Sure, we all develop our own morality and we use one or more systems as a basis. Whatever way you look at it, we're choosing our own moral system from an infinite number of possible ones. There's no way to objectively rank any of them without first agreeing on what the goals of morality should be, and even then, it's not realistic to have a goal so explicitly laid out that you can actually make direct comparisons. And anyone who doesn't agree with the goals, as laid out, is simply excluded from the discussion. That's not a discussion about morality, it's a discussion about practicality.

Where morality becomes difficult, and for some reason this is most never discussed by proponents of objective morality, is when outcomes or resources come into conflict. When a compromise must be reached. How do you determine what is the best compromise? Everyone will have their own opinion, and without agreeing some actual metrics, it can't be calculated. If you do define the metrics, that's no use to me if I don't agree with your metrics.

(November 10, 2016 at 5:32 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

(November 10, 2016 at 4:24 am)robvalue Wrote: I don't understand what you're getting at with your first question. The truth is correct in a tautological sense; further than that I don't know how it relates to what I said. Please see my above discussion

I meant is it morally right to tell the truth.

If you're asking me my opinion, then yes, I consider it moral to tell the truth in most situations. Each situation is different and complex though. But my opinion is irrelevant to morality as a concept.

I don't tend to be that pessimistic about morality. The ethics unit I did a couple of years ago was pretty enlightening. It was at least enough to personally rule out certain theories as not being true. Maybe if we all studied morality deeply we could come to some sort of consensus. In terms of practicality, I think contractualism is pretty good, because it doesn't really try to define what morality is deep down, but rather, it gives us a practical way to decide on things without having to definitively know what morality is etc.

I don't know what you mean by being pessimistic. We have to agree on the goals of morality before we can discuss how we can best go about achieving them. If your goals and mine aren't the same, then we can try and convince each other of why one of us should change our mind. Or you can exclude me from the conversation and just talk with people who agree with your goals. The same thing happens every time you further break down the goals, because they are generally going to be extremely complex. Or you can compromise.

There's a difference between individual morality and societal norms. The societal norm need not totally agree with any one individual, but represents a kind of average. Everyone can do their bit to try and move those norms in the direction they think is best. I do so every day. But I don't go around calling myself "correct", because I find the term meaningless in this context. Everyone feels justified regarding their own morality, or else it wouldn't be their morality.

The important point about individual morality is that it's fluid. We couldn't explain it all in detail even if we wanted to, and by the time we'd finished trying, we'd have changed. Day to day and more noticably year to year our value systems will change. Trying to stick to some objective morality will eventually be just fighting yourself. At best you can stick to vague principles.

(November 10, 2016 at 2:24 am)theologian Wrote: If morality is about good and bad, and good and bad is about our goal, and if our true goal is God, then if there is no God, there can be no objective morality for man.

If morality developed as a way of preserving the species (in other words, if our true goal is not God), then it would not be advantageous for it to be absolute. But I still think that you are working backwards. Are particular actions good/bad because God says they are good/bad? Or is God only recognizing actions as good/bad because they are objectively so? If God says "action A is bad" but later orders a person to commit that act, is the latter good even though God has identified it as bad in a general sense?

FallenToReason:

It seems to me you're discussing modelling morality rather than arguing for the "correctness" of any particular system. Systems can't help you produce the goals, and without goals, it's not clear what we're even talking about.

For example, someone might say morality is about pleasing god.

(November 10, 2016 at 2:46 am)theologian Wrote: Well, why not hurt someone? Just because you want to? If so, then it is just an arbitrary choice, right? Isn't is Nietzsche is consistent when he says that it is just plagiarizing Christianity when secular are arguing for love instead of being true to reason alone?

Why not, indeed.  As suspected, you have no moral agency, therefore a conversation regarding morality with you would be pointless.  Like explaining addition to a rock.

(November 10, 2016 at 5:28 am)FallentoReason Wrote: All of this

is because you misunderstand Kant, right here explicitly:

He didn't have you in mind because he wasn't a hedonist. He advocated deontology.

Actually it's not, nubbins, lol.  It's because....and I can't believe I'm saying this to you, again, like it needs to be said...again.  I don't subscribe to the moral theory you've described.  I don't think that you discussed or even approached morality in any of your examples. But since you've pressed the issue, why have you been presenting hedonist utilitarian (read: teleological) examples as kants if kant advocated for deontology? Your examples -sound- as if they've come from a position of criticism of Kant...and very specifically from a position that kant's CI was teleological and utilitarian, as opined..for example, by John Stuart Mill asnd others. Not that you've adequetely described Kants CI, but hey, who am I to stop you while you're on a roll? Now go sit down and be ashamed of yourself.

Quote:Still wrong. Power puts you in a place of authority. That's what the word itself means. Acting rationally makes you a moral authority.

What's still wrong...your definition?  Your argument? Kant? Are you completely losing your shit or....? I've never argued that power doesn't put you in a place of authority, only asked you whether or not might made right..because unless it does, power doesn't put you in a position of -moral- authority. Additionally, if acting rationally is the metric, then reason is the moral authority, not any particular rational or moral agent.

Quote:Besides the point. Joe is still a moral authority. And if you don't

-not to me.....maybe to you, if you buy the load of shit you're peddling...after explicitly stating that you -don't- buy the load of shit you're peddling...while not actually describing the load of shit you're peddling, and so long as might makes right? 

Quote:then you're not understanding, yet. If Kant is correct

You realize why I'm stopping you right here, don't you...? It does't -matter- if kant was correct, to me, nor to you...nor to your argument regarding moral authority. Because even if he was right, and even if you somehow managed to accurately describe his position, it still wouldn't salvage the argument structure, or it's reliance on a poor definition of authority, let alone absolute authority.....and doesn't even begin to approach moral authority, or absolute moral authority - if such things exist in the first place. This has all been -worse- than wrong, from the bottom to the top.

You could have skipped it all and said "God is super duper powerful" and we'd have the essence of your idea of absolute moral authority, for all that's worth...which, obvs, to me, is -nothing-.

(November 9, 2016 at 8:02 pm)bennyboy Wrote:

(November 9, 2016 at 4:40 pm)theologian Wrote: Morality can only be objective with God. For, morality is about what is good action and what is bad. Now, to be good or to be bad is according to the fulfillment of the end of a something. For an instance, a good eyesight is an eyesight which can see clearly, for the end of eyes is to see. Now, the end of man is God, for man is created to know the truth and love the good, but God is the Truth and Goodness Himself, for all true and good things come from Him, because He is Being Himself, as proven by the arguments for God's existence. Therefore, without God, there can't be objective morality.

Good and bad imply goals, and the fulfillment of goals.  However, some goals are universal enough to consider objective.  For example, all normally-functioning humans (at least those in good health) wish to survive.  In serving our nature by surviving, we are serving out a goal that is not the arbitrary creation of the conscious self.  In creating social contracts and feeling guilty when we violate them, we are acting according to our nature as a highly social species.

That's objective enough for me.

Seems like you understand the concept of natural law and/or virtue ethics. Those are not strictly atheistic concepts. All that is required is recognition that our bodies - their limbs and organs serve functions that allow people to not only survive but to thrive as well. As such, proper care and use of the body and its parts is considered good. The neglect and misuse of the body is considered evil. In other words, if it means something to be human, then there is an essential human nature that is the universal object serving as the basis for cultivating virtue, i.e. the objective moral standard. The ultimate moral question is "To what end is Man?". On the other hand, if we are biological robots in a meaningless universe, as many AF members assert then that question is meaningless.

On point about of confusion with respect to objective morality is the mistake of assuming that objectivity entails full and complete knowledge of the referenced object.

It's hardly a meaningless question, it just doesn't mean what -you- think it means.  Probably useful to understand the difference between the two, lol. Or you might, as you seem to be..be stuck standing there going "wtf, how do these godless fuckers manage to live moral lives?!?!"...lol. OTOH, it's not as if you need to wonder what mans end is, or even whether or not man -has- an "end" in order to form a moral system...so maybe it is a meaningless question in context, so why are you asking it, other than it;s convenience to what you might believe about morality and it;s source?

Why should I listen to the involuntary vocalizations of an electro-chemical reaction?

Only you could answer that, but here you are...so...is it really something you -need- an answer for?