Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Moral Realism: Objective Morality Witout God

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 3:57:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
It seems all too common that both Theists and Atheists believe that without God, you can't have objective morality. However, I propose on the contrary that you can have objective morality without God. It's called Moral Realism.

Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

"Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that the game theoretic advantages of ethical behavior support the idea that morality is "out there" in a certain sense (as part of the evolutionary fitness landscape). Journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that natural selection moves sentient species closer to moral truth as time goes on.

Writer Sam Harris has also argued that ethics could be objectively grounded in an understanding of neuroscience.

Moral realism allows the ordinary rules of logic (modus ponens, etc.) to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements. We can say that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief.

Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: If two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement. Contrary theories of meta-ethics have trouble even formulating the statement "this moral belief is wrong," and so they cannot resolve disagreements in this way."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 11:22:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:57:15 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It seems all too common that both Theists and Atheists believe that without God, you can't have objective morality. However, I propose on the contrary that you can have objective morality without God. It's called Moral Realism.

Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

"Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that the game theoretic advantages of ethical behavior support the idea that morality is "out there" in a certain sense (as part of the evolutionary fitness landscape). Journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that natural selection moves sentient species closer to moral truth as time goes on.

Writer Sam Harris has also argued that ethics could be objectively grounded in an understanding of neuroscience.

Moral realism allows the ordinary rules of logic (modus ponens, etc.) to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements. We can say that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief.

Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: If two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement. Contrary theories of meta-ethics have trouble even formulating the statement "this moral belief is wrong," and so they cannot resolve disagreements in this way."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

This argument is moving the goalposts by saying that Objective moral values is equivalent to mere moral realism.

This argument is also equivocating by hiding within the ambiguity of objectivity within your own understanding of the term and even a alternate usage of the term objective.

***
To explain Objectivity again, it is easiest explained - by finding value in an extrinsic source.
I will use a value system, discussed in one of my on air recent debates.

Diamonds find their value via an extrinsic source. Humans. A diamond is of no value to a dog. As it is not self aware it is of no value to itself. We as humans place value upon the diamonds. The nature of the diamond's strength has value, the nature of its beauty has value to us and the 'forced' rarity of the diamond has value to us.

All of these value systems are placed upon the diamond from us. These systems are not intrinsic to the diamond. A dog, or a diamond, cares nothing about the strength, beauty or rarity of the diamond.

This is an extrinsic value system, the diamond can do NOTHING to change it. This value system is objective.

***

Now to bring this back to moral realism. To state the propositions are true due to features of this world, these features are still identified within our frame of reference. In other words the diamond is identifying the features, rather than an extrinsic source.

If people are 'identifying' the features of the world, this is simply not an objective process of identification.

When a theist states objective we mean that an outside source has 'placed' its value system upon us. It is not an internally identified source.

***
You might ask how we identify these morals if they are objective and not sourced within us? The designer has placed the personal moral compass within us that recognizes these values as extrinsic and outside of us.

Hopefully this explanation offers clarity to the concept of objective moral values.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 12:40:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
@ Giliandos

Thank you for your response. However, what you posit is WAY off base here. Let me make clear, Objective does not mean transcendent as you seem to imply.

"According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe a mind-independent reality."

-- http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)#section_2

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 2:18:40 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 12:40:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ Giliandos

Thank you for your response. However, what you posit is WAY off base here. Let me make clear, Objective does not mean transcendent as you seem to imply.

"According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe a mind-independent reality."

-- http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)#section_2




As I stated, this is the theists position of objective moral values. I agree, that your assertion is not understanding the theistic claim. I would avoid wikipedia as a source to avoid future confusion for yourself.

Did you get the sense you understood why moral realism is not what I explained the theistic position to be? It is why William Lane Craig for example uses it as a proof about the nature of objective morals shows an evidence for why we can posit God's existence from them?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 2:36:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 2:18:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/30/2012 12:40:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ Giliandos

Thank you for your response. However, what you posit is WAY off base here. Let me make clear, Objective does not mean transcendent as you seem to imply.

"According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe a mind-independent reality."

-- http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)#section_2

As I stated, this is the theists position of objective moral values. I agree, that your assertion is not understanding the theistic claim. I would avoid wikipedia as a source to avoid future confusion for yourself.

Did you get the sense you understood why moral realism is not what I explained the theistic position to be? It is why William Lane Craig for example uses it as a proof about the nature of objective morals shows an evidence for why we can posit God's existence from them?

I understand the Theist position. However, it's one thing to say that God is the objective moral standard and it's another to say that it is impossible for objective morality to exist without God.

Please, tell me why you think objective morality necessitates God. In order for morality to be objective it simply needs to be universal. Just like mathematics exist and are objective without reliance on God, morality too can be objective in the same manner.

What is there to contend?

.
.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 3:28:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:22:54 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Isn't there moral guidelines in the buddhist scriptures?

Yes, and it posits a universal, real morality, not a relative one.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 3:35:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:57:15 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It seems all too common that both Theists and Atheists believe that without God, you can't have objective morality. However, I propose on the contrary that you can have objective morality without God. It's called Moral Realism.

Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

"Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that the game theoretic advantages of ethical behavior support the idea that morality is "out there" in a certain sense (as part of the evolutionary fitness landscape). Journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that natural selection moves sentient species closer to moral truth as time goes on.

Writer Sam Harris has also argued that ethics could be objectively grounded in an understanding of neuroscience.

Moral realism allows the ordinary rules of logic (modus ponens, etc.) to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements. We can say that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief.

Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: If two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement. Contrary theories of meta-ethics have trouble even formulating the statement "this moral belief is wrong," and so they cannot resolve disagreements in this way."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

So how does this show that you can have objective morality without God? Calling it "moral realism" doesn't show me its grounding.
Ahmed.M
Posts: 616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 3:49:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:28:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/30/2012 3:22:54 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
Isn't there moral guidelines in the buddhist scriptures?

Yes, and it posits a universal, real morality, not a relative one.

So isn't that it? you follow that, end of story. Unless you think Buddhism isn't the supreme or ultimate book on the face of the earth from where one draws everything to guide and govern his life, including morality.
Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 3:51:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:35:55 PM, Contradiction wrote:

So how does this show that you can have objective morality without God? Calling it "moral realism" doesn't show me its grounding.

It's grounded in the realities of human existence.

A great book on this topic is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.
http://books.google.com...

Here's another good link about the case for objective morality by my friend David at the University of Florida:
http://www.blazingtruth.com...
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 4:04:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 2:36:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/30/2012 2:18:40 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/30/2012 12:40:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
@ Giliandos

Thank you for your response. However, what you posit is WAY off base here. Let me make clear, Objective does not mean transcendent as you seem to imply.

"According to the ethical objectivist, the truth or falsity of typical moral judgments does not depend upon the beliefs or feelings of any person or group of persons. This view holds that moral propositions are analogous to propositions about chemistry, biology, or history: they describe a mind-independent reality."

-- http://en.m.wikipedia.org...(philosophy)#section_2

As I stated, this is the theists position of objective moral values. I agree, that your assertion is not understanding the theistic claim. I would avoid wikipedia as a source to avoid future confusion for yourself.

Did you get the sense you understood why moral realism is not what I explained the theistic position to be? It is why William Lane Craig for example uses it as a proof about the nature of objective morals shows an evidence for why we can posit God's existence from them?

I understand the Theist position. However, it's one thing to say that God is the objective moral standard and it's another to say that it is impossible for objective morality to exist without God.

I think that response shows that you do not understand the position and I do realize it is complex. As with the diamond, if diamonds set the value system by any internal reference it is subjective (imagine the diamonds are self aware). All you are stating is an internal frame of reference is the standard and then calling this the same as objective. It is not the traditional definition of objective.


Please, tell me why you think objective morality necessitates God. In order for morality to be objective it simply needs to be universal. Just like mathematics exist and are objective without reliance on God, morality too can be objective in the same manner.

What is there to contend?

If you agree that an objective morality exists, it can only be found outside of ourselves and outside of our internal references. We look to an object having within its nature, the reference for those values. That 'object' we call God.

For example it is within the nature of Humans to value a diamond for the previous reasons. Good or moral values are within God's nature and as a changeless and timeless being they are conceivably static.
Reason_Alliance
Posts: 1,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 4:07:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:57:15 AM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It seems all too common that both Theists and Atheists believe that without God, you can't have objective morality. However, I propose on the contrary that you can have objective morality without God. It's called Moral Realism.

Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that:

1. Ethical sentences express propositions.
2. Some such propositions are true.
3. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.

"Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that the game theoretic advantages of ethical behavior support the idea that morality is "out there" in a certain sense (as part of the evolutionary fitness landscape). Journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that natural selection moves sentient species closer to moral truth as time goes on.

Writer Sam Harris has also argued that ethics could be objectively grounded in an understanding of neuroscience.

Moral realism allows the ordinary rules of logic (modus ponens, etc.) to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements. We can say that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief.

Another advantage of moral realism is its capacity to resolve moral disagreements: If two moral beliefs contradict one another, realism says that they cannot both be right, and therefore everyone involved ought to be seeking out the right answer to resolve the disagreement. Contrary theories of meta-ethics have trouble even formulating the statement "this moral belief is wrong," and so they cannot resolve disagreements in this way."

-- http://en.wikipedia.org...

The problem is, that logic and science, etc can tell us what is the case, it can never tell us what ought to be the case. Regarding Silly Sam Harris:

Now about 3 million Americans are psychopathic, who don't care about other mental states and actually enjoy inflicting pain. [Moral Landscape, p. 97-99]...

But that implies that there's a possible world, which we can conceive, in which the continuum of human well-being is not a moral landscape. The peaks of well-being could be occupied by evil people.

But that entails that in the actual world, the continuum of well-being and the moral landscape are not identical either.

For identity is a necessary relation. There is no possible world in which some entity A is not identical to A. So if there's any possible world in which A is not identical to B, then it follows that A is not in fact identical to B.

Now since it's possible that human well-being and moral goodness are not identical, it follows necessarily that human well-being and goodness are not the same,

It's possible that the continuum of well-being is not identical to the moral landscape

The moral landscape view, therefore is logically incoherent! On atheism, there's no reason to identify the well-being of conscious creatures with moral goodness. You cannot explain the objective of the moral values you so desperately wants to affirm.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 4:09:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:49:39 PM, Ahmed.M wrote:
At 4/30/2012 3:28:46 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Yes, and it posits a universal, real morality, not a relative one.

So isn't that it? you follow that, end of story. Unless you think Buddhism isn't the supreme or ultimate book on the face of the earth from where one draws everything to guide and govern his life, including morality.

Buddhism isn't about declaring things to be true but rather discovering things that are true. Buddhist scripture isn't just a collection of books which are inherently authoritative. They are records of the words from an Enlightened man who has discovered truth and is passing it on to others. The Buddha isn't the type to say "it's right because I said so," instead he essentially says "here are the truths that I have discovered along my journey for truth."

The Buddha is not like Muhammed who simply recieved divine revelation and authoritative dictates, the Buddha had to do hard work to discover the doctrines of truth, it wasn't just handed to him in a "basket" like the Quran and Muhammed.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 4:30:00 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 4:04:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/30/2012 2:36:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

I understand the Theist position. However, it's one thing to say that God is the objective moral standard and it's another to say that it is impossible for objective morality to exist without God.

I think that response shows that you do not understand the position and I do realize it is complex.

Oh please. You don't even understand. I'll explain below.

As with the diamond, if diamonds set the value system by any internal reference it is subjective (imagine the diamonds are self aware). All you are stating is an internal frame of reference is the standard and then calling this the same as objective. It is not the traditional definition of objective.

Internal reference is NOT automatically subjective. You don't get that. Personal opinion is subjective, however, the psychological states of a person are objective.

Compare and analyze these statements:

"I think chocolate ice cream is the best."
Subjective opinion ^^

"I have a headache."
Objective fact ^^

Both have internal reference.

Please, tell me why you think objective morality necessitates God. In order for morality to be objective it simply needs to be universal. Just like mathematics exist and are objective without reliance on God, morality too can be objective in the same manner.

What is there to contend?

If you agree that an objective morality exists, it can only be found outside of ourselves and outside of our internal references.

1. Natural law is outside ourselves. It's possible that moral laws are embedded in nature just like mathematics.

2. It's possible for internal references to be objective.

Think of this:

"Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor."
^^ Subjective opinion ^^

"Geo thinks chocolate is the best flavor ice cream."
^^ Objective fact ^^

We look to an object having within its nature, the reference for those values. That 'object' we call God.

According to your twisted logic then, God's morality is subjective because he has an internal reference for morality.

For example it is within the nature of Humans to value a diamond for the previous reasons. Good or moral values are within God's nature and as a changeless and timeless being they are conceivably static.

God is not the only thing that can be static.

.
.

.
.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Contradiction
Posts: 409
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 6:23:26 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 3:51:45 PM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
At 4/30/2012 3:35:55 PM, Contradiction wrote:

So how does this show that you can have objective morality without God? Calling it "moral realism" doesn't show me its grounding.

It's grounded in the realities of human existence.

A great book on this topic is "The Moral Landscape" by Sam Harris.
http://books.google.com...

Here's another good link about the case for objective morality by my friend David at the University of Florida:
http://www.blazingtruth.com...

You can't derive an "ought" from an "is" -- at least under a naturalistic metaphysics. Harris's argument fails because of that.
Gileandos
Posts: 2,394
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 7:20:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 4:30:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 4/30/2012 4:04:20 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/30/2012 2:36:14 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:

I understand the Theist position. However, it's one thing to say that God is the objective moral standard and it's another to say that it is impossible for objective morality to exist without God.

I think that response shows that you do not understand the position and I do realize it is complex.

Oh please. You don't even understand. I'll explain below.

As with the diamond, if diamonds set the value system by any internal reference it is subjective (imagine the diamonds are self aware). All you are stating is an internal frame of reference is the standard and then calling this the same as objective. It is not the traditional definition of objective.

Internal reference is NOT automatically subjective. You don't get that. Personal opinion is subjective, however, the psychological states of a person are objective.

Compare and analyze these statements:

"I think chocolate ice cream is the best."
Subjective opinion ^^

"I have a headache."
Objective fact ^^

Both have internal reference.

Your usage here is showing that you are equivocating (hiding within the ambiguity of the term of multiple definitions). There are many definitions to the word objective. Let me list them:

***
ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

***

Your statement here is using adjective form 3b. Can you guess which definition the Theist is using? Obviously 2.
Having existence or reality.

To quote Craig:
"Rape is 'really' wrong."
Moral values are real, they have an independent existence. Even if the entire universe dies in the great heat death, rape is still wrong. Moral values have a real existent that is not found in the physical realm.


Please, tell me why you think objective morality necessitates God. In order for morality to be objective it simply needs to be universal. Just like mathematics exist and are objective without reliance on God, morality too can be objective in the same manner.

What is there to contend?

If you agree that an objective morality exists, it can only be found outside of ourselves and outside of our internal references.

1. Natural law is outside ourselves. It's possible that moral laws are embedded in nature just like mathematics.

I agree that mathematics are objectively real, but nothing about them being embedded in nature. If nature is destroyed in the great heat death, mathematics and moral values still exist. They are real objects outside of physicality.

2. It's possible for internal references to be objective.

Think of this:

"Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor."
^^ Subjective opinion ^^

"Geo thinks chocolate is the best flavor ice cream."
^^ Objective fact ^^

The same as above. You are equivocating using 3b when we are not using 3b.


We look to an object having within its nature, the reference for those values. That 'object' we call God.

According to your twisted logic then, God's morality is subjective because he has an internal reference for morality.

The nature of God precludes a subjectivity as He is changeless, but we would agree that all metaphysical objects find their existence within the metaphysical nature of God.


For example it is within the nature of Humans to value a diamond for the previous reasons. Good or moral values are within God's nature and as a changeless and timeless being they are conceivably static.

God is not the only thing that can be static.

lol, here again you will have to equivocate. Metaphysical objects, like numbers, morals and God are the only things static, that is independent of physical change.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 7:27:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've always personally believed trying to correlate the natural world and morals does not follow. Morals are "ought" statements and imply duty in the face of multiple options. One action as opposed to another action. The question becomes which action in and of itself is inherently correct and which actions in and of themselves are inherently wrong?

This is the problem. The natural world does not work like this. The natural world, viewed as a single entity, does not have agency. It has a design (maybe not the best word, but that's language's fault) meaning that for any given condition or circumstance there is only one possible end result. That's not morality. Morality is directly involved with choice, and the natural world does not have choice.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
M.Torres
Posts: 3,626
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2012 7:44:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 7:38:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You ethicists are a funny bunch, I tell you what.

lol - Cody

To say that morals don't exist naturally isn't to say they aren't enforced by culture and society. Sorry bud, be a nihilist all you want (I know the feel) but you still go to jail for shooting someone you don't like.
: At 11/28/2011 1:28:24 PM, BlackVoid wrote:
: M. Torres said it, so it must be right.

I'm an Apatheistic Ignostic. ... problem? ;D

I believe in the heart of the cards. .:DDO Duelist:.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 9:56:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 4:09:15 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:


Buddhism isn't about declaring things to be true but rather discovering things that are true.


Theist would believe truths are discovered as well. How we discover them is moral epistemology. The moral argument is all about moral ontology.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 10:09:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 4:07:19 PM, Reason_Alliance wrote:

The problem is, that logic and science, etc can tell us what is the case, it can never tell us what ought to be the case. Regarding Silly Sam Harris:

Of course it can.

What you're forgetting is that the way things are is the way things ought to be.

In other words, we attribute moral meaning to murdering someone by calling it "murder." However, lets consider murder objectively.

You are essentially ending the existence of something that, unmitigated by your influence, would have conceivably continued living for some indeterminate amount of time. You are affecting change.

These deviations from how things are (from our existence and surroundings and conditions spring life), are what is essentially considered wrong.

This isn't to say "how things are" is perfect, nor that it can't change. This is why morality, just like everything else, operates in context.

In this society, or any society, it is best to act cooperatively, and in fact, essential to act cooperatively, as that is what a society is -- a bunch of people acting cooperatively within a given stretch of land (or series thereof).

Therefore, acting against another, or killing others, is wrong and counterproductive. It is immoral. It is counterintuitive. It acts against all assertions we understand as positive, such as progression, improvement, and growth. It act in tandem with things that we understand to be negative, just as stifling, hindering, and defecting.

And, Geo is right -- this is true with or without a "God," or even any extremely high degree of intelligence.
Kinesis
Posts: 3,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 10:40:19 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 6:23:26 PM, Contradiction wrote:
You can't derive an "ought" from an "is" -- at least under a naturalistic metaphysics. Harris's argument fails because of that.

It's easy. For example, I desire to quench my thirst therefore I ought to drink a glass of water. Morality is grounded in what we as rational creatures have good reason to do.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 10:51:56 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 10:09:17 AM, Ren wrote:

Therefore, acting against another, or killing others, is wrong and counterproductive. It is immoral. It is counterintuitive. It acts against all assertions we understand as positive, such as progression, improvement, and growth. It act in tandem with things that we understand to be negative, just as stifling, hindering, and defecting.

And, Geo is right -- this is true with or without a "God," or even any extremely high degree of intelligence.

I just have a question about this part if you don't mind answering. Why would murder be wrong from the naturalistic standpoint? Simply because it is counterproductive to human progression? So than is it also moral to kill a baby if we know they will grow up to kill two people?
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 11:19:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 10:40:19 AM, Kinesis wrote:
At 4/30/2012 6:23:26 PM, Contradiction wrote:
You can't derive an "ought" from an "is" -- at least under a naturalistic metaphysics. Harris's argument fails because of that.

It's easy. For example, I desire to quench my thirst therefore I ought to drink a glass of water. Morality is grounded in what we as rational creatures have good reason to do.

A prudential ought isn't a moral ought.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 11:35:25 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 10:51:56 AM, stubs wrote:
At 5/1/2012 10:09:17 AM, Ren wrote:

Therefore, acting against another, or killing others, is wrong and counterproductive. It is immoral. It is counterintuitive. It acts against all assertions we understand as positive, such as progression, improvement, and growth. It act in tandem with things that we understand to be negative, just as stifling, hindering, and defecting.

And, Geo is right -- this is true with or without a "God," or even any extremely high degree of intelligence.

I just have a question about this part if you don't mind answering. Why would murder be wrong from the naturalistic standpoint? Simply because it is counterproductive to human progression?

Not necessarily. You have to understand that it is in context. It's counterproductive to cooperation and healthy coexistence.

So than is it also moral to kill a baby if we know they will grow up to kill two people?

This question is meaningless. What if those two people would have ended the human race if they weren't killed? How could it be possible to determine what someone will do as an adult while they're a child?

Morality isn't to set rules, because rules, like morality, only apply in context.

Morality is to assess each situation and determine what is the best course of action.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 12:09:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 7:44:16 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/30/2012 7:38:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You ethicists are a funny bunch, I tell you what.

lol - Cody

To say that morals don't exist naturally isn't to say they aren't enforced by culture and society. Sorry bud, be a nihilist all you want (I know the feel) but you still go to jail for shooting someone you don't like.

Well, duh, but then it doesn't even matter, because you're just talking about preferences, at which point all that meta-ethical crap gets thrown out the window
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 12:11:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 12:09:47 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 4/30/2012 7:44:16 PM, M.Torres wrote:
At 4/30/2012 7:38:14 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
You ethicists are a funny bunch, I tell you what.

lol - Cody

To say that morals don't exist naturally isn't to say they aren't enforced by culture and society. Sorry bud, be a nihilist all you want (I know the feel) but you still go to jail for shooting someone you don't like.

Well, duh, but then it doesn't even matter, because you're just talking about preferences, at which point all that meta-ethical crap gets thrown out the window.

I forgot the period. Also, to be fair, I'm perfectly attracted to the notion of an ethos. It just makes my dick soft to hear about moral realism and such.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 12:12:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 9:56:06 AM, stubs wrote:
At 4/30/2012 4:09:15 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:


Buddhism isn't about declaring things to be true but rather discovering things that are true.


Theist would believe truths are discovered as well.

False. They are revealed as declared by God.

How we discover them is moral epistemology. The moral argument is all about moral ontology.

Yes, I know. I was having a side discussion with Ahmed, it is not related.

.
.
.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 12:43:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 4/30/2012 7:20:58 PM, Gileandos wrote:
At 4/30/2012 4:30:00 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Oh please. You don't even understand. I'll explain below.

Internal reference is NOT automatically subjective. You don't get that. Personal opinion is subjective, however, the psychological states of a person are objective.

Compare and analyze these statements:

"I think chocolate ice cream is the best."
Subjective opinion ^^

"I have a headache."
Objective fact ^^

Both have internal reference.

Your usage here is showing that you are equivocating (hiding within the ambiguity of the term of multiple definitions). There are many definitions to the word objective. Let me list them:

False accusation. I've proposed that morality is objective by both being uninfluenced by personal opinion and by having actual existence in the same way as mathematics.

***
ob·jec·tive (b-jktv)
adj.
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.
3.
a. Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair1.
b. Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.
4. Medicine Indicating a symptom or condition perceived as a sign of disease by someone other than the person affected.
5. Grammar
a. Of, relating to, or being the case of a noun or pronoun that serves as the object of a verb.
b. Of or relating to a noun or pronoun used in this case.
n.
1. Something that actually exists.
2. Something worked toward or striven for; a goal. See Synonyms at intention.
3. Grammar
a. The objective case.
b. A noun or pronoun in the objective case.
4. The lens or lens system in a microscope or other optical instrument that first receives light rays from the object and forms the image. Also called object glass, objective lens, object lens.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com...

***

Your statement here is using adjective form 3b. Can you guess which definition the Theist is using? Obviously 2.
Having existence or reality.

To quote Craig:
"Rape is 'really' wrong."
Moral values are real, they have an independent existence. Even if the entire universe dies in the great heat death, rape is still wrong. Moral values have a real existent that is not found in the physical realm.

Agreed.

1. Natural law is outside ourselves. It's possible that moral laws are embedded in nature just like mathematics.

I agree that mathematics are objectively real, but nothing about them being embedded in nature. If nature is destroyed in the great heat death, mathematics and moral values still exist. They are real objects outside of physicality.

Ok, they exist outside of physicality, but not existence. I merely used the word nature because I operate under the notion that nature makes up the whole of existence whether physical or not.

2. It's possible for internal references to be objective.

Think of this:

"Chocolate ice cream is the best flavor."
^^ Subjective opinion ^^

"Geo thinks chocolate is the best flavor ice cream."
^^ Objective fact ^^

The same as above. You are equivocating using 3b when we are not using 3b.

It was an example. It proves that objectivity can have internal reference.

According to your twisted logic then, God's morality is subjective because he has an internal reference for morality.

The nature of God precludes a subjectivity as He is changeless, but we would agree that all metaphysical objects find their existence within the metaphysical nature of God.

See the thing is, all the things you attribute to God, I can attribute to Universe. And many people do. See.Pantheism, Panentheism, Pandeism, etc.

God is not the only thing that can be static.

lol, here again you will have to equivocate. Metaphysical objects, like numbers, morals and God are the only things static, that is independent of physical change.

Bare assertion.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2012 12:58:47 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 5/1/2012 12:12:38 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:


Buddhism isn't about declaring things to be true but rather discovering things that are true.


Theist would believe truths are discovered as well.

False. They are revealed as declared by God.

Thats not false haha. Theist would say they are declared by God, but they are also discovered. Like in the new testament when the gentiles discovered the morals, without the law.