(October 15, 2026 at 2:34 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: If there's no God, nothing is objectively right or wrong or evil. Do you agree?

I'm no expert, but I tend to think of moral statements as rooted in conditionals. Every moral statement can be put in the form of an "if..., then..." Although often the "if" part is left unstated. 

So for example we could say "If it's better to be healthy than to be sick, then it's wrong for companies to sell products that make people sick." 

I don't think we can PROVE that it's better to be healthy than to be sick, in the same way we can prove that the earth is round. But to me it seems as close to unarguably self-evident as a statement can be. 

Or "if human flourishing is better than exploitation and oppression, then slavery is bad." 

What would you say... are the "if" parts of those statements objective? Intersubjective? Or subjective but more or less unarguable? (Granted, people can argue about anything if they're in the mood.)  

I admit I'm not quite answering your question, because it seems to me that moral statements of this type work whether there is a God involved or not. 

I'm not fighting you, I'm curious about what you think.

The Grand Nudger

Then there is no rule that there has to be a decider.  

Right. But that doesn't mean there can be morals without a decider. There are no rules, including moral rules. As long as you get away with it, you're fine. You owe no one an explanation if there are no rules.

"it's bad to break the law, and since facebook is against the law, it's bad to go on facebook."

Let me remind you of the argument line. You said we had to respect other people's opinions about morality. That's why I gave the example from China and Facebook. By that logic, you couldn't go on Facebook in any country because it's immoral to some people. According to you, we have to respect other people's moral values.

"I don't think lions are moral agents."

By what standards are humans moral agents?

(October 20, 2026 at 6:57 am)Belacqua Wrote:

(October 15, 2026 at 2:34 pm)AngelThMan Wrote: If there's no God, nothing is objectively right or wrong or evil. Do you agree?

"if human flourishing is better than exploitation and oppression, then slavery is bad." 

I appreciate you engaging in good faith.

There would have to be an objective moral standard, meaning binding everywhere in the universe, plus always leading to consequences if broken, for slavery to be truly wrong. If there isn't an objective moral standard, slavers do not owe society any explanations for their actions. All they have to do is evade the law of the land, and in terms of the universe they have done nothing wrong. Opinions are meaningless.

(October 20, 2026 at 7:25 am)AngelThMan Wrote: 1) There are no rules, including moral rules. As long as you get away with it, you're fine. 

2) You said we had to respect other people's opinions about morality. That's why I gave the example from China and Facebook. By that logic, you couldn't go on Facebook in any country because it's immoral to some people. According to you, we have to respect other people's moral values.

3) By what standards are humans moral agents?

1) Even if people break laws with impunity those laws still exist. You also seem to be objecting on the basis of how you feel about someone getting away with it, this is moral emotivism not moral objectivism. 
2) Respecting their right to opinions, differs from respecting those opinions. 
3) They exhibit sufficient reason to assess complex moral choices and their consequences, lions can't do this in the same way, and as such are not held accountable to human standards of morality. 

Example: If it is objectively true that infanticide is wrong, why would this not apply to lions? Why would it not apply to biblical deity? NB if the answer is just a subjective belief or opinion it is obviously insufficient to establish the claim as objectively true.

(October 20, 2026 at 7:35 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 6:57 am)Belacqua Wrote: "if human flourishing is better than exploitation and oppression, then slavery is bad." 

I appreciate you engaging in good faith.

There would have to be an objective moral standard, meaning binding everywhere in the universe, plus always leading to consequences if broken, for slavery to be truly wrong. If there isn't an objective moral standard, slavers do not owe society any explanations for their actions. All they have to do is evade the law of the land, and in terms of the universe they have done nothing wrong. Opinions are meaningless.

God he keeps the same stupid talking everyone's already dealt with 

(October 20, 2026 at 7:35 am)AngelThMan Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 6:57 am)Belacqua Wrote: "if human flourishing is better than exploitation and oppression, then slavery is bad." 

1) There would have to be an objective moral standard, meaning binding everywhere in the universe, plus always leading to consequences if broken, for slavery to be truly wrong.
2) If there isn't an objective moral standard, slavers do not owe society any explanations for their actions.
3) All they have to do is evade the law of the land, and in terms of the universe they have done nothing wrong. Opinions are meaningless.

1) Obviously as Belacqua points out the idea slavery is immoral can be reasoned, if one believes (for example) that human flourishing is better than exploitation and oppression, then the claim logically follows, it need not be objectively true in order for me to hold that moral opinion. 

Another problem is that an explicit objective moral moratorium on slavery does not exist, most especially in the bible, which explicitly endorses slavery in Exodus 21. 

2) Societal moral assertions are base on moral relativism, not moral objectivism. 
3) They needn't even do that, since Christian society at that time believed they had a moral right to own slaves, derived from a perfectly moral deity, endorsed explicitly in the bible. However there were also people who did not share this moral view, and their subjective opinion could only be enforced in the end by a prolonged and violently destructive conflict. 

Wishing there were moral absolutes and wishing these had consequences is not moral objectivism, it is moral emotivism, you seem to be confusing the two here again. How you want the world to be, is not an objective truth about how the world is.

(October 20, 2026 at 8:36 am)Sheldon Wrote:

(October 20, 2026 at 7:35 am)AngelThMan Wrote: 1) There would have to be an objective moral standard, meaning binding everywhere in the universe, plus always leading to consequences if broken, for slavery to be truly wrong.
2) If there isn't an objective moral standard, slavers do not owe society any explanations for their actions.
3) All they have to do is evade the law of the land, and in terms of the universe they have done nothing wrong. Opinions are meaningless.

1) Obviously as Belacqua points out the idea slavery is immoral can be reasoned, if one believes (for example) that human flourishing is better than exploitation and oppression, then the claim logically follows, it need not be objectively true in order for me to hold that moral opinion. 

Another problem is that an explicit objective moral moratorium on slavery does not exist, most especially in the bible, which explicitly endorses slavery in Exodus 21. 

2) Societal moral assertions are base on moral relativism, not moral objectivism. 
3) They needn't even do that, since Christian society at that time believed they had a moral right to own slaves, derived from a perfectly moral deity, endorsed explicitly in the bible. However there were also people who did not share this moral view, and their subjective opinion could only be enforced in the end by a prolonged and violently destructive conflict. 

Wishing there were moral absolutes and wishing these had consequences is not moral objectivism, it is moral emotivism, you seem to be confusing the two here again. How you want the world to be, is not an objective truth about how the world is.

Essentially filters all morality through warped lens of Divine Command Theory a morally bankrupt philosophy

(October 20, 2026 at 7:25 am)AngelThMan Wrote: The Grand Nudger

Then there is no rule that there has to be a decider.  

Right. But that doesn't mean there can be morals without a decider. There are no rules, including moral rules. As long as you get away with it, you're fine. You owe no one an explanation if there are no rules.

There you go trying to assert a rule again.  

Quote:"it's bad to break the law, and since facebook is against the law, it's bad to go on facebook."

Let me remind you of the argument line. You said we had to respect other people's opinions about morality. That's why I gave the example from China and Facebook. By that logic, you couldn't go on Facebook in any country because it's immoral to some people. According to you, we have to respect other people's moral values.

I never said any such thing. I think that some peoples moral values are complete dogshit. That they deserve nothing more than ridicule and mockery. Theistic moral values, for example. That whole decider thing.

Quote:"I don't think lions are moral agents."

By what standards are humans moral agents?

Capacity for moral reasoning, for starters. Same reason I think that infants aren't moral agents.

(October 20, 2026 at 8:53 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:

PHP Code:

There you go trying to assert a rule again.  

No!!! There are no rules under atheism. None. That's my point, and you're only helping my argument.

PHP Code:

I think that some peoples moral values are complete dogshit.  That they deserve nothing more than ridicule and mockery.  Theistic moral values, for example.  That whole decider thing.

That makes you the arbiter.

Quote:Capacity for moral reasoning, for starters. Same reason I think that infants aren't moral agents.

If a baby kills someone, it has done something wrong even if it doesn't know it. Though if there are no moral rules, the baby has done nothing wrong.


I guess we've gone full circle. Imo you have not established a moral ground I'm required to obey