Total Posts:35|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atheists: does objective morality exist?

Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 3:31:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

Depends on what you accept as your axioms for morality.

For me I take a Sam Harris approach and base it on concious well being, in which case there is an objective answer for a given action in a given situation, but it's subjective based on the conscious beings affected.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 3:39:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:31:58 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

Depends on what you accept as your axioms for morality.

For me I take a Sam Harris approach and base it on concious well being, in which case there is an objective answer for a given action in a given situation, but it's subjective based on the conscious beings affected.

So in effect, there are objective moral truths but vary according to subjective situations? This leans towards an objective morality approach if there are certain absolute rights and wrongs would you agree?
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 4:00:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:39:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:31:58 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

Depends on what you accept as your axioms for morality.

For me I take a Sam Harris approach and base it on concious well being, in which case there is an objective answer for a given action in a given situation, but it's subjective based on the conscious beings affected.

So in effect, there are objective moral truths but vary according to subjective situations? This leans towards an objective morality approach if there are certain absolute rights and wrongs would you agree?

I don't accept there are absolute rights and wrongs. Certain appalling acts which seem 'obviously wrong' from te armchair may become the most moral thing to do in a different context and set of sentient beings.

We know generally in humans, it's much better in the contexts of society that murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. But that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong, it means the action in the context of the situation it is in and minds involved is.

... Which is pretty much why I think the approach to morality that many religious people take is a foolish one, as it sets some things as unsolvable or ambiguous which do not budge regardless of context. Which is where the problems regarding abortion, euthanasia, etc. come in.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 6:31:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 4:00:50 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:39:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:31:58 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

Depends on what you accept as your axioms for morality.

For me I take a Sam Harris approach and base it on concious well being, in which case there is an objective answer for a given action in a given situation, but it's subjective based on the conscious beings affected.

So in effect, there are objective moral truths but vary according to subjective situations? This leans towards an objective morality approach if there are certain absolute rights and wrongs would you agree?

I don't accept there are absolute rights and wrongs. Certain appalling acts which seem 'obviously wrong' from te armchair may become the most moral thing to do in a different context and set of sentient beings.

We know generally in humans, it's much better in the contexts of society that murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. But that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong, it means the action in the context of the situation it is in and minds involved is.

... Which is pretty much why I think the approach to morality that many religious people take is a foolish one, as it sets some things as unsolvable or ambiguous which do not budge regardless of context. Which is where the problems regarding abortion, euthanasia, etc. come in.

Right, but saying that there is a "most moral choice" in every differing situation means that some objectively desirable moral criteria exists right?
jamccartney
Posts: 37
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 6:51:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

No, it does not. If you would like my reasoning on this, take a look at my debate on this very topic: http://www.debate.org...
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 6:51:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 6:31:00 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/30/2014 4:00:50 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:39:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:31:58 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

Depends on what you accept as your axioms for morality.

For me I take a Sam Harris approach and base it on concious well being, in which case there is an objective answer for a given action in a given situation, but it's subjective based on the conscious beings affected.

So in effect, there are objective moral truths but vary according to subjective situations? This leans towards an objective morality approach if there are certain absolute rights and wrongs would you agree?

I don't accept there are absolute rights and wrongs. Certain appalling acts which seem 'obviously wrong' from te armchair may become the most moral thing to do in a different context and set of sentient beings.

We know generally in humans, it's much better in the contexts of society that murder is wrong, rape is wrong, etc. But that doesn't mean that they are objectively wrong, it means the action in the context of the situation it is in and minds involved is.

... Which is pretty much why I think the approach to morality that many religious people take is a foolish one, as it sets some things as unsolvable or ambiguous which do not budge regardless of context. Which is where the problems regarding abortion, euthanasia, etc. come in.

Right, but saying that there is a "most moral choice" in every differing situation means that some objectively desirable moral criteria exists right?

Again, it depends on what you accept as axiom. Well being itself can be objective. Much like 'healthy' can be an objective condition. The same choice in two different context may not both be beneficial to well being, in one context it may make things worse.

So the only criteria that need be found are those for determining states of well being, which can be done rather pragmatically.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 7:00:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Do you think that maximal well-being is an objective moral criteria that is true regardless of how it's achieved? Do you think that an individual would be morally justified in seeking his own maximum well-being or that he should seek to maximize the well-being of society as a whole instead of his own wants?
ThatOneCoolGuy
Posts: 2
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2014 7:24:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, I think it's all subjective. There are some norms, such as murder being bad, but I personally, for example, see nothing wrong with the concept of cheating in relationships, and that multiple loves are okay. If my hypothetical girlfriend were cheering on me, I'd be totally fine with that.
Insert witty signature here
slo1
Posts: 4,351
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 8:46:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

If one were to catalog morals across time, cultures and religions there is only one logical position, morality is subjective. There would be more empirical evidence of static rules over time if morality was objective.

Even in the case where people argue that changes in moral standards over time are because God only gives the new rules when humanity has the ability to understand is subjective. If it is based upon our ability to understand how do you know it won't change again?

Then one has to ask, even if there are objective morals, what good are they if we collectively can't identify them accurately?
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:10:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
I know that there's a divide among atheists about whether or not there are moral facts or inherent "right" and "wrongs."

Morals are not objective, they are subjective

To the atheists that believe that any kind of objective morality exists: why do you think objective morality exists and why can it not all be subjective?

Curious HOW it can exist objectively.

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist?

Because there is no source of objective morals, morals are different between people, and morals are dependent upon empathy and society.

Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

Morally? No, but that is why we do not base things off of morality in societies, we use ETHICS.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:51:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
No. Objective morality does not exist. Morality is created by what humans expect and demand from the world. Morality does not exist independent from these human wants and demands.

This is also illuminates something else about morality. Because morality is created by what humans expect and demand of their way, this requires humans to take actions to apply morality to the world, such as through the creation of laws or through social activism to get people to realize an important concern/cause.

Morality is subjective in origin, and requires people to engage each other in order to decide how to live. But just because morality is subjective doesn't mean it isn't real or it isn't important.

Without the establishment of ethics and collective morality, humans would live in a chaotic world rules, self-restraint, and personal accountability.

Morality is very, very important.
Juan_Pablo
Posts: 2,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 10:53:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Correction:

Without the establishment of ethics and collective morality, humans would live in a chaotic world without rules, self-restraint, and personal accountability.

Morality is very, very important.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?

I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 12:22:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?



I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.

I think this argument is flawed. Imagine that nobody could build a working scale or anything that could tell weight, in that situation, people would argue over the weight of the stones even though there was a real answer. Just because we argue over something, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. It just means we don't have sufficient information.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:34:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 12:22:57 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?



I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.

I think this argument is flawed. Imagine that nobody could build a working scale or anything that could tell weight, in that situation, people would argue over the weight of the stones even though there was a real answer. Just because we argue over something, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. It just means we don't have sufficient information.

Ha you almost had me. Seems like you are accusing me from arguing from ignorance. But with the stone weights, it is immediately obvious that there should be 2 stones with the same weight, or 2 bricks with the same weight, etc. Even if no one had a definition of a unit kilogram (which is a mass stored in some lab somewhere), they could still say "this stone and that stone have the exact same amount of weight".

With morality, it is not obvious that 2 actions have the same quantity of "MU" (morality units). If you could point out 2 objects that have the exact same measure of MU (even though we don't have a definition of what 1MU equals), then I'd believe you that morality was objective. But when you get 2 actions that are very close in goodness or badness, there's no way to objectively measure which one has more MU than the other.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:43:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:34:11 AM, BradK wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:22:57 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?



I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.

I think this argument is flawed. Imagine that nobody could build a working scale or anything that could tell weight, in that situation, people would argue over the weight of the stones even though there was a real answer. Just because we argue over something, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. It just means we don't have sufficient information.

Ha you almost had me. Seems like you are accusing me from arguing from ignorance. But with the stone weights, it is immediately obvious that there should be 2 stones with the same weight, or 2 bricks with the same weight, etc. Even if no one had a definition of a unit kilogram (which is a mass stored in some lab somewhere), they could still say "this stone and that stone have the exact same amount of weight".

With morality, it is not obvious that 2 actions have the same quantity of "MU" (morality units). If you could point out 2 objects that have the exact same measure of MU (even though we don't have a definition of what 1MU equals), then I'd believe you that morality was objective. But when you get 2 actions that are very close in goodness or badness, there's no way to objectively measure which one has more MU than the other.

Is it not obvious that torturing a little girl for fun is less wrong than stealing a pencil from work? It doesn't seem obvious to you, based on your moral intuitions? If not, then wouldn't you be like that blind dude who claims there is no sun because he doesn't see it? Many people would argue that it is clear as day obvious that torturing a little girl for fun is more wrong than stealing a pencil from work, so the idea that we cannot measure morality is false.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:43:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:34:11 AM, BradK wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:22:57 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?



I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.

I think this argument is flawed. Imagine that nobody could build a working scale or anything that could tell weight, in that situation, people would argue over the weight of the stones even though there was a real answer. Just because we argue over something, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. It just means we don't have sufficient information.

Ha you almost had me. Seems like you are accusing me from arguing from ignorance. But with the stone weights, it is immediately obvious that there should be 2 stones with the same weight, or 2 bricks with the same weight, etc. Even if no one had a definition of a unit kilogram (which is a mass stored in some lab somewhere), they could still say "this stone and that stone have the exact same amount of weight".

With morality, it is not obvious that 2 actions have the same quantity of "MU" (morality units). If you could point out 2 objects that have the exact same measure of MU (even though we don't have a definition of what 1MU equals), then I'd believe you that morality was objective. But when you get 2 actions that are very close in goodness or badness, there's no way to objectively measure which one has more MU than the other.

(correction)

*Is it not obvious that torturing a little girl for fun is MORE wrong than stealing a pencil from work?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:47:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:34:11 AM, BradK wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:22:57 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?



I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.

I think this argument is flawed. Imagine that nobody could build a working scale or anything that could tell weight, in that situation, people would argue over the weight of the stones even though there was a real answer. Just because we argue over something, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. It just means we don't have sufficient information.

Ha you almost had me. Seems like you are accusing me from arguing from ignorance. But with the stone weights, it is immediately obvious that there should be 2 stones with the same weight, or 2 bricks with the same weight, etc. Even if no one had a definition of a unit kilogram (which is a mass stored in some lab somewhere), they could still say "this stone and that stone have the exact same amount of weight".

With morality, it is not obvious that 2 actions have the same quantity of "MU" (morality units). If you could point out 2 objects that have the exact same measure of MU (even though we don't have a definition of what 1MU equals), then I'd believe you that morality was objective. But when you get 2 actions that are very close in goodness or badness, there's no way to objectively measure which one has more MU than the other.

Morality isn't physical, so it isn't something that can be measured in terms of exact units with a certain extension anyway.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:47:44 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:43:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:34:11 AM, BradK wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:22:57 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?



I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.

I think this argument is flawed. Imagine that nobody could build a working scale or anything that could tell weight, in that situation, people would argue over the weight of the stones even though there was a real answer. Just because we argue over something, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. It just means we don't have sufficient information.

Ha you almost had me. Seems like you are accusing me from arguing from ignorance. But with the stone weights, it is immediately obvious that there should be 2 stones with the same weight, or 2 bricks with the same weight, etc. Even if no one had a definition of a unit kilogram (which is a mass stored in some lab somewhere), they could still say "this stone and that stone have the exact same amount of weight".

With morality, it is not obvious that 2 actions have the same quantity of "MU" (morality units). If you could point out 2 objects that have the exact same measure of MU (even though we don't have a definition of what 1MU equals), then I'd believe you that morality was objective. But when you get 2 actions that are very close in goodness or badness, there's no way to objectively measure which one has more MU than the other.

Is it not obvious that torturing a little girl for fun is less wrong than stealing a pencil from work? It doesn't seem obvious to you, based on your moral intuitions? If not, then wouldn't you be like that blind dude who claims there is no sun because he doesn't see it? Many people would argue that it is clear as day obvious that torturing a little girl for fun is more wrong than stealing a pencil from work, so the idea that we cannot measure morality is false.

You are right that it's completely obvious that torture is worse than petty theft.

The WHOLE thing I'm getting at here, is when you get at the nitty gritty close call measurements of morality, no one has any clue which action is more "good" than the other action. What's worse, killing a wild bear in the woods or killing a wild duck in the woods? That's the question I want you to objectively answer.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:48:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:34:11 AM, BradK wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:22:57 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?



I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.

I think this argument is flawed. Imagine that nobody could build a working scale or anything that could tell weight, in that situation, people would argue over the weight of the stones even though there was a real answer. Just because we argue over something, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. It just means we don't have sufficient information.

Ha you almost had me. Seems like you are accusing me from arguing from ignorance. But with the stone weights, it is immediately obvious that there should be 2 stones with the same weight, or 2 bricks with the same weight, etc. Even if no one had a definition of a unit kilogram (which is a mass stored in some lab somewhere), they could still say "this stone and that stone have the exact same amount of weight".

With morality, it is not obvious that 2 actions have the same quantity of "MU" (morality units). If you could point out 2 objects that have the exact same measure of MU (even though we don't have a definition of what 1MU equals), then I'd believe you that morality was objective. But when you get 2 actions that are very close in goodness or badness, there's no way to objectively measure which one has more MU than the other.

So, we can measure it in a sense that Action A is more morally wrong than Action B, but we cannot measure it in a sense that Action A has 987 evil points, and Action B has 987 evil points. That doesn't mean it isn't objective.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:50:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The WHOLE thing I'm getting at here, is when you get at the nitty gritty close call measurements of morality, no one has any clue which action is more "good" than the other action. What's worse, killing a wild bear in the woods or killing a wild duck in the woods? That's the question I want you to objectively answer. Show me objectively how you would determine which action is worse than the other.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:51:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:47:44 AM, BradK wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:43:04 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 2:34:11 AM, BradK wrote:
At 5/6/2014 12:22:57 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 5/5/2014 11:27:54 PM, BradK wrote:
At 4/30/2014 3:22:58 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

To the atheists that believe that all morality is subjective: why do you reject the notion that objective morality can exist? Do you believe that everything is equally and morally right and wrong according to each person?



I don't believe there's objective morality, and I'll show you why. If there were objective morality, then there would be no debates about what is moral or immoral. Think about something objective, like the weight of a stone. You can't debate the weight of a stone, it weighs 5kg or 10kg or whatever it weighs and that's the end of that mystery.

If morality were objective, we wouldn't be confused as to whether or not an action is good or bad. Is abortion good or bad? Depending on who you ask you get a different answer. That itself should be proof that morality is fabrication of man.

I think this argument is flawed. Imagine that nobody could build a working scale or anything that could tell weight, in that situation, people would argue over the weight of the stones even though there was a real answer. Just because we argue over something, doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer. It just means we don't have sufficient information.

Ha you almost had me. Seems like you are accusing me from arguing from ignorance. But with the stone weights, it is immediately obvious that there should be 2 stones with the same weight, or 2 bricks with the same weight, etc. Even if no one had a definition of a unit kilogram (which is a mass stored in some lab somewhere), they could still say "this stone and that stone have the exact same amount of weight".

With morality, it is not obvious that 2 actions have the same quantity of "MU" (morality units). If you could point out 2 objects that have the exact same measure of MU (even though we don't have a definition of what 1MU equals), then I'd believe you that morality was objective. But when you get 2 actions that are very close in goodness or badness, there's no way to objectively measure which one has more MU than the other.

Is it not obvious that torturing a little girl for fun is less wrong than stealing a pencil from work? It doesn't seem obvious to you, based on your moral intuitions? If not, then wouldn't you be like that blind dude who claims there is no sun because he doesn't see it? Many people would argue that it is clear as day obvious that torturing a little girl for fun is more wrong than stealing a pencil from work, so the idea that we cannot measure morality is false.

You are right that it's completely obvious that torture is worse than petty theft.

Then you admit morality is objective. It is actually the case that raping a 5 year old for fun torturing her with a hot knife is morally worse than taking a pencil from your work. Just like it is actually the case that there is a sun. It isn't matter of opinion, it is clear fact.


The WHOLE thing I'm getting at here, is when you get at the nitty gritty close call measurements of morality, no one has any clue which action is more "good" than the other action. What's worse, killing a wild bear in the woods or killing a wild duck in the woods? That's the question I want you to objectively answer.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 2:57:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 2:50:57 AM, BradK wrote:
The WHOLE thing I'm getting at here, is when you get at the nitty gritty close call measurements of morality, no one has any clue which action is more "good" than the other action. What's worse, killing a wild bear in the woods or killing a wild duck in the woods? That's the question I want you to objectively answer. Show me objectively how you would determine which action is worse than the other.

We only have certain moral intuitions. These are the intuitions that lets us know that torturing a girl for fun is worse than stepping on an ant. Maybe we just don't have the tools necessary to determine exactly which is more wrong to the exact degree and what not with regards to your killing a bear/ killing a duck example. That wouldn't change the fact that there are objective moral facts, and that morality is objective, that would just show that we cannot know everything exactly about the morality of a situation.
BradK
Posts: 475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 3:05:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
" we cannot know everything exactly about the morality of a situation."

Then that's why it's not objective. If something is objective, there's no question and no room for disagreement. If it's objective there's ONE answer, and that's it.

Hey man, if you can't come up with the same answer that i can to the kill bear/kill duck question, then it's a subjective question.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 3:10:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 3:05:23 AM, BradK wrote:
" we cannot know everything exactly about the morality of a situation."

Then that's why it's not objective. If something is objective, there's no question and no room for disagreement.

This is absolutely false though. Ergo, your argument fails. The reason this is false is that there is an objective answer to the question "how did life begin?". There is only one way. However, you have some people saying it was abiogenesis without God, some people saying the Christian God did it. There is a disagreement, even though there is an objective answer to the question! Therefore, your premise "If something is objective, there's no question and no room for disagreement" is not true.

If it's objective there's ONE answer, and that's it.

Yes, and there is one answer to your duck/ bear question, the problem is that we just may not have the tools to figure out what that is, so people speculate. That doesn't mean there isn't an objective answer, it just means that we don't all know what it is.


Hey man, if you can't come up with the same answer that i can to the kill bear/kill duck question, then it's a subjective question.

That is not true. Even if I can't come up with an answer, that doesn't mean there isn't one. This is just an argument from ignorance.