinions, don't ever try and force them on someone else or you will be living an inconsistent life. Therefor, in order to keep your first belief that people do act morally,there must be some toher form of morality ( other than subjective ) that is workable corresponds to reality. You believe this to be objective morality.

Is that right? I would like you to affirm that, or point out what differs about your argument, so that when I point out the many, many things wrong with it, I cannot be accused of a strawman.

QuoteIf salvation does not hinge on deeds or positions, what is the incentive to find and uphold the true objective morality?

I know its a cliche one, but I'll offer a theists explaination. Since God loved us, died for us ect. ect. we should show our gratitude by living our lives according to his standard of morality, not ours. Also while punishment/damnation do not hinge on our moral acts, punishment/reward still do.

QuoteIt is an objective truth that gravity is a property of matter, based on the objective facts obtained by observing interactions of matter. As you can see, I'm hiding behind that old adversary of religion, science. I don't think that we will come up with any better way of knowing the universe we inhabit than science, and so I'm willing to accept only such objective truth as can be arrived at by that route.

Yes, but Science itself is based off of assumptions which cannot be objectively proven, science cannot account for many things, this being said it has a vitally  important role to play in the understanding of the universe. Evidence is the compass in which we determine the ideology we hold.

QuoteWe'll have to put this down to different understandings of what faith is. As I understand it, faith exists, and is only necessary, when there is no proof for the thing believed in. Notice that I am saying faith is an attribute of belief, not disbelief. It is in the absence of faith that disbelief prevails. Thus, while theism is dependent on faith, atheism is simply a lack thereof. The atheist position, since it does not assert, but denies the unprovable, does not require faith. You seem to say that it takes faith to disbelieve something, but to me that makes no sense. In the dictionary, it does not say, "Firm belief in the nonexistence of something for which there is no proof." The definition consists of the words not underlined.

I mentioned what I believe faith to be a little earlier this post, one could say that faith is a belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/faith If you deny the existence of something, you most likely have reasons (no evidence ect.) these reasons, are based off of ideas which do require faith
ex. Person #1  says that it does not take faith to not believe in unicorns as there is no evidence for the unicorns.
Person #2 says that  by stating there is no evidence person#1 is implying that evidence (in an abstract form) exists, and when one asserts that evidence exists #1 is implying that he/ she believes that evidence does exist. This belief is based on #1's belief that a reality exists in which evidence for things exist ect. ect. ect.

For one to have no faith (as defined by me) that person would not believe in anything, which would be a contradiction as he believes that he has no beliefs :hmm: that could very well be my fault though, not yours.

QuoteI think the author is a little confused. Moral absolutism is not the same as objective moral values. Moral absolutism would be very hard to justify without belief in the supernatural. That's why I take a moral relativist position. Nihilism is another position compatible with atheism.

I would be interested in whether or not you are a Descriptive moral relativist, or a Metaethical Moral Relativist as I think both have their flaws. Nihilism (as I mentioned before) is the most logically consistent world view if one accepts atheism to be true, so I would be very interested in you giving the reasons which you are a MR, but thank you for the time you put into your post!

thanks to everyone who replied, I enjoyed reading your responses, if by the time I wrote this I have 5 more replies they will have to wait until I get the time to respond.

You still did not answer why "running contrary to god" means. Please do so.

You said this

QuoteBecause by its definition it is an unjustified killing. Now you could obviously say that it is only unjustified as define by our society, but (since your asking for my opinion) I think that making such a claim is a naive one. If murder is only bad because our society has decided it is bad than it ultimately it is not bad. My point is that whether it be in our conscience or subconscience we all know that killing someone unjustly is wrong.

This is where you make no sense. You make no mention of why such a claim is naive, the unjustness of a killing is decided entirley by the society, not anyone else. Saying murder is wrong, becuase it is unjust, is just moving the problem back one step, is there an objective way to decide if something is unjust? How do we know that killing someone is wrong? What evidence can you put forward to support this?  Again, I am guessing nothing. It is only bad becuase the society has decided it is bad.

Your point about objective truth still does not make sense, let me show you another way.

If I make a sandwhich, containing chicken, bacon, many nice things, is it delicious or not? If one person says yes, and another says no, is one of them wrong? According to you, objective truth exists, so there must be some sort of objective measure of the sandwhiches deliciousness. This is clearly wrong, different people have different tastes, without one being wrong and the other right. It is the same with morals, there is nothing intrinic about an act that makes it wrong, only society can decide if it is wrong ( like only a person can decide if a sandwhich is delicious ).

How do you know child rape is wrong? There has to be some reason for you beleiving this. You have to say what, intrinsic about raping children makes it a bad thing to do. You say knowing this mereley recognises the fact it is wrong, but you have not yet shown it is wrong, or why it is wrong.

Please, please answer my questions this time. You have not said why murder is wrong.

Since I sem to not understand your argument that I tried to paraphrase, could you please restate in the form of

1Premise
2Premise
.
.
nPremise
Deductions
Conclusions

Becuase after the comments you added to it, it no longer makes sense as an argument for objective morality existing.

QuoteThis is where you make no sense. You make no mention of why such a claim is naive, the unjustness of a killing is decided entirley by the society, not anyone else. Saying murder is wrong, becuase it is unjust, is just moving the problem back one step, is there an objective way to decide if something is unjust? How do we know that killing someone is wrong? What evidence can you put forward to support this?  Again, I am guessing nothing. It is only bad becuase the society has decided it is bad.

Your point about objective truth still does not make sense, let me show you another way.

If I make a sandwhich, containing chicken, bacon, many nice things, is it delicious or not? If one person says yes, and another says no, is one of them wrong? According to you, objective truth exists, so there must be some sort of objective measure of the sandwhiches deliciousness. This is clearly wrong, different people have different tastes, without one being wrong and the other right. It is the same with morals, there is nothing intrinic about an act that makes it wrong, only society can decide if it is wrong ( like only a person can decide if a sandwhich is delicious ).

How do you know child rape is wrong? There has to be some reason for you beleiving this. You have to say what, intrinsic about raping children makes it a bad thing to do. You say knowing this mereley recognises the fact it is wrong, but you have not yet shown it is wrong, or why it is wrong.

Please, please answer my questions this time. You have not said why murder is wrong.

I have said why I think murder is wrong, but I will clarify, when I say that murder (or any other immoral act) is wrong, I state that it is wrong because it violates God's moral standard, now can I prove that it violates God's moral standard? no I cannot, I have repeatedly tried to make this clear. In regards to your analogy of the sandwich, their is nothing intrinsic about a sandwich which makes it  delicious, just as their is nothing in art, music, or dance which is inherently good, beautiful ect. There are many things (morality not being one of them) which are subjective (which I have noted); However, if I wanted to present a correct analogy than I would write it as such.

If I make a sandwich, containing chicken, bacon, many nice things, does it exist or not? If one person says yes, and another says no, is one of them wrong? According to me, objective truth exists, so they cannot both be true.  Different people have different tastes, but this does not change the fact that either it does, or does not exist. without one being wrong and the other right. It is the same with morals.



sure thing,
P1. Either Objective, or Subjective morality exists
P2. Subjective Morality is absurd as it leaves one morally crippled. (which has been the main point I have been trying to convey)

Deductions Subjective Morality does not correlate with reality
Conclusions Objective morality exists

thats a (overly) simplified argument, but I think it conveys what I'm trying to get across
notice all I was doing was arguing against SM (subjective morality)

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"

Quote from: "VanReal"You are right, many theists believe objective morality exists and they each cling to their own thoughts of what those are. That fact only strengthens the argument that those morals are subjective because each group is defining them according to their belief system, tradition and culture.

I fail to see how a group defining their moral system according to their beliefs, makes their belief in objective morality subjective. You and I might think it is subjective, but that doesn't change the fact that it either is, or isn't objective. I'm not sure I'm quite following your logic, please clarify.   [/quote]

My logic is simple, or possibly simplistic depending on how you look at it.

Your point is that morals are objective rather than "created" or derived from society or personal beliefs.  You stated that many theists believe in that objective morality.  My point is that they are indeed derived from societies or personal beliefs rather than being objective.  

Theist Group A believes in objective morality and one of those morals is "thou shall not kill" any living thing.  Theist Group B believes in objective morality and "thou shall not kill" another human being is the objective morality.  Both can't be objective, therefore each group is actually taking a basic moral idea and adapting it subjectively to fit their ideals and or culture.

You use murder as an example but say that it is only murder when not justified.  Some would disagree stating that all killing is murder, even that of other creatures that we can not even see. (The Jain's for example cover their noses and mouths to ensure they don't accidentally breathe in and kill small insects, and walk only after slowly sweeping the path in front of them.)  So even this example of objective morality you have used is subjective depending on the culture, society, and/or individual.

You keep saying that objective morality exists whether or not people know what it is or whether or not there is agreement on it.  How is that logical?

I think the reason we are having so much repetition and similar arguments is that as a person I can't wrap my head around any idea or thought that doesn't have any relevant example that can not be explained away by others.  I can't think of any moral idea or act that would be obvious, absolute, or objective.  Maybe it's a lack of imagination.

My logic is simple, or possibly simplistic depending on how you look at it.

Your point is that morals are objective rather than "created" or derived from society or personal beliefs. You stated that many theists believe in that objective morality. My point is that they are indeed derived from societies or personal beliefs rather than being objective.

QuoteTheist Group A believes in objective morality and one of those morals is "thou shall not kill" any living thing. Theist Group B believes in objective morality and "thou shall not kill" another human being is the objective morality. Both can't be objective, therefore each group is actually taking a basic moral idea and adapting it subjectively to fit their ideals and or culture.

Both cannot be true; this does not mean that one cannot be objective.
if I am interpreting you correctly you are stating that beliefs cannot be objective if they cannot be proven. That if one cannot prove something than it must be subjective am I correct? I will assume I am correct but please notify me if I am not.

QuoteYou use murder as an example but say that it is only murder when not justified. Some would disagree stating that all killing is murder, even that of other creatures that we can not even see. (The Jain's for example cover their noses and mouths to ensure they don't accidentally breathe in and kill small insects, and walk only after slowly sweeping the path in front of them.) So even this example of objective morality you have used is subjective depending on the culture, society, and/or individual.

QuoteYou keep saying that objective morality exists whether or not people know what it is or whether or not there is agreement on it. How is that logical?

let us say their is a cosmic explosion that takes place only for 1/1000th of a second but is brighter than anything anyone has ever seen before. Now only 25 people claim to have seen this explosion and everyone else strongly disagrees, does this disagreement change the fact that it either happened or not? One cannot go around saying, "well it happened for you, but not for us". either it happened or it didn't. In the same way, either Morality is objective or not, if it is, than it is objective regardless of whether any person believes in it or not.
there goes another bad illustration, but I hope you understand why I am trying to convey.

QuoteI think the reason we are having so much repetition and similar arguments is that as a person I can't wrap my head around any idea or thought that doesn't have any relevant example that can not be explained away by others. I can't think of any moral idea or act that would be obvious, absolute, or objective. Maybe it's a lack of imagination.

I apologize for the lack of clarification, if you don't understand something I am probably at fault, just make sure to keep letting me know.

Quote

QuoteThe first objective moral value relates to fairness. It is often straightforward to measure fairness objectively. For example, if I am distributing food, I can measure how much food I am giving to each person and I can adopt that as an objective moral value. I can generalize that concept of fairness and so long as I have a way of objectively measuring the cost or benefit to the people involved, it is an objective moral value. My choosing this moral value over another is subjective. But the measure of "good stuff" I give and in what proportion is not open to interpretation. It is an objective fact that I gave a certain amount to this person, and a certain amount to that one, etc.

You would be be giving equally, whether or not you would be giving "fairly" would be based on the whose standard of fairness you are referring to. If it is your standard, than it might be fair, but if society saw it as unfair then would it be fair?

You assume I would give equally. I never said I would do that but your assumption is correct in most instances. That is heartening. As I said I am a moral relativist. I consider it to be fair to give equally. Another person or society might consider it to be unfair. They are free to hold that opinion. I have no reason to believe there is a set of absolute moral values by which my fairness or otherwise can be judged. There are means by which my fairness can be measured objectively though. That's why I make the distinction between moral absolutism and objectively measured moral values. For example, you can objectively count how many pies I give to the homeless but you can't (IMHO) objectively measure how right I am for doing so without reference to a particular moral standpoint, which is hardly in the spirit of objectivity.

Quote

QuoteA moral value is objective if it is independent of the standpoint of an observer. And nobody need actually believe it. So far I am in agreement I think. However "something is right or wrong"! We don't all make moral decisions by determining whether they are "right" or "wrong". Many people use other measures. I personally think it's rather shallow to rely on "right" and "wrong". Why give food to the hungry because it's right? I prefer to give it because they're hungry. The "right" versus "wrong" issue shows a religious bias. An objective moral value need not be "right" or "wrong". I prefer those like "alive" versus "dead" or "fed" versus "hungry". I know many (most?) people do use the concepts of "right" and "wrong". I'm pointing out that they have no place in a general definition of objective moral value.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral) Morals or Morality as it is defined by MWD: of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior if morality is relating principles of right and wrong in behavior then wouldn't moral values just be the value of an action relating to principles of right and wrong.

That definition of morality does not encompass my view. You'll find a more sophisticated description of ethical (or moral) value here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(ethics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(ethics))

Quote

QuoteThe moral value of something (like a thought, statement or action) is a measure of its goodness or importance.

but to measure goodness requires a standard, if the standard is that of societies, than it is not good, it is merely the societies opinion of good.

Please excuse my sloppy language. I should have said "the moral value of something ... is a measure of its desirability or importance". The desirability and importance may be absolute or relative depending on your viewpoint, though I think they are relative.

QuoteI fail to see how Morals Values and right/wrong are unrelated.

Sorry if I have caused confusion. They are very much related in the sense that many (or most) people use the concepts of "right" and "wrong" as the foundation of their moral framework. Even though I do not personally accept them as real concepts, I still have to take them into account because I live in a society of people who take them very seriously and morality is concerned with how our statements and actions affect other people and how they are judged by other people. I don't have to agree with the concepts to appreciate their importance to other people.

I'll try to explain why I don't think I need them with some examples:

I should feed the hungry because it is right to do so. (moral value is right / wrong)
I should not kill people because it is wrong to do so. (moral value is right / wrong)
I should fly a passenger aircraft into the a building because it is the right thing to do. (moral value is right / wrong)

Compare to:

I should feed the hungry because they are hungry. (moral value is hunger)
I should not kill people because they will become dead. (moral value is aliveness)
I should fly a passenger aircraft into a building because people will become dead. (moral value is aliveness)

The (IMHO) simplistic "right" / "wrong" conception of a moral value is a kind of abstraction on categorization. Before the second world war, if someone were to have invented a device that could have counted the number of Jews killed during the Holocaust, it would never report the result as "wrong". After the war it would have reported the result as being approximately 6 million. When you count deaths, the result is a whole number, not "right" or "wrong". "Right" and "wrong" are just ways of abstracting or categorizing moral values. If you are a moral relativist, it is possible, and I argue more helpful, to sidestep the whole issue of "right" versus "wrong" and go straight for the underlying empirical measure.

Getting back to the third statement in my examples above:

I should fly a passenger aircraft into the a building because it is the right thing to do.
I should fly a passenger aircraft into a building because people will become dead.

As a moral relativist, the first statement, to my mind, makes a twisted kind of sense. It is easy for a manipulative person to twist the meaning of a moral abstraction like "right" or "wrong" and incite people to take an action based on that (to my mind) twisted meaning. It is much more difficult to justify when expressed in terms of the objectively measurable consequence. That's one of the reasons I prefer not to use the concepts of "right" and "wrong". Another reason is because I think it is more intellectually honest.

QuoteI would be interested in whether or not you are a Descriptive moral relativist, or a Metaethical Moral Relativist

With regard to my understanding of other people's morality I suppose I could categorize myself as one of descriptive or metaethical. But that would be rather missing the point. I only accept "right" and "wrong" as aspects of other peoples' moral frameworks. My own moral views could be argued to be borderline nihilist. I say borderline because while I do not accept "right" and "wrong", there are still rules that I follow when considering the consequences of my actions with regard to other people. I call my views morality. For the more sophisticated definition of moral values I referenced earlier, I honestly don't think that's unreasonable.

You might wonder why I prefer morality to nihilisn. Love, hope and awe.

QuoteWith regard to my understanding of other people's morality I suppose I could categorize myself as one of descriptive or metaethical. But that would be rather missing the point. I only accept "right" and "wrong" as aspects of other peoples' moral frameworks. My own moral views could be argued to be borderline nihilist. I say borderline because while I do not accept "right" and "wrong", there are still rules that I follow when considering the consequences of my actions with regard to other people. I call my views morality. For the more sophisticated definition of moral values I referenced earlier, I honestly don't think that's unreasonable.

You might wonder why I prefer morality to nihilisn. Love, hope and awe.

Interesting stuff, so if I am correctly assessing what you are saying, you believe that morality is simply the importance of either an abstract or physical object? Good/Bad, Right/Wrong hold no weight in your personal moral assessment of day to day happenings, but you realize that they do hold weight of those around you (in their moral framework).

 While I think your definition of morality is flawed, I do think (from what I can tell) you hold a pretty logically solid worldview.
I guess I would say that I should feed the hungry because they are hungry, and it is wrong for them to be hungry, but that is probably just a tweaking of the first option.
regardless, thank you for the time you put into your response.

QuoteInteresting stuff, so if I am correctly assessing what you are saying, you believe that morality is simply the importance of either an abstract or physical object? Good/Bad, Right/Wrong hold no weight in your personal moral assessment of day to day happenings, but you realize that they do hold weight of those around you (in their moral framework).

I think the value ethics described on the wikipedia page I referenced is too simplistic for real world application and I don't agree with all of it. It is the closest thing I've found to describing how I think morally. As a model, it's quite close. But in practice, I don't actually think in terms of the importance of abstract or physical objects. I think more in terms of the desirability of a consequence in terms that are ideally (but cannot always be) objective and empirical. I certainly don't do any mental arithmetic to calculate moral values when making a moral decision, as I might have implied with that reference.

Quote from: "Phillysould11"For one to have no faith (as defined by me) that person would not believe in anything, which would be a contradiction as he believes that he has no beliefs

You will excuse me if I do not accept you as the arbiter of definitions.
Faith is not "the belief in the existence of reality."  Look as you will, those words are not to be found in any definition of the word 'faith,' other than perhaps your personal definition.  You say that belief in the existence of reality is an idea, and ideas can only be trusted by an act of faith.  This is twisting and stretching the definition of faith to back up what seems to me to be an essentially solipsistic argument.  I know this veers into epistemology, but I'm curious; are you espousing solipsism here?
  Faith, as I understand it, is superfluous and irrelevant to the question of the existence of reality.  I know that reality exists, and can prove it to my own satisfaction. (Remember that I'm a barbarian who is only dabbling in philosophy.)  You will of course say that any standards of proof that I've used are unsatisfactory to you, the mentally agile theist philosopher. I think that your standard of proof is literally unrealistic. Reality can never be proved to your satisfaction, yet there are strong (I would say undeniable, but that's just me) indications that it does exist.    To assert that knowledge of reality is dependent on faith is once again, it seems to me, recourse to solipsism.  No doubt in your view I'm wrong; I await your explanation why.

Quote from: "Phillysoul11"Yes, but Science itself is based off of assumptions which cannot be objectively proven, science cannot account for many things, this being said it has a vitally important role to play in the understanding of the universe. Evidence is the compass in which we determine the ideology we hold.

Please give some examples of these assumptions.

 
 You are arguing that subjective morality leaves one morally crippled and is not in line with reality if I understand you correctly.  I think this idea is a bit contrived, since we see subjective morality in action all around us in the real world, and people acting on it don't feel themselves to be morally crippled.  But it would seem that according to what you have been saying, subjective morality doesn't even exist, since if it's not congruent with objective morality, it's necessarily other than morality.  Thus those who act based on what they believe to be morality, are not really acting in a moral way at all, if it is not in line with objective morality.  This makes sense only if you believe in objective morality, of course.

If you were to say that my opinions on this subject imply that I'm a nihilist, you would not be the first to label me as such.  I think 'nihilist' is not entirely accurate, but I'm willing to accept being labeled a nihilist since it's close enough to my views, in the opinions of moral absolutists that I have known, that I don't mind it.

Quote from: "Recusant"You will excuse me if I do not accept you as the arbiter of definitions.
Faith is not "the belief in the existence of reality."  Look as you will, those words are not to be found in any definition of the word 'faith,' other than perhaps your personal definition.  You say that belief in the existence of reality is an idea, and ideas can only be trusted by an act of faith.  This is twisting and stretching the definition of faith to back up what seems to me to be an essentially solipsistic argument.  I know this veers into epistemology, but I'm curious; are you espousing solipsism here?
  Faith, as I understand it, is superfluous and irrelevant to the question of the existence of reality.  I know that reality exists, and can prove it to my own satisfaction. (Remember that I'm a barbarian who is only dabbling in philosophy.)  You will of course say that any standards of proof that I've used are unsatisfactory to you, the mentally agile theist philosopher. I think that your standard of proof is literally unrealistic. Reality can never be proved to your satisfaction, yet there are strong (I would say undeniable, but that's just me) indications that it does exist.    To assert that knowledge of reality is dependent on faith is once again, it seems to me, recourse to solipsism.  No doubt in your view I'm wrong; I await your explanation why.

As I mentioned before I think dictionary.com got it right when they said faith is "confidence or trust in a person or thing" now this confidence is based off of evidence, if not than it is blind faith. While I think that solipsism has a few things right I would not label myself as one. I believe 100% (not that I can prove it) that I exist, that the world exists and that universe exists. Can you prove to me these exist? no, neither can I prove to you that God exists, the stronger the evidence, the less faith one needs. Evidence or lack thereof alone cannot prove anything, it can only make things more likely.

QuotePlease give some examples of these assumptions.

Math and Logic.
Science presupposes Mathematical and Logical truths but to try and prove them would be impossible.

 
 

QuoteYou are arguing that subjective morality leaves one morally crippled and is not in line with reality if I understand you correctly.  I think this idea is a bit contrived, since we see subjective morality in action all around us in the real world, and people acting on it don't feel themselves to be morally crippled.  But it would seem that according to what you have been saying, subjective morality doesn't even exist, since if it's not congruent with objective morality, it's necessarily other than morality.  Thus those who act based on what they believe to be morality, are not really acting in a moral way at all, if it is not in line with objective morality.  This makes sense only if you believe in objective morality, of course.

If you were to say that my opinions on this subject imply that I'm a nihilist, you would not be the first to label me as such.  I think 'nihilist' is not entirely accurate, but I'm willing to accept being labeled a nihilist since it's close enough to my views, in the opinions of moral absolutists that I have known, that I don't mind it.

We see those who adhere to subjective morality who don't feel morally crippled which is why I was writing this, I have repeatedly stated that I am after consistency, if what I have arguing for (that subjective morality is morally crippling) is true, than those who adhere to subjective morality should live morally crippled lives. (which they aren't) I have no need in labeling you nor anyone else. I was merely trying to point out the ramifications of adhering to subjective morality.

Objective morality ,I don't believe, exists. I'm assuming that you mean," It was moral then, it's moral now. It will always be moral, forever and always." I think our morality has evolved. I think our ability to have morals is part of our evolutioary success.I think perhaps our morality is a form of survival of the species. Without our morals we could, very possibly, self-destruct. But as the idea of god has changed, so has morality. To the ancient Hawaiians killing children with birth defects was a correct and moral choice.Being isolated from the rest of the world left them no "wiggle room" in the gene pool. What seems outrageously immoral to us now was a matter of survival to them. As we evolve away from theism and toward humanism our morality will be based more on how we'll all need to get along and not on the fear of a vengeful god.

Quote from: "verybigv"Objective morality ,I don't believe, exists. I'm assuming that you mean," It was moral then, it's moral now. It will always be moral, forever and always." I think our morality has evolved. I think our ability to have morals is part of our evolutioary success.I think perhaps our morality is a form of survival of the species. Without our morals we could, very possibly, self-destruct. But as the idea of god has changed, so has morality. To the ancient Hawaiians killing children with birth defects was a correct and moral choice.Being isolated from the rest of the world left them no "wiggle room" in the gene pool. What seems outrageously immoral to us now was a matter of survival to them. As we evolve away from theism and toward humanism our morality will be based more on how we'll all need to get along and not on the fear of a vengeful god.

thank you for the reply, but I was concerned with moral ontology, not moral epistemology. See previous posts

The spirit is free-will not god.

Hi Phillysoul11,

I have just been reading through and you seem to either contradict yourself or are not being clear enough over some key points in your argument for Objective Morality. For example:

Quote“My point is that when you say one party is right, and the other is wrong you are basing that assumption off of something, whether it be your societies standards, your own personal standards or Gods standards. The only standard which could be absolute is the last of the three.

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God, A society can recognize or fail to recognize whether or not a killing is murder or not. I feel like I was blatantly clear on this and I am beginning to wonder how closely you are reading what I'm writing.

when I say that murder (or any other immoral act) is wrong, I state that it is wrong because it violates God's moral standard, now can I prove that it violates God's moral standard? no I cannot, I have repeatedly tried to make this clear.”

Versus

Quote“Anything that violates or is contrary to God's Standard (from a theists position anyways)
Murder is wrong, it is not wrong because god "says" its wrong, after all then it would be subjective because God could have decided to say something else.

God does not determine morality in the sense that he decides that "A" is wrong and "B" is right, if He did than you are right, it would be subjective.

Where did I ever say that things are wrong because "God says its wrong" if things are wrong simply because god arbitrarily decided that they were than of course morality would be subjective.”

Where this is confusing is when you ascribe objective morality as “God's moral standard” and that which is immoral is so because it “runs contrary to God”. Yet you continue to say that a particular act is not wrong/immoral because  God “says its wrong”  or because he decides “that 'A' is wrong and 'B' is right”.

So either you are suggesting one of these three options;

1)Objective Morality is based upon God's moral standard, yet he did not set this moral standard. Otherwise that would be subjective due to God's personal choice on what constitutes a moral/immoral act.
2)God originally created an objective moral standard, but does not arbitrarily decide upon each individual act and it's moral standard.
3)I have not accurately explained your view and created a straw-man or misrepresentation (unintentionally but I apologise for doing so).


I feel that if your argument runs along the lines of 1. then you are suggesting God him/her/itself is living within this objective morality and not omnipotent or infinite as he has to adhere to some higher standard, is this your view of God?

If you are advocating point 2. then you are stating God set the moral standard in the first place and therefore it is not objective but subjective as it represents God's personal opinion. Or obviously there is point 3. so i would be happy for you to elaborate on the basis of objective morality and God's role (if he had one).

Quote“I believe that if one is intellectually honest with themselves it would be much more plausible to conclude that objective morality does exist. Can I prove it does? No I can't, but then again I can't prove the existence of reality, truth or anything else for that matter. “

You seem to say it is intellectually honest to conclude that something (objective morality) does exist, without any proof. When you assess the subjective nature of our existence, variety in cultures/societies/politics etc attests to us living within a subjective reality, it seems much more intellectually honest and rational to conclude that objective morality does not exist, as all proof points to subjectivity.

Quote“it is in my opinion, irrational to believe in opinion based morality as the consequences that such a world view entails do not match up with reality.”

But again you have said that reality (perhaps I am misconstruing your interpretation of reality?) does not match up with subjective morality, yet you have said there is no evidence for objective morality. Surely it is more rational to believe in subjective morality?

Hope this is clear enough, and please set me straight if I have misrepresented anything.

I agree! It's like Nietzsche said:

Nihilist und Christ: das reimt sich, das reimt sich nicht bloss.

Translated means: "Nihilist and Christian. They rhyme, and do not merely rhyme..."

We both think that without god morality is man-made.

I'm not really adding anything by saying this, but morality with God is still man made, unless you can get by all of these assumptions:
1. God exists.
2. Morality exists and God is either its creator or falls under it.
3. God fully understands this morality.
3. God dictates morality to people, perfectly.
4. People understand God's diction, perfectly.

I'm probably missing a few.  Most Christians break off when they don't like the sound of (realize the implications of) 2, but there can be no argument that at least one of these assumptions is broken because not even Christians have perfect, harmonious morality.  I'm not talking about making bad choices (willfully sinning, which would still be possible even with perfect moral understanding), but about the difference in opinion of what is right and wrong.

Our morality is man made, dictated by biology and environment.  No other part of nature functions entirely as though it adheres to the same very diverse and often contradicting moral opinion as humans.

Quote from: "ryan-blues"Hi Phillysoul11,

I have just been reading through and you seem to either contradict yourself or are not being clear enough over some key points in your argument for Objective Morality. For example:

Quote“My point is that when you say one party is right, and the other is wrong you are basing that assumption off of something, whether it be your societies standards, your own personal standards or Gods standards. The only standard which could be absolute is the last of the three.

murder is wrong because it runs contrary to God, A society can recognize or fail to recognize whether or not a killing is murder or not. I feel like I was blatantly clear on this and I am beginning to wonder how closely you are reading what I'm writing.

when I say that murder (or any other immoral act) is wrong, I state that it is wrong because it violates God's moral standard, now can I prove that it violates God's moral standard? no I cannot, I have repeatedly tried to make this clear.”

Versus

Quote“Anything that violates or is contrary to God's Standard (from a theists position anyways)
Murder is wrong, it is not wrong because god "says" its wrong, after all then it would be subjective because God could have decided to say something else.

God does not determine morality in the sense that he decides that "A" is wrong and "B" is right, if He did than you are right, it would be subjective.

Where did I ever say that things are wrong because "God says its wrong" if things are wrong simply because god arbitrarily decided that they were than of course morality would be subjective.”

Where this is confusing is when you ascribe objective morality as “God's moral standard” and that which is immoral is so because it “runs contrary to God”. Yet you continue to say that a particular act is not wrong/immoral because  God “says its wrong”  or because he decides “that 'A' is wrong and 'B' is right”.

So either you are suggesting one of these three options;

1)Objective Morality is based upon God's moral standard, yet he did not set this moral standard. Otherwise that would be subjective due to God's personal choice on what constitutes a moral/immoral act.
2)God originally created an objective moral standard, but does not arbitrarily decide upon each individual act and it's moral standard.
3)I have not accurately explained your view and created a straw-man or misrepresentation (unintentionally but I apologise for doing so).


I feel that if your argument runs along the lines of 1. then you are suggesting God him/her/itself is living within this objective morality and not omnipotent or infinite as he has to adhere to some higher standard, is this your view of God?

If you are advocating point 2. then you are stating God set the moral standard in the first place and therefore it is not objective but subjective as it represents God's personal opinion. Or obviously there is point 3. so i would be happy for you to elaborate on the basis of objective morality and God's role (if he had one).

Hey Ryan! Thanks for digging up one of my favorite threads, brings back memories ;]

From what I can tell you are merely throwing Euthyphro's Dilemma into the equation which might seem like a smart move at first, but eventually (as I have argued in other threads) falls on its face.
Instead of spending 30 mins re-writing everything the wonderful Hitsumei and I discussed I will refer you to a brief article I wrote on my blog about the Dilemma  http://u.nu/5y8c

If you don't read through the article I could probably summarize it by saying God does not arbitrarily decide what is good, or evil. Nor does he conform to an external standard of good and evil, rather he is the standard. and he is this standard by virtue of his existence. Thus if god exists, than he is necessarily the moral standard.  tada  :D

Oh, and I apologize for the time it took to respond to these questions, I just now noticed the new replies.