(June 24, 2017 at 8:52 pm)wallym Wrote: No doubt.  I'm just saying 'do no harm' is not a clean cut objective end of the philosophical argument.  Someone can go blow up an abortion clinic and say it's an objectively justifiable defense of unborn babies, for example.  And that's wouldn't exactly be untrue.

Can they?  Who is harmed by abortion?  Will someone or someones be harmed by blowing up the clinic?  

Of course it's not a clean cut objective end of a philosophical argument.  It's the beginning of one.  You can make endless objective moral arguments based upon that one simple idea.

---

(June 24, 2017 at 9:44 pm)Little Henry Wrote: If you agree that OM exists, then their is no point in continuing this discussion.

We can discuss the foundation of OM.

Way to completely drop the ball.  The point would be to find a way to work you through the many, many ignorant things you said.

Lemme guess, ghosts?

Quote:Liking/disliking something has nothing to do with it being right/wrong.

Are you sure?  What about the stuff that ghosts like and dislike?
  

Quote:That desnt make it objective at all...For something to be objective, it must be true or exist regardless of anyone's opinion.

Regardless of the opinion of ghosts, as well, I presume?

---

(June 24, 2017 at 8:09 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote: Rhythm, you need help burying a body or something?  Just say so!  ??

Nah, I prefer to leave em for the crows.  

Henry, simply repeating your assertion isn't supporting it. I won't engage anyone who plugs their ears and shouts "lalalalala".

Congratulations; you've joined that exclusive club.

(June 24, 2017 at 9:44 pm)Little Henry Wrote: [edit]

"The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . 

So really, claiming moral acts such as rape is just an illusion. They arent wrong.
[edit]

Is plagiarizing or quoting William Lane Craig without giving credit one of those "wrong" moral thingy's?

Quote:Little Henry Wrote: [url=https://atheistforums.org/post-1574217.html#pid1574217][/url][edit]

"The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says 'Love they neighbor as thyself,' they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . . 

So really, claiming moral acts such as rape is just an illusion. They arent wrong.

Congratulation your able to quote a Christian apologist . Which no more makes said assertions right .

What kills me is that jackasses like WLC claim there to be a 'deeper meaning' or that there even is a necessity for there to be a 'deeper meaning' to morality, when the justification for that is...the existence of a being. Like, by what virtue? Of simple existence? THAT somehow conjures up a deeper meaning? Then if we ask why god gets out of bed in the morning, how does he justify that? Because of a super-god? The whole foundation of this asininity is painfully obvious, how are they not embarrassed to keep espousing it? No amount of attributes you could ascribe to a being are anything other than arbitrary nonsense. You can't use something so moronic as a basis for anything.

The fact is, there is no objective nor absolute morality, there simply can't be. Not just because the bible makes exceptions to these rules all the damn time and therefore negating its own claim on them (not that morals come from comic books in the first place) but because reality isn't cut and dry.

There no requirement for morality to have deeper meaning, or divine meaning..for it to have meaning.  

It matters to me, it matters to you, it matters to everyone.  It matters to the believers, even if there -is- no god. It matters to people who do not even know that it matters, and to people and creatures who cannot possibly grasp what it is - because it determines how we treat them. This is enough.

I doubt your fact, there, at the bottom...though. The bible and it's inconsistencies are an irrelevance to any actual objective morality, nor would an objective morality ensure that every moral judgement is cut and dry. Moral disagreement would still exist, competing moral imperatives would still muddy the waters, sub optimal choice fields will still leave us with no moral course of action, and in some cases, a compelling interest to do the bad thing™will still seem to be sufficient to override moral concerns. The moral competency of moral agents will still be variable, and the moral culpability of competent moral agents will not be uniform for all moral actions or outcomes.

(June 25, 2017 at 12:26 am)Astreja Wrote: Henry, I view all morality as subjective, even if it comes from a god (in which case it's the god's subjective values underlying a code of morality).

Under Christianity, morality is not subjective because God's commands do not come from his opinion, preference or taste. It comes from his nature. His commands flow on from that nature.

There is a natural tendency for certain values to become prominent in successful societies.  It's difficult to  feel safe in a culture where killing is permissible, so one would expect to see a lot of people defecting to safer tribes where the moral code prohibits killing and members of the tribe protect their neighbours from harm.

This all comes down to preferences/desires. This does not make it right. Is it a fact that societies ought to be successful? Under naturalism, no. 

IMO, moral codes are beginning to move beyond basic needs like physical safety and are becoming more supportive of individual differences (on the condition that those differences do not cause direct harm to someone else, which would be a violation of the need for physical safety).  In that regard, one could possibly create a hierarchy of morals analogous to Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs.

Again, this does not make it objective.

(June 25, 2017 at 1:41 am)Cecelia Wrote: Morality is subjective to our own level of compassion and empathy.  People tend not to accept morality doesn't match their level of empathy.

Empathy does not make a moral act right or wrong.

It may make it desirable, preferable, but not right or wrong.

(June 25, 2017 at 8:24 pm)Little Henry Wrote:

(June 25, 2017 at 1:41 am)Cecelia Wrote: Morality is subjective to our own level of compassion and empathy.  People tend not to accept morality doesn't match their level of empathy.

Empathy does not make a moral act right or wrong.

It may make it desirable, preferable, but not right or wrong.

This word salad needs more dressing. And croutons.

(June 25, 2017 at 8:24 pm)Little Henry Wrote:

(June 25, 2017 at 1:41 am)Cecelia Wrote: Morality is subjective to our own level of compassion and empathy.  People tend not to accept morality doesn't match their level of empathy.

Empathy does not make a moral act right or wrong.

It may make it desirable, preferable, but not right or wrong.

And how exactly are you so sure of that?  What means have you used to determine that you have the correct objective morality?  Don't tell me you accepted it on faith?