---

(July 17, 2017 at 9:33 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(July 17, 2017 at 6:40 am)Mr.wizard Wrote: No, I don't think I am, Their system is well aware that death is harmful and infinite torture is the most harmful, and yet they are both used as moral forms of punishment.

Both as punishments for harm.  It's a draconian system, but the point -is- to scare you shitless, and keep you from doing what they consider to be harmful. Those things are considered just retribution.  They're not, but we're not talking about whether or not they got it right, but why they propose what they do.  There's is neither an objective morality, nor an accurate morality, nor a just or consistent system of moral desert.... but it is based on harm as they see it.

I'm not arguing for objective morality, my only point was that it's possible to reach objective moral conclusions based on a subjective foundation.

But even the notion of sociopaths and such don't actually change the axiom it just adds nuance to it

(July 17, 2017 at 7:26 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

---

(July 17, 2017 at 9:33 am)Khemikal Wrote: Both as punishments for harm.  It's a draconian system, but the point -is- to scare you shitless, and keep you from doing what they consider to be harmful. Those things are considered just retribution.  They're not, but we're not talking about whether or not they got it right, but why they propose what they do.  There's is neither an objective morality, nor an accurate morality, nor a just or consistent system of moral desert.... but it is based on harm as they see it.

I'm not arguing for objective morality, my only point was that it's possible to reach objective moral conclusions based on a subjective foundation.

That's clearly not the point I was responding to up above, but okay....

An objective moral statement requires requires a moral fact of the matter.  No subjective moral framework is capable of yielding a meaningfully objective moral conclusion - by definition.  It can provide a consistent conclusion. It can provide correlative conclusions.  It can provide a useful conclusion. You can comment objectively -on- a subjective moral system and it;s conclusions(as I did above)...but it does not, because it cannot, provide an objectively moral conclusion.

---

(July 17, 2017 at 7:37 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: But even the notion of sociopaths and such don't actually change the axiom it just adds nuance to it

It doesn't add an ounce of nuance to the axiom, it modifies notions of moral desert pursuant to the axiom.

(July 17, 2017 at 7:56 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(July 17, 2017 at 7:26 pm)Mr.wizard Wrote:

---

I'm not arguing for objective morality, my only point was that it's possible to reach objective moral conclusions based on a subjective foundation.

That's clearly not the point I was responding to up above, but okay....

An objective moral statement requires requires a moral fact of the matter.  No subjective moral framework is capable of yielding a meaningfully objective moral conclusion - by definition.  It can provide a consistent conclusion.  It can provide correlative conclusions.  It can provide a useful conclusion.  You can comment objectively -on- a subjective moral system and it;s conclusions(as I did above)...but it does not, because it cannot, provide an objectively moral conclusion.

---

(July 17, 2017 at 7:37 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: But even the notion of sociopaths and such don't actually change the axiom it just adds nuance to it

It doesn't add an ounce of nuance to the axiom, it modifies notions of moral desert pursuant to the axiom.

Good Point 

(July 17, 2017 at 4:29 pm)JackRussell Wrote:

(July 17, 2017 at 4:10 pm)SteveII Wrote: The bluster covers the thin reasoning. He does not want to get anywhere near the fact that there exist a basic objective morality built into every human being that is not so cut and dried as his 'harm axiom'.

Explain sociopaths and psychopaths then? Evolution has a pretty good stab at this. [1]

I am Bi-Polar, give me the God's honest truth on the hell I've lived through. [2]

And I still submit that you and I are more moral than the god of your book and the god you think you talk to. [3]

If we met, we would probably have a nice time and agree on many things. Why would you think I think that? [4]

1. What do you want me to explain? A defect somewhere in the brain? 

2. Sorry to hear that. However, isn't that something that isn't working quite right in the brain?

3. You would have to believe in objective morality to even make that statement. So, what is the explanatory ultimate of objective morality?

4. Almost certainly. I don't know to what you think I think you think.

(July 17, 2017 at 7:56 pm)Khemikal Wrote: You can comment objectively -on- a subjective moral system and it;s conclusions(as I did above)...but it does not, because it cannot, provide an objectively moral conclusion.

So it's free but it will cost you.

In a sense, you could say that. Though no position is free - even a subjective moral schema locks a person in on grounds of consistency. It' alot easier, for sure, to ground ones morality in a subjective framework, but that ease comes at the cost of being able to claim moral knowledge.   Moral facts of a matter.

There's really no arguing against a subjective morality being a sufficient morality on grounds of it being subjective.  As I've commented on previously, there's no practical difference between two correlative moral systems - one subjective and the other objective.  The only necessary difference between the two is that one is, meaningfully, "just, like, an opinion, man".

I don;t think that people who propose subjective moral foundations (or who claim that morality is fundamentally subjective) act as if they believe that to be the case. I doubt that you'll find a single person here who thinks that the immorallity of rape is just an opinion, for example. So I guess that could be another cost. The disparity between proposition and action. I chalk that up, primarily, to a sloppy use of terms (or a lack of understanding) combined with centuries of moral bullshittery - but that's just me. If more people understood that objective morality was available and accessible in a secular framework I suspect we'd find fewer people arguing against it. Yet another sad consequence of religion and it's failures. So wrong and fucked up about something that it gets shit on by association. If the only people in the room waxing on about an objective morality were Steve and RR (or worse....the OP - RIP), I too...would conclude that it didn't exist.

So if I accept an exogenous view of morality, and I don't, how could that justify any pronouncements of the morality of the Abrahamic god(s)

Occam may assist me in saying that natural processes, which we know to exist, are sufficient to justify this.

There is a composition fallacy here, akin to the bullshit first cause fallacy that WLC gets so wrong repeatedly and without correction for the last 20 years.

I guess I am at least happy that oldskool creationism is slowly dying and the GoftheG is necessarily retreating further.

(July 18, 2017 at 11:18 am)Khemikal Wrote: I doubt that you'll find a single person here who thinks that the immorality of rape is just an opinion, for example.

It is the consensus of virtually all societies that rape is a great harm. That isn't just some individual's offhanded opinion. As a result it isn't likely you'll find many individuals (other than, I suppose, some rapists) who hold the opinion that it's not harmful. But this isn't remotely the same as proving it's a moral fact. It's just a widely held and agreed on moral consensus in the civilized world.

Where is there a thing-in-itself "out there" that we can point to that rape is factually immoral? Like all moral principles it IS in fact "just" an opinion. What's wrong with it being "just" that? It's no less useful to society because it's not a concrete "thing" that renders opinion moot. All a moral principle requires is for society, as a whole, to subscribe to it, agree with it, and therefore hold a common "opinion", and to use laws, taboos, conventions, or threats of withheld social reciprocity to encourage the widespread acceptance of the principle.

"Opinion" is not a dirty word. Opinions can be wrong, but they can also be right. Failing to take up an opinion but rather claiming rape is a harm because I say so or because the government says so or because my strongman god says so, is avoiding the hard work of wrestling with moral questions, but questions demand answers (unless you want to just suppress them and avoid them altogether) and answers require opinions. So?

(July 18, 2017 at 4:57 pm)mordant Wrote:

(July 18, 2017 at 11:18 am)Khemikal Wrote: I doubt that you'll find a single person here who thinks that the immorality of rape is just an opinion, for example.

It is the consensus of virtually all societies that rape is a great harm. That isn't just some individual's offhanded opinion. As a result it isn't likely you'll find many individuals (other than, I suppose, some rapists) who hold the opinion that it's not harmful. But this isn't remotely the same as proving it's a moral fact. It's just a widely held and agreed on moral consensus in the civilized world.

Where is there a thing-in-itself "out there" that we can point to that rape is factually immoral? Like all moral principles it IS in fact "just" an opinion. What's wrong with it being "just" that? It's no less useful to society because it's not a concrete "thing" that renders opinion moot. All a moral principle requires is for society, as a whole, to subscribe to it, agree with it, and therefore hold a common "opinion", and to use laws, taboos, conventions, or threats of withheld social reciprocity to encourage the widespread acceptance of the principle.

"Opinion" is not a dirty word. Opinions can be wrong, but they can also be right. Failing to take up an opinion but rather claiming rape is a harm because I say so or because the government says so or because my strongman god says so, is avoiding the hard work of wrestling with moral questions, but questions demand answers (unless you want to just suppress them and avoid them altogether) and answers require opinions. So?

Well the only way one could justify rape is with some divine commandment, ISIS Jihadis, taking the virgins into slavery or paedophile priests.

I was raped by a church of England lay priest when I was pre-pubescent, so I guess that makes me a hostile witness.

But I am happy to believe that most theists also know that was wrong. But they don't know because of the supernatural, they know it's wrong because it ruined my life.

I wish they would be fucking honest, they are more honest than their god(in most cases.)