Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

Objective Moral Values and Duties Dont Exist

CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Best arguments for objective moral duties and obligations come from WLC:

1. God exists (this relies on the other arguments for God) Moral Ontology over Moral Epistemology - I'll only grant this if I grant the other arguments, which I don't
2. It is rational to believe in our sense of morality/ Moral intuition. Objections against it would be self defeating i.e. leading to a denial of the reliability of human faculties which are used to reason - There are only five senses (empiricism), Moral sense and experience does not include any of the five
4. There is less warrant to believe in Moral Scepticism/Nihilism over Moral Realism (As Louise Anthony states) - I have yet to seen this as anything more than an assertion

My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists?
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:02:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
Best arguments for objective moral duties and obligations come from WLC:

1. God exists (this relies on the other arguments for God) Moral Ontology over Moral Epistemology - I'll only grant this if I grant the other arguments, which I don't
2. It is rational to believe in our sense of morality/ Moral intuition. Objections against it would be self defeating i.e. leading to a denial of the reliability of human faculties which are used to reason - There are only five senses (empiricism), Moral sense and experience does not include any of the five
4. There is less warrant to believe in Moral Scepticism/Nihilism over Moral Realism (As Louise Anthony states) - I have yet to seen this as anything more than an assertion

My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists? : :

Christians will all be killed by our Creator who forced their objective morals and practice of religious duties onto others who resisted them.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:06:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:02:18 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
Best arguments for objective moral duties and obligations come from WLC:

1. God exists (this relies on the other arguments for God) Moral Ontology over Moral Epistemology - I'll only grant this if I grant the other arguments, which I don't
2. It is rational to believe in our sense of morality/ Moral intuition. Objections against it would be self defeating i.e. leading to a denial of the reliability of human faculties which are used to reason - There are only five senses (empiricism), Moral sense and experience does not include any of the five
4. There is less warrant to believe in Moral Scepticism/Nihilism over Moral Realism (As Louise Anthony states) - I have yet to seen this as anything more than an assertion

My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists? : :

Christians will all be killed by our Creator who forced their objective morals and practice of religious duties onto others who resisted them.

Okay... so where is the logical justification for something's moral objectivity?
You can call me Mark if you like.
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:12:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:06:58 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:02:18 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
Best arguments for objective moral duties and obligations come from WLC:

1. God exists (this relies on the other arguments for God) Moral Ontology over Moral Epistemology - I'll only grant this if I grant the other arguments, which I don't
2. It is rational to believe in our sense of morality/ Moral intuition. Objections against it would be self defeating i.e. leading to a denial of the reliability of human faculties which are used to reason - There are only five senses (empiricism), Moral sense and experience does not include any of the five
4. There is less warrant to believe in Moral Scepticism/Nihilism over Moral Realism (As Louise Anthony states) - I have yet to seen this as anything more than an assertion

My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists? : :

Christians will all be killed by our Creator who forced their objective morals and practice of religious duties onto others who resisted them.

Okay... so where is the logical justification for something's moral objectivity? : :

Is it logical for Christians to KILL Muslims for forcing their objective morals and practicing their prayer sessions on other people?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has confused man ever since he woke up in a body that he believed was real.
debate_power
Posts: 726
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:13:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:12:05 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:06:58 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:02:18 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
Best arguments for objective moral duties and obligations come from WLC:

1. God exists (this relies on the other arguments for God) Moral Ontology over Moral Epistemology - I'll only grant this if I grant the other arguments, which I don't
2. It is rational to believe in our sense of morality/ Moral intuition. Objections against it would be self defeating i.e. leading to a denial of the reliability of human faculties which are used to reason - There are only five senses (empiricism), Moral sense and experience does not include any of the five
4. There is less warrant to believe in Moral Scepticism/Nihilism over Moral Realism (As Louise Anthony states) - I have yet to seen this as anything more than an assertion

My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists? : :

Christians will all be killed by our Creator who forced their objective morals and practice of religious duties onto others who resisted them.

Okay... so where is the logical justification for something's moral objectivity? : :

Is it logical for Christians to KILL Muslims for forcing their objective morals and practicing their prayer sessions on other people?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has confused man ever since he woke up in a body that he believed was real.

So I guess that you don't believe in objective morality?
You can call me Mark if you like.
bulproof
Posts: 25,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 10:18:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
Best arguments for objective moral duties and obligations come from WLC:

1. God exists (this relies on the other arguments for God) Moral Ontology over Moral Epistemology - I'll only grant this if I grant the other arguments, which I don't
2. It is rational to believe in our sense of morality/ Moral intuition. Objections against it would be self defeating i.e. leading to a denial of the reliability of human faculties which are used to reason - There are only five senses (empiricism), Moral sense and experience does not include any of the five
4. There is less warrant to believe in Moral Scepticism/Nihilism over Moral Realism (As Louise Anthony states) - I have yet to seen this as anything more than an assertion

My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists?

No!
But if you do assume that god exists you then need to assume what his character is.
Morality cannot be based on those two unsupported assumptions.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
bornofgod
Posts: 11,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 11:45:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 10:13:34 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:12:05 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:06:58 AM, debate_power wrote:
At 3/31/2015 10:02:18 AM, bornofgod wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
Best arguments for objective moral duties and obligations come from WLC:

1. God exists (this relies on the other arguments for God) Moral Ontology over Moral Epistemology - I'll only grant this if I grant the other arguments, which I don't
2. It is rational to believe in our sense of morality/ Moral intuition. Objections against it would be self defeating i.e. leading to a denial of the reliability of human faculties which are used to reason - There are only five senses (empiricism), Moral sense and experience does not include any of the five
4. There is less warrant to believe in Moral Scepticism/Nihilism over Moral Realism (As Louise Anthony states) - I have yet to seen this as anything more than an assertion

My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists? : :

Christians will all be killed by our Creator who forced their objective morals and practice of religious duties onto others who resisted them.

Okay... so where is the logical justification for something's moral objectivity? : :

Is it logical for Christians to KILL Muslims for forcing their objective morals and practicing their prayer sessions on other people?

The tree of the knowledge of good and evil has confused man ever since he woke up in a body that he believed was real.

So I guess that you don't believe in objective morality? : :

Of course not. Tell me what your definition of good and evil are. Don't look them up in a dictionary because the liars who give them a definition believe in what they observe as their reality.
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 3:03:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Our senses are not infallible, yet only through sentimentalism can moral experience be justified. Even if we cant get outside our senses to see if they are veridical, we know our senses are not always reliable, so to use them to assert objectivity is illusory. This may seem self defeating/contradictory prima facie as it may lead to mereological/epistemological nihilism, however, knowledge is always bound by perspective and hence, arbitrary. I think this is a huge problem.

Any resolutions? Is there a necessary connection between moral nihilism and other types of nihilism? WLC certainly doesnt think so.. http://www.reasonablefaith.org...
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 5:49:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists?

Yes. We can observe that compassion is a common human capacity; recognise that humans need societies in order to survive, thrive and be happy;understand that self and society are in a natural state of contention; and thereby analyse, synthesise and evaluate which decisions work best for both.

Such morality would be based on common observations and common needs, which therefore makes it objective.

However there may be multiple viable solutions which could also change over time, which means it is not absolute.

The desire for absolute morality is the desire for doctrinal monotheism. It is a yearning for the moral authority to run a paternalistic society in which all moral decisions are made for you by someone else: someone who had written doctrine, or someone who had interpreted it for you.

Such morality isn't objective because doctrinal monotheism fractures over time into sects that never reconcile.

I'm always astounded by how anxious doctrinal monotheists get to think about a world without an absolute morality which we can already see isn't objective, and doesn't work.
CorieMike
Posts: 67
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 6:06:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 5:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists?

Yes. We can observe that compassion is a common human capacity; recognise that humans need societies in order to survive, thrive and be happy;understand that self and society are in a natural state of contention; and thereby analyse, synthesise and evaluate which decisions work best for both.


Acknowledging a capacity for compassion, doesn't set a legitimate objective standard. People have the capacity to alot, ranging from empathy to apathy, this does nothing to justify its objectivity. Ofcourse, congruity between society and self will produce harmonious advantages but not always. for eg. the prisoner's dilemma.

Such morality would be based on common observations and common needs, which therefore makes it objective.


That would an advocacy for normative moral relativism, not moral realism (mind independent).

However there may be multiple viable solutions which could also change over time, which means it is not absolute.

The desire for absolute morality is the desire for doctrinal monotheism. It is a yearning for the moral authority to run a paternalistic society in which all moral decisions are made for you by someone else: someone who had written doctrine, or someone who had interpreted it for you.

Such morality isn't objective because doctrinal monotheism fractures over time into sects that never reconcile.

I'm always astounded by how anxious doctrinal monotheists get to think about a world without an absolute morality which we can already see isn't objective, and doesn't work.

It doesn't follow that morality based on common observations and interests, leads to moral objectivity. Care to ellaborate?
****Wisdom Begins In Wonder - Socrates****
The path of sound credence is through the thick forest of skepticism - George Jean Nathan
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 6:25:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 6:06:35 PM, CorieMike wrote:
At 3/31/2015 5:49:20 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Yes. We can observe that compassion is a common human capacity; recognise that humans need societies in order to survive, thrive and be happy;understand that self and society are in a natural state of contention; and thereby analyse, synthesise and evaluate which decisions work best for both.

Acknowledging a capacity for compassion, doesn't set a legitimate objective standard.
That's right. The standard is based on compassion and empirical insight. The compassion simply makes those insights relevant and actionable. To that end, we don't need boundless compassion -- just enough to care whether others are happy or miserable.

congruity between society and self will produce harmonious advantages but not always. for eg. the prisoner's dilemma.
That's correct, and why we need to develop evidence-based insight, so that moral influences don't inadvertently produce perversely evil incentives (as religious paternalism does, for example.)

Such morality would be based on common observations and common needs, which therefore makes it objective.
That would an advocacy for normative moral relativism, not moral realism (mind independent).
Why? Situational isn't relativistic because the same things make humans miserable everywhere. Consider: torture and mutilation didn't hurt less in the ancient world. However note that the morality practiced in the ancient world is one we largely repudiate today. So our morality is situational, but that doesn't make it relativistic.

It doesn't follow that morality based on common observations and interests, leads to moral objectivity. Care to elaborate?
Sure. Objective reasoning is evidence-based reasoning. It has five key benefits, namely that it is:
1) sharable with others, because anyone can see evidence of costs and benefits for themselves;
2) transparent, because everyone can see how you reached the conclusion;
3) accountable, meaning it is not simply some paternalistic appeal to authority;
4) contestable, meaning it can be challenged by better evidence; and
5) continuously improvable, meaning you can produce better outcomes from better tools, evidence and methods.

Objective morality must hold these qualities too. Doctrinal monotheism -- edicts delivered with the absolute authority of some supreme god -- hold none of these qualities. Therefore, doctrinal monotheism is not an objective morality. And this is evidenced in how diversely doctrinal morality is interpreted, how badly monotheistic sects fracture, and how little they ever reconcile.

Doctrinal monotheism is paternalistic, absolute, yet largely subjective.

On the other hand, we can produce objective morality just from caring about both individuals and societies, and observing our impacts empirically. It will produce more than one morality and evolve over time, but will be able to share ideas across cultures and societies, can adapt readily to new circumstances, and can improve our lot and the lot of our fellow man.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/31/2015 8:26:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/31/2015 9:54:50 AM, CorieMike wrote:
My question is can objective moral values and duties be justified, without first assuming God exists?

No, nor can they be justified by assuming he exists.