They're talking more about appeal to authority than objective morality. Even if morality comes from yahweh, it's still subjective by virtue that it comes from a certain individual instead of just being a universal truth. Killing is wrong, except for people who aren't worshiping Yahweh. Steling is wrong, unless you're stealing the land from people who don't worship Yahweh.

(July 17, 2014 at 10:53 am)SteveII Wrote: I never said that morality ceases to exist without God. I said objective morality ceases to exist without God because without the possibility of a transcendent being, everything about our experience is subjective--including any moral code we have evolved.

That's exactly what I said: you're proposing a moral system that disappears without god involved, which is subjective by definition, and then attempting to call it objective, which it isn't, in an attempt to make it seem more important than it is. If it vanishes without god, then it's a subjective morality based on god's opinions, and not an objective one. Why should I care what god's opinions on morality are, where they conflict with my lived experiences in a world he won't even deign to enter for a second?

(July 17, 2014 at 11:13 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(July 17, 2014 at 10:53 am)SteveII Wrote: I never said that morality ceases to exist without God. I said objective morality ceases to exist without God because without the possibility of a transcendent being, everything about our experience is subjective--including any moral code we have evolved.

That's exactly what I said: you're proposing a moral system that disappears without god involved, which is subjective by definition, and then attempting to call it objective, which it isn't, in an attempt to make it seem more important than it is. If it vanishes without god, then it's a subjective morality based on god's opinions, and not an objective one. Why should I care what god's opinions on morality are, where they conflict with my lived experiences in a world he won't even deign to enter for a second?

So, you believe that the only system of moral values that we have is subjective and is therefore a matter of opinion. And these common sense opinions, when shared by a large group of people, can be relied on to form a system of morality that we can all live with.

This only serves to create a list of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors. If someone disagrees with the current crowd-sourced list of acceptable behaviors, say, women are not mere objects to own [insert any objectionable act here] there is nothing inherently wrong with that--just that either he has move to a different part of the world or lobby for his position until enough have changed their minds it becomes the new norm.

Or, are you going to say that western civilization has hit on the best list of acceptable behaviors and the middle east's list, African list, the far east's list or some other tribe in the Amazon's list is somehow inferior? It can't simply be a numbers thing (we are outnumbered by other cultures). It can't be a "more or less good" scientific yardstick like Sam Harris believes (because science tells us what is and not what ought to be).

If you do admit that other cultures are perfectly justified in creating their varied lists of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors, then that will bring up the question of why someone in our society should be held to our list?

We DO perceive that objective moral values and duties exist. Why would we not trust this perception? We perceive myriads of other things and trust those perceptions. Because naturalism can't be the cause? Isn't that a genetic fallacy?

You're quite good at deluding yourself, Steve. Or at least persistent.

Where are these objective principles of yours? Examples....not your bullshit "god said" stuff.

(July 21, 2014 at 3:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, you believe that the only system of moral values that we have is subjective and is therefore a matter of opinion. And these common sense opinions, when shared by a large group of people, can be relied on to form a system of morality that we can all live with.

Doesn't that roughly describe the situation here on the ground?

Quote:This only serves to create a list of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors. If someone disagrees with the current crowd-sourced list of acceptable behaviors, say, women are not mere objects to own [insert any objectionable act here] there is nothing inherently wrong with that--just that either he has move to a different part of the world or lobby for his position until enough have changed their minds it becomes the new norm.

Again, doesn't that roughly describe the situation on the ground?

Quote:If you do admit that other cultures are perfectly justified in creating their varied lists of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors, then that will bring up the question of why someone in our society should be held to our list?

Accepting that morality is subjective does not mean that you cannot prefer the contents of your own, or argue for the contents of your own over some other's.

Quote:We DO perceive that objective moral values and duties exist. Why would we not trust this perception?

Who's this we business, says I?

(July 21, 2014 at 3:37 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 3:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, you believe that the only system of moral values that we have is subjective and is therefore a matter of opinion. And these common sense opinions, when shared by a large group of people, can be relied on to form a system of morality that we can all live with.

Doesn't that roughly describe the situation here on the ground?

Quote:This only serves to create a list of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors. If someone disagrees with the current crowd-sourced list of acceptable behaviors, say, women are not mere objects to own [insert any objectionable act here] there is nothing inherently wrong with that--just that either he has move to a different part of the world or lobby for his position until enough have changed their minds it becomes the new norm.

Again, doesn't that roughly describe the situation on the ground?

Quote:If you do admit that other cultures are perfectly justified in creating their varied lists of acceptable/unacceptable behaviors, then that will bring up the question of why someone in our society should be held to our list?

Accepting that morality is subjective does not mean that you cannot prefer the contents of your own, or argue for the contents of your own over some other's.

Quote:We DO perceive that objective moral values and duties exist. Why would we not trust this perception?

Who's this we business, says I?

So, you believe that female genital mutilation in children is a preference and one should argue for one's view?

---

(July 21, 2014 at 3:35 pm)Minimalist Wrote: You're quite good at deluding yourself, Steve. Or at least persistent.

Where are these objective principles of yours? Examples....not your bullshit "god said" stuff.

You need to see someone about your anger issues.

I did not mention God. I was arguing that there are objective values and duties.

A list of things that are not universally understood to be wrong:
1. Mutilating children
2. Honor killings
3. Suicide bombers
4. Slavery
5. Genocide
6. Women as property
7. Selling one's children
8. Abandoning children, elderly
9. Sex with children
10. Summary executions
11. Capital punishment for seemingly trivial crimes
12. Racial discrimination

Would you say these are all "wrong" or would you say that they are subjective depending on the circumstances or your culture?

(July 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: Would you say these are all "wrong" or would you say that they are subjective depending on the circumstances or your culture?

I'm curious- would you say that each of those is objectively wrong or immoral?

(July 21, 2014 at 3:31 pm)SteveII Wrote: We DO perceive that objective moral values and duties exist. Why would we not trust this perception? We perceive myriads of other things and trust those perceptions.

We perceive that the earth is flat, but we know that perception is an illusion. Perception alone is seldom truly reliable.

I don't believe in objective morality, but neither am I a moral relativist. Biology and culture conspire to create moral sensations which, because they are intuitive, can't be easily reasoned about. That's why they appear objective.

(July 21, 2014 at 4:27 pm)SteveII Wrote: So, you believe that female genital mutilation in children is a preference and one should argue for one's view?

It's not a statement that requires belief, there are people who feel that female genital mutilation is "moral" or assign a positive moral value to it. They are free to do so, I cannot police their thoughts. I am free to disagree with them. Either of us can make our case to the other if we wish to influence each others idea of what is or is not moral.

What's confusing about this? Help me help you.

(July 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm)rasetsu Wrote: Biology and culture conspire to create moral sensations which, because they are intuitive, can't be easily reasoned about. That's why they appear objective.

That's a good way of describing it.

What makes, as an example, 'Biblical morals' rather pointless is that all of the morals touted by the Bible which have any real social or personal value are morals which are mostly ubiquitous anyway. Take those out, and you're just left with meaningless bullshit like "keep holy the Sabbath".