(April 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm)Tex Wrote: No possible world exists where burning puppies is ok,

What about Earth.666, where the puppies are irredeemably evil?

You got that right! Here's my little beast, Asta...

(April 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm)Tex Wrote:

(April 17, 2013 at 8:33 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: No, please, tell me these things; I'm here to learn

I thought "a priori" meant that we could literally sit on a couch and come to the conclusion that something must be true? Seems to me we can do that with morality and moral problems.

That's basically what it means. You can do the same with math problems without actually ever seeing 2 apples removed from the basket of 5. However, if you're on the couch trying to figure out why birds can fly, you're using the concept "bird" achieved from knowing what a bird is, so the logic takes place posterior to the experience, rather than prior.

Agreed.

Quote:I'll try and explain myself some more: could it have been possible for a world to exist where burning puppies is the morally right thing to do? If yes, then apparently morality is arbitrary because although we can say that's horrible, our feelings toward that action mean nothing whatsoever. It also means God's nature is arbitrary. If you say no, it was necessary for God to be the way he is, then that begs the question.

I used the example of my car. The engine is necessary to the car *only* when I want to drive. It's not necessary if I want to jump up and down on my car. It's not necessary when I want to vacuum my car. Therefore, it means that for something to be *necessary*, there must be an external condition. Well, then, if God's nature is necessarily the way it is, then what's the *external* thing controlling this necessity?

I'll leave it there and wait for your response.

No possible world exists where burning puppies is ok[/quote]

...why?

Quote:I'll address the second objection, "...it was necessary for God to be the way he is...".

The response to this is the relationship between those weird transcendentals I bring up sometimes (if you look, you may use the morality version of this and replace it with existence very easily). Basically, if God is not internally infinitely Good, he doesn't exist in the first place. Good and Being can't be split, since you need a person to first exist to do Good and once the person is Existing, he/she has the ability to be moral. So, the reason he must exist as infinitely Good is because he exists.

Yes.. I agree that a being necessarily has to exist for that being to have any attributes... that's just intuitive. The problem is these attributes it actually holds, why, because I don't see any reason for God being this way instead of another. Could God have been internally infinitely Evil? If no, then what made it *necessary* for him to be infinitely Good?

---

(April 18, 2013 at 11:09 am)ChadWooters Wrote: I wouldn’t call it my project to find a physical basis for morality. I contend that the attempt to do so is futile. And most of the responses, here and elsewhere indicate that atheists, as a general rule, accept this fact. The problem I have is that these same atheists then turn around and deny that this leads to moral nihilism.

Their response to what happens afterwards is irrelevant. All of us here are wondering whether morals are objective or subjective, and once one of those options has been knocked down, then all that's left to do is embrace that reality. How you decide to deal with that truth is a trivial detail.

Quote:I do not believe that an objective basis for morality is possible. I say that because I understand ‘objective’ to mean folk notions, such as ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, could be directly translated into the language of physics. If physicalism is true this would be at least theoretically possible, even it were practically incalculable.

It just occurred to me that before, in your explanation of how this method would work, you were in fact subjectively coming to conclusions (as is always the case) about what the hypothetical data meant; in this case, choosing utilitarianism as a means of concluding what is 'right' and 'wrong'. So it still wouldn't truly be "objective" in the way that we mean it.

Quote:The lack of an objective morality does not mean that divine commands must be arbitrary or capricious. All that is required is a perfect moral standard by which the actions and intentions of people can be compared.

Could this perfect moral standard have been any other way, such that burning puppies could have been a possible "good moral" to have? If yes, then the choice of this perfect standard was arbitrary. If no, then something exterior to God made it necessary for God (the perfect moral standard) to be the way he is, in which case it would be appropriate of me to ask what it was. Take your pick!

(April 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: And how is this person’s will or opinion in any way objective? The law is objective only in the sense that the symbolic expression is observable. That to which the symbolic expression refers, the person’s will or opinion, is not objective.

Did you misread my statement? I said that law - once established - is independent of a person's will or opinion. That is what makes it objective.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Not so. The IQ test measures the efficacy and efficiency of the brain as a physical symbolic processor.

That would be an extremely limited and incorrect view of intelligence. Your intelligence represents things way beyond your brain's processing power.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Objective things can be quantified, but not all things can be objectively quantified.

Given that you agree that law is objective and yet cannot be quantified - this statement is not true.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Once again, objective things can be quantified, but not all things can be objectively quantified. Following surgery, hospital staffers ask patients to rate the degree of their pain on a scale of 1 (annoying) to 10 (unbearable). I do not believe such a survey objectively measures any real similarity of pain experience between a pansy like me and a Navy Seal. Qualitative experiences lack the attributes that make physical events empirically verifiable. What the Navy Seal experiences as a 3, I might rate as an 8. And even then, how we rate our pain might depend on our moods or other factors.

Like I said, you are wrong and your statement here shows absence on knowledge upon the subject. Check out what a dolorometer does.

(April 18, 2013 at 8:45 pm)Tex Wrote: No possible world exists where burning puppies is ok,

Surely, there must have been at least -a few- puppies in Sodom or Gomorrah......

Hello, I’m new here; this is my first post and I’d like to weigh in on the subject. A lot of the issues being raised on this topic are impossible to answer or comment on without a complete understanding of the nature of God. I don’t think a human being can understand God’s true nature any more than a single cell creature could understand ours.
The problem with the concept of objective morality is that without God, there is no authority for objective morals. No matter how difficult it is to live out, the absence of God (greater authority) results in morality being subjective.
Now the question is, Should I be so arrogant to say that my moral judgments are what’s right for all cultures and people to follow, or acknowledge that anyone else’s moral judgments are just as valid as mine?

You may feel that way, but I don't have as much trouble considering the nature of a character in a narrative. I find it much easier, in fact, than trying to weigh in on a living breathing person. The character in the narrative is confined to the page- the boundaries are hard, and the narrative may be re-read from many different angles.

The problem with objective morality specifically as it relates to god - is that even with a god there is still no authority. Please, explain to someone who simply can't grasp it, why morality would cease to be subjective if there were a god - why is that the qualifier?

FallentoReason Wrote:Yes.. I agree that a being necessarily has to exist for that being to have any attributes... that's just intuitive. The problem is these attributes it actually holds, why, because I don't see any reason for God being this way instead of another. Could God have been internally infinitely Evil? If no, then what made it *necessary* for him to be infinitely Good?

Ah, now I understand your question. At this point, since I've taken no class nor done heavy individual study on a question this deep, take my words with a grain of salt.

The reason why God, as necessary being, must be both Being itself and Goodness itself is the absolute interlacing of the two: to exist is good. God, as Being unlimited, would then equally be Goodness unlimited. In so far as you exist, you are good. Even a demon, in so far as he exists, is good.

Can Being exist separate from Good? No. If Being were separate from Good, then existence is in itself literally "worth-less". God's own existence, much like a DCT ethics, is now arbitrary, and thus without reason. This begs the question, "Why the system in the first place?".

---

Alright, I tried. I like everything except the last paragraph because it really seems like a word game rather than legitimate logic. Tell me what you think.

---

And I still can't kill those puppies!

If all things which happen in the universe are the direct result of its creation, then God must also be Evil Unlimited.

Evil is a privation of Good, not an actual thing. It is exactly like heat and light.