Total Posts:136|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

God necessary for objective morality ?

Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 10:13:21 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
There are people who claim that God is necessary for objective morality, that is to say it is impossible for objective morality to exist unless God exists.

So who actually believes this ? Who wants to defend that proposition in a debate ?

Also maybe you should explain a little what you mean by "God" and "objective morality".
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Fkkize
Posts: 2,149
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 10:37:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 10:13:21 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are people who claim that God is necessary for objective morality, that is to say it is impossible for objective morality to exist unless God exists.

So who actually believes this ? Who wants to defend that proposition in a debate ?
I don't believe it, but I could play devil's advocate as well as argue against it.

Also maybe you should explain a little what you mean by "God" and "objective morality".
God is usually understood in the traditional theistic way, the omnipotent, omniscient, perfectly good, creator of the universe. Divine comand theory is a form of subjectivism. Universalist subjectivism, to be precise. But theists don't want to call it that, well, because it sounds less special. And we all know how important that is. So, what is meant by "objective" morality? The commands of God.
: At 7/2/2016 3:05:07 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
:
: space contradicts logic
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 3:07:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 10:13:21 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are people who claim that God is necessary for objective morality, that is to say it is impossible for objective morality to exist unless God exists.

So who actually believes this ? Who wants to defend that proposition in a debate ?

Also maybe you should explain a little what you mean by "God" and "objective morality".

I believe this.

Think about what "objective" means. Objective means to be true independent of our thoughts/opinions about something.

Anything "morally good" refers to the disposition or will of the mind. Take the following dispositions: compassion, patience, diligence, courageousness, generosity, humbleness, etc., Those are all "morally good" but *only* refer the disposition of the mind. Now consider scenarios: Saving a child from a fire, giving to charity, adopting a child with a disability, etc., those scenarios *exhibit* those dispositions. Saving a child from a fire is courageous, giving to charity is generous, adopting a child with a disability is compassionate.

All things morally good/bad always refer to the disposition or will of the mind. So why is God necessary for objective morality?

If God doesn't exist, we are the sole arbiters of morality and of human purpose. "Objective" morality would mean that certain actions (such as rape or murder) are right or wrong independent of our assessments about whether it's right or wrong. Since morally good/bad actions only refer to the disposition or will of a mind, we'd need a mind that exists *independent of the human mind* as our objective reference. Otherwise our thoughts/opinions would be constructing a moral framework that is true independent of our thoughts/opinions.

It's also logically impossible if you consider that humans have no inherent purpose or reason for existing. We're the accidental byproducts of mindless processes. "Raping is wrong" is a judgement about human purpose. If raping is truly, objectively wrong, there is an intrinsic end (that raping is wrong) placed upon human purpose (humans would be means without ends). So objective morality *requires* that human beings aren't inherently purposeless. Otherwise it's logically impossible for something inherently purposeless to have inherent purpose (to definitively not pursue immoral action X).
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 5:00:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 3:07:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

If God doesn't exist, we are the sole arbiters of morality and of human purpose.

But, we are the sole arbiters of whether or not God "exists" (because there is no objective proof of the existence of God). That means the existence of God is a subjective determination. Which reality clearly bears out (humans being atheists, theists, and agnostics). So, morality based on the existence of God is, likewise, then, being determined subjectively, by us.

"Objective" morality would mean that certain actions (such as rape or murder) are right or wrong independent of our assessments about whether it's right or wrong. Since morally good/bad actions only refer to the disposition or will of a mind, we'd need a mind that exists *independent of the human mind* as our objective reference. Otherwise our thoughts/opinions would be constructing a moral framework that is true independent of our thoughts/opinions.

Right, so, IF a moral God objectively exists, then objective morality can exist. But we humans have no objective proof that God or God's morality exists. So for us, it's all being SUBJECTIVELY determined.

It's also logically impossible if you consider that humans have no inherent purpose or reason for existing. We're the accidental byproducts of mindless processes. "Raping is wrong" is a judgement about human purpose. If raping is truly, objectively wrong, there is an intrinsic end (that raping is wrong) placed upon human purpose (humans would be means without ends). So objective morality *requires* that human beings aren't inherently purposeless. Otherwise it's logically impossible for something inherently purposeless to have inherent purpose (to definitively not pursue immoral action X).

I agree. However, this is only true if we assume that our purpose needs to be objectively established. But I believe that's an illogical assumption, as we can't have a purpose that 'exists apart from ourselves', which is what an "objective" purpose would, by definition, need to be. Once we eliminate this inherent irrationality, the only purpose that could be established would have to be established "subjectively", by definition. Which, of course, is exactly how we humans do ascribe purpose to our own existence.
Alpha3141
Posts: 154
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 5:08:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 10:13:21 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are people who claim that God is necessary for objective morality, that is to say it is impossible for objective morality to exist unless God exists.

So who actually believes this ? Who wants to defend that proposition in a debate ?

Also maybe you should explain a little what you mean by "God" and "objective morality".

Objective morality can only come from a personal source. Only an objective personality can be the source of objective morals. There is no alternative to God
Chaosism
Posts: 2,667
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 5:29:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 10:13:21 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
There are people who claim that God is necessary for objective morality, that is to say it is impossible for objective morality to exist unless God exists.

So who actually believes this ? Who wants to defend that proposition in a debate ?

Also maybe you should explain a little what you mean by "God" and "objective morality".

I think that if God is what determines what is objectively good or bad, then a god with morals would not create that which is immoral. This means that the entirety of created reality reflects that which is objectively moral. For instance, if killing is wrong, then God is the one who created the concept, the possibility, the means, and the will for it to be done. A man who finds killing to be unquestionably immoral does not manufacture guns.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/25/2015 5:43:23 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 5:00:52 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/25/2015 3:07:41 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

If God doesn't exist, we are the sole arbiters of morality and of human purpose.

But, we are the sole arbiters of whether or not God "exists" (because there is no objective proof of the existence of God). That means the existence of God is a subjective determination. Which reality clearly bears out (humans being atheists, theists, and agnostics). So, morality based on the existence of God is, likewise, then, being determined subjectively, by us.

We don't determine whether or not God exists. Either God exists or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with us. Our knowledge of a thing doesn't determine whether or not it exists. We had no knowledge of a correct theorem on gravity before it was conceived by Newton but gravity still objectively existed.

"Objective" morality would mean that certain actions (such as rape or murder) are right or wrong independent of our assessments about whether it's right or wrong. Since morally good/bad actions only refer to the disposition or will of a mind, we'd need a mind that exists *independent of the human mind* as our objective reference. Otherwise our thoughts/opinions would be constructing a moral framework that is true independent of our thoughts/opinions.

Right, so, IF a moral God objectively exists, then objective morality can exist. But we humans have no objective proof that God or God's morality exists. So for us, it's all being SUBJECTIVELY determined.

Knowledge of what exists and what actually exists are two entirely different things. It's a conflation of epistemology and ontology.

It's also logically impossible if you consider that humans have no inherent purpose or reason for existing. We're the accidental byproducts of mindless processes. "Raping is wrong" is a judgement about human purpose. If raping is truly, objectively wrong, there is an intrinsic end (that raping is wrong) placed upon human purpose (humans would be means without ends). So objective morality *requires* that human beings aren't inherently purposeless. Otherwise it's logically impossible for something inherently purposeless to have inherent purpose (to definitively not pursue immoral action X).

I agree. However, this is only true if we assume that our purpose needs to be objectively established. But I believe that's an illogical assumption, as we can't have a purpose that 'exists apart from ourselves', which is what an "objective" purpose would, by definition, need to be. Once we eliminate this inherent irrationality, the only purpose that could be established would have to be established "subjectively", by definition. Which, of course, is exactly how we humans do ascribe purpose to our own existence.

We can't have a purpose that exists apart from ourselves unless God made human beings for a purpose. There's nothing illogical about that. If we are the sole arbiters of our own purpose then we can't - by definition - have objective morality.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/27/2015 4:31:03 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/25/2015 5:43:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

We don't determine whether or not God exists. Either God exists or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with us.

Well, I guess there was no point in having this conversation, then.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 2:08:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 4:31:03 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:43:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

We don't determine whether or not God exists. Either God exists or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with us.

Well, I guess there was no point in having this conversation, then.

Do you believe the following statement is true: our knowledge of something determines whether or not it exists.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 2:12:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?

I would see that as immoral because it a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole, of which I am a part. It is a non-survival activity that I personal find abhorrent and would immediately execute the perpetrator of such an act.

Morality need not be 'objective' to be shared and valid, despite what you would like to believe.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 2:39:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 2:12:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?

I would see that as immoral because it a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole, of which I am a part. It is a non-survival activity that I personal find abhorrent and would immediately execute the perpetrator of such an act.

Morality need not be 'objective' to be shared and valid, despite what you would like to believe.

Non-violent rape results in "gain" so why is that immoral?

Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective. If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 2:44:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 2:39:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:12:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?

I would see that as immoral because it a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole, of which I am a part. It is a non-survival activity that I personal find abhorrent and would immediately execute the perpetrator of such an act.

Morality need not be 'objective' to be shared and valid, despite what you would like to believe.

Non-violent rape results in "gain" so why is that immoral?

Rape is inherently violent so your statement is incoherent. Rape is an act of violence and domination. Get your definitions straight.

Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective. If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 3:32:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 2:44:02 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:39:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:12:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?

I would see that as immoral because it a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole, of which I am a part. It is a non-survival activity that I personal find abhorrent and would immediately execute the perpetrator of such an act.

Morality need not be 'objective' to be shared and valid, despite what you would like to believe.

Non-violent rape results in "gain" so why is that immoral?

Rape is inherently violent so your statement is incoherent. Rape is an act of violence and domination. Get your definitions straight.

http://rationalwiki.org...

Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

Then for the person claiming that raping an infant isn't immoral then their opinion is valid also.

I guess infant rape isn't objectively immoral then.


What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

That doesn't validate anything other than what you set as an objective.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective. If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 3:44:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 3:32:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:44:02 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:39:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:12:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?

I would see that as immoral because it a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole, of which I am a part. It is a non-survival activity that I personal find abhorrent and would immediately execute the perpetrator of such an act.

Morality need not be 'objective' to be shared and valid, despite what you would like to believe.

Non-violent rape results in "gain" so why is that immoral?

Rape is inherently violent so your statement is incoherent. Rape is an act of violence and domination. Get your definitions straight.

http://rationalwiki.org...

That may be physically non-violent but it still violates the body of the victim and does damage to the psyche and mental health as well. To call it non-violent is a misnomer since violence can be done mentally and emotionally just as abuse can.

Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

Then for the person claiming that raping an infant isn't immoral then their opinion is valid also.

No, because it violates the social contract we all live under and have codified into laws that prohibit such acts.

I guess infant rape isn't objectively immoral then.

Nothing is 'objectively' immoral. Some cultures have and a tiny minority still kill their female children because boys are considered more valuable. To them, that is moral. To us, it is reprehensible.



What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

That doesn't validate anything other than what you set as an objective.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Such a society would quickly fail since it continued to indulge in such a non-survival act. Morality promotes survival, well being, and advancement of both the individuals in the society and society as a whole. When non-survival activities become the norm, society fails.

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective. If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 4:09:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 2:08:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 4:31:03 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:43:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

We don't determine whether or not God exists. Either God exists or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with us.

Well, I guess there was no point in having this conversation, then.

Do you believe the following statement is true: our knowledge of something determines whether or not it exists.

It's an inherently flawed question as our knowledge of "X" means "X" already exists.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 4:11:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 3:44:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 3:32:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:44:02 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:39:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:12:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?

I would see that as immoral because it a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole, of which I am a part. It is a non-survival activity that I personal find abhorrent and would immediately execute the perpetrator of such an act.

Morality need not be 'objective' to be shared and valid, despite what you would like to believe.

Non-violent rape results in "gain" so why is that immoral?

Rape is inherently violent so your statement is incoherent. Rape is an act of violence and domination. Get your definitions straight.

http://rationalwiki.org...

That may be physically non-violent but it still violates the body of the victim and does damage to the psyche and mental health as well. To call it non-violent is a misnomer since violence can be done mentally and emotionally just as abuse can.

Let's check to see if any of your standards have been broken by emotional/mental abuse: "a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole". It appears as though "harm" is permitted as long as there is a "corresponding gain". So if someone is raped non-violently (let's say a girl is raped as she's drunk, passed out) and becomes impregnated, this wouldn't be immoral. Is that true? (B) hasn't been broken because no reproductive harm has occurred.


Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

Then for the person claiming that raping an infant isn't immoral then their opinion is valid also.

No, because it violates the social contract we all live under and have codified into laws that prohibit such acts.

What if I opted out of the "social contract"? What if a social contract is made, like in Nazi Germany to exterminate minorities? Would that make it morally permissible?

I guess infant rape isn't objectively immoral then.

Nothing is 'objectively' immoral. Some cultures have and a tiny minority still kill their female children because boys are considered more valuable. To them, that is moral. To us, it is reprehensible.

So that includes infant rape. Nothing truly immoral about it, according to what you're saying.



What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

That doesn't validate anything other than what you set as an objective.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Such a society would quickly fail since it continued to indulge in such a non-survival act. Morality promotes survival, well being, and advancement of both the individuals in the society and society as a whole. When non-survival activities become the norm, society fails.

Does morality exist to promote those things or is it just an unintended side-effect? "Survival" can't be a cited purpose for any naturally occurring phenomena. Unless you believe unembodied processes actually occur for some reason or towards some goal or for any purpose.

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective. If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 4:12:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 4:09:15 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:08:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 4:31:03 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:43:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

We don't determine whether or not God exists. Either God exists or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with us.

Well, I guess there was no point in having this conversation, then.

Do you believe the following statement is true: our knowledge of something determines whether or not it exists.

It's an inherently flawed question as our knowledge of "X" means "X" already exists.

No, it's a question as to whether what is unknown can exist despite being unknown.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 4:19:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 3:44:14 PM, dhardage wrote:

Morality promotes survival, well being, and advancement of both the individuals in the society and society as a whole. When non-survival activities become the norm, society fails.

That's probably the best argument for "objective morality" we can make. And it's a pretty good one. However, it is based on the assumption that it's better to exist than not to exist. Which is ultimately a subjective ethical determination. And we can't reasonably claim that a moral system based on a subjective ethical determination is an "objective" moral system.
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 4:36:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 4:12:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 4:09:15 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:08:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 4:31:03 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:43:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

We don't determine whether or not God exists. Either God exists or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with us.

Well, I guess there was no point in having this conversation, then.

Do you believe the following statement is true: our knowledge of something determines whether or not it exists.

It's an inherently flawed question as our knowledge of "X" means "X" already exists.

No, it's a question as to whether what is unknown can exist despite being unknown.

It's irrational to ask such a question, because it can't be answered. How can we know what we don't know? The best we can do is to know THAT we don't know.

The reason you're having problems here is that you're not clarifying for yourself what we humans can know by direct interaction, what we can presume to know by indirect interaction, what we speculate to be so based on reasoned probability, and what we choose to believe based on hope and faith.

"God" is way far out there on the "what we choose to believe based on hope and faith" category. While; "I am sitting here, now", I can know by direct immediate experience (though "here" and "now" are relative and limited concepts, in themselves). So that "knowledge" and "belief" are not the same things. And there is a whole range of mixed possibilities in between. And none of them constitute an absolute condition.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 4:40:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 4:11:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 3:44:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 3:32:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:44:02 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:39:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:12:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?

I would see that as immoral because it a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole, of which I am a part. It is a non-survival activity that I personal find abhorrent and would immediately execute the perpetrator of such an act.

Morality need not be 'objective' to be shared and valid, despite what you would like to believe.

Non-violent rape results in "gain" so why is that immoral?

Rape is inherently violent so your statement is incoherent. Rape is an act of violence and domination. Get your definitions straight.

http://rationalwiki.org...

That may be physically non-violent but it still violates the body of the victim and does damage to the psyche and mental health as well. To call it non-violent is a misnomer since violence can be done mentally and emotionally just as abuse can.

Let's check to see if any of your standards have been broken by emotional/mental abuse: "a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole". It appears as though "harm" is permitted as long as there is a "corresponding gain". So if someone is raped non-violently (let's say a girl is raped as she's drunk, passed out) and becomes impregnated, this wouldn't be immoral. Is that true? (B) hasn't been broken because no reproductive harm has occurred.

Her body has been violated without her consent, creating harm that will probably follow her the rest of her life. If she is impregnated, she will either have to care for this unplanned child, give it up for adoption, or have an abortion. Each of these are disruptions to her life and require sacrifice. I don't understand why you keep trying to equate any kind of rape with no harm when it's been demonstrated that there is always some negative repercussion, not to mention a violation of the law. You want to somehow justify your view that some divine authority is the only way we can determine right from wrong. Your view is fatally flawed in many ways.


Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

Then for the person claiming that raping an infant isn't immoral then their opinion is valid also.

No, because it violates the social contract we all live under and have codified into laws that prohibit such acts.

What if I opted out of the "social contract"? What if a social contract is made, like in Nazi Germany to exterminate minorities? Would that make it morally permissible?

It was to those who believed it, but it was corrosive to the society which eventually failed. I once had a teacher who said 'Every time you break the law, you commit a sin." I asked her if the people who hid Jews from Nazi persecution were sinners in her eyes since they were violating the law of the land. She had no answer.

Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong. It's really that simple, at least in my personal morality. Most human societies are built on that same principle and it promotes survival of the society and its inhabitants. Tell me how your arbitrary, 'objective' morality is any better?

I guess infant rape isn't objectively immoral then.

Nothing is 'objectively' immoral. Some cultures have and a tiny minority still kill their female children because boys are considered more valuable. To them, that is moral. To us, it is reprehensible.

So that includes infant rape. Nothing truly immoral about it, according to what you're saying.

It's immoral to me and to the vast majority of the world. It's shared morality that is still subjective. It's a survival trait that has developed over millennia of humans living in groups.



What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

That doesn't validate anything other than what you set as an objective.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Such a society would quickly fail since it continued to indulge in such a non-survival act. Morality promotes survival, well being, and advancement of both the individuals in the society and society as a whole. When non-survival activities become the norm, society fails.

Does morality exist to promote those things or is it just an unintended side-effect? "Survival" can't be a cited purpose for any naturally occurring phenomena. Unless you believe unembodied processes actually occur for some reason or towards some goal or for any purpose.

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective.

Again, no. It's a shared trait developed by our species to survive as families, tribes, towns, cities, and nations. Slavery was moral and practiced by many nations for centuries and has only relatively recently become immoral in the eyes of those societies. Morality evolves and chanes along with the species so it cannot be objective.

If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 4:49:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 4:36:33 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/28/2015 4:12:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 4:09:15 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:08:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 4:31:03 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:43:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

We don't determine whether or not God exists. Either God exists or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with us.

Well, I guess there was no point in having this conversation, then.

Do you believe the following statement is true: our knowledge of something determines whether or not it exists.

It's an inherently flawed question as our knowledge of "X" means "X" already exists.

No, it's a question as to whether what is unknown can exist despite being unknown.

It's irrational to ask such a question, because it can't be answered. How can we know what we don't know? The best we can do is to know THAT we don't know.

I'm not claiming to know what we don't know. I'm asking if what is unknown can exist despite being unknown. If we hadn't known of Mercury until the last couple hundred years does this mean it didn't exist prior to that? I don't see any point in carrying on this conversation if you're one of those people who are never willing to admit to being wrong.

The reason you're having problems here is that you're not clarifying for yourself what we humans can know by direct interaction, what we can presume to know by indirect interaction, what we speculate to be so based on reasoned probability, and what we choose to believe based on hope and faith.

"God" is way far out there on the "what we choose to believe based on hope and faith" category. While; "I am sitting here, now", I can know by direct immediate experience (though "here" and "now" are relative and limited concepts, in themselves). So that "knowledge" and "belief" are not the same things. And there is a whole range of mixed possibilities in between. And none of them constitute an absolute condition.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 5:01:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 4:49:59 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 4:36:33 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/28/2015 4:12:51 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 4:09:15 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:08:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 4:31:03 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/25/2015 5:43:23 PM, Benshapiro wrote:

We don't determine whether or not God exists. Either God exists or he doesn't. It has nothing to do with us.

Well, I guess there was no point in having this conversation, then.

Do you believe the following statement is true: our knowledge of something determines whether or not it exists.

It's an inherently flawed question as our knowledge of "X" means "X" already exists.

No, it's a question as to whether what is unknown can exist despite being unknown.

It's irrational to ask such a question, because it can't be answered. How can we know what we don't know? The best we can do is to know THAT we don't know.

I'm not claiming to know what we don't know. I'm asking if what is unknown can exist despite being unknown. If we hadn't known of Mercury until the last couple hundred years does this mean it didn't exist prior to that? I don't see any point in carrying on this conversation if you're one of those people who are never willing to admit to being wrong.

The reason you're having problems here is that you're not clarifying for yourself what we humans can know by direct interaction, what we can presume to know by indirect interaction, what we speculate to be so based on reasoned probability, and what we choose to believe based on hope and faith.

"God" is way far out there on the "what we choose to believe based on hope and faith" category. While; "I am sitting here, now", I can know by direct immediate experience (though "here" and "now" are relative and limited concepts, in themselves). So that "knowledge" and "belief" are not the same things. And there is a whole range of mixed possibilities in between. And none of them constitute an absolute condition.

The universe existed for billions of years before any life form even appeared on this planet. I'd say that its existence in wholly independent of our knowledge of it.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 5:02:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 4:40:38 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 4:11:20 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 3:44:14 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 3:32:25 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:44:02 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:39:14 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:12:13 PM, dhardage wrote:
At 8/28/2015 2:09:48 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/27/2015 5:54:40 PM, dhardage wrote:
Objective morality does not exist.

So raping an infant is not truly immoral?

I would see that as immoral because it a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole, of which I am a part. It is a non-survival activity that I personal find abhorrent and would immediately execute the perpetrator of such an act.

Morality need not be 'objective' to be shared and valid, despite what you would like to believe.

Non-violent rape results in "gain" so why is that immoral?

Rape is inherently violent so your statement is incoherent. Rape is an act of violence and domination. Get your definitions straight.

http://rationalwiki.org...

That may be physically non-violent but it still violates the body of the victim and does damage to the psyche and mental health as well. To call it non-violent is a misnomer since violence can be done mentally and emotionally just as abuse can.

Let's check to see if any of your standards have been broken by emotional/mental abuse: "a) causes harm to another without any corresponding gain and b) is deleterious to the species and society as a whole". It appears as though "harm" is permitted as long as there is a "corresponding gain". So if someone is raped non-violently (let's say a girl is raped as she's drunk, passed out) and becomes impregnated, this wouldn't be immoral. Is that true? (B) hasn't been broken because no reproductive harm has occurred.

Her body has been violated without her consent, creating harm that will probably follow her the rest of her life. If she is impregnated, she will either have to care for this unplanned child, give it up for adoption, or have an abortion. Each of these are disruptions to her life and require sacrifice. I don't understand why you keep trying to equate any kind of rape with no harm when it's been demonstrated that there is always some negative repercussion, not to mention a violation of the law. You want to somehow justify your view that some divine authority is the only way we can determine right from wrong. Your view is fatally flawed in many ways.

Your justification for immorality must include some negative consequence for procreation. If there is rape that includes no negative consequences for procreation is it still immoral? Yes. I'm just showing you that you don't adhere to your own beliefs concerning morality.


Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

Then for the person claiming that raping an infant isn't immoral then their opinion is valid also.

No, because it violates the social contract we all live under and have codified into laws that prohibit such acts.

What if I opted out of the "social contract"? What if a social contract is made, like in Nazi Germany to exterminate minorities? Would that make it morally permissible?

It was to those who believed it, but it was corrosive to the society which eventually failed. I once had a teacher who said 'Every time you break the law, you commit a sin." I asked her if the people who hid Jews from Nazi persecution were sinners in her eyes since they were violating the law of the land. She had no answer.

Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong. It's really that simple, at least in my personal morality. Most human societies are built on that same principle and it promotes survival of the society and its inhabitants. Tell me how your arbitrary, 'objective' morality is any better?

"Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong" would just be an opinion like "anything that causes harm unnecessarily is right" is an opinion. What would merit your opinion more so than the other one? Nothing! Despite this, do you see the apparent absurdity?

I guess infant rape isn't objectively immoral then.

Nothing is 'objectively' immoral. Some cultures have and a tiny minority still kill their female children because boys are considered more valuable. To them, that is moral. To us, it is reprehensible.

So that includes infant rape. Nothing truly immoral about it, according to what you're saying.

It's immoral to me and to the vast majority of the world. It's shared morality that is still subjective. It's a survival trait that has developed over millennia of humans living in groups.

Appeal to the majority doesn't validate a subjective opinion any more so than consensus on a favorite color would. If morality has a foundation in survival its objective, which is what you're arguing against.



What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

That doesn't validate anything other than what you set as an objective.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Such a society would quickly fail since it continued to indulge in such a non-survival act. Morality promotes survival, well being, and advancement of both the individuals in the society and society as a whole. When non-survival activities become the norm, society fails.

Does morality exist to promote those things or is it just an unintended side-effect? "Survival" can't be a cited purpose for any naturally occurring phenomena. Unless you believe unembodied processes actually occur for some reason or towards some goal or for any purpose.

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective.

Again, no. It's a shared trait developed by our species to survive as families, tribes, towns, cities, and nations. Slavery was moral and practiced by many nations for centuries and has only relatively recently become immoral in the eyes of those societies. Morality evolves and chanes along with the species so it cannot be objective.

You just named an objective for a "subjective" thing. That's nonsensical.


If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 5:18:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago

Your justification for immorality must include some negative consequence for procreation.

At no point have I even mentioned procreation, I've mentioned survival. While they are inextricably linked, they are not synonymous. This statement is false.

If there is rape that includes no negative consequences for procreation is it still immoral? Yes. I'm just showing you that you don't adhere to your own beliefs concerning morality.

All you've shown is that you're adept at building strawman arguments.


Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

Then for the person claiming that raping an infant isn't immoral then their opinion is valid also.

No, because it violates the social contract we all live under and have codified into laws that prohibit such acts.

What if I opted out of the "social contract"? What if a social contract is made, like in Nazi Germany to exterminate minorities? Would that make it morally permissible?

It was to those who believed it, but it was corrosive to the society which eventually failed. I once had a teacher who said 'Every time you break the law, you commit a sin." I asked her if the people who hid Jews from Nazi persecution were sinners in her eyes since they were violating the law of the land. She had no answer.

Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong. It's really that simple, at least in my personal morality. Most human societies are built on that same principle and it promotes survival of the society and its inhabitants. Tell me how your arbitrary, 'objective' morality is any better?

"Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong" would just be an opinion

An opinion developed over millennia and shared by most of the world, a technique the promotes well being and a thriving population. The antithesis would result in a quickly dying society and the extinction of the species. Use your brain, Ben.

like "anything that causes harm unnecessarily is right" is an opinion. What would merit your opinion more so than the other one?

As noted, it promotes the survival of the species while yours insures it would not survive.

Nothing! Despite this, do you see the apparent absurdity?

I see you making ridiculous comparisons and trying to demonstrate something you cannot support with evidence.

I guess infant rape isn't objectively immoral then.

Nothing is 'objectively' immoral. Some cultures have and a tiny minority still kill their female children because boys are considered more valuable. To them, that is moral. To us, it is reprehensible.

So that includes infant rape. Nothing truly immoral about it, according to what you're saying.

It's immoral to me and to the vast majority of the world. It's shared morality that is still subjective. It's a survival trait that has developed over millennia of humans living in groups.

Appeal to the majority doesn't validate a subjective opinion any more so than consensus on a favorite color would. If morality has a foundation in survival its objective, which is what you're arguing against.

How is it objective? It's fully impacted by the emotion and feeling of every member of the species. That's the exact opposite of objective.



What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

That doesn't validate anything other than what you set as an objective.

Having an objective, a goal, is not the same as being objective. Now you've descended into word play to try and prove your point.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Such a society would quickly fail since it continued to indulge in such a non-survival act. Morality promotes survival, well being, and advancement of both the individuals in the society and society as a whole. When non-survival activities become the norm, society fails.

Does morality exist to promote those things or is it just an unintended side-effect? "Survival" can't be a cited purpose for any naturally occurring phenomena. Unless you believe unembodied processes actually occur for some reason or towards some goal or for any purpose.

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective.

Again, no. It's a shared trait developed by our species to survive as families, tribes, towns, cities, and nations. Slavery was moral and practiced by many nations for centuries and has only relatively recently become immoral in the eyes of those societies. Morality evolves and changes along with the species so it cannot be objective.

You just named an objective for a "subjective" thing. That's nonsensical.

Again, having a goal or purpose is not the same as being uninfluenced by feelings or emotions. You're getting desperate, Ben.


If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.

Ben, subjective as a noun, meaning a goal or purpose, is not the same as objective as an adjective, meaning uninfluenced by feelings or emotions.

Tell me, where do you your morals come from?
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 5:51:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 5:18:10 PM, dhardage wrote:

Your justification for immorality must include some negative consequence for procreation.

At no point have I even mentioned procreation, I've mentioned survival. While they are inextricably linked, they are not synonymous. This statement is false.

It makes no difference whether procreation or survival is used in that example.

If there is rape that includes no negative consequences for procreation is it still immoral? Yes. I'm just showing you that you don't adhere to your own beliefs concerning morality.

All you've shown is that you're adept at building strawman arguments.

There's nothing to straw man. Procreation/survival works equally well.


Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

Then for the person claiming that raping an infant isn't immoral then their opinion is valid also.

No, because it violates the social contract we all live under and have codified into laws that prohibit such acts.

What if I opted out of the "social contract"? What if a social contract is made, like in Nazi Germany to exterminate minorities? Would that make it morally permissible?

It was to those who believed it, but it was corrosive to the society which eventually failed. I once had a teacher who said 'Every time you break the law, you commit a sin." I asked her if the people who hid Jews from Nazi persecution were sinners in her eyes since they were violating the law of the land. She had no answer.

Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong. It's really that simple, at least in my personal morality. Most human societies are built on that same principle and it promotes survival of the society and its inhabitants. Tell me how your arbitrary, 'objective' morality is any better?

"Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong" would just be an opinion

An opinion developed over millennia and shared by most of the world, a technique the promotes well being and a thriving population. The antithesis would result in a quickly dying society and the extinction of the species. Use your brain, Ben.

That doesn't merit anything. An opinion that developes over millennia that results in lesser well being and a dying population results in extinction and death.

like "anything that causes harm unnecessarily is right" is an opinion. What would merit your opinion more so than the other one?

As noted, it promotes the survival of the species while yours insures it would not survive.

Survival is the purpose of ______?

Nothing! Despite this, do you see the apparent absurdity?

I see you making ridiculous comparisons and trying to demonstrate something you cannot support with evidence.

I guess infant rape isn't objectively immoral then.

Nothing is 'objectively' immoral. Some cultures have and a tiny minority still kill their female children because boys are considered more valuable. To them, that is moral. To us, it is reprehensible.

So that includes infant rape. Nothing truly immoral about it, according to what you're saying.

It's immoral to me and to the vast majority of the world. It's shared morality that is still subjective. It's a survival trait that has developed over millennia of humans living in groups.

Appeal to the majority doesn't validate a subjective opinion any more so than consensus on a favorite color would. If morality has a foundation in survival its objective, which is what you're arguing against.

How is it objective? It's fully impacted by the emotion and feeling of every member of the species. That's the exact opposite of objective.

Utilitarianism is too. Is utilitarianism objective or subjective?



What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

That doesn't validate anything other than what you set as an objective.

Having an objective, a goal, is not the same as being objective. Now you've descended into word play to try and prove your point.

Being "objective" means to be sticking to the objective. That's why it doesn't vary depending on thoughts/opinions.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Such a society would quickly fail since it continued to indulge in such a non-survival act. Morality promotes survival, well being, and advancement of both the individuals in the society and society as a whole. When non-survival activities become the norm, society fails.

Does morality exist to promote those things or is it just an unintended side-effect? "Survival" can't be a cited purpose for any naturally occurring phenomena. Unless you believe unembodied processes actually occur for some reason or towards some goal or for any purpose.

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective.

Again, no. It's a shared trait developed by our species to survive as families, tribes, towns, cities, and nations. Slavery was moral and practiced by many nations for centuries and has only relatively recently become immoral in the eyes of those societies. Morality evolves and changes along with the species so it cannot be objective.

You just named an objective for a "subjective" thing. That's nonsensical.

Again, having a goal or purpose is not the same as being uninfluenced by feelings or emotions. You're getting desperate, Ben.

Having a goal or purpose is an objective. Period.


If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.

Ben, subjective as a noun, meaning a goal or purpose, is not the same as objective as an adjective, meaning uninfluenced by feelings or emotions.

Objective is any unchanging reference standard. Subjective means that the standard depends on thoughts/opinions.

Tell me, where do you your morals come from?

Our innate moral knowledge/sense and rationality which, if philosophically true, is only possible if God exists.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 5:54:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 5:51:04 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 8/28/2015 5:18:10 PM, dhardage wrote:

Your justification for immorality must include some negative consequence for procreation.

At no point have I even mentioned procreation, I've mentioned survival. While they are inextricably linked, they are not synonymous. This statement is false.

It makes no difference whether procreation or survival is used in that example.

If there is rape that includes no negative consequences for procreation is it still immoral? Yes. I'm just showing you that you don't adhere to your own beliefs concerning morality.

All you've shown is that you're adept at building strawman arguments.

There's nothing to straw man. Procreation/survival works equally well.


Morality *must* be objective in order to be valid. No matter how many people share a subjective opinion, it doesn't make that subjective opinion valid or merited. If 5,000 people believed that the color green was better than blue would that make it so?

For those 5000, yes. If survival depended on recognizing blue before green, then yes. There is nothing that demands objective morals. The definition of right and wrong vary with time, culture, and personality. Even so-called biblical morals have changed with time. Many of the things that were considered 'moral' to the primitives who wrote the bible have been recognized as wrong almost universally although some, such a slavery, still exist.

Then for the person claiming that raping an infant isn't immoral then their opinion is valid also.

No, because it violates the social contract we all live under and have codified into laws that prohibit such acts.

What if I opted out of the "social contract"? What if a social contract is made, like in Nazi Germany to exterminate minorities? Would that make it morally permissible?

It was to those who believed it, but it was corrosive to the society which eventually failed. I once had a teacher who said 'Every time you break the law, you commit a sin." I asked her if the people who hid Jews from Nazi persecution were sinners in her eyes since they were violating the law of the land. She had no answer.

Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong. It's really that simple, at least in my personal morality. Most human societies are built on that same principle and it promotes survival of the society and its inhabitants. Tell me how your arbitrary, 'objective' morality is any better?

"Anything that causes harm unnecessarily is wrong" would just be an opinion

An opinion developed over millennia and shared by most of the world, a technique the promotes well being and a thriving population. The antithesis would result in a quickly dying society and the extinction of the species. Use your brain, Ben.

That doesn't merit anything. An opinion that developes over millennia that results in lesser well being and a dying population results in extinction and death.

like "anything that causes harm unnecessarily is right" is an opinion. What would merit your opinion more so than the other one?

As noted, it promotes the survival of the species while yours insures it would not survive.

Survival is the purpose of ______?

Nothing! Despite this, do you see the apparent absurdity?

I see you making ridiculous comparisons and trying to demonstrate something you cannot support with evidence.

I guess infant rape isn't objectively immoral then.

Nothing is 'objectively' immoral. Some cultures have and a tiny minority still kill their female children because boys are considered more valuable. To them, that is moral. To us, it is reprehensible.

So that includes infant rape. Nothing truly immoral about it, according to what you're saying.

It's immoral to me and to the vast majority of the world. It's shared morality that is still subjective. It's a survival trait that has developed over millennia of humans living in groups.

Appeal to the majority doesn't validate a subjective opinion any more so than consensus on a favorite color would. If morality has a foundation in survival its objective, which is what you're arguing against.

How is it objective? It's fully impacted by the emotion and feeling of every member of the species. That's the exact opposite of objective.

Utilitarianism is too. Is utilitarianism objective or subjective?



What is 'valid' is what promotes well being of the individual and of the society as a whole. It's not a hard concept but you seem to be unable to recognize that even your own morality is purely based in your own mind and nowhere else.

That doesn't validate anything other than what you set as an objective.

Having an objective, a goal, is not the same as being objective. Now you've descended into word play to try and prove your point.

Being "objective" means to be sticking to the objective. That's why it doesn't vary depending on thoughts/opinions.

If a society of infant rapists outnumbered the society of those who disagreed would that mean raping an infant wouldn't be immoral?

Such a society would quickly fail since it continued to indulge in such a non-survival act. Morality promotes survival, well being, and advancement of both the individuals in the society and society as a whole. When non-survival activities become the norm, society fails.

Does morality exist to promote those things or is it just an unintended side-effect? "Survival" can't be a cited purpose for any naturally occurring phenomena. Unless you believe unembodied processes actually occur for some reason or towards some goal or for any purpose.

Also, if morality is an instinctual tool of survival it would be objective - not subjective.

Again, no. It's a shared trait developed by our species to survive as families, tribes, towns, cities, and nations. Slavery was moral and practiced by many nations for centuries and has only relatively recently become immoral in the eyes of those societies. Morality evolves and changes along with the species so it cannot be objective.

You just named an objective for a "subjective" thing. That's nonsensical.

Again, having a goal or purpose is not the same as being uninfluenced by feelings or emotions. You're getting desperate, Ben.

Having a goal or purpose is an objective. Period.


If there is any moral "objective" be it well-being, survival, social cohesion, etc. it is NOT subjective.

Ben, subjective as a noun, meaning a goal or purpose, is not the same as objective as an adjective, meaning uninfluenced by feelings or emotions.

Objective is any unchanging reference standard. Subjective means that the standard depends on thoughts/opinions.

Tell me, where do you your morals come from?

Our innate moral knowledge/sense and rationality which, if philosophically true, is only possible if God exists.

Ok, so according to you we have an innate moral sense which came from god. It is an unchanging standard, is that correct?
PureX
Posts: 1,528
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 5:57:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 5:01:25 PM, dhardage wrote:

The universe existed for billions of years before any life form even appeared on this planet. I'd say that its existence in wholly independent of our knowledge of it.

First, I understand that you believe that. But you don't actually know it in the sense that you have no direct experience of it.

And second, how would it mater to us, anyway? Let's say this "objective reality", apart from our awareness, exists. So what? Why should it trump our subjective experience of it? And therefor our subjective moral and ethical imperatives? I mean, at least our subjective morality is based on our conscious experience of things, rather then on some mindless and meaningless state of being beyond and apart from our own.
dhardage
Posts: 4,545
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/28/2015 6:47:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 8/28/2015 5:57:32 PM, PureX wrote:
At 8/28/2015 5:01:25 PM, dhardage wrote:

The universe existed for billions of years before any life form even appeared on this planet. I'd say that its existence in wholly independent of our knowledge of it.

First, I understand that you believe that. But you don't actually know it in the sense that you have no direct experience of it.

If it hadn't existed, we could not have come into existence either. So yes, we do know that things happened before we arrived here.

And second, how would it mater to us, anyway? Let's say this "objective reality", apart from our awareness, exists. So what? Why should it trump our subjective experience of it? And therefor our subjective moral and ethical imperatives? I mean, at least our subjective morality is based on our conscious experience of things, rather then on some mindless and meaningless state of being beyond and apart from our own.

Do you have a point? I was just pointing out that reality exists whether or not we know everything about it. I agree that our morality is based on our experiences and our sense of empathy for our fellow beings.