Yeah, woman aren't treated as property! None of them!
It's just that if they don't willingly "act" as if they are, they get the shit punched out of 'em.

Quote:A list of things that are not universally understood to be wrong:

I asked you for a list of your "objective values," bozo. Are you incapable of answering a simple question? You are asserting that these exist. What are they?

I tried to phrase that using simple words so you can understand them.

(July 16, 2014 at 12:45 am)alexwenzel Wrote: It is mysterious to me how you don't see it.

It's no mystery why we don't see it. We haven't started with a conclusion and gone looking for evidence to support it. We start with the evidence and follow it to the conclusions.

(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.

It's a matter of opinion, based around an objective framework that we call "reality." As I've said numerous times, the facts of our nature as physical beings do not change from person to person; pain still denotes injury, death is not preferable, and these things are not just a matter of opinion. They are the basis through which a human-derived set of morals can be established: you mentioned child genital mutilation later on- which is interesting, since the god of the bible seems to like that- but there's a fairly easy objective argument that can be made for why that's wrong. Pain is bad, the removal of pleasure is bad, and these are just objectively true as a biological reality of humanity. There is no reason for mutilating the genitals of a child that might mitigate those biological realities, and therefore the pain and removal of pleasure serves no purpose.

Hence, it violates certain objective moral principles that exist actually objectively, and not your fake "subjective to god" objectively.

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.

I believe I've explained my position on this before, making this "it's just majority opinion!" argument from you a strawman. It's not just about the number of people who believe a thing, it's about the objective reality that we find ourselves in. Human beings are psychologically predisposed to freedom, and the person who believes that women are objects to own cannot produce an argument for why this should be so for women but not for men that isn't fallacious, and therefore their entire position is based on special pleading. Hence, it is not consistent, and therefore is not a logically tenable position.

Simple. Do not come back at me with another round of "it's just opinion!" crap, because I've just literally explained to you why it's not.

Quote: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).

Best? No. But we're learning, and the way to demonstrate a better way is through argument and evidence, not appeal to some non-demonstrable god's opinion. I'm not Sam Harris, I'm not required to worm my way around his beliefs, and I happen to think that science can help us to see what ought to be, by showing us what is good for conscious beings, due to their biological nature. That's the standard, the objective standard that we should be working from: that which maximizes the flourishing of conscious entities. Not some conscious entities at the expense of others, not the majority of conscious entities, conscious entities.

We actually started this conversation with me explaining that. The fact that you've defaulted to the standard theistic "your morals are just majority opinion!" strawman is a bit troubling, in the face of that. Do you have any interest in an actual honest debate, or just bouncing through theism's greatest fallacious hits?

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?

They are justified, assuming they can argue their case in a non-fallacious way according to the objective yardstick of the real world. If they can't... well, I can't stop them from doing what they do, but they aren't morally justified for doing so. Even in our society, I don't think our current set up is perfect, but it's the best we can do currently, and should be changed where argument and evidence can be produced that it should.

Quote: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?

Our perceptions routinely let us down. More importantly, those "objective morals" you see do, in fact, have reasons why they are the best possible action given the situation we find ourselves in. They aren't just true because they are true, they are moral realities that are often so simple based on the yardstick we're all using that they don't need to be thought about so deeply. That entire list you wrote out earlier, they all have incredibly easy to see reasons why they are wrong, if we take as our metric the health and happiness of conscious entities. The fact that you are unable to verbalize those reasons, or unwilling to think about them, doesn't mean that they don't exist and therefore those moral truths must be magic.

(July 21, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(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?

Yes

---

(July 21, 2014 at 7:21 pm)rasetsu Wrote:

(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.

Is there one "master list" of acceptable values? What about biology can create an intuitive moral code? Which culture conspired to create moral sensations?

---

(July 21, 2014 at 9:00 pm)Ryantology (╯°◊°)╯︵ ══╬ Wrote:

(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".

I did not bring up the Bible as the giver of moral values. Leave it out. The discussion is are there objective moral values and duties or are they relative?

---

@Esquilax

Was slavery ever "right"? People through the ages thought they had a justifiable position (inferior races, conquered people groups, parents raising money). List anything else you want that was permissible and common at one point that we would find extremely objectionable now. Was it right or wrong then?

It sounds to me like you believe in objective moral values but are unwilling to call them objective because you would have to then ascribe a source for them.

---

(July 21, 2014 at 10:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:A list of things that are not universally understood to be wrong:

I asked you for a list of your "objective values," bozo. Are you incapable of answering a simple question? You are asserting that these exist. What are they?

I tried to phrase that using simple words so you can understand them.

I don't have to make a list. You already know what they are because they are imprinted on every rational (and otherwise mentally undamaged) human. Unless you are damaged in which case I could try to come up with a list.

(July 22, 2014 at 9:44 am)SteveII Wrote: What about biology can create an intuitive moral code?

Our reactions to stimuli, for one. We are biological organisms bound to certain necessities; we die without food, our nervous system is constructed so that pain is a signifier for injury, etc etc. Our moral framework necessarily springs up around the world we find ourselves in, and has at its basis the furtherance of our lives in accordance with what we need to survive, and need to avoid.

Quote:@Esquilax

Was slavery ever "right"?

No.

Quote:People through the ages thought they had a justifiable position (inferior races, conquered people groups, parents raising money).

Sure. The concept of "inferior races" has no basis in reality, as we're all working with pretty much the same set of features and nobody has an inherent advantage. Conquering someone... well, conflict violates the moral absolutes to begin with, and so any consequences of it comes into conflict with them. Moreover, the conquerors could not furnish a logically tenable reason why they should be in that position of power, and "we're stronger," doesn't cut it because the underpinnings of our morality don't preference strength. And for parents raising money, the material gain you'd make from the slave trade does not compensate for the violation of the freedom and well being of another. Again, morality is about conscious beings, not those conscious beings who stand to gain from the suffering of others.

Quote: List anything else you want that was permissible and common at one point that we would find extremely objectionable now. Was it right or wrong then?

No. The only way it could be right or wrong in the past but not now is if the world and the nature of humanity at a biological level changed between then and now.

Quote:It sounds to me like you believe in objective moral values but are unwilling to call them objective because you would have to then ascribe a source for them.

I've not only called the framework objective multiple times, I've also ascribed a source to it. That source is called "reality." Have you not been paying attention?

Quote:I don't have to make a list. You already know what they are because they are imprinted on every rational (and otherwise mentally undamaged) human. Unless you are damaged in which case I could try to come up with a list.

Evidence for this "imprinting," please?

(July 22, 2014 at 9:44 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 5:02 pm)Tonus Wrote: I'm curious- would you say that each of those is objectively wrong or immoral?

Yes

And how do you come to that conclusion?

(July 22, 2014 at 10:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: Evidence for this "imprinting," please?

Let me guess the answer: it's written in the bible.

(July 22, 2014 at 9:44 am)SteveII Wrote:

(July 21, 2014 at 10:16 pm)Minimalist Wrote: I asked you for a list of your "objective values," bozo. Are you incapable of answering a simple question? You are asserting that these exist. What are they?

I tried to phrase that using simple words so you can understand them.

I don't have to make a list. You already know what they are because they are imprinted on every rational (and otherwise mentally undamaged) human. Unless you are damaged in which case I could try to come up with a list.

The list would be the point. I think you would have trouble coming up with a list of objective morals that some human society (not just person but a society) wouldn't disagree with.

For example, I'm sure you and I would agree that murder is wrong. But there is hardly human agreement over what constitutes murder. In fact there is so little agreement about it that it is hardly a rule at all. Is it murder to kill a woman for having been raped (that's happening in the world right now). What about revenge killings? Killing enemy soldiers during war? How about killing civilians? Sacrificing people to the gods? Mandatory suicide missions? (Japan during WWII). Duels? (most of Europe until the 1800s) Execution of children for the crimes of their parents? (much of the Middle East and East thought so at one time). Exposing babies? Mercy killings? A father's right to execute any of his children (Rome during the Republic and early Empire). There are or have been societies that thought all of these things were moral.

(July 22, 2014 at 12:04 pm)Bad Wolf Wrote:

(July 22, 2014 at 10:42 am)Esquilax Wrote: Evidence for this "imprinting," please?

Let me guess the answer: it's written in the bible.

Just as we have the capacity to perceive objective beauty, love, logic, etc., we have the capacity to perceive objective right and wrong. The default position is to trust our perceptions until proven otherwise.

Is it more probably that objective beauty exists or not?
Is it more probably that objective love exists or not?
Is it more probably that logic exists or not?
Is it more probably that objective right and wrong exists or not?