Total Posts:112|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Objective Morality? Prove it.

Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.
dee-em
Posts: 6,486
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:23:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/7/2016 12:08:20 AM, Double_R wrote:
3 days and no theist responses. Can't say I'm surprised...

Where is Ben Shapiro when you need him? :-)
newnature
Posts: 150
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2016 1:34:40 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Christianity developed the notion of original sin.

So extreme are the psalmist"s guilt feeling that he sees himself as sinful even before birth.

Evil is a product of human behavior, not a principal inherent in the cosmos. It is the power of moral choice alone, that is Yahweh like and having that good and bad knowledge is no guarantee that one will choose or incline towards the good. The very action that brought Adam and Eve a Yahweh like awareness of their mortal autonomy, was an action that was taken in opposition to Yahweh.

Yahweh knows that, that human beings will become like Yahweh, knowing good and bad; it"s one of the things about Yahweh, he knows good and bad, and has chosen the good. Human beings, and only human beings are the potential source of evil, responsibility for evil will lie in the hands of human beings. Evil is represented not as a physical reality, it"s not built into the structure of Eden, evil is a condition of human existence, and to assert that evil stems from human behavior.
Arasa
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 8:20:16 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hello, Double_R

Your four criteria for truth can be more easily understood in the following two:
1. Mind-Dependent truths
2. Mind-Independent truths
These are fairly self-explanatory, the first being subject to individual minds, and the second being true regardless of any mind that perceives it or its contradictory.

Objective morality claims that at least one mind-independent moral truth exists. This is extremely important to clarify, as it does not refute the existence of mind-dependent moral truths.

The primary problem which presents itself in the debate is that all morals must stem from some logical foundation (faulty or not). Christian morals claim to be objective because God possesses these qualities- God being Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Morally Perfect.

Rather than attempt to prove beyond any doubt God's existence (something that cannot be done as of yet), we're going to look at the consequences of either side, starting with the other side of the spectrum. After all, the Law of the Excluded Middle will help us out here by saying that either at least one objective moral truth exists, or no objective moral truths exist. This brings us to moral relativism.

Under moral relativism, there is no foundation for morality, as all morals are mind-dependent. What is right to you, and what is right to me, are equally true in their rightness. Even if you and ten other people lined up against me, the truth values would be equal. A pedophile, a rapist, and princess Diana would all be on the same level of moral perfection (that level being moral perfection itself).

Under objective morality, a moral proposition has an unchanging truth value regardless of the one proposing it. It is right or wrong regardless of who you are or what time period it is. Assuming pedophilia and rape are objectively immoral, a pedophile, a rapist, and princess Diana would be on different levels of moral perfection (taking into account no other moral or immoral acts throughout their lives).

It would seem as though the former were counter-intuitive, which violates the philosophical principle of being self-evident. This does not make it untrue, but it makes it less plausible than its counterpart, thrusting the burden of proof onto the relativist's shoulders.

The prompt now becomes, "Subjective morality? Prove it."
Which is a hefty task, as you must explain the origin of this moral set (e.g. the government, society, the majority, tradition, science, etc). You must also answer the questions "is it only subjectively immoral to force your beliefs onto others?", "Is it only subjectively immoral to believe in objective morality?", and "is it only subjectively immoral to treat all human beings as equals?"

Please do not respond with the sentence-by-sentence slicing as so many do... just insert the entirety of your response at the end and I will follow along with what you are responding to.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 10:29:42 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
Hi, Sqrt(4*R^2),

I'm not a theist, as you know, but I keep saying there's objective morality but it's emergent. Here's my response to your premise, and then my exposition as to why.

At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.
That's precisely what objective means.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:
A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

I'm not sure whether it must, but under standard English usage, it well might.

Clearly, D is not objective.
Agreed.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.
I agree, and believe this links to the Euthyphro dilemma [https://en.wikipedia.org...]. In the end, circular definitions are vacuous, while worship of absolute rules parachuted in are not good because of their consequences, but because of the reactions of someone adjudging them with more power than you. By that definition, dictator Kim Il Jung would be moral if he had all the power, no matter what he did.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to.
Yes, precisely.

Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.
Here we part company.

I hold that moral awareness is an understanding of what is good and bad. It's not contentious to say that good is whatever alleviates suffering or enhances our wisdom and agency to do so, while bad is whatever causes hurt, harm or destruction to a being capable of doing good.

The question of right and wrong is not the same as the question of good and bad -- in fact, it's not even the same category of question. To insist that the same knowledge should give us both is ludicrous, since one is about weal and woe, and the other is how we reconcile individual or group needs with those of society in whatever context this occurs. Good and bad are based on evidence of help and harm, while what we owe one another is based both on what we know morally, and what we can sustain socially. In short, one is morality; the other is ethics.

The distinction matters. For example, cyanide can be used medically to lower blood pressure, in treatment of tuberculosis or leprosy, for the humane slaughter of pests, in fishing, in the mining of gold and silver, and in the manufacture of nylon. It is therefore neither good nor bad. However, any moral implications of cyanide attach principally to its high toxicity to humans and other animals.

How you manage cyanide ethically depends on why you need it in the first place, who benefits and who may be harmed. The ethical handling of cyanide relates to notions of justice, which in turn builds on reciprocal respect and mutual responsibility, which in turn build on compassion and a common sense of human worth.

We either have this as a species or we don't. If we do, our sense of fellowship is consistent with the reality of our species just as the toxicity of cyanide is consistent with the reality of its chemistry. If so, morality is objective and observable while ethics are negotiated yet feasible while ever we can make common cause.

If our species is incapable of ethics, then morality remains objective, while ethics are simply a lie perpetrated for social advantage.

I think the evidence strongly favours the former, in that our species exhibits a strong and growing understanding of morality, and an increasingly broad and sophisticated sense of ethics, including at times when we need not.
ethang5
Posts: 4,117
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/8/2016 2:19:24 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:20:16 AM, Arasa wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hello, Double_R

Your four criteria for truth can be more easily understood in the following two:
1. Mind-Dependent truths
2. Mind-Independent truths
These are fairly self-explanatory, the first being subject to individual minds, and the second being true regardless of any mind that perceives it or its contradictory.

Objective morality claims that at least one mind-independent moral truth exists. This is extremely important to clarify, as it does not refute the existence of mind-dependent moral truths.

The primary problem which presents itself in the debate is that all morals must stem from some logical foundation (faulty or not). Christian morals claim to be objective because God possesses these qualities- God being Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Morally Perfect.

Rather than attempt to prove beyond any doubt God's existence (something that cannot be done as of yet), we're going to look at the consequences of either side, starting with the other side of the spectrum. After all, the Law of the Excluded Middle will help us out here by saying that either at least one objective moral truth exists, or no objective moral truths exist. This brings us to moral relativism.

Under moral relativism, there is no foundation for morality, as all morals are mind-dependent. What is right to you, and what is right to me, are equally true in their rightness. Even if you and ten other people lined up against me, the truth values would be equal. A pedophile, a rapist, and princess Diana would all be on the same level of moral perfection (that level being moral perfection itself).

Under objective morality, a moral proposition has an unchanging truth value regardless of the one proposing it. It is right or wrong regardless of who you are or what time period it is. Assuming pedophilia and rape are objectively immoral, a pedophile, a rapist, and princess Diana would be on different levels of moral perfection (taking into account no other moral or immoral acts throughout their lives).

It would seem as though the former were counter-intuitive, which violates the philosophical principle of being self-evident. This does not make it untrue, but it makes it less plausible than its counterpart, thrusting the burden of proof onto the relativist's shoulders.

The prompt now becomes, "Subjective morality? Prove it."
Which is a hefty task, as you must explain the origin of this moral set (e.g. the government, society, the majority, tradition, science, etc). You must also answer the questions "is it only subjectively immoral to force your beliefs onto others?", "Is it only subjectively immoral to believe in objective morality?", and "is it only subjectively immoral to treat all human beings as equals?"

Please do not respond with the sentence-by-sentence slicing as so many do... just insert the entirety of your response at the end and I will follow along with what you are responding to.

Good post Arasa.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 2:39:33 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 8:20:16 AM, Arasa wrote:
Hello, Double_R

Your four criteria for truth can be more easily understood in the following two:
1. Mind-Dependent truths
2. Mind-Independent truths
These are fairly self-explanatory, the first being subject to individual minds, and the second being true regardless of any mind that perceives it or its contradictory.

Objective morality claims that at least one mind-independent moral truth exists. This is extremely important to clarify, as it does not refute the existence of mind-dependent moral truths.

The primary problem which presents itself in the debate is that all morals must stem from some logical foundation (faulty or not). Christian morals claim to be objective because God possesses these qualities- God being Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Morally Perfect.

Rather than attempt to prove beyond any doubt God's existence (something that cannot be done as of yet), we're going to look at the consequences of either side, starting with the other side of the spectrum. After all, the Law of the Excluded Middle will help us out here by saying that either at least one objective moral truth exists, or no objective moral truths exist. This brings us to moral relativism.

Under moral relativism, there is no foundation for morality, as all morals are mind-dependent. What is right to you, and what is right to me, are equally true in their rightness. Even if you and ten other people lined up against me, the truth values would be equal. A pedophile, a rapist, and princess Diana would all be on the same level of moral perfection (that level being moral perfection itself).

Under objective morality, a moral proposition has an unchanging truth value regardless of the one proposing it. It is right or wrong regardless of who you are or what time period it is. Assuming pedophilia and rape are objectively immoral, a pedophile, a rapist, and princess Diana would be on different levels of moral perfection (taking into account no other moral or immoral acts throughout their lives).

It would seem as though the former were counter-intuitive, which violates the philosophical principle of being self-evident. This does not make it untrue, but it makes it less plausible than its counterpart, thrusting the burden of proof onto the relativist's shoulders.

The prompt now becomes, "Subjective morality? Prove it."
Which is a hefty task, as you must explain the origin of this moral set (e.g. the government, society, the majority, tradition, science, etc). You must also answer the questions "is it only subjectively immoral to force your beliefs onto others?", "Is it only subjectively immoral to believe in objective morality?", and "is it only subjectively immoral to treat all human beings as equals?"

For starters, I'm just going to ignore the fact that you did not address my post. I began the thread by defining what it means to be objectively true. In order to properly address this thread you need to explain which option you are choosing (including introducing your own) so the rest of us know what it is you are actually talking about when you argue that morality is objective.

Second, you don't just get to declare the opposing position to be counter-intuitive and then argue that the burden of proof is consequently now on them. Again, the purpose of this thread is for those who claim morality is objective to demonstrate how it could be so. Not to argue that you are justified in your belief that it is objective because the opposing viewpoint doesn't feel right.

As far as your point about moral relativism, it's just wrong. As I eluded to in the OP, the word "true" is nothing more than the result of a comparison between two things. If you say "it is true that the earth orbits the sun", what you've done is taken the meaning of the statement and you compared it to what you are able to observe in reality. If you say "all triangles have 3 sides" you've taken the definition of a triangle and compared it to the concept of having 3 sides. In all cases, if the two things match then it is true. If the two things do not match then it is false. All truths are nothing more than this.

Objective truths are truths that are mind-independent. Now of course the statement itself can only come from a mind, and the comparison of that statement must be performed by a mind, but looking beyond those two facts is where objectivity can be assessed.

When moral objectivists argue that under moral relativism Mother Theresa is just as moral as a child rapist, they're not taking the comparison factor into account. Without a basis of comparison there is no such thing as morality... period. Not objective morality nor subjective morality. Moral truths, just like any truth, is a comparison between two things. Moral objectivists often appeal to God as being their standard for comparison. The question is... what makes God a better standard?

You can argue that he is powerful, but all that amounts to is "might makes right". You can argue that he is perfect, but perfection is once again... a comparison between two things. How did you determine what perfection looks like in the first place? You can argue that goodness is Gods nature, but what does that even mean? It's incoherent. You need a basis for what is good before you can determine that God matches to that. And if God is your standard then all you're saying is that God is God, which is a meaningless argument.

So in the end you determine moral goodness by comparing things to God. I determine it by comparing things to the concept of less harm. How do we go about determining which of these standards is better without injecting our own subjectivity into the equation?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 2:45:19 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 10:29:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Hi, Sqrt(4*R^2),

Hi Ruv... uh... 1?

I hold that moral awareness is an understanding of what is good and bad. It's not contentious to say that good is whatever alleviates suffering or enhances our wisdom and agency to do so, while bad is whatever causes hurt, harm or destruction to a being capable of doing good.

The question of right and wrong is not the same as the question of good and bad -- in fact, it's not even the same category of question. To insist that the same knowledge should give us both is ludicrous, since one is about weal and woe, and the other is how we reconcile individual or group needs with those of society in whatever context this occurs. Good and bad are based on evidence of help and harm, while what we owe one another is based both on what we know morally, and what we can sustain socially. In short, one is morality; the other is ethics.

The distinction matters. For example, cyanide can be used medically to lower blood pressure, in treatment of tuberculosis or leprosy, for the humane slaughter of pests, in fishing, in the mining of gold and silver, and in the manufacture of nylon. It is therefore neither good nor bad. However, any moral implications of cyanide attach principally to its high toxicity to humans and other animals.

How you manage cyanide ethically depends on why you need it in the first place, who benefits and who may be harmed. The ethical handling of cyanide relates to notions of justice, which in turn builds on reciprocal respect and mutual responsibility, which in turn build on compassion and a common sense of human worth.

We either have this as a species or we don't. If we do, our sense of fellowship is consistent with the reality of our species just as the toxicity of cyanide is consistent with the reality of its chemistry. If so, morality is objective and observable while ethics are negotiated yet feasible while ever we can make common cause.

If our species is incapable of ethics, then morality remains objective, while ethics are simply a lie perpetrated for social advantage.

I think the evidence strongly favours the former, in that our species exhibits a strong and growing understanding of morality, and an increasingly broad and sophisticated sense of ethics, including at times when we need not.

I don't think we differ in what we believe regarding morality, it just seems to be that we disagree on what it means to be objectively moral.

I define objective as that which is true independent of the mind, yet by comparing morality to what we observe in our species you seem to be arriving at moral truths based on what is essentially a product of our minds, then calling it objective. I don't understand that.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 2:51:08 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

I tried my best to stay off of this site. I can't help but return when I see another objective morality thread.

My answer is (A) but for reasons that are counter-intuitive.

Generally, when we think of what it means for something to be "consistent with reality", we think of things that can be objectively observed (such as the earth orbiting the sun).

Objective morality is not something that can be objectively observed but it is something that is objectively true.

Things that are objectively true are also things that are consistent with reality.

So if moral truths don't have any empirical basis, where does this truth reside?

Evidence suggests that we have innate moral knowledge.

"From his research on babies, conducted in the Infant Cognition Center at Yale, Bloom has come to see that we are born with this innate moral sense but that it gets fine-tuned over time through learning."
http://www.theatlantic.com...

"Innate moral principles are ones that we know through reasoning. However, in addition, we have an unclear sense of them through "instinct", such as the instinct to "pursue joy and flee sorrow". Moral knowledge is especially difficult to come to know, because it can conflict with our desires, which leads us to conceal what we know from ourselves. Hence the fact that people behave badly is no proof against universal, innate moral knowledge."
http://www.alevelphilosophy.co.uk...

Human beings are rational by nature but imperfectly so. A perfectly rational mind would have perfect moral knowledge. This is just the epistemological aspect of morality though.

"objective morality" refers to an ontology. Here's where things get hairy and where most atheists diverge on the subject.

Here's my opinion: ALL rational atheists are aware that morality is objective in the epistemic sense. One of two things happen:

(1) atheists deny objective morality because it's philosophically incompatible with an atheistic worldview.

(2) atheists advance objective morality on the grounds that it provides (X,Y,Z) benefit.

Atheists in camp (1) realize that position (2) is faulty because if an atheistic worldview is correct, humanity is inherently a means without an end and there's no such thing as "benefit" in an objective sense (because there's not actually an end to benefit).

Atheists in camp (2) realize that position (1) results in conclusions that are highly irrational.

Again, both KNOW the difference between "good" and "bad" because most atheists are rational. It's a dilemma where you pick your poison.

I'll give my opinion on why objective morality necessitates the existence of God.

Morality means "the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad."

When anyone says that something is (morally) good or (morally) bad they're always referring to the disposition or will of somebody's mind. This is a defeater for one side of the Euthyphro Dilemma - that (moral) good is independent of God. The other side of the Euthyphro Dilemma - (that whatever God does defines "good" rendering "goodness" to be arbitrary) would only be true if moral truth standards have changed. Standards of moral good and bad have never changed. The only change has been to our understanding of morality. Our understanding of morality is still being developed but developed in accordance with objective moral truths.

So if objective morality is real, moral goodness and moral wrongness must refer to the disposition or will of the mind. Whose disposition or will? It can't be the human mind because that can't be the source of objectivity. Objective morality must be grounded by God's disposition and will. God must be morally perfect in order to be the objective standard by which we discern degrees of "good" and "bad" against. Something can only be measured by degrees based on conformance to an objective standard. As a general example: stealing is worse than lying but murder is worse than stealing.

Rationally and empirically, objective morality is affirmed.

Rationally:

"Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is necessarily true.

"Raping an infant for fun is morally wrong" is necessarily true.

"compassion", "humility", "honesty", "courage", etc. are all objectively good dispositions.

"cruelty", "boastfulness", "dishonesty", "cowardice", etc. are all objectively bad dispositions.

Rationally, objective morality is affirmed.

Empirically, every justice system on earth punishes theft, rape, and murder with increasing respective severity. This acts as evidence for objective morality. It's irrational to conclude that these trends affirm moral subjectivism or moral nihilism. It supports the hypothesis that human beings are born with innate knowledge of factual moral truths and behave in accordance with that. On the other hand, keeping in mind that moral epistemology is based on how rational one's mind is, we can easily explain why moral development and progress has occurred.

Now, the real question is, what evidence is there for moral subjectivism or nihilism - both rationally and empirically? We determine which moral theory is correct based off of inference to the best explanation. Moral objectivism is heavily supported but moral subjectivism and nihilism are not. The reasons atheists deny objective morality are typically for reasons described by camp (1) and camp (2). Pick your poison.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 3:02:32 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 2:51:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
I tried my best to stay off of this site. I can't help but return when I see another objective morality thread.

My answer is (A) but for reasons that are counter-intuitive.

Generally, when we think of what it means for something to be "consistent with reality", we think of things that can be objectively observed (such as the earth orbiting the sun).

Objective morality is not something that can be objectively observed but it is something that is objectively true.

Things that are objectively true are also things that are consistent with reality.

So if moral truths don't have any empirical basis, where does this truth reside?

Evidence suggests that we have innate moral knowledge.

"From his research on babies, conducted in the Infant Cognition Center at Yale, Bloom has come to see that we are born with this innate moral sense but that it gets fine-tuned over time through learning."
http://www.theatlantic.com...

"Innate moral principles are ones that we know through reasoning. However, in addition, we have an unclear sense of them through "instinct", such as the instinct to "pursue joy and flee sorrow". Moral knowledge is especially difficult to come to know, because it can conflict with our desires, which leads us to conceal what we know from ourselves. Hence the fact that people behave badly is no proof against universal, innate moral knowledge."
http://www.alevelphilosophy.co.uk...

Human beings are rational by nature but imperfectly so. A perfectly rational mind would have perfect moral knowledge. This is just the epistemological aspect of morality though.

"objective morality" refers to an ontology. Here's where things get hairy and where most atheists diverge on the subject.

Here's my opinion: ALL rational atheists are aware that morality is objective in the epistemic sense. One of two things happen:

(1) atheists deny objective morality because it's philosophically incompatible with an atheistic worldview.

(2) atheists advance objective morality on the grounds that it provides (X,Y,Z) benefit.

Atheists in camp (1) realize that position (2) is faulty because if an atheistic worldview is correct, humanity is inherently a means without an end and there's no such thing as "benefit" in an objective sense (because there's not actually an end to benefit).

Atheists in camp (2) realize that position (1) results in conclusions that are highly irrational.

Again, both KNOW the difference between "good" and "bad" because most atheists are rational. It's a dilemma where you pick your poison.

I'll give my opinion on why objective morality necessitates the existence of God.

Morality means "the principles concerning the distinction between good and bad."

When anyone says that something is (morally) good or (morally) bad they're always referring to the disposition or will of somebody's mind. This is a defeater for one side of the Euthyphro Dilemma - that (moral) good is independent of God. The other side of the Euthyphro Dilemma - (that whatever God does defines "good" rendering "goodness" to be arbitrary) would only be true if moral truth standards have changed. Standards of moral good and bad have never changed. The only change has been to our understanding of morality. Our understanding of morality is still being developed but developed in accordance with objective moral truths.

So if objective morality is real, moral goodness and moral wrongness must refer to the disposition or will of the mind. Whose disposition or will? It can't be the human mind because that can't be the source of objectivity. Objective morality must be grounded by God's disposition and will. God must be morally perfect in order to be the objective standard by which we discern degrees of "good" and "bad" against. Something can only be measured by degrees based on conformance to an objective standard. As a general example: stealing is worse than lying but murder is worse than stealing.

Rationally and empirically, objective morality is affirmed.

Rationally:

"Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is necessarily true.

"Raping an infant for fun is morally wrong" is necessarily true.

"compassion", "humility", "honesty", "courage", etc. are all objectively good dispositions.

"cruelty", "boastfulness", "dishonesty", "cowardice", etc. are all objectively bad dispositions.

Rationally, objective morality is affirmed.

Empirically, every justice system on earth punishes theft, rape, and murder with increasing respective severity. This acts as evidence for objective morality. It's irrational to conclude that these trends affirm moral subjectivism or moral nihilism. It supports the hypothesis that human beings are born with innate knowledge of factual moral truths and behave in accordance with that. On the other hand, keeping in mind that moral epistemology is based on how rational one's mind is, we can easily explain why moral development and progress has occurred.

Now, the real question is, what evidence is there for moral subjectivism or nihilism - both rationally and empirically? We determine which moral theory is correct based off of inference to the best explanation. Moral objectivism is heavily supported but moral subjectivism and nihilism are not. The reasons atheists deny objective morality are typically for reasons described by camp (1) and camp (2). Pick your poison.

The problem is not that your choice (A) is counter-intuitive, it's that your choice is not (A) at all. When it came time to point us to where in reality you are drawing the comparison to...

First you went with "innate knowledge" which is just the same old argument that what people think is evidence for the existence of truths that are independent from what people think, a self refuting proposition that you for some reason continue to advance.

Then you went back to whatever is consistent with God's mind (will or disposition as you call it). That's not choice A. That's choice D, which you made explicitly clear by saying "if objective morality is real, moral goodness and moral wrongness must refer to the disposition or will of the mind". That, by definition, makes it subjective. Or apparently you're just defining objectivity as that which independent of every mind, except Gods.

And even if I was to grant your option as choice A (which it most certainly is not) you still haven't pointed us to anything in reality until you can prove the existence of this God you are comparing moral statements to. Which either makes the moral argument for God's existence inherently circular or you have affirmed that the moral argument is not an argument for the existence of a God.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 3:11:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 2:51:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's my opinion: ALL rational atheists are aware that morality is objective in the epistemic sense. One of two things happen:

(1) atheists deny objective morality because it's philosophically incompatible with an atheistic worldview.

(2) atheists advance objective morality on the grounds that it provides (X,Y,Z) benefit.

Atheists in camp (1) realize that position (2) is faulty because if an atheistic worldview is correct, humanity is inherently a means without an end and there's no such thing as "benefit" in an objective sense (because there's not actually an end to benefit).

Atheists in camp (2) realize that position (1) results in conclusions that are highly irrational.

I would be in camp (1), and yes, there is such thing as "benefit" in an objective sense. Because the word "benefit" has a actual meaning in the English language. That meaning can be compared to what actually happens in reality, and whether the two match is not a matter of opinion. If you need me to explain further I will be happy to do so.

And no, Atheists in camp 2 do not realize that position 1 is highly irrational. The difference between atheists in camps 1 and 2 is that camp 2 begins with a definition of what morality is about (aka harm), which can be objectively determined from that point. I do not take that road because I realize that theists do not use the same definition. If we cannot agree on what the starting point is then my position is that the starting point is itself subjective, making everything else that follows to be subjective. It's really just a semantic difference.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 6:13:40 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 2:45:19 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/8/2016 10:29:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Hi, Sqrt(4*R^2),

Hi Ruv... uh... 1?
8cD

I don't think we differ in what we believe regarding morality,
So, you agree that morality is an understanding of what is good and bad, but not what is right and wrong -- that the latter is a different category of thought entirely, approached by different methods? That's what I've been arguing.

it just seems to be that we disagree on what it means to be objectively moral.
Actually, I think we agree perfectly on what objective means -- it means, of independent of mind, and thus not of mind alone.

by comparing morality to what we observe in our species you seem to be arriving at moral truths based on what is essentially a product of our minds, then calling it objective. I don't understand that.
No, and I'm sorry for not explaining it more clearly. Maybe if I framed it better...

Morality -- what it means to do good -- is a concern to all cultures, and hence to humanity as a species, as one cannot imagine it being with (say) crocodiles, were crocodiles more intelligent.

Why is that? I'd say it's because we're a species that cooperates for food, shelter, child-raising and protection, while competing for better opportunities for ourselves and our loved-ones. The cooperation makes us concerned about the well-being of others, which in turn offers us constant trade-offs between individual needs and the needs of our peers and the broader community. Being self-aware creatures able to anticipate consequences, we have to deal with that.

So far, so good. But the psychological conflicts can be very stressful and contentious, and there's no predefined formula for resolving it to be found in nature, because nature itself does not seem morally ordered, but a cruel, pitiless, chaotic, eternal competition with no clear 'win' state.

So we have to work it out for ourselves, and that leads us to suspect that the edifices of morality and ethics are purely a product of sociopsychology, and may be arbitrary. Certainly, many of our nontheistic members believe that, as I think you do, Double R.

But I don't believe that myself. Although morality has no tangible existence like shoes, I still think it's amenable to objective measure like (say) psychological health or economic productivity. That imposes upon me a burden to show what it is we can measure and why it's objective and not arbitrary. I also need to explain that, even if morality can be understood objectively, ethics must still be negotiated, so even if we can measure our moral success from a common, objective footing, there still isn't a single, eternal template for society and human behaviour.

So that's what I've been trying to explain. :)
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 6:17:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Which objective morality? The objective morality of a god who sees the future and knows how it all ends or...the objective morality of Atheism...oh wait.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 7:50:21 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 6:13:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:45:19 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/8/2016 10:29:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Hi, Sqrt(4*R^2),

Hi Ruv... uh... 1?
8cD

I don't think we differ in what we believe regarding morality,
So, you agree that morality is an understanding of what is good and bad, but not what is right and wrong -- that the latter is a different category of thought entirely, approached by different methods? That's what I've been arguing.

I agree with your definitions of morality vs ethics. I don't agree that they are different categories of thought, but I also don't think that is relevant to refuting the theistic view of morality.

it just seems to be that we disagree on what it means to be objectively moral.
Actually, I think we agree perfectly on what objective means -- it means, of independent of mind, and thus not of mind alone.

by comparing morality to what we observe in our species you seem to be arriving at moral truths based on what is essentially a product of our minds, then calling it objective. I don't understand that.

No, and I'm sorry for not explaining it more clearly. Maybe if I framed it better...

Morality -- what it means to do good -- is a concern to all cultures, and hence to humanity as a species, as one cannot imagine it being with (say) crocodiles, were crocodiles more intelligent.

Why is that? I'd say it's because we're a species that cooperates for food, shelter, child-raising and protection, while competing for better opportunities for ourselves and our loved-ones. The cooperation makes us concerned about the well-being of others, which in turn offers us constant trade-offs between individual needs and the needs of our peers and the broader community. Being self-aware creatures able to anticipate consequences, we have to deal with that.

So far, so good. But the psychological conflicts can be very stressful and contentious, and there's no predefined formula for resolving it to be found in nature, because nature itself does not seem morally ordered, but a cruel, pitiless, chaotic, eternal competition with no clear 'win' state.

So we have to work it out for ourselves, and that leads us to suspect that the edifices of morality and ethics are purely a product of sociopsychology, and may be arbitrary. Certainly, many of our nontheistic members believe that, as I think you do, Double R.

But I don't believe that myself. Although morality has no tangible existence like shoes, I still think it's amenable to objective measure like (say) psychological health or economic productivity. That imposes upon me a burden to show what it is we can measure and why it's objective and not arbitrary. I also need to explain that, even if morality can be understood objectively, ethics must still be negotiated, so even if we can measure our moral success from a common, objective footing, there still isn't a single, eternal template for society and human behaviour.

So that's what I've been trying to explain. :)

This goes back to the point I made a few posts ago (I think with Benshapiro) about the two different non-theistic viewpoints of morality. Assigning a true/false value to any moral statement is necessarily the result of a comparison. The question is, what are we comparing the statement to?

The non-theistic moral objectivist view is that we begin with an understanding of what we are talking about when it comes to good vs bad (normally the concept of less harm) and then determine from that point whether actions or intentions fall inline with that idea or out of line.

The moral relativist (like myself) says that since we (primarily religious vs non-religious) do not agree on what morality is about in the first place we don't have a starting point, and since we don't have a starting point then any assertion of a moral truth is simply the result of comparing a moral statement to a subjectively chosen standard, making whatever follows to necessarily be subjective.

Neither of these viewpoints in my view is wrong, it's just a question of how you address claims of moral objectivism. You seem to prefer the former, I prefer the latter. And I think that is because you seem more inclined to advocate for society having productive discussions on how we should be moving forward and improving our lives, while I am just here on a debate site refuting theistic nonsense.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 10:16:02 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 3:02:32 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:51:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The problem is not that your choice (A) is counter-intuitive, it's that your choice is not (A) at all. When it came time to point us to where in reality you are drawing the comparison to...

First you went with "innate knowledge" which is just the same old argument that what people think is evidence for the existence of truths that are independent from what people think, a self refuting proposition that you for some reason continue to advance.

Our epistemic basis results from innate knowledge which is further improved upon through reasoning. A perfectly rational mind has perfect moral knowledge.

What people "think" vs. what people "know" makes a world of difference. Do you think or do you know that the world in front of you is real? We have no reason to deny our clear apprehension of reality any more so than our clear apprehension of moral truths.

Now that we've established that we have knowledge of moral truths, we move to ontology. If objective moral truths are an ontology, the truth of the matter must reside in God's mind, meaning that God must exist. An objective truth is consistent with reality and establishes our means of comparison for (A). More below.


Then you went back to whatever is consistent with God's mind (will or disposition as you call it). That's not choice A. That's choice D, which you made explicitly clear by saying "if objective morality is real, moral goodness and moral wrongness must refer to the disposition or will of the mind". That, by definition, makes it subjective. Or apparently you're just defining objectivity as that which independent of every mind, except Gods.

The only meaningful difference between "objective" and "subjective" is that they represent different truth standards. If something is subjective the truth of the matter depends on personal opinion. If something is objective the truth of the matter is independent of personal opinion. From our perspective, if moral truths reside in God's mind, the truth of the matter is independent of personal opinion. From God's perspective, if he is essentially good, his truth standards are changeless. A perfect mind entails having perfect knowledge which entails access to perfect truth. If you have perfect truth there would be no room for opinions.

And even if I was to grant your option as choice A (which it most certainly is not) you still haven't pointed us to anything in reality until you can prove the existence of this God you are comparing moral statements to. Which either makes the moral argument for God's existence inherently circular or you have affirmed that the moral argument is not an argument for the existence of a God.

This goes back to the distinction between "consistent with reality" meaning objectively observable and/or objectively true. Objective truths are consistent with reality but aren't observable. This means that moral truths are consistent with reality solely on an epistemic basis. Our awareness of reality in totality is solely on an epistemic basis. If our moral knowledge is correct and objective morality is true, it must have ontology in God's mind.
Benshapiro
Posts: 3,966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 10:30:26 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 3:11:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:51:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's my opinion: ALL rational atheists are aware that morality is objective in the epistemic sense. One of two things happen:

(1) atheists deny objective morality because it's philosophically incompatible with an atheistic worldview.

(2) atheists advance objective morality on the grounds that it provides (X,Y,Z) benefit.

Atheists in camp (1) realize that position (2) is faulty because if an atheistic worldview is correct, humanity is inherently a means without an end and there's no such thing as "benefit" in an objective sense (because there's not actually an end to benefit).

Atheists in camp (2) realize that position (1) results in conclusions that are highly irrational.

I would be in camp (1), and yes, there is such thing as "benefit" in an objective sense. Because the word "benefit" has a actual meaning in the English language. That meaning can be compared to what actually happens in reality, and whether the two match is not a matter of opinion. If you need me to explain further I will be happy to do so.

Yes, "benefit" is only objectively measurable once you choose an end and choosing an end is subjective (as you've pointed out). This doesn't work as a moral framework. One could choose "maximum suffering" as an end and could objectively determine whatever benefits that end (then name it "objective" morality).

And no, Atheists in camp 2 do not realize that position 1 is highly irrational. The difference between atheists in camps 1 and 2 is that camp 2 begins with a definition of what morality is about (aka harm), which can be objectively determined from that point. I do not take that road because I realize that theists do not use the same definition. If we cannot agree on what the starting point is then my position is that the starting point is itself subjective, making everything else that follows to be subjective. It's really just a semantic difference.

Atheists in camp 2 realize that position 1 results in conclusions that are highly irrational.

ergo ("compassion" is truly morally equivalent to "cruelty")

Otherwise I agree with the rest.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 10:56:45 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 10:16:02 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2016 3:02:32 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:51:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
The problem is not that your choice (A) is counter-intuitive, it's that your choice is not (A) at all. When it came time to point us to where in reality you are drawing the comparison to...

First you went with "innate knowledge" which is just the same old argument that what people think is evidence for the existence of truths that are independent from what people think, a self refuting proposition that you for some reason continue to advance.

Our epistemic basis results from innate knowledge which is further improved upon through reasoning. A perfectly rational mind has perfect moral knowledge.

What people "think" vs. what people "know" makes a world of difference. Do you think or do you know that the world in front of you is real? We have no reason to deny our clear apprehension of reality any more so than our clear apprehension of moral truths.

When one claims to know something, all they are saying is that they believe (think) it to a high degree of certainty. So no, it is not a world of difference, in fact it has no relevant difference at all. "I know the world is real" = "I really really really believe the world is real". Get rid of "really really really" and it's the exact same statement.

The fact that one can have the same conviction towards a moral truth is completely utterly irrelevant. The question here is how it *could be possible* that moral truths can have the same basis as other non-controversial objective truths.

And for the love of god (pun intended) please stop and think about how ludicrous it is to continue arguing that morality held in people's mind qualifies as evidence for morality independent of people's minds. Why do you not see how ridiculous this assertion is?

Now that we've established that we have knowledge of moral truths, we move to ontology. If objective moral truths are an ontology, the truth of the matter must reside in God's mind, meaning that God must exist.

No, it means, by definition, that morality is subjective.

Ontology: the branch of metaphysics dealing with the nature of being.
https://www.google.com...

Metaphysics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
https://www.google.com...

Philosophy: Do I really need a definition to demonstrate that this is entirely dependant on the mind, aka subjective?

"the truth of the matter must reside in God's mind": In other words, it is not independent of the mind

I have never argued with someone whose ability to butcher the English language was so crucial for the defense of their worldview.

Then you went back to whatever is consistent with God's mind (will or disposition as you call it). That's not choice A. That's choice D, which you made explicitly clear by saying "if objective morality is real, moral goodness and moral wrongness must refer to the disposition or will of the mind". That, by definition, makes it subjective. Or apparently you're just defining objectivity as that which independent of every mind, except Gods.

The only meaningful difference between "objective" and "subjective" is that they represent different truth standards. If something is subjective the truth of the matter depends on personal opinion. If something is objective the truth of the matter is independent of personal opinion. From our perspective, if moral truths reside in God's mind, the truth of the matter is independent of personal opinion. From God's perspective, if he is essentially good, his truth standards are changeless. A perfect mind entails having perfect knowledge which entails access to perfect truth. If you have perfect truth there would be no room for opinions.

This is complete meaningless drivel. You entirely ignore the fact that saying something is consistent with Gods mind makes it subject to Gods mind (aka subjective), and continue to throw out your theistic buzzwords such as calling God "perfect" without bothering to explain how you can possibly determine that God is perfect by any objective standard.

And even if I was to grant your option as choice A (which it most certainly is not) you still haven't pointed us to anything in reality until you can prove the existence of this God you are comparing moral statements to. Which either makes the moral argument for God's existence inherently circular or you have affirmed that the moral argument is not an argument for the existence of a God.

This goes back to the distinction between "consistent with reality" meaning objectively observable and/or objectively true. Objective truths are consistent with reality but aren't observable. This means that moral truths are consistent with reality solely on an epistemic basis. Our awareness of reality in totality is solely on an epistemic basis. If our moral knowledge is correct and objective morality is true, it must have ontology in God's mind.

Objective truths aren't things that exist. Once again, we have an object (reality) and we have a statement (the earth orbits the sun). An objective truth is when the object and the statement match. Beyond uttering the statement and the process of evaluating the match, there is no mind involved. If there is, then that by is subjective by definition.

And please answer this question: Does God affirm objective morality, or does objective morality affirm God?
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/9/2016 11:07:05 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 10:30:26 PM, Benshapiro wrote:
At 4/9/2016 3:11:09 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/9/2016 2:51:08 AM, Benshapiro wrote:
Here's my opinion: ALL rational atheists are aware that morality is objective in the epistemic sense. One of two things happen:

(1) atheists deny objective morality because it's philosophically incompatible with an atheistic worldview.

(2) atheists advance objective morality on the grounds that it provides (X,Y,Z) benefit.

Atheists in camp (1) realize that position (2) is faulty because if an atheistic worldview is correct, humanity is inherently a means without an end and there's no such thing as "benefit" in an objective sense (because there's not actually an end to benefit).

Atheists in camp (2) realize that position (1) results in conclusions that are highly irrational.

I would be in camp (1), and yes, there is such thing as "benefit" in an objective sense. Because the word "benefit" has a actual meaning in the English language. That meaning can be compared to what actually happens in reality, and whether the two match is not a matter of opinion. If you need me to explain further I will be happy to do so.

Yes, "benefit" is only objectively measurable once you choose an end and choosing an end is subjective (as you've pointed out). This doesn't work as a moral framework. One could choose "maximum suffering" as an end and could objectively determine whatever benefits that end (then name it "objective" morality).

And it would be "objective morality" under that definition. Just as a bachelor can be married, all we have to do is redefine the word bachelor.

But you are certainly on the right track. So how about we go with a reasonable definition or standard of morality that the vast majority of human beings agree with, like the reduction of harm and suffering? Why is the fact that this standard was chosen by us and not a God a problem for you?

And no, Atheists in camp 2 do not realize that position 1 is highly irrational. The difference between atheists in camps 1 and 2 is that camp 2 begins with a definition of what morality is about (aka harm), which can be objectively determined from that point. I do not take that road because I realize that theists do not use the same definition. If we cannot agree on what the starting point is then my position is that the starting point is itself subjective, making everything else that follows to be subjective. It's really just a semantic difference.

Atheists in camp 2 realize that position 1 results in conclusions that are highly irrational.

ergo ("compassion" is truly morally equivalent to "cruelty")

No, because atheists in camp 2 do not argue that the same way you are.

Why is this so difficult for you? Why do you seem so incapable of understanding the difference between asserting that something is wrong, and asserting that something is "objectively wrong"? Why do you have this all or nothing attitude with morality when you don't take that position on any other opinion you form in any other aspect of your life? As I have once pointed out to you, you have no problem telling me that LeBron James is a good basketball player even though this is just your opinion. You don't act like my opinion that he is terrible deserves the same respect as yours. So why don't you get this?
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/11/2016 4:37:22 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 1:27:41 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/11/2016 4:37:22 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.

If I wanted to have a discussion akin to having a 5 year old ask "why" over and over again, I would have started a thread calling out presupossitionalism.

Rational discourse requires an agreed starting point. If all you know how to do is question the starting point then there is no point in attempting it. Address the topic or go away.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,274
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 1:53:15 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/8/2016 10:29:42 AM, RuvDraba wrote:

I think the evidence strongly favours the former, in that our species exhibits a strong and growing understanding of morality, and an increasingly broad and sophisticated sense of ethics, including at times when we need not.

It is evolving... we are evolving into a better species. I really like what you said here - i obviously agree ;-) I wonder what is attributing to this though, technology? I think for the world to be connected through technology is a massive step at least in this regard. I'm sure there are other factors, i just can't think of them ... technology to me is king.

I am noticing how the younger generations that are growing with technology are acting. For the most part, it looks like we are going from the industrial-ish past to a future of entertainment. The tech gens just don't care about bs... we google it and get over it pretty fast. I've noticed all we want is to be entertained. That is probably why there are so many successful Youtube channels. People just watching people have fun, joke around, make fun of themselves, play games, etc... it is all entertainment.

I think this desire will manifest in the future. Just like we had the desire to connect manifesting something as amazing as technology, we will manifest something having to do with entertainment - just being laid back. Maybe it's the Cali nature in me (you know we are all rock-stars and surfers lol). But, i think if religious nuts don't mess this up, we have a bright future.

However, i just can't shake the feeling that manifesting something as wonderful as connection, entertainment, and good vibes - might take a lot of blood spilled once again.
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 2:31:56 AM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 1:27:41 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:37:22 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.

If I wanted to have a discussion akin to having a 5 year old ask "why" over and over again, I would have started a thread calling out presupossitionalism.

So, no objective reason to support your assertion(s), then? Too bad. Not surprising, but too bad.

Rational discourse requires an agreed starting point.

Which, of course, assumes an objective moral standard by which people SHOULD be rational with regards to their reasoning and argumentation in the first place. Don't worry, I won't ask how you account for such standards in your worldview. Seems the nerve has already been struck. Always good talking with you D.R.! Take care. : )
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 3:21:58 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 2:31:56 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 1:27:41 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:37:22 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.

If I wanted to have a discussion akin to having a 5 year old ask "why" over and over again, I would have started a thread calling out presupossitionalism.

So, no objective reason to support your assertion(s), then? Too bad. Not surprising, but too bad.

I am curious as to which of the prongs you found fault with. (A-D)

Rational discourse requires an agreed starting point.

Which, of course, assumes an objective moral standard by which people SHOULD be rational with regards to their reasoning and argumentation in the first place. Don't worry, I won't ask how you account for such standards in your worldview. Seems the nerve has already been struck. Always good talking with you D.R.! Take care. : )

Did you read the OP?

We have this concept called "objective". We have this concept called "Morality". How do the 2 get reconciled is the source of the post. Where does one get "A" from independent of oneself (one self being humanity), such that it can be compared to something else as a standard.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 4:53:56 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 3:21:58 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/12/2016 2:31:56 AM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 1:27:41 AM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/11/2016 4:37:22 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/3/2016 3:13:33 PM, Double_R wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.

If I wanted to have a discussion akin to having a 5 year old ask "why" over and over again, I would have started a thread calling out presupossitionalism.

So, no objective reason to support your assertion(s), then? Too bad. Not surprising, but too bad.

I am curious as to which of the prongs you found fault with. (A-D)

Rational discourse requires an agreed starting point.

Which, of course, assumes an objective moral standard by which people SHOULD be rational with regards to their reasoning and argumentation in the first place. Don't worry, I won't ask how you account for such standards in your worldview. Seems the nerve has already been struck. Always good talking with you D.R.! Take care. : )

Did you read the OP?

We have this concept called "objective". We have this concept called "Morality".

How do the 2 get reconciled is the source of the post. Where does one get "A" from independent of oneself (one self being humanity), such that it can be compared to something else as a standard.

Fancy seeing you here, Faustian---like a moth to a flame, eh? : )

Your question assumes that 'morality' is not 'objective' by definition while at the same time assuming that it is (since I'm certain that you believe that any response to it SHOULD be a rational one, in accordance with the laws of logic). If you want to take up the gauntlet on Double_R's behalf, then be my guest. I pose the same question to you that I posed to him:

"What is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview?"

Also, since there was no point pressing D.R. further (didn't want him to have a bigger hissy fit about having his inconsistency challenged and exposed, after all), I'll go ahead and ask you what the absolute, morally binding standard is that says that anyone SHOULD conduct their reasoning and argumentation in a rational, logical fashion and why that standard necessarily applies to anyone else's thinking, reasoning, or behavior in your worldview? From there, hopefully it should be very easy to see the inconsistency of appealing to transcendent, universal standards (like morality, truth, and logic, for instance) while denying them as such at the same time.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 5:24:09 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.

If I wanted to have a discussion akin to having a 5 year old ask "why" over and over again, I would have started a thread calling out presupossitionalism.

So, no objective reason to support your assertion(s), then? Too bad. Not surprising, but too bad.

I am curious as to which of the prongs you found fault with. (A-D)

Rational discourse requires an agreed starting point.

Which, of course, assumes an objective moral standard by which people SHOULD be rational with regards to their reasoning and argumentation in the first place. Don't worry, I won't ask how you account for such standards in your worldview. Seems the nerve has already been struck. Always good talking with you D.R.! Take care. : )

Did you read the OP?

We have this concept called "objective". We have this concept called "Morality".

How do the 2 get reconciled is the source of the post. Where does one get "A" from independent of oneself (one self being humanity), such that it can be compared to something else as a standard.

Fancy seeing you here, Faustian---like a moth to a flame, eh? : )



"What is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview?"

So, he was right, you plan on offering nothing to the conversation. Big shock. There was nothing "moral" about that statement. The reason it "must" is that should the situation not, it would fail when practically applied.


Also, since there was no point pressing D.R. further (didn't want him to have a bigger hissy fit about having his inconsistency challenged and exposed, after all), I'll go ahead and ask you what the absolute, morally binding standard is that says that anyone SHOULD conduct their reasoning and argumentation in a rational, logical fashion and why that standard necessarily applies to anyone else's thinking,

Because such is assumed from the onset; a rational conclusion is desired.

From there, hopefully it should be very easy to see the inconsistency of appealing to transcendent, universal standards (like morality, truth, and logic, for instance) while denying them as such at the same time.

No, it just becomes clear you are not interested in discourse, simply ignoring what is typed and pursuing your line of questioning that is epistemologically null.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 6:09:43 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 5:24:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.

If I wanted to have a discussion akin to having a 5 year old ask "why" over and over again, I would have started a thread calling out presupossitionalism.

So, no objective reason to support your assertion(s), then? Too bad. Not surprising, but too bad.

I am curious as to which of the prongs you found fault with. (A-D)

Rational discourse requires an agreed starting point.

Which, of course, assumes an objective moral standard by which people SHOULD be rational with regards to their reasoning and argumentation in the first place. Don't worry, I won't ask how you account for such standards in your worldview. Seems the nerve has already been struck. Always good talking with you D.R.! Take care. : )

Did you read the OP?

We have this concept called "objective". We have this concept called "Morality".

How do the 2 get reconciled is the source of the post. Where does one get "A" from independent of oneself (one self being humanity), such that it can be compared to something else as a standard.

Fancy seeing you here, Faustian---like a moth to a flame, eh? : )



"What is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview?"

So, he was right, you plan on offering nothing to the conversation. Big shock. There was nothing "moral" about that statement.

So no objective reason why anyone SHOULD accept Double_R's reasoning therein, or why they SHOULD be obliged to reason that way themselves, then? OK.

The reason it "must" is that should the situation not, it would fail when practically applied.

So, no reason why that absolutely SHOULD not be the case then? OK.

Also, since there was no point pressing D.R. further (didn't want him to have a bigger hissy fit about having his inconsistency challenged and exposed, after all), I'll go ahead and ask you what the absolute, morally binding standard is that says that anyone SHOULD conduct their reasoning and argumentation in a rational, logical fashion and why that standard necessarily applies to anyone else's thinking,

Because such is assumed from the onset; a rational conclusion is desired.

But no rational reason given why it SHOULD be assumed or produced. OK. Thanks for your time. Very revealing, indeed.

From there, hopefully it should be very easy to see the inconsistency of appealing to transcendent, universal standards (like morality, truth, and logic, for instance) while denying them as such at the same time.

No, it just becomes clear you are not interested in discourse, simply ignoring what is typed and pursuing your line of questioning that is epistemologically null.

Of course I disagree with that mischaracterization, but one would have to ultimately ask you upon what rational basis your complaint is founded in the first place? I mean, according to your worldview, what is the rationally defensible basis for why one SHOULD not engage in such behavior if they personally prefer doing so over not doing so? Surely you wouldn't come to a thread, the very basis of which has to do with providing logical proof for something, only to levy arbitrary opinions at me, would you?

Pssst......your inconsistency is definitely showing, faustian (it is faustian, isn't it?). Better cover it up. ; )
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,238
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 6:15:04 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 6:09:43 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 5:24:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.

If I wanted to have a discussion akin to having a 5 year old ask "why" over and over again, I would have started a thread calling out presupossitionalism.

So, no objective reason to support your assertion(s), then? Too bad. Not surprising, but too bad.

I am curious as to which of the prongs you found fault with. (A-D)

Rational discourse requires an agreed starting point.

Which, of course, assumes an objective moral standard by which people SHOULD be rational with regards to their reasoning and argumentation in the first place. Don't worry, I won't ask how you account for such standards in your worldview. Seems the nerve has already been struck. Always good talking with you D.R.! Take care. : )

Did you read the OP?

We have this concept called "objective". We have this concept called "Morality".

How do the 2 get reconciled is the source of the post. Where does one get "A" from independent of oneself (one self being humanity), such that it can be compared to something else as a standard.

Fancy seeing you here, Faustian---like a moth to a flame, eh? : )



"What is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview?"

So, he was right, you plan on offering nothing to the conversation. Big shock. There was nothing "moral" about that statement.

So no objective reason why anyone SHOULD accept Double_R's reasoning therein, or why they SHOULD be obliged to reason that way themselves, then? OK.

The reason it "must" is that should the situation not, it would fail when practically applied.

So, no reason why that absolutely SHOULD not be the case then? OK.

Also, since there was no point pressing D.R. further (didn't want him to have a bigger hissy fit about having his inconsistency challenged and exposed, after all), I'll go ahead and ask you what the absolute, morally binding standard is that says that anyone SHOULD conduct their reasoning and argumentation in a rational, logical fashion and why that standard necessarily applies to anyone else's thinking,

Because such is assumed from the onset; a rational conclusion is desired.

But no rational reason given why it SHOULD be assumed or produced. OK. Thanks for your time. Very revealing, indeed.

From there, hopefully it should be very easy to see the inconsistency of appealing to transcendent, universal standards (like morality, truth, and logic, for instance) while denying them as such at the same time.

No, it just becomes clear you are not interested in discourse, simply ignoring what is typed and pursuing your line of questioning that is epistemologically null.

Of course I disagree with that mischaracterization...

Of course you do. What part of such an assessment do you disagree with? That being, what counter evidence do you disagree with?

I will consider a response that asks a further question to be nothing more than a concession.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
scmike2
Posts: 946
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 6:20:30 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/12/2016 6:15:04 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 4/12/2016 6:09:43 PM, scmike2 wrote:
At 4/12/2016 5:24:09 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If morality is objective then the truth of a moral proposition is not subject to anyone opinions or say so. It simply is.

For any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:

A) Consistent with reality (i.e.: the earth orbits the sun)
B) Consistent with itself (i.e.: all bachelors are unmarried)
C) Consistent with a rule or law (i.e.: a grand slam is worth 4 points)
D) Consistent with opinion (i.e.: ice cream is delicious)

Clearly, D is not objective.

If moral objectivity is derived from B or C then all we're talking about is whether morality is true according to how we are defining morality, which is not what objective morality proponents are actually talking about.

This brings us to choice A. If moral statements are true under this definition, then there has to be an actual existent thing of some sort that we are comparing moral statements to. Explain what this thing is. Explain where in reality our basis lies for comparison so we can understand what the statement "killing babies is [objectively] wrong" means.

Or of course you can introduce us to a choice E.

The floor is yours.

Hey Double_R, long time no talk to! Looks like you've put the proverbial horse before the cart here (again). After all, what is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview? If this is just YOUR opinion, then I am fine with that, too.

If I wanted to have a discussion akin to having a 5 year old ask "why" over and over again, I would have started a thread calling out presupossitionalism.

So, no objective reason to support your assertion(s), then? Too bad. Not surprising, but too bad.

I am curious as to which of the prongs you found fault with. (A-D)

Rational discourse requires an agreed starting point.

Which, of course, assumes an objective moral standard by which people SHOULD be rational with regards to their reasoning and argumentation in the first place. Don't worry, I won't ask how you account for such standards in your worldview. Seems the nerve has already been struck. Always good talking with you D.R.! Take care. : )

Did you read the OP?

We have this concept called "objective". We have this concept called "Morality".

How do the 2 get reconciled is the source of the post. Where does one get "A" from independent of oneself (one self being humanity), such that it can be compared to something else as a standard.

Fancy seeing you here, Faustian---like a moth to a flame, eh? : )



"What is the objective moral imperative that states that 'for any proposition to be deemed "true" it must meet one of the following criteria:' in the first place? Why 'must' that absolutely be the case from a purely atheistic perspective and why is anyone morally obligated to abide by that particular standard in your worldview?"

So, he was right, you plan on offering nothing to the conversation. Big shock. There was nothing "moral" about that statement.

So no objective reason why anyone SHOULD accept Double_R's reasoning therein, or why they SHOULD be obliged to reason that way themselves, then? OK.

The reason it "must" is that should the situation not, it would fail when practically applied.

So, no reason why that absolutely SHOULD not be the case then? OK.

Also, since there was no point pressing D.R. further (didn't want him to have a bigger hissy fit about having his inconsistency challenged and exposed, after all), I'll go ahead and ask you what the absolute, morally binding standard is that says that anyone SHOULD conduct their reasoning and argumentation in a rational, logical fashion and why that standard necessarily applies to anyone else's thinking,

Because such is assumed from the onset; a rational conclusion is desired.

But no rational reason given why it SHOULD be assumed or produced. OK. Thanks for your time. Very revealing, indeed.

From there, hopefully it should be very easy to see the inconsistency of appealing to transcendent, universal standards (like morality, truth, and logic, for instance) while denying them as such at the same time.

No, it just becomes clear you are not interested in discourse, simply ignoring what is typed and pursuing your line of questioning that is epistemologically null.

Of course I disagree with that mischaracterization...

Of course you do. What part of such an assessment do you disagree with? That being, what counter evidence do you disagree with?

I will consider a response that asks a further question to be nothing more than a concession.

And, as you have shown, you will be forced to do so with zero basis in objective rationality, logic, morality, or truth. Believe me, I am very pleased with that!! Take care, faustian (it is faustian, isn't it?). ; )
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/12/2016 6:23:14 PM
Posted: 8 months ago
At 4/9/2016 7:50:21 PM, Double_R wrote:
At 4/9/2016 6:13:40 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
Because we're a species that cooperates for food, shelter, child-raising and protection, while competing for better opportunities for ourselves and our loved-ones. The cooperation makes us concerned about the well-being of others, which in turn offers us constant trade-offs between individual needs and the needs of our peers and the broader community. Being self-aware creatures able to anticipate consequences, we have to deal with that.
Although morality has no tangible existence like shoes, I still think it's amenable to objective measure like (say) psychological health or economic productivity.

This goes back to the point I made a few posts ago (I think with Benshapiro) about the two different non-theistic viewpoints of morality. Assigning a true/false value to any moral statement is necessarily the result of a comparison. The question is, what are we comparing the statement to?
Objective measures of individual and societal well-being, of which we now have many.

you seem more inclined to advocate for society having productive discussions on how we should be moving forward and improving our lives
A fair statement. :)

while I am just here on a debate site refuting theistic nonsense.
A not dishonourable goal too. :)

But one piece of theistic nonsense that needs vigorous refutation is the claim that one of their moral canons (they can never say which) is saving the world from itself.

Firstly, their canons are not very moral to start with; secondly humans are doing a brilliant job of improving their own condition secularly -- which is precisely what morality's supposed to do; thirdly, humanity cannot work out which religious morality is the real McCoy, so that's hardly useful; finally, key moral insights have only appeared when we've ignored religious canon and relied on observation, compassion and honesty instead. Thus whatever useful moral insights religious canon might hold, it doesn't hold all of them.

Whether legitimate or not, the problem with moral relativism is that it hands the whole vilifying argument to the religious, under the following rhetoric: as a moral relativist you're either indifferent to the suffering of your fellow man, or lack at times the moral confidence to act to prevent harm. Therefore you can't improve the human condition; therefore regardless of whether it's true, we need the 'benign guidance' of religion. QED.