Some of you are confusing - as Gen has pointed out - objective moral values with a physical law. Moral realism does not assert that you cannot do immoral things. It's about ontology (what they are) not them being followed.

(September 2, 2013 at 12:33 pm)max-greece Wrote: 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.

However, we've applied similarly imagined standards objectively in other cases. We have standards for evidence, law, intelligence etc. But for some reason, we seem to think that applying morality in a similar fashion is impossible.

---

(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.

Laws are, more or less, a form of objective morals. They apply to human behavior and, as a matter of norm, are not affected by an individual's perception of them.

---

(September 2, 2013 at 4:15 pm)Chas Wrote: Morals are not objective, they are the negotiated behavior of groups of people. One person alone cannot have, and does not need, morality.

Where did you get that? A fortune cookie? The application of morality is not limited to group behavior. They can be objective, subjective, rational, nonsensical or anything in between. And a person alone would still need morality and is capable of having it.

(September 2, 2013 at 6:40 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(September 2, 2013 at 6:02 am)genkaus Wrote: This position is as baseless as claiming that objective morality requires a god.

Morality is a standard to judge human actions. Humans have many such standards to judge different things - we've standards for weights, lengths, volumes etc. The objectivity of these standards only depends on their non-reliance on individual perception.

Take measurement of quantity for instance. It used to be subjective - a fistful of rice, a pinch of salt etc. It'd vary from individual to individual based on their physical specifications. But now we've established a specific quantity as 1 cubic-meter or 1 kilogram and we use that as standard to measure it. It is objective because it no longer depends on any individual. Further, individual rejection of the standard doesn't make it subjective.

Similarly, objective morality would simply mean that the code of ethics would not change with the person applying it. Unquestioning compliance is not a requirement. Universal acceptance is, likewise, not a requirement.

As far as I can tell, you just used a whole bunch of words to basically agree with me.

Except that he believes there is objective morality, and you don't.

Well first off number one is baseless.
I think that there are objective morals, the first two that come to mind are Genocide is evil, and Slavery is evil.
The god of the bible promotes both.
So therefore gods existance conflicts with objective morality

A. It's a shitty argument. Morality comes from evolution. Most animals have some sort of social structure. It helps us survive as a species. If we just raped and killed anyone we wanted to we wouldn't survive very well would we? It is extra apparent that genes control things that we consider morality when you consider the example of the dog. We've bred some dogs to be uber-friendly and harmless and we've bred some to be attack dogs.

B. Willam Craig is an asshole. He argues against his own position to try to win debates. The best example of this is his debate with Bart Ehrman where he tried to use the Gospels as a historical documents, claiming that one was the most valid and the other (contradictory ones) shouldn't be considered. This is despite the fact that he considers them without error. In his debate with Christopher Hitchens he uses similar tactics. He wants to win a debate rather than be honest about his position. I guess being slimy and dishonest are Christian virtues. (Duh)

(September 2, 2013 at 11:51 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Morality comes from evolution.

That's a shitty argument too. Human morality is fundamentally different from animal morality.

(September 2, 2013 at 10:53 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 2, 2013 at 12:33 pm)max-greece Wrote: 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.

However, we've applied similarly imagined standards objectively in other cases. We have standards for evidence, law, intelligence etc. But for some reason, we seem to think that applying morality in a similar fashion is impossible.

---

Read that several times - "However" fooled me - we agree entirely I think.

(September 2, 2013 at 11:58 pm)max-greece Wrote: Read that several times - "However" fooled me - we agree entirely I think.

We do. It was an I've-something-to-add-however, not I-disagree-with-this-one-thing-however.

(September 2, 2013 at 11:58 pm)genkaus Wrote:

(September 2, 2013 at 11:51 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: Morality comes from evolution.

That's a shitty argument too. Human morality is fundamentally different from animal morality.

How so? I wonder what the murder rate amoungst ape tribes are compared to people. Probably not that bad. Why are some dogs aggressive and some passive and friendly. It's in the genes. Obviously genes can change our behavior, desires, sex drive etc. All things that are mish mashed into our morality. Even if you could sufficiently make the case that our morals were different, so what? Elephants and Lions have huge differences in morals. Pretty much every species is difference, of course humans are. I think the case is pretty well argued and researched. Certainly not shitty (like the Goddidit argument, which is always shitty.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

(September 3, 2013 at 12:10 am)CapnAwesome Wrote: How so? I wonder what the murder rate amoungst ape tribes are compared to people. Probably not that bad. Why are some dogs aggressive and some passive and friendly. It's in the genes. Obviously genes can change our behavior, desires, sex drive etc. All things that are mish mashed into our morality. Even if you could sufficiently make the case that our morals were different, so what? Elephants and Lions have huge differences in morals. Pretty much every species is difference, of course humans are. I think the case is pretty well argued and researched. Certainly not shitty (like the Goddidit argument, which is always shitty.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Apes who murder other apes are not held morally culpable for their actions. Aggressiveness and passiveness in dogs is similarly regarded as part of their nature - not something they bear moral responsibility for. The effect of genes maybe mish-mashed into our morality, but the extent of that effect can be separated and to the extent it is responsible for behavior, desires, sex-drive etc. we do not hold people morally responsible for them. This is not a difference in content - like moral differences of elephants and lions - it is a fundamental difference in its nature. The "evolution of morality" argument specifically addresses the precursors of human morality - but morality itself has come a long way from that. Ignoring all the other factors responsible for development of morality and limiting the answer to just evolution makes for a shitty argument.