(May 3, 2018 at 9:20 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Western atheists that promote the "Good without God" simply take for granted that the behavioral norms and principles they consider self-evidently good and true are in fact predicated on Judeo-Christian principles.

Uh... no. Even most of the moral principles "introduced" in the Bible already predate the Bible. The Bible is not a moral book and even its few good points were already said long before.

Morality cannot be objective because it is not something that is absolute but instead something that is in a constant state of evolution so it can only be subjective or inter subjective. Nothing else. As society progresses it creates new moral dilemmas which by virtue of being so will have no frame of reference for them. And it will essentially be starting from nothing. Future generations will have to address moral
issues which dont even currently exist. Even if objective morality did exist as a general principle it could be interpreted fundamentally different from within such a constraint with regard to specific examples Extreme arguments used to justify objective morality are nothing more than arguments from emotion. They fail because in order for objective morality to be true it has to be so for all examples not just the
most extreme. Also those who think objective morality is true would have to explain why their own morality is not absolute but actually evolves over time as they acquire new knowledge and life experience

I find morality hard to pin down epistemologically.

I wouldn't call moral actions that are seen as absolute as "facts", maybe precepts, but calling moral actions as facts seems like it's stretching it, IMO.

Sure, moral actions are better or worse than others, that are of a comparable degree, but that is a distinction made in what perceived harm an action makes. I can understand why someone who think morality is objective would think them to be objective. We understand full well, from our own experience of harm done to ourselves, that harming others is wrong - but what is "harm" anyways? I think it's an entirely subjective metric; someone's harm is someone else's pleasure - or so it would seem - i.e. moral actions are conditional.

I still think we can make moral judgements, but that they are done with a caveat of societies ethics and sociability zeitgeist: What is considered moral today might change in a century on the zeitgeist for that century.

I think our moral precepts are evolving (hopefully towards the better), in reducing harm and making society a better place overall to live in.

---

BTW, as an excerpt, what is an example of "objective morality"? "Slavery is wrong" or "murder is wrong"? Not that I don't agree with these statements, I just think it would be difficult to argue for these statements as objective, they might seem objective, but I think they are moral precepts.

(May 3, 2018 at 11:50 am)surreptitious57 Wrote: Also those who think objective morality is true would have to explain why their own morality is not absolute but actually evolves over time as they acquire new knowledge and life experience

An objective morality that -doesn't- incorporate new facts ceases to be an objective morality.

---

(May 3, 2018 at 11:56 am)Sal Wrote: I still think we can make moral judgements, but that they are done with a caveat of societies ethics and sociability zeitgeist: What is considered moral today might change in a century on the zeitgeist for that century.

All the more reason to get ahead of the flock, as it were.  To divorce it from the capricious whims of society.  

Quote:BTW, as an excerpt, what is an example of "objective morality"? "Slavery is wrong" or "murder is wrong"? Not that I don't agree with these statements, I just think it would be difficult to argue for these statements as objective, they might seem objective, but I think they are moral precepts.

Sure, both of those could qualify, though you'll quickly find that not every explanation for why they're wrong qualifies.  Depends on the facts, and whether or not they are true.  So, ask yourself..-why- is slavery or murder wrong.  Is the answer to that question factual?  Are those facts somehow subject to your opinion? Could you change them and so change the moral status by simply changing your opinion?

(May 3, 2018 at 10:24 am)mh.brewer Wrote:

(May 3, 2018 at 9:20 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: That may well be true. At the same time your behavioral norms are predicated on something even if you do not know what the something is. Otherwise you are just acting on your passing fancies which is no morality at all. For those whose behaviors are not purely driven by their momentary desires, their norms are informed by some underlying principles - the respective virtues of those principles is the difference between the principled stance of a hero and the rationalizations of a criminal.

Western atheists that promote the "Good without God" simply take for granted that the behavioral norms and principles they consider self-evidently good and true are in fact predicated on Judeo-Christian principles.

Nice try...Keep up the rationalizations. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-societies

The writer of the article has a very short-range perspective. Only time will tell how long Western civilization will be able to maintain its liberal values apart from Christianity. But that was just an incidental point.

The main point that you failed to address was my challenge to your response to the OP. You say your behavior would not be any different with or without objective morality. You imply that somehow this means that no underlying universal principles guide your behavior. How is that any different from personal whim?

---

(May 3, 2018 at 11:14 am)Hammy Wrote:

(May 3, 2018 at 9:20 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: Western atheists that promote the "Good without God" simply take for granted that the behavioral norms and principles they consider self-evidently good and true are in fact predicated on Judeo-Christian principles.

Uh... no. Even most of the moral principles "introduced" in the Bible already predate the Bible. The Bible is not a moral book and even its few good points were already said long before.

Irrelevant. That some former pagan cultures have had similar principles in no way detracts from the fact that Western liberalism grew largely out of Christianity tempered with Hellenistic philosophy. Moreover, if their is indeed a transcendent source of value then it only stands to reason that cultures would adopt those values to the extent of the light they receive from general and special revelation. Prior to the modern period there is not a single example of a purely secular moral system except perhaps Confucianism but I am not an expert in Asian history.

---

(May 3, 2018 at 11:12 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant is a literary work from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2040-1782 BCE) which illustrates the value society placed on the concept of justice and equality under the law. In the story, a peasant named Khun-Anup is beaten and robbed by Nemtynakht, a wealthy landowner, who then tells him there is no use in complaining to the authorities because no one will listen to a poor man. The rest of the tale relates how Khun-Anup, believing in the power of justice, refutes Nemtynakht and wins his case.

The Eloquent Peasant & Egyptian Justice

[/quote]

Are you suggesting that Western liberal values came from Middle Kingdom Egypt? If not, then your reference is irrelevant. If so, then you have a very warped understanding of European intellectual history. And furthermore, it opens up a very problematic possibility for your position. How can two independent moral traditions reach similar conclusions unless there is a common element that transcends the particulars or both cultures?

(May 3, 2018 at 12:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(May 3, 2018 at 10:24 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Nice try...Keep up the rationalizations. 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/...-societies

The writer of the article has a very short-range perspective. Only time will tell how long Western civilization will be able to maintain its liberal values apart from Christianity. But that was just an incidental point.

The main point that you failed to address was my challenge to your response to the OP. You say your behavior would not be any different with or without objective morality. You imply that somehow this means that no underlying universal principles guide your behavior. How is that any different from personal whim?

Why do you feel the need to challenge my opinion? Oh, wait, it differs from yours therefore you consider it wrong/uncomfortable. 

Don't tell me what I imply. That's just you taking it to a place for you to feel comfortable. 

I got my principles from my family and society with very little of "The objective moral states.....". 

Tell me, what's the objective moral of personal whims?

Your position that moral societies would be nowhere without JC religion is just opinion.

(May 3, 2018 at 11:58 am)Khemikal Wrote:

(May 3, 2018 at 11:56 am)Sal Wrote: BTW, as an excerpt, what is an example of "objective morality"? "Slavery is wrong" or "murder is wrong"? Not that I don't agree with these statements, I just think it would be difficult to argue for these statements as objective, they might seem objective, but I think they are moral precepts.

Sure, both of those could qualify, though you'll quickly find that not every explanation for why they're wrong qualifies.  Depends on the facts, and whether or not they are true.  So, ask yourself..-why- is slavery or murder wrong.  Is the answer to that question factual?  Are those facts somehow subject to your opinion?  Could you change them and so change the moral status by simply changing your opinion?

No, I don't think those explanations would change based upon my own opinion - at least not on the surface, since I don't consider them facts - since they're based on a (seemingly) subjective metric: the harm they cause. I think slavery is wrong because they infringe upon a persons individual freedom and ability to choose their own life for themselves without the constraints slavery imposes. I don't think anything in the previous sentence is in any way an objective statement or reason, I'm also not sure if it would suffice as sufficient explanation for why slavery is wrong.

Likewise with murder: I think murder is wrong because it is the ultimate harm someone can make to someone else. Neither this statement seems, for me to be objective, because it hinges on harm done. I'm also unsure if this is sufficient reason to think why murder is wrong, I mean, what about killing someone in self-defense? That seems like an alleviating condition.

What would be a fact about "slavery is wrong", or that "murder is wrong"? Best I can come up with is "murder is wrong because it robs someone of their life", and "slavery is wrong because it robs a persons freedom". Good enough? Idk.

(May 3, 2018 at 12:09 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:  How can two independent moral traditions reach similar conclusions unless there is a common element that transcends the particulars or both cultures?

The common element can be as simple as their common humanity.  Two commensurate moral propositions can be arrived at by two groups of humans that are not objective in a relevant sense.

Both, for example, can postulate that blasphemy is immoral. So..that's one way. Another way is by pure happenstance. Another by disparate moral justifications. This is why agreement doesn't imply objectivity.,..but also why disagreement doesn't refute objectivity.

---

(May 3, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Sal Wrote: No, I don't think those explanations would change based upon my own opinion - at least not on the surface, since I don't consider them facts - since they're based on a (seemingly) subjective metric: the harm they cause. I think slavery is wrong because they infringe upon a persons individual freedom and ability to choose their own life for themselves without the constraints slavery imposes. I don't think anything in the previous sentence is in any way an objective statement or reason, I'm also not sure if it would suffice as sufficient explanation for why slavery is wrong.

Do you consider the harm caused by slavery subjective?  It;s only harmful because you say so? Did you make it so?  If you changed your opinion about it..would the harm go away?

Quote:What would be a fact about "slavery is wrong", or that "murder is wrong"? Best I can come up with is "murder is wrong because it robs someone of their life", and "slavery is wrong because it robs a persons freedom". Good enough? Idk.

IDK, you tell me.  If the reason that something was wrong was because it robbed someone of their life...and murder robbed someone of their life...then in what way is the statement; 

"Murder is wrong" not accurately communicating a fact?

(May 3, 2018 at 12:33 pm)Khemikal Wrote:

(May 3, 2018 at 12:28 pm)Sal Wrote: What would be a fact about "slavery is wrong", or that "murder is wrong"? Best I can come up with is "murder is wrong because it robs someone of their life", and "slavery is wrong because it robs a persons freedom". Good enough? Idk.

IDK, you tell me.  If the reason that something was wrong was because it robbed someone of their life...and murder robbed someone of their life...then in what way is the statement; 

"Murder is wrong" not accurately communicating a fact?

Because "wrong" in this sense is a value judgement. It isn't right/wrong in the sense of a measurement.

(May 4, 2018 at 8:03 am)Sal Wrote: Because "wrong" in this sense is a value judgement. It isn't right/wrong in the sense of a measurement.

 Why would that be a problem?  Why would something being related to or pursuant to a value judgement be barred from being a fact? Cant a value judgement be based on a measurement? Aren't all measurements based in standards?