Total Posts:80|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective morality

AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

The value of a potato is subjective.
Though the value of a potato is subjective, most people would agree that a potato isn't worth $1,000,000.

Same with morals.

If morals are objective, they should be proven objectively
You cannot prove morals objectively
Therefore, morals are not objective and are therefore subjective.

Morals are subjective
Though morals are subjective, most people would agree that murder is "bad".

Sad argument:

If morals are objective, I will be sad
I do not wish to be sad
Therefore, morals are subjective.

Lel
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

The value of a potato is subjective.
Though the value of a potato is subjective, most people would agree that a potato isn't worth $1,000,000.

Same with morals.

If morals are objective, they should be proven objectively
You cannot prove morals objectively
Therefore, morals are not objective and are therefore subjective.

Morals are subjective
Though morals are subjective, most people would agree that murder is "bad".


Sad argument:

If morals are objective, I will be sad
I do not wish to be sad
Therefore, morals are subjective.

Lel

Is murder wrong?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 6:24:20 AM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

I think you may be confusing objective value with absolute value.

Value may be situational, yet still determinable objectively.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 12:15:36 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

The value of a potato is subjective.
Though the value of a potato is subjective, most people would agree that a potato isn't worth $1,000,000.

Same with morals.

If morals are objective, they should be proven objectively
You cannot prove morals objectively
Therefore, morals are not objective and are therefore subjective.

Morals are subjective
Though morals are subjective, most people would agree that murder is "bad".


Sad argument:

If morals are objective, I will be sad
I do not wish to be sad
Therefore, morals are subjective.

Lel

THIS :D
Never fart near dog
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,489
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 12:17:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

The value of a potato is subjective.
Though the value of a potato is subjective, most people would agree that a potato isn't worth $1,000,000.

Same with morals.

If morals are objective, they should be proven objectively
You cannot prove morals objectively
Therefore, morals are not objective and are therefore subjective.

Morals are subjective
Though morals are subjective, most people would agree that murder is "bad".


Sad argument:

If morals are objective, I will be sad
I do not wish to be sad
Therefore, morals are subjective.

Lel

Is murder wrong?

according to?
Never fart near dog
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 2:49:29 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Is murder wrong?

Only if those you are in agreement with agree murder is wrong, otherwise no, you can"t morally offend against what you are not in agreement with. Now someone might kill someone you care about and it hurts and makes you angry and enraged, and then you retaliate. But that has nothing to do with morals unless the killer in question is in agreement with you that murder is wrong. And that could be by virtue of agreeing to live or be in a nation that states murder is wrong and if one is in that same nation then by default agrees to the rules of that nation. And can be held accountable for offending. But if you are in a nation that has no rules against what you see as murder, you are out of luck on that one, no one there is morally accountable for what you think ought to be.

Therefore morals are reletive to those in the agreement.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:08:27 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 2:49:29 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Is murder wrong?

Only if those you are in agreement with agree murder is wrong, otherwise no, you can"t morally offend against what you are not in agreement with. Now someone might kill someone you care about and it hurts and makes you angry and enraged, and then you retaliate. But that has nothing to do with morals unless the killer in question is in agreement with you that murder is wrong. And that could be by virtue of agreeing to live or be in a nation that states murder is wrong and if one is in that same nation then by default agrees to the rules of that nation. And can be held accountable for offending. But if you are in a nation that has no rules against what you see as murder, you are out of luck on that one, no one there is morally accountable for what you think ought to be.

Therefore morals are reletive to those in the agreement.

That's nonsense. Murder isn't wrong only if someone agrees with me that it is. Anyone who uses reason and values life (which if you're alive and not planning your demise - you value it) will come to the conclusion that murder is probably the greatest wrong.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:08:28 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

The value of a potato is subjective.
Though the value of a potato is subjective, most people would agree that a potato isn't worth $1,000,000.

Same with morals.

If morals are objective, they should be proven objectively
You cannot prove morals objectively
Therefore, morals are not objective and are therefore subjective.

Morals are subjective
Though morals are subjective, most people would agree that murder is "bad".


Sad argument:

If morals are objective, I will be sad
I do not wish to be sad
Therefore, morals are subjective.

Lel

Is murder wrong?

Depends
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:10:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:08:28 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

The value of a potato is subjective.
Though the value of a potato is subjective, most people would agree that a potato isn't worth $1,000,000.

Same with morals.

If morals are objective, they should be proven objectively
You cannot prove morals objectively
Therefore, morals are not objective and are therefore subjective.

Morals are subjective
Though morals are subjective, most people would agree that murder is "bad".


Sad argument:

If morals are objective, I will be sad
I do not wish to be sad
Therefore, morals are subjective.

Lel

Is murder wrong?

Depends

Do you often murder?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:12:35 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:08:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:49:29 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Is murder wrong?

Only if those you are in agreement with agree murder is wrong, otherwise no, you can"t morally offend against what you are not in agreement with. Now someone might kill someone you care about and it hurts and makes you angry and enraged, and then you retaliate. But that has nothing to do with morals unless the killer in question is in agreement with you that murder is wrong. And that could be by virtue of agreeing to live or be in a nation that states murder is wrong and if one is in that same nation then by default agrees to the rules of that nation. And can be held accountable for offending. But if you are in a nation that has no rules against what you see as murder, you are out of luck on that one, no one there is morally accountable for what you think ought to be.

Therefore morals are reletive to those in the agreement.

That's nonsense. Murder isn't wrong only if someone agrees with me that it is. Anyone who uses reason and values life (which if you're alive and not planning your demise - you value it) will come to the conclusion that murder is probably the greatest wrong.

Nope. In my opinion, torture and murder is the greatest wrong.
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:13:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:10:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 3:08:28 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

The value of a potato is subjective.
Though the value of a potato is subjective, most people would agree that a potato isn't worth $1,000,000.

Same with morals.

If morals are objective, they should be proven objectively
You cannot prove morals objectively
Therefore, morals are not objective and are therefore subjective.

Morals are subjective
Though morals are subjective, most people would agree that murder is "bad".


Sad argument:

If morals are objective, I will be sad
I do not wish to be sad
Therefore, morals are subjective.

Lel

Is murder wrong?

Depends

Do you often murder?

Only once in a blue moon :D
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:19:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:08:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:49:29 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Is murder wrong?

Only if those you are in agreement with agree murder is wrong, otherwise no, you can"t morally offend against what you are not in agreement with. Now someone might kill someone you care about and it hurts and makes you angry and enraged, and then you retaliate. But that has nothing to do with morals unless the killer in question is in agreement with you that murder is wrong. And that could be by virtue of agreeing to live or be in a nation that states murder is wrong and if one is in that same nation then by default agrees to the rules of that nation. And can be held accountable for offending. But if you are in a nation that has no rules against what you see as murder, you are out of luck on that one, no one there is morally accountable for what you think ought to be.

Therefore morals are reletive to those in the agreement.

That's nonsense. Murder isn't wrong only if someone agrees with me that it is. Anyone who uses reason and values life (which if you're alive and not planning your demise - you value it) will come to the conclusion that murder is probably the greatest wrong.

That is a view that is a result of your culture and up bringing. Your sense of right and wrong is not automatic in all other living things. Ask a serial killer what he think is right and wrong. Or a corrupt military leader in south America. Or a drug lord. You could be the enemy to them and those they are in agreement with and it"s justified to kill you in their moral sense of right and wrong. You see it as murder they see it as merely dispensing with something interfering with the accomplishment of what they value. And it"s certainly not your life they value nor are they required by any means to value your life at all.
AWSM0055
Posts: 751
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:28:20 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:19:56 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/13/2016 3:08:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:49:29 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Is murder wrong?

Only if those you are in agreement with agree murder is wrong, otherwise no, you can"t morally offend against what you are not in agreement with. Now someone might kill someone you care about and it hurts and makes you angry and enraged, and then you retaliate. But that has nothing to do with morals unless the killer in question is in agreement with you that murder is wrong. And that could be by virtue of agreeing to live or be in a nation that states murder is wrong and if one is in that same nation then by default agrees to the rules of that nation. And can be held accountable for offending. But if you are in a nation that has no rules against what you see as murder, you are out of luck on that one, no one there is morally accountable for what you think ought to be.

Therefore morals are reletive to those in the agreement.

That's nonsense. Murder isn't wrong only if someone agrees with me that it is. Anyone who uses reason and values life (which if you're alive and not planning your demise - you value it) will come to the conclusion that murder is probably the greatest wrong.

That is a view that is a result of your culture and up bringing. Your sense of right and wrong is not automatic in all other living things. Ask a serial killer what he think is right and wrong. Or a corrupt military leader in south America. Or a drug lord. You could be the enemy to them and those they are in agreement with and it"s justified to kill you in their moral sense of right and wrong. You see it as murder they see it as merely dispensing with something interfering with the accomplishment of what they value. And it"s certainly not your life they value nor are they required by any means to value your life at all.

Good point.

I'm going to brutally throttle someone now...xD
"Evolution proves necessity is the mother of invention" - David Henson

"Calling my atheism a religion, is like calling my non-stamp-collecting a hobby" - MagicAintReal 2016

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Matt8800: "When warring men kidnap damsels of the enemy, what do they do?"

Jerry947: "They give them the option of marriage."

Matt8800: "Correct! You won idiot of the year award!"

http://explosm.net...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,673
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 3:33:15 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 6:24:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

I think you may be confusing objective value with absolute value.

Value may be situational, yet still determinable objectively.

Hey, Ruv

I've gathered the impression that there may be two variations of "objective morality" coming into play, here. I could be wrong, but I think the mismatch arises from the assumption of the value of life, more specifically: sentient life, for the sake of the concept.

From the perspective of practicality, that assumption makes sense, since life and well-being is considered valuable by the vastly overwhelming majority of sentient life on earth. This basis creates a foundation upon which moral judgment can be objectively determined based on the demonstrable detriment(s) or benefit(s) of the consequences wrought by an action.

From a philosophical perspective, though, that assumption is not justified, in that, the value of sentient life over life over non-life, and the value of happiness of suffering, is subjective and cannot be proven in any objective sense (that I am aware of, at least). This renders moral judgments subjective, since they are founded on personal bias towards the value of life.

I don't feel that these are wholly incompatible, because one is taken from the stance of practicality while the other from an absolute philosophical stance. It's kind of like the way that Compatiblism is not contradictory to Determinism by adjusting the meaning core notion (free will, in this case). Both reference free will, but have differing definitions of it, which just causes some equivocation issues.

Please correct me if I'm in err, though. Thanks!
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 4:46:41 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:12:35 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 3:08:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:49:29 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Is murder wrong?

Only if those you are in agreement with agree murder is wrong, otherwise no, you can"t morally offend against what you are not in agreement with. Now someone might kill someone you care about and it hurts and makes you angry and enraged, and then you retaliate. But that has nothing to do with morals unless the killer in question is in agreement with you that murder is wrong. And that could be by virtue of agreeing to live or be in a nation that states murder is wrong and if one is in that same nation then by default agrees to the rules of that nation. And can be held accountable for offending. But if you are in a nation that has no rules against what you see as murder, you are out of luck on that one, no one there is morally accountable for what you think ought to be.

Therefore morals are reletive to those in the agreement.

That's nonsense. Murder isn't wrong only if someone agrees with me that it is. Anyone who uses reason and values life (which if you're alive and not planning your demise - you value it) will come to the conclusion that murder is probably the greatest wrong.

Nope. In my opinion, torture and murder is the greatest wrong.

You're entitled to your opinion.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 4:51:16 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:13:19 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 3:10:41 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 3:08:28 PM, AWSM0055 wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

The value of a potato is subjective.
Though the value of a potato is subjective, most people would agree that a potato isn't worth $1,000,000.

Same with morals.

If morals are objective, they should be proven objectively
You cannot prove morals objectively
Therefore, morals are not objective and are therefore subjective.

Morals are subjective
Though morals are subjective, most people would agree that murder is "bad".


Sad argument:

If morals are objective, I will be sad
I do not wish to be sad
Therefore, morals are subjective.

Lel

Is murder wrong?

Depends

Do you often murder?

Only once in a blue moon :D

All joking aside, if that were true then you don't value life (not even your own) and no amount of reason would lead you to the conclusion that murder is wrong. I believe the value of life should be self evident.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 5:09:03 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:19:56 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/13/2016 3:08:27 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 2:49:29 PM, DPMartin wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:12:42 AM, Skepticalone wrote:
Is murder wrong?

Only if those you are in agreement with agree murder is wrong, otherwise no, you can"t morally offend against what you are not in agreement with. Now someone might kill someone you care about and it hurts and makes you angry and enraged, and then you retaliate. But that has nothing to do with morals unless the killer in question is in agreement with you that murder is wrong. And that could be by virtue of agreeing to live or be in a nation that states murder is wrong and if one is in that same nation then by default agrees to the rules of that nation. And can be held accountable for offending. But if you are in a nation that has no rules against what you see as murder, you are out of luck on that one, no one there is morally accountable for what you think ought to be.

Therefore morals are reletive to those in the agreement.

That's nonsense. Murder isn't wrong only if someone agrees with me that it is. Anyone who uses reason and values life (which if you're alive and not planning your demise - you value it) will come to the conclusion that murder is probably the greatest wrong.

That is a view that is a result of your culture and up bringing. Your sense of right and wrong is not automatic in all other living things. Ask a serial killer what he think is right and wrong. Or a corrupt military leader in south America. Or a drug lord. You could be the enemy to them and those they are in agreement with and it"s justified to kill you in their moral sense of right and wrong. You see it as murder they see it as merely dispensing with something interfering with the accomplishment of what they value. And it"s certainly not your life they value nor are they required by any means to value your life at all.

As I mentioned to A, if you don't value human life then you've diminished your own. Life has value - Given this and reason, you get an objective set of guidelines to live by.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 5:18:10 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
True objective morality and atheism are incompatible. There's no ontological basis for moral realism in an atheistic worldview. The absolute best you can say is that morality is objective based on moral discernment because moral discernment is inherently rational. This is only an *epistemic* basis though. Given the nature of atheism, and its incompatibility with the notion that reality is derivative from mind, moral propositions can't express truths about reality (because mind and reality are distinct) and so can't have any ontological basis.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 5:50:07 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 3:33:15 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:24:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 1/13/2016 5:43:31 AM, AWSM0055 wrote:
Objective morality doesn't exist.

Potato argument:
If a potato has an objective value, it's value can be proven objectively.
You cannot prove the worth of a potato objectively
Therefore, a potatoes worth is not objective and is therefore subjective.

I think you may be confusing objective value with absolute value.

Value may be situational, yet still determinable objectively.

Hey, Ruv

I've gathered the impression that there may be two variations of "objective morality" coming into play, here. I could be wrong, but I think the mismatch arises from the assumption of the value of life, more specifically: sentient life, for the sake of the concept.

Chaosism, I think that objection is easily met. The question of value only emerges as a question for compassionate, sentient life. In fact, if you wanted a simple definition for compassionate, sentient life, we might offer this: life that can make decisions predicated on the intrinsic value of sentience in others.

I've argued that the word 'objective' is recognised in independent evaluation. However, that evaluation can also only be undertaken by or on behalf of sentience concerned about the question in the first place. When fire burns a house but not a garage, we do not say that it's making a weighted value judgement: it is simply acting according to its nature. To accept the legitimacy of objectivity is to implicitly accept the premise of sentience; and as I've pointed out, to accept the legitimacy of value-judgements does the same.

Likewise, the place of compassion in the question isn't negotiable. In sentience incapable of compassion, the word 'morality' is meaningless, and the role of ethics nugatory.

Therefore, if you accept the word as meaningful, you've admitted you're capable of compassion, and in doing so, you've acknowledged that sentience other than your own has intrinsic worth. So either one must argue that one cannot comprehend morality -- and thus recuse oneself from participation in all ethical and moral discourse; or acknowledge that morality is meaningful and thus accept the assumption that sentient life has intrinsic worth, and that one has responsibilities toward it.

So that leaves, what? People who understand that morality is built on a shared, compassionate concern for others, yet believe you cannot objectively recognise weal and harm. I'd suggest that such people are likely to be incompetent, deluded or lying. :)
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 9:43:21 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

So, basically, you think humans are not capable of discerning facts without God?
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 9:47:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 9:43:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

So, basically, you think humans are not capable of discerning facts without God?

No what I'm saying is that without the existence of God there in no objectively inherent value to anything. You are a cosmic accident and accidents, while possibly curious, have no inherent value.

As such you have to ascribe some fundamental value to something. However, this value is completely subjective in nature and thus an objective morality is impossible when it is applied to an object of subjective value.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 10:26:31 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 9:47:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:43:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

So, basically, you think humans are not capable of discerning facts without God?

No

Well, then objective morality is possible without god. Values exist. They are not created by the mind, and must be discovered. The morality in the ancient holy books represents an early rudimentary form of morality. The contrast between morality of thousands of years ago and today illustrates we have discerned moral facts that weren't known before. (e.g. slavery)

what I'm saying is that without the existence of God there in no objectively inherent value to anything. You are a cosmic accident and accidents, while possibly curious, have no inherent value.

That is a fallacy of composition. Assuming the universe is a cosmic accident, this does not mean that humanity (being a part of it) is limited to being an accident.

As such you have to ascribe some fundamental value to something. However, this value is completely subjective in nature and thus an objective morality is impossible when it is applied to an object of subjective value.

Life is valuable. This is axiomatic. Life must necessarily exist before existence can have value.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 10:30:19 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 10:26:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:47:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:43:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

So, basically, you think humans are not capable of discerning facts without God?

No

Well, then objective morality is possible without god. Values exist. They are not created by the mind, and must be discovered. The morality in the ancient holy books represents an early rudimentary form of morality. The contrast between morality of thousands of years ago and today illustrates we have discerned moral facts that weren't known before. (e.g. slavery)

All of which pretty much relied on there being one or many gods.

what I'm saying is that without the existence of God there in no objectively inherent value to anything. You are a cosmic accident and accidents, while possibly curious, have no inherent value.

That is a fallacy of composition. Assuming the universe is a cosmic accident, this does not mean that humanity (being a part of it) is limited to being an accident.

Did the universe intend to make humanity?

As such you have to ascribe some fundamental value to something. However, this value is completely subjective in nature and thus an objective morality is impossible when it is applied to an object of subjective value.

Life is valuable. This is axiomatic. Life must necessarily exist before existence can have value.

The existence of life itself is accidental without God. Merely a wonderous number of coincidences managed to create life on this insignificant planet.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 11:07:47 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 10:30:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:26:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:47:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:43:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

So, basically, you think humans are not capable of discerning facts without God?

No

Well, then objective morality is possible without god. Values exist. They are not created by the mind, and must be discovered. The morality in the ancient holy books represents an early rudimentary form of morality. The contrast between morality of thousands of years ago and today illustrates we have discerned moral facts that weren't known before. (e.g. slavery)

All of which pretty much relied on there being one or many gods.

I'm sure you don't accept all the gods claimed in those holy books, so your point is irrelevant.

what I'm saying is that without the existence of God there in no objectively inherent value to anything. You are a cosmic accident and accidents, while possibly curious, have no inherent value.

That is a fallacy of composition. Assuming the universe is a cosmic accident, this does not mean that humanity (being a part of it) is limited to being an accident.

Did the universe intend to make humanity?

Relevance? It seems like you're sticking with the faulty reasoning.

As such you have to ascribe some fundamental value to something. However, this value is completely subjective in nature and thus an objective morality is impossible when it is applied to an object of subjective value.

Life is valuable. This is axiomatic. Life must necessarily exist before existence can have value.

The existence of life itself is accidental without God. Merely a wonderous number of coincidences managed to create life on this insignificant planet.

Irrelevant.
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 11:23:06 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 11:07:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:30:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:26:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:47:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:43:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

So, basically, you think humans are not capable of discerning facts without God?

No

Well, then objective morality is possible without god. Values exist. They are not created by the mind, and must be discovered. The morality in the ancient holy books represents an early rudimentary form of morality. The contrast between morality of thousands of years ago and today illustrates we have discerned moral facts that weren't known before. (e.g. slavery)

All of which pretty much relied on there being one or many gods.

I'm sure you don't accept all the gods claimed in those holy books, so your point is irrelevant.

On the contrary. That the ancient people clearly understood that our value must be based on something outside of ourselves was completely accurate. That they didn't understand the nature of that thing outside of us is mere ignorance, but the premise is logically sound.

Even the deists (though many were really Christian) that signed the Declaration of Independence understood the necessity for God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The creator who created us for a purpose give us value and this value imbues us with certain unalienable rights.

what I'm saying is that without the existence of God there in no objectively inherent value to anything. You are a cosmic accident and accidents, while possibly curious, have no inherent value.

That is a fallacy of composition. Assuming the universe is a cosmic accident, this does not mean that humanity (being a part of it) is limited to being an accident.

Did the universe intend to make humanity?

Relevance? It seems like you're sticking with the faulty reasoning.

If the universe didn't intend to makes us then your assertion that the resulting humanity isn't limited to being an accident is false.

As such you have to ascribe some fundamental value to something. However, this value is completely subjective in nature and thus an objective morality is impossible when it is applied to an object of subjective value.

Life is valuable. This is axiomatic. Life must necessarily exist before existence can have value.

The existence of life itself is accidental without God. Merely a wonderous number of coincidences managed to create life on this insignificant planet.

Irrelevant.

Completely relevant. Without God we are a cosmic accident and we have no inherent value.
Skepticalone
Posts: 6,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 11:33:56 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 11:23:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 11:07:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:30:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:26:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:47:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:43:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

So, basically, you think humans are not capable of discerning facts without God?

No

Well, then objective morality is possible without god. Values exist. They are not created by the mind, and must be discovered. The morality in the ancient holy books represents an early rudimentary form of morality. The contrast between morality of thousands of years ago and today illustrates we have discerned moral facts that weren't known before. (e.g. slavery)

All of which pretty much relied on there being one or many gods.

I'm sure you don't accept all the gods claimed in those holy books, so your point is irrelevant.

On the contrary. That the ancient people clearly understood that our value must be based on something outside of ourselves was completely accurate. That they didn't understand the nature of that thing outside of us is mere ignorance, but the premise is logically sound.

Even the deists (though many were really Christian) that signed the Declaration of Independence understood the necessity for God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The creator who created us for a purpose give us value and this value imbues us with certain unalienable rights.

There is a big difference between claiming a god as the source of morality, and having a god as the source of your morality. If you don't accept the gods claimed as a source, then why do you accept the that morality and reject morality without god?

what I'm saying is that without the existence of God there in no objectively inherent value to anything. You are a cosmic accident and accidents, while possibly curious, have no inherent value.

That is a fallacy of composition. Assuming the universe is a cosmic accident, this does not mean that humanity (being a part of it) is limited to being an accident.

Did the universe intend to make humanity?

Relevance? It seems like you're sticking with the faulty reasoning.

If the universe didn't intend to makes us then your assertion that the resulting humanity isn't limited to being an accident is false.

That is still the composition fallacy. You can explain why it is not or use a different argument if being logical is important to you.

As such you have to ascribe some fundamental value to something. However, this value is completely subjective in nature and thus an objective morality is impossible when it is applied to an object of subjective value.

Life is valuable. This is axiomatic. Life must necessarily exist before existence can have value.

The existence of life itself is accidental without God. Merely a wonderous number of coincidences managed to create life on this insignificant planet.

Irrelevant.

Completely relevant. Without God we are a cosmic accident and we have no inherent value.

composition fallacy...
This thread is like eavesdropping on a conversation in a mental asylum. - Bulproof

You can call your invisible friends whatever you like. - Desmac

What the hell kind of coked up sideshow has this thread turned into. - Casten
Geogeer
Posts: 4,283
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 11:41:25 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 11:33:56 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 11:23:06 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 11:07:47 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:30:19 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 10:26:31 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:47:56 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 1/13/2016 9:43:21 PM, Skepticalone wrote:
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

So, basically, you think humans are not capable of discerning facts without God?

No

Well, then objective morality is possible without god. Values exist. They are not created by the mind, and must be discovered. The morality in the ancient holy books represents an early rudimentary form of morality. The contrast between morality of thousands of years ago and today illustrates we have discerned moral facts that weren't known before. (e.g. slavery)

All of which pretty much relied on there being one or many gods.

I'm sure you don't accept all the gods claimed in those holy books, so your point is irrelevant.

On the contrary. That the ancient people clearly understood that our value must be based on something outside of ourselves was completely accurate. That they didn't understand the nature of that thing outside of us is mere ignorance, but the premise is logically sound.

Even the deists (though many were really Christian) that signed the Declaration of Independence understood the necessity for God:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The creator who created us for a purpose give us value and this value imbues us with certain unalienable rights.

There is a big difference between claiming a god as the source of morality, and having a god as the source of your morality. If you don't accept the gods claimed as a source, then why do you accept the that morality and reject morality without god?

I don't necessarily accept that they even had morality right. You cannot actually have the correct morality unless you have the right concept of God. However, the logic that requires the divine to exist for there to be objective morals is valid even if the concept of the divine and the resulting morals from that concept are flawed.

what I'm saying is that without the existence of God there in no objectively inherent value to anything. You are a cosmic accident and accidents, while possibly curious, have no inherent value.

That is a fallacy of composition. Assuming the universe is a cosmic accident, this does not mean that humanity (being a part of it) is limited to being an accident.

Did the universe intend to make humanity?

Relevance? It seems like you're sticking with the faulty reasoning.

If the universe didn't intend to makes us then your assertion that the resulting humanity isn't limited to being an accident is false.

That is still the composition fallacy. You can explain why it is not or use a different argument if being logical is important to you.

Wouldn't it require you to show why humanity isn't limited to being an accident? You made the proposition and are now trying to reverse the responsibility of the argument.

As such you have to ascribe some fundamental value to something. However, this value is completely subjective in nature and thus an objective morality is impossible when it is applied to an object of subjective value.

Life is valuable. This is axiomatic. Life must necessarily exist before existence can have value.

The existence of life itself is accidental without God. Merely a wonderous number of coincidences managed to create life on this insignificant planet.

Irrelevant.

Completely relevant. Without God we are a cosmic accident and we have no inherent value.

composition fallacy...

Easy to say, but you kinda have to show why otherwise...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/13/2016 11:53:17 PM
Posted: 11 months ago
At 1/13/2016 6:01:44 PM, Geogeer wrote:
Morality can only be objective if God is real. Otherwise it becomes completely subjective.

I dislike the word "God" because it seems to imply a religious deity.

Is it possible that consciousness is a force in the universe like gravity or electromagnetism? Would that explain the apparent matter/consciousness interaction demonstrated by the double slit experiment? This is not my belief but it is a suspicion.