(September 2, 2013 at 8:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: Craig says that objective values DO exist, because he knows that many will shy away from the horrors of some clearly immoral behaviors. All normal people will say that murdering innocents just for fun is wrong, for example, and those who disagree will be treated as inhuman monsters. Since all healthy humans shy away from murder, Craig will say, it must be an objective value. The same goes for raping children. And for killing fetuses, eating the meat of defenseless animals, and . . . oh shit, wait a minute.

Okay, so there are some values that are so strong in the human population that they are nearly universal. Why would God be a better description of that fact than evolution?

And therein lies my point morals are subjective, not objective. Because if they were objective such as gravity is we would have no choice but to obey them.
And since clearly people are capable of defying them they cannot therefore be objective.
A point that I hope made a whooshing noise as it passed over genkaus's head.

(September 2, 2013 at 8:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, so there are some values that are so strong in the human population that they are nearly universal. Why would God be a better description of that fact than evolution?

I'd say neither is a good description.

---

(September 2, 2013 at 9:23 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And therein lies my point morals are subjective, not objective. Because if they were objective such as gravity is we would have no choice but to obey them.
And since clearly people are capable of defying them they cannot therefore be objective.
A point that I hope made a whooshing noise as it passed over genkaus's head.

I got your point, and I'm saying that your point is invalid.

Morality is a conceptual standard, not a physical law. Which is why your comparison to gravity is incorrect. There are multiple objective conceptual standards available to us that people are capable of defying. Which is why, the objectivity of a moral system does not depend on an individual's defiance of it.

To put it simply, justify your statement - "if morality was objective, people would have to obey".

(September 2, 2013 at 9:32 am)genkaus Wrote:

(September 2, 2013 at 8:48 am)bennyboy Wrote: Okay, so there are some values that are so strong in the human population that they are nearly universal. Why would God be a better description of that fact than evolution?

I'd say neither is a good description.

---

(September 2, 2013 at 9:23 am)Zen Badger Wrote: And therein lies my point morals are subjective, not objective. Because if they were objective such as gravity is we would have no choice but to obey them.
And since clearly people are capable of defying them they cannot therefore be objective.
A point that I hope made a whooshing noise as it passed over genkaus's head.

I got your point, and I'm saying that your point is invalid.

Morality is a conceptual standard, not a physical law. Which is why your comparison to gravity is incorrect. There are multiple objective conceptual standards available to us that people are capable of defying. Which is why, the objectivity of a moral system does not depend on an individual's defiance of it.

To put it simply, justify your statement - "if morality was objective, people would have to obey".

For me that's it in a nutshell. A conceptual standard. One we can imagine and therefore one that doesn't actually have to exist otherwise.

If we can imagine a "moral ideal" then we can strive for it. Getting a common acceptance of that moral ideal would be easy in some areas - harder in others. In other words - typical of the sort of problems you might face applying an imagined standard to the real world.

I always want to ask the "objective morals" crowd to name one such example.

I can't think of any that have not been practiced at one time or another by some human culture.

(September 2, 2013 at 12:40 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I always want to ask the "objective morals" crowd to name one such example.

I can't think of any that have not been practiced at one time or another by some human culture.

Objective morality is not enfored morality. In other words, it's about ontology, not epistemology or practice, but whether or not some things are actually moral/immoral.

The Ancient Egyptians gleefully practiced incest. The Aztecs murdered thousands of sacrificial victims. The Greeks exposed deformed infants. Numerous cultures have practiced cannibalism.

These were not regarded as immoral by those cultures.

Just because this dickhead says that objective morals are true does not make him right. Humans do all sort of shit - and then invent gods to tell them its okay.

I never found morality to be something so... defined. In fact, my morality changed to be more liberal when I transitioned from being a christian to an agnostic christian to an atheist. I used to think abortions were always dreadful, always. But now I am not so sure about that. In fact I find stem cell research to be much more generous than having a baby live with EB for their entire livelihood.

Morality in my experience to my understanding is a constantly upgrading set of rules. Not laws. Not norms. Rules. You can bend the bracket but sometimes it snaps and You will learn the limits of your morality.

Quote:P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

This right here. This thing. It bothers me more than I can put into words. Really really. I think that will pop into my head at random points in the future and put me in a bad mood for a few hours.

(September 2, 2013 at 3:47 pm)NoraBrimstone Wrote:

Quote:P1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.

This right here. This thing. It bothers me more than I can put into words. Really really. I think that will pop into my head at random points in the future and put me in a bad mood for a few hours.

As we've seen, that depends heavily on the concept of "objective"

Morals are not objective, they are the negotiated behavior of groups of people. One person alone cannot have, and does not need, morality.