Total Posts:67|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Morality DOES Exist

GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 1:43:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Two reasons:

1. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would want done to you. (Taught by Confucious, Buddha, and Jesus.). If you follow this code, an objective morality becomes self-evident.

2. Actions that are done out of a concern for others.

Nowhere is God involved in any of this. In fact, divine command morality is SUBJECTIVE. Because morality is arbitrarily defined by God. So even if God exists, he himself is subject to a separate moral code. (If you don't understand, see Socrates Euthyphro argument.)

That is proof that objective morality exists.
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:02:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would want done to you. (Taught by Confucious, Buddha, and Jesus.). If you follow this code, an objective morality becomes self-evident.
Not to mention you get pwned by people who don't return the favor!

Golden rule is fail if used consistently. Do unto others as they actually do unto you, roughly, is a far more accurate description of optimal behavior. Once you take into account that their preferences differ.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Marauder
Posts: 3,271
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:24:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:02:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would want done to you. (Taught by Confucious, Buddha, and Jesus.). If you follow this code, an objective morality becomes self-evident.
Not to mention you get pwned by people who don't return the favor!

Golden rule is fail if used consistently. Do unto others as they actually do unto you, roughly, is a far more accurate description of optimal behavior. Once you take into account that their preferences differ.

You are compleatly disregarding 'leading by example'. Initally perhaps people will take advantage of your kind behavioh but think of the Golden Rule as a long term investment, like wind towers. You may suffer a net loss of cash the first several years but in the long rung it relly does make a positive impact on your power bill.
One act of Rebellion created all the darkness and evil in the world; One life of Total Obedience created a path back to eternity and God.

A Scout is Obedient.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 2:26:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, you have just described eye for an eye. It's not "Do unto others as they do unto you.". It's "Do unto others as you would WANT done unto you."

Someone can punch me, but I won't punch back because I didn't want them to punch me.
"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
3/29/2010 2:27:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:26:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, you have just described eye for an eye. It's not "Do unto others as they do unto you.". It's "Do unto others as you would WANT done unto you."

Someone can punch me, but I won't punch back because I didn't want them to punch me.

This was aimed at Ragnar.
"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
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 3:52:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:24:43 PM, Marauder wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:02:15 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
1. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would want done to you. (Taught by Confucious, Buddha, and Jesus.). If you follow this code, an objective morality becomes self-evident.
Not to mention you get pwned by people who don't return the favor!

Golden rule is fail if used consistently. Do unto others as they actually do unto you, roughly, is a far more accurate description of optimal behavior. Once you take into account that their preferences differ.

You are compleatly disregarding 'leading by example'.
You mean the free rider problem?

Initally perhaps people will take advantage of your kind behavioh but think of the Golden Rule as a long term investment, like wind towers. You may suffer a net loss of cash the first several years but in the long rung it relly does make a positive impact on your power bill.
No, it doesn't. In the long run it gets you without possessions and probably murdered.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 3:53:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 2:27:44 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 2:26:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No, you have just described eye for an eye. It's not "Do unto others as they do unto you.". It's "Do unto others as you would WANT done unto you."

Someone can punch me, but I won't punch back because I didn't want them to punch me.

This was aimed at Ragnar.

Geo. I know what the Golden rule is. I was proposing an alternative that actually makes sense. The golden rule, "Do unto others as you would WANT done unto you," when taken without so many qualifiers you're really following it only a small minority of the time, is counterproductive. When taken consistently it's utterly suicidal.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 5:20:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I stopped following the Golden Rule the moment I realized it would not work out well with my heterosexuality.

But in any case, why exactly does it show the existence of objective morality? Additionally, what is objective morality? And what is subjective morality? There's not enough definitions going on here and too much discussion without any base.
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 6:30:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 5:20:50 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
I stopped following the Golden Rule the moment I realized it would not work out well with my heterosexuality.

9.5/10, but pegging.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:34:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
1. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would want done to you. (Taught by Confucious, Buddha, and Jesus.). If you follow this code, an objective morality becomes self-evident.

If you follow this code

Oh okay, so your "proof" consists of me blindly accepting a premise I find to be false?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:43:21 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:34:46 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
1. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would want done to you. (Taught by Confucious, Buddha, and Jesus.). If you follow this code, an objective morality becomes self-evident.

If you follow this code

Oh okay, so your "proof" consists of me blindly accepting a premise I find to be false?

It would be unethical and inconsistent to treat others in a manner you yourself wouldn't appreciate if done to you.

What objections do you have to the Golden Rule?
"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
3/29/2010 8:43:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 3:53:55 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

Geo. I know what the Golden rule is. I was proposing an alternative that actually makes sense. The golden rule, "Do unto others as you would WANT done unto you," when taken without so many qualifiers you're really following it only a small minority of the time, is counterproductive. When taken consistently it's utterly suicidal.

Why.
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:44:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 3:52:01 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

No, it doesn't. In the long run it gets you without possessions and probably murdered.

Actually, I think that the Golden Rule works really well, though in a negative sense.

Do unto others (nothing) what you wish them to do unto you (also nothing).

Ask for nothing, give nothing. :)
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:47:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:44:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Actually, I think that the Golden Rule works really well, though in a negative sense.

Do unto others (nothing) what you wish them to do unto you (also nothing).

Ask for nothing, give nothing. :)

Hahaha. Yes, that is the negative (not "bad") version of the Golden Rule, also known as moral minimalism. The positive version of the Golden Rule requires you to actually act and do moral things for others.
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:50:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:47:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:44:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Actually, I think that the Golden Rule works really well, though in a negative sense.

Do unto others (nothing) what you wish them to do unto you (also nothing).

Ask for nothing, give nothing. :)

Hahaha. Yes, that is the negative (not "bad") version of the Golden Rule, also known as moral minimalism. The positive version of the Golden Rule requires you to actually act and do moral things for others.

Moral by what standard?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:53:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:50:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:47:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hahaha. Yes, that is the negative (not "bad") version of the Golden Rule, also known as moral minimalism. The positive version of the Golden Rule requires you to actually act and do moral things for others.

Moral by what standard?

The Golden Rule. If you would like for someone to give you a helping hand in a time of need, it is moral to do so for others as well.
"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
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:54:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:50:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:47:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:44:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

Actually, I think that the Golden Rule works really well, though in a negative sense.

Do unto others (nothing) what you wish them to do unto you (also nothing).

Ask for nothing, give nothing. :)

Hahaha. Yes, that is the negative (not "bad") version of the Golden Rule, also known as moral minimalism. The positive version of the Golden Rule requires you to actually act and do moral things for others.

Moral by what standard?

Oh - and, if a positive action is required, even by your little maxim, it isn't moral. An action can only have moral merit if it's voluntary.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:55:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:54:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
An action can only have moral merit if it's voluntary.

Ah~~~ <3
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:57:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:43:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:34:46 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
1. The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would want done to you. (Taught by Confucious, Buddha, and Jesus.). If you follow this code, an objective morality becomes self-evident.

If you follow this code

Oh okay, so your "proof" consists of me blindly accepting a premise I find to be false?

It would be unethical and inconsistent to treat others in a manner you yourself wouldn't appreciate if done to you.

Circular reasoning. Very, very obvious circular reasoning.

What objections do you have to the Golden Rule?

That it has no rational backing, at least from what I can tell so far.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 8:57:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:53:28 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:50:48 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:47:09 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Hahaha. Yes, that is the negative (not "bad") version of the Golden Rule, also known as moral minimalism. The positive version of the Golden Rule requires you to actually act and do moral things for others.

Moral by what standard?

The Golden Rule. If you would like for someone to give you a helping hand in a time of need, it is moral to do so for others as well.

So, let me get this straight.

The Golden Rule says you should do moral things for other people, and morality is determined BY the Golden Rule.

By golly, I think we've come full circle.

By the way, the fact that I might want to be helped if I'm drowning doesn't put anyone else under a positive obligation to help me, nor does it put me under a positive obligation to anyone else.

Wanting to be rescued and expecting it are two entirely different concepts. Your positive version of the Rule presupposes that the highest virtue a man can aspire to is self-sacrifice for the sake of another man. Laughable.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 9:06:41 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:57:13 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:43:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It would be unethical and inconsistent to treat others in a manner you yourself wouldn't appreciate if done to you.

Circular reasoning. Very, very obvious circular reasoning.

No, it's a fact. It would be inconsistent to say that you don't like being stabbed with a knife, but it's morally ok for you to stab others.

What objections do you have to the Golden Rule?

That it has no rational backing, at least from what I can tell so far.

And neither does the statement, "everything is permitted and ethical."
"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
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 9:09:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 9:06:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:55:45 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:54:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
An action can only have moral merit if it's voluntary.

Ah~~~ <3

I hope that's the non-gay kind of guy love. I'm heterosexual.

Yeah, I'm not gay. Didn't you see the first page of this thread?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 9:10:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 9:06:41 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:57:13 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:43:21 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
It would be unethical and inconsistent to treat others in a manner you yourself wouldn't appreciate if done to you.

Circular reasoning. Very, very obvious circular reasoning.

No, it's a fact. It would be inconsistent to say that you don't like being stabbed with a knife, but it's morally ok for you to stab others.

That goes back to the negative form of the rule - refrain from stabbing others, as you wish others to refrain from stabbing you. That's just the basic nonaggression principle. Your "positive rule" still has no warrant.


What objections do you have to the Golden Rule?

That it has no rational backing, at least from what I can tell so far.

And neither does the statement, "everything is permitted and ethical."

That's a huge straw man. Just because he doesn't support the way you bring forth the Golden Rule doesn't mean he's saying "anything goes". Like said, the negative version of the rule applies. The positive one does not.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 9:10:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 9:09:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 9:06:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:55:45 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:54:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
An action can only have moral merit if it's voluntary.

Ah~~~ <3

I hope that's the non-gay kind of guy love. I'm heterosexual.

Yeah, I'm not gay. Didn't you see the first page of this thread?

That evidence had to be called into question. I thought you might be falling in love with me.
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 9:12:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 8:57:28 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
So, let me get this straight.

The Golden Rule says you should do moral things for other people, and morality is determined BY the Golden Rule.

By golly, I think we've come full circle.

By the way, the fact that I might want to be helped if I'm drowning doesn't put anyone else under a positive obligation to help me, nor does it put me under a positive obligation to anyone else.

Wanting to be rescued and expecting it are two entirely different concepts. Your positive version of the Rule presupposes that the highest virtue a man can aspire to is self-sacrifice for the sake of another man. Laughable.

Ok, so you at least accept the moral minimalist version of the Golden Rule? That's fine too. The positive version of the Golden Rule also includes the minimalist version as well, so you can choose to either help that person or do nothing at all by virtue of putting yourself at risk, and still be moral under the Golden Rule.

Moral minimalist version basically says, don't do anything to harm others.

Moral positivist version says, don't do anything to harm others and also act (do) in moral ways towards others.

Both are acceptable and both are versions of the Golden Rule.
"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
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 9:13:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 3/29/2010 9:10:37 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/29/2010 9:09:00 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 9:06:40 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:55:45 PM, Rezzealaux wrote:
At 3/29/2010 8:54:15 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
An action can only have moral merit if it's voluntary.

Ah~~~ <3

I hope that's the non-gay kind of guy love. I'm heterosexual.

Yeah, I'm not gay. Didn't you see the first page of this thread?

That evidence had to be called into question. I thought you might be falling in love with me.

Who the hell do you think I am, Scott_Mann?
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/29/2010 9:18:54 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
No, it's a fact. It would be inconsistent to say that you don't like being stabbed with a knife, but it's morally ok for you to stab others.

You know, we can keep up this charade of you claiming things to be "obviously true" or "facts", but until you supply a rational warrant you're empty of any credible stance.

And neither does the statement, "everything is permitted and ethical."

As noted by Cody, this is quite the straw man - to reject objective morality does not entail "everything is ethical" as this would be logically incoherent. This is such a simple error.