(July 13, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Well, I asked you, and you suggested harm.  I agree.  The great thing about an objective moral standard is that you don't -need- a list, ala the ten commandments (and there we are seemingly assuming that an objective morality would be like a religious decree).  You can use that standard to assess -any- potential situation with moral ramifications..and even to assess whether or not something -is- a moral situation to begin with.  I could suggest refinements and additions..but, ultimately, harm seems to be sufficient as an objective moral standard.  Particularly in that it is positively -inescapable- when discussing morality.  This is exactly what a properly basic belief is taken to be.  An axiom of any system x.  It's an axiom not only for secular moralities..but also religious moralities...the latter of which go to great lengths to insert their gods into the chain..but that;s all it is, an insertion - and a needless one at that.

---

I'm pretty sure you already know what things are right and wrong, don't you?  We have powerful heuristic mechanisms built into us (and into our interactions as a society) for determining that even in the absence of a scholarly treatise or point by point description.  Even if you didn;t know, and had never seen a treatise or a description, and your give a fuck-o-meter was broken..it;s still entirely likely that your behaviors would conform to the standard we use, as we've been selecting each other for fitness along those lines for quite some time now.  You're an accidental "not a rapist" for example.  It's not that you don't do it because you believe it's wrong, but because you simply don't want to.  

How do you reckon that happened?  

---

Just so you are aware.... what you are talking about now is dealing with epistemology, not ontology (as the moral argument is).  So, you are not addressing the moral argument.  Now; I could be mistaken, and this was not your intention, which is fine.  The moral argument is not saying that we know morality through the bible.  It's not even an argument only for Christianity and can stand apart from it.  What you know, how well you or others know it, nor how well you can demonstrate it, change whether or not it is objective.  One might argue, that even discussing these things in this way suggest that it is objective. Here is a link, that discusses what is being talked about in moral objectivism.

http://www.philosophybasics.com/branch_m...alism.html

Also, I noticed that the discussion had veered towards the problem of evil and perceived immorality n the Bible. These and your statements above; don't even make since when argued from a view of moral subjectivism.

Is that the only trick you know?  At least get it right if you're going to repeat it.  I was responding to Inks question, not laying out a case for objective morality.  I'm tired of this mama-bird shit.

What makes something objective...as I have repeatedly stated, is it's status as being both independent of a particular subject, and demonstrably referent to an actual object.  End of, that's it, that's all.  Harm is both of these things, and is as fundamental to any religious morality as it is to a secular morality.  It is available to all of us, and has the benefit of explaining -why- something is wrong, rather than declaring it to be so by fiat.  

From the POV of moral subjectivism..whatever immorality is seen in the character of the biblical god makes as much sense as whatever subjective assessment of it is being offered - ala "That god story makes me feel filthy just thinking about it".  Well, okay, I can understand why a person would trust their sense of disgust - it's pretty damned reliable for reasons that you don't believe in (lol).

From the point of view of my moral objectivism...the immorality of the bible-god is sensible specifically because the character of god manages to incur immense harm left right and center...and still has the finale up his sleeves. As I;ve already stated...that's as easy to remove as an objection as;

"we both know that shit never happened, and a good god wouldn't do it anyway"

Feel free to avail yourself of that at any point.

(July 13, 2017 at 4:16 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Is that the only trick you know?  At least get it right if you're going to repeat it.  I was responding to Inks question, not laying out a case for objective morality.  I'm tired of this mama-bird shit.

What makes something objective...as I have repeatedly stated, is it's status as being both independent of a particular subject, and demonstrably referent to an actual object.  End of, that's it, that's all.  Harm is both of these things, and is as fundamental to any religious morality as it is to a secular morality.  It is available to all of us, and has the benefit of explaining -why- something is wrong, rather than declaring it to be so by fiat.  

From the POV of moral subjectivism..whatever immorality is seen in the character of the biblical god makes as much sense as whatever subjective assessment of it is being offered - ala "That god story makes me feel filthy just thinking about it".  Well, okay, I can understand why a person would trust their sense of disgust - it's pretty damned reliable for reasons that you don't believe in (lol).  

From the point of view of my moral objectivism...the immorality of the bible-god is sensible specifically because the character of god manages to incur immense harm left right and center...and still has the finale up his sleeves. 

I would not equate harm with immorality, or lack of harm with moral.  Although it may be involved in a very basic guideline (I would agree, that you shouldn't seek to harm others for selfish reasons)
.
As C.S. Lewis pointed out; someone who tries to trip me and fails is in the wrong, while someone who accidentally trips me is not.  Your principle of harm would see to reverse this.  Does this harm extend to all living things?   What about non-living things?   If I destroy some thing of mine, is that immoral?

And all of this, is describing what is moral (epistemology).  However it doesn't answer the question of why anything is wrong, or why one ought not to do these things.  So while I agree, that harm is objective (at least for the most part) and independent of the subject (I think some arguments could be made for psychological harm here),  I still don't think that you understand the argument that is being made.

(July 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would not equate harm with immorality, or lack of harm with moral.  Although it may be involved in a very basic guideline (I would agree, that you shouldn't seek to harm others for selfish reasons)

Yes you would...in fact...I'd suggest that you would be incapable of -not- doing so.  

Quote:As C.S. Lewis pointed out; someone who tries to trip me and fails is in the wrong, while someone who accidentally trips me is not.  Your principle of harm would see to reverse this.

Far be it from me to rebel against what the great moral theorist CL Lewis had to say on the matter.....I agree.  A person who attempts to trip you and fails is oin the wrong.  Why?  Because he attempted to harm you.  Someone who does so on accident is not...why, because he did -not- attempt to harm you.  Why would my principle of harm reverse this...and don't you find it telling that you have just failed to escape harm in attempting to criticize the objective moral foundation of harm?  

Quote: Does this harm extend to all living things?

I don;t know, it -at least- extends to humans, so?  I'm willing to entertain the notion - got a specific living thing in mind?

Quote: What about non-living things?

Most likely not, at least in and of themselves.  Kicking a rock isn't immoral.  Kicking in my window, is.  

Quote: If I destroy some thing of mine, is that immoral?

Depends, does it cause harm?  Are you destroying the cure for cancer, or yourself...perhaps something your family depends on?

Quote:And all of this, is describing what is moral (epistemology).  However it doesn't answer the question of why anything is wrong, or why one ought not to do these things.  So while I agree, that harm is objective (at least for the most part) and independent of the subject (I think some arguments could be made for psychological harm here),  I still don't think that you understand the argument that is being made.

Jesus, there you go again.  What argument do you think is being made?  What argument am I supposed to not understand?  The argument you aren't making, or the argument that I'm not making?  The phantom argument?  How could my answer to that question, -why anything is wrong- be more explicit than "because it causes harm"....? Are you...somehow, under the impression that a full moral assessment of some x can both begin -and- end with an invocation of the axiom?

Non humans maybe but it won't be the same morality as humans. Because there not human.

Non living things only in realation to living things

Lewis was an idiot . And what part of intent did you miss Road

Once again just like all the theists before him Road fails to attack secular morality and fails to defend theistic morality

(July 13, 2017 at 5:23 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(July 13, 2017 at 5:10 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: I would not equate harm with immorality, or lack of harm with moral.  Although it may be involved in a very basic guideline (I would agree, that you shouldn't seek to harm others for selfish reasons)

Yes you would...in fact...I'd suggest that you would be incapable of -not- doing so.  

 

Quote:As C.S. Lewis pointed out; someone who tries to trip me and fails is in the wrong, while someone who accidentally trips me is not.  Your principle of harm would see to reverse this.

Far be it from me to rebel against what the great moral theorist CL Lewis had to say on the matter.....I agree.  A person who attempts to trip you and fails is oin the wrong.  Why?  Because he attempted to harm you.  Someone who does so on accident is not...why, because he did -not- attempt to harm you.  Why would my principle of harm reverse this...and don't you find it telling that you have just failed to escape harm in attempting to criticize the objective moral foundation of harm?  

No, you are incorrect;  I do not equate harm with immoral. Also as you agreed with the example from C.S. Lewis; it was the act in which no damage was done, that was immoral, and not the one in which harm was committed.   So as we seem to agree, the wrong in this example is in the intent, not the objective damage done.  Now one could say that it is in the intent to harm (in which I think you lose your position for objectiveness in your view).  Could I can steal from a rich man, because I don't intend him harm, I just wish for my greater well being (would this be moral)?  And as I said, I it's not about how we know what is moral, but the nature of morality itself.  Why is it right or wrong?

Quote:

Quote: Does this harm extend to all living things?

I don;t know, it -at least- extends to humans, so?  I'm willing to entertain the notion - got a specific living thing in mind?

Quote: What about non-living things?

Most likely not, at least in and of themselves.  Kicking a rock isn't immoral.  Kicking in my window, is.  

Quote: If I destroy some thing of mine, is that immoral?

Depends, does it cause harm?  Are you destroying the cure for cancer, or yourself...perhaps something your family depends on?

Just got pissed off, and harmed my phone from a sudden impact with the wall.

Quote:

Quote:And all of this, is describing what is moral (epistemology).  However it doesn't answer the question of why anything is wrong, or why one ought not to do these things.  So while I agree, that harm is objective (at least for the most part) and independent of the subject (I think some arguments could be made for psychological harm here),  I still don't think that you understand the argument that is being made.

Jesus, there you go again.  What argument do you think is being made?  What argument am I supposed to not understand?  The argument you aren't making, or the argument that I'm not making?  The phantom argument?  How could my answer to that question, -why anything is wrong- be more explicit than "because it causes harm"....?  Are you...somehow, under the impression that a full moral assessment of some x can both begin -and- end with an invocation of the axiom?  

If you are talking about how we know what is right or wrong, or if X is immoral, then you are on the wrong track. It is about if there is a morality, independent of the subject, in which we can compare right/wrong.  It's not about what is, but what ought. 

As we seen, you made statements which don't agree with "because it causes harm" as being immoral.  It sounds good, but doesn't hold up upon closer inspection (even if it is explicit).  

Again, it's not about assessment of if X is moral or not.   It is about morality itself, by which you are making the comparison and can even equate it with moral or immoral.

(July 13, 2017 at 7:02 pm)RoadRunner79 Wrote: No, you are incorrect;  I do not equate harm with immoral.

If you say so.  Your own faith, however, disagrees.  

Quote:Also as you agreed with the example from C.S. Lewis; it was the act in which no damage was done, that was immoral, and not the one in which harm was committed.   So as we seem to agree, the wrong in this example is in the intent, not the objective damage done. 

The intent -to do what-?  I can intend to eat chocolate ice cream..moral decision or not, quick, go! There;s no such thing as intent in a vacuum.  Intent is an inherently referent term.  You're not correcting me, you simply fail to recognize that you are agreeing with me, as your faith agrees with me...as everyone...anywhere, at any time...who has ever spoken about morality..agrees with me.  Harm is the foundation of morality. We may not always agree on what is or is not harmful.....but we're -always- discussing harm. At least, until you find a way to cogently disagree. Good luck on that one.

Quote:Now one could say that it is in the intent to harm (in which I think you lose your position for objectiveness in your view).  Could I can steal from a rich man, because I don't intend him harm, I just wish for my greater well being (would this be moral)?  And as I said, I it's not about how we know what is moral, but the nature of morality itself.  Why is it right or wrong?

See how your intent..in this instance, doesn't matter...since you -did- harm that man?  Theft is wrong because it harms the person whom you've stolen from..by depriving them of their property.  Sure, you might imagine that you've done a bad thing for a good reason..but looking at the quality of your good reason...I doubt you have it in you.

Quote:Just got pissed off, and harmed my phone from a sudden impact with the wall.

Did you, is there a moral component there that I;m missing?  Was there a dying man on the other end who's phone could only reach you or something?  Are you really this stupid?  Maybe you -did- harm yourself in some meaningfully moral way..since you're going to need that phone in the next five minutes..when you somehow manage to swallow a football on accident?

Quote:If you are talking about how we know what is right or wrong, or if X is immoral, then you are on the wrong track. It is about if there is a morality, independent of the subject, in which we can compare right/wrong.  It's not about what is, but what ought. 

No, -that- would be the compulsion to morality. Handily called..wait for it "Moral compulsion".  Something is wrong because it is harmful.  Why you shouldn't do that thing....is another issue.  Is -that- what you'd like to discuss? Why do you think that we shouldn't do the wrong thing? Careful.

Quote:As we seen, you made statements which don't agree with "because it causes harm" as being immoral.  It sounds good, but doesn't hold up upon closer inspection (even if it is explicit).  

Which statements would those be?  You've failed to identify one.  

Quote:Again, it's not about assessment of if X is moral or not.   It is about morality itself, by which you are making the comparison and can even equate it with moral or immoral.

I'm not making a moral comparison.  I'm flat out telling you that harm is axiomatic to moral systems...worldwide, always has been.  Yours, mine, all of them. It;s what we're talking about when we talk about good or bad. We have a million names for it, and a million takes on it......but, they all have that much in common.

(July 13, 2017 at 2:23 pm)Khemikal Wrote: Well, I asked you, and you suggested harm.  I agree.  The great thing about an objective moral standard is that you don't -need- a list, ala the ten commandments (and there we are seemingly assuming that an objective morality would be like a religious decree).  You can use that standard to assess -any- potential situation with moral ramifications..and even to assess whether or not something -is- a moral situation to begin with. I could suggest refinements and additions..but, ultimately, harm seems to be sufficient as an objective moral standard. Particularly in that it is positively -inescapable- when discussing morality. This is exactly what a properly basic belief is taken to be. An axiom of any system x. It's an axiom not only for secular moralities..but also religious moralities...the latter of which go to great lengths to insert their gods into the chain..but that;s all it is, an insertion - and a needless one at that.

I'm pretty sure you already know what things are right and wrong, don't you? We have powerful heuristic mechanisms built into us (and into our interactions as a society) for determining that even in the absence of a scholarly treatise or point by point description. Even if you didn;t know, and had never seen a treatise or a description, and your give a fuck-o-meter was broken..it;s still entirely likely that your behaviors would conform to the standard we use, as we've been selecting each other for fitness along those lines for quite some time now. You're an accidental "not a rapist" for example. It's not that you don't do it because you believe it's wrong, but because you simply don't want to.

How do you reckon that happened?

Ok, so you say harm is the objective moral standard. I can see where you are going with this even if I'm not quite convinced yet. Just because the two of us agree on not harming people doesn't mean that something outside ourselves has objectively made it a moral standard. I still need to think about it some more.

And about the "intentionally tripping someone vs. accidentally tripping someone" argument, I would say both are equally immoral if harm is the standard. After all, when you accidentally trip someone don't you apologize? Why would you apologize if you've done nothing wrong?

(July 13, 2017 at 7:26 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Ok, so you say harm is the objective moral standard. I can see where you are going with this even if I'm not quite convinced yet. Just because the two of us agree on not harming people doesn't mean that something outside ourselves has objectively made it a moral standard. I still need to think about it some more.

No, it doesn't, what makes it an objective standard, is it's independence from any given subject and ability to be demonstrated as such.  What makes it a moral standard is it's fundamental relationship to moral statements.  It's what we're talking about.  Ergo, an objective moral standard.  When we ask ourselves, "what is the moral fact of the matter" in some x...well, harm.  Why is rape bad? Because it causes harm. Why is standing between a rapist and a victim good? Because it stops or preempts that very same harm.

The two of us agreeing is moral agreement, some asshole elsewhere disagreeing..is moral disagreement, but it doesn't change or alter the objectivity of the standard itself..it's just some asshole disagreeing....just as some schmuck thinking that rape is the greatest good (cuz his seed so stronk)won't change anything about the harm it causes to the victim.

Quote:And about the "intentionally tripping someone vs. accidentally tripping someone" argument, I would say both are equally immoral if harm is the standard. After all, when you accidentally trip someone don't you apologize? Why would you apologize if you've done nothing wrong?

Because we have a need to reduce confrontation and conflict, particularly when another person does not or may not know that we meant no harm.  It;s called being polite, I;m sure you've heard of it.   We don't apologize only for being in the wrong, morally or otherwise.

(July 13, 2017 at 7:34 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(July 13, 2017 at 7:26 pm)Inkfeather132 Wrote: Ok, so you say harm is the objective moral standard. I can see where you are going with this even if I'm not quite convinced yet. Just because the two of us agree on not harming people doesn't mean that something outside ourselves has objectively made it a moral standard. I still need to think about it some more.

No, it doesn't, what makes it an objective standard, is it's independence from any given subject and ability to be demonstrated as such.  What makes it a moral standard is it's fundamental relationship to moral statements.  It's what we're talking about.  Ergo, an objective moral standard.  When we ask ourselves, "what is the moral fact of the matter" in some x...well, harm.  Why is rape bad? Because it causes harm. Why is standing between a rapist and a victim good? Because it stops or preempts that very same harm.

The two of us agreeing is moral agreement, some asshole elsewhere disagreeing..is moral disagreement, but it doesn't change or alter the objectivity of the standard itself..it's just some asshole disagreeing....just as some schmuck thinking that rape is the greatest good (cuz his seed so stronk)won't change anything about the harm it causes to the victim.

Quote:And about the "intentionally tripping someone vs. accidentally tripping someone" argument, I would say both are equally immoral if harm is the standard. After all, when you accidentally trip someone don't you apologize? Why would you apologize if you've done nothing wrong?

Because we have a need to reduce confrontation and conflict, particularly when another person does not or may not know that we meant no harm.  It;s called being polite, I;m sure you've heard of it.   We don't apologize only for being in the wrong, morally or otherwise.

So you don't feel bad when you accidentally hurt someone? You only feel scared that they will hurt you for it?