Are you going to fucking reply to what he said you patronising bitch? Drop the unnecessary compliments, they're not going to win you any friends here, not with the contents of your posts.

Disregarding religious-related rules (which since they have an identifiable source, they would not qualify as any kind of "built in" or "discoverable" moral value), I am still confused as to the source.

If there is as Esquilax said, an objective framework (reality) in which we can discover moral values, then murder, slavery, abuse, etc. was always wrong from the beginning.

It seems that Jenny and Rasetsu believes that we chose a set of values. This, I think, by definition makes them subjective.

If then, objective moral values and duties exist, the question is what is the foundation and could evolution have produced it? If we had evolved differently with slight modifications to our brain or instinctive behavior, would these values and duties be different?

Stated a different way, if some current primate group's cognitive ability evolves enough to begin behaving in a civilization--co-existing with us, would you say that they would have a different set of moral values and duties or would ours apply? If different, why?

---

(July 23, 2014 at 9:09 am)Bad Wolf Wrote: Are you going to fucking reply to what he said you patronising bitch? Drop the unnecessary compliments, they're not going to win you any friends here, not with the contents of your posts.

It is people like you that prompt me to compliment those who are civil. If everyone was like you, I would have not stayed 5 minutes.

If your are referring to the discussion on beauty, I have read the opinions that it is not objective. I still don't agree, but as Esquilax said, it is a large topic and I may come back to it.

(July 23, 2014 at 9:23 am)SteveII Wrote: Disregarding religious-related rules (which since they have an identifiable source, they would not qualify as any kind of "built in" or "discoverable" moral value), I am still confused as to the source.

If there is as Esquilax said, an objective framework (reality) in which we can discover moral values, then murder, slavery, abuse, etc. was always wrong from the beginning.

It seems that Jenny and Rasetsu believes that we chose a set of values. This, I think, by definition makes them subjective.

If then, objective moral values and duties exist, the question is what is the foundation and could evolution have produced it? If we had evolved differently with slight modifications to our brain or instinctive behavior, would these values and duties be different?

Stated a different way, if some current primate group's cognitive ability evolves enough to begin behaving in a civilization--co-existing with us, would you say that they would have a different set of moral values and duties or would ours apply? If different, why?

I think the problem is that you're separating the morals from any other concerns. That makes sense in a world in which morality is dictated to you from a basis you'll never understand or have explained to you, but then, that's not morality anyway, that's just obeying orders, with the assumption that those orders are moral.

But as an atheist, I don't believe we live in that world; morality to me is intrinsically linked to us as thinking agents, and the values that we hold to be important. Yes, our morals are subjective in that they are developed and given import by us, but the basis for them is factual analysis of the context we find ourselves in. Our nature, as biological entities existing on a planet, having evolved in the way that we have, is a core part of how we derive our morals. We are animals that thrived based on cooperation and the formation of social groups, we literally require those things to survive, and so we can't be the sort of lone wolves that get brought up in argument against this sort of morality. "If you don't have an objective source for your morals, what's to stop someone from just deciding that killing people is right?" goes the typical argument from theists. To which my immediate answer is, someone could easily do that, but unfortunately for him the rest of us have been configured as group-surviving animals and won't take kindly to that.

Subjectivity is only a problem if you accept it at an individual level, because social grouping is wound into the very fabric of our psychological makeup. The reason the killing example is abhorrent to you is because you have empathy, and you can envision the pain and distrust that would foster in the community. That's the advantage that led us to rise to dominance on this planet, and to become a species that has traveled into space. Cooperation works, and hence our morality isn't subjective on an individual level, but subjective on a species level. We derive our morals based on our needs as the advanced species we are, and in a world where we recognize that we aren't the only conscious entities we extend that same moral consideration to animals and so on because that's the only logically tenable path to take. Any other, and we'd be using double standards.

If another species evolved in a different way, then their morality would necessarily develop in accordance with a different set of factors. But that wouldn't make our morality any less applicable to us, and at a certain level of consciousness it would be entirely possible for our two species to communicate and expand our moral framework based on the new situation, in which the two groups have to either co-exist or cooperate.

Too often theists want to pretend that if morality isn't dictated to us by god, then there's no basis for it at all, let alone a solid one. All I have to do is point to the ground beneath my feet, and the six billion other people I share the planet with, none of whom become phantoms if god is taken off the table. I wonder why theists seem to think that they do?

(July 7, 2014 at 9:18 am)Esquilax Wrote: As I was watching this cool Sam Harris video:

this cool Sam Harris video

a thought occurred to me as he was discussing the double standard of christians waving away the problem of evil and suffering by appealing to god's mysterious intentions: it's not only that this excuse is unconvincing, it's also completely irrelevant. It's just a deflection to avoid talking about the real issue, because motives aren't the sole determining factor when deciding moral issues.

An insane psychopath randomly murders eight people and refuses to speak once caught: his motivations for the acts he's committed are, to the outside observer, just as inscrutable and mysterious as god's. Is he allowed to go free? Are no charges brought against him? Does the judge simply shrug and dismiss the case: "Oh, his ways are mysterious, we cannot possibly judge them!"? No. The fucker is rightly judged by the effects of his actions and thrown in prison, or at least psychiatric care.

Conversely, a man driving his car on his way to volunteer at the puppy orphanage swerves to help an old lady cross the street, and hits and kills a man in the process. This is a scenario for which the actors motivations are entirely known and, indeed, benevolent, and yet he would still be charged with manslaughter for his inattention.

Now consider a man with good intentions who didn't cause a death and, for some reason when he's in court, steadfastly refuses to comment on what was going on. He remains utterly silent, even as the evidence comes in and it becomes more and more clear, to the outside observer, that this man committed the crime. Is his silence an excuse? Good intentions or not, would you consider this a get out of jail free card for him? And could you fault the jury for using the incomplete information at their disposal to find the man guilty?

Motive may be considered as a part of a moral determination, but it's not the be all and end all that christians pretend it to be where god is concerned. Appealing to some vague, speculative ur-motivation that you just think the actor has isn't just completely irrelevant, it's also entirely ineffective even within the premises of the argument.

"God works in mysterious ways" is simply a place holder for ignorance. Place holders for ignorance are used all the time. We don't really know what is at the center of a black hole so we say its a singularity.

SteveII, I believe it's the first time I address you.
But it's not the first time I address morality on this forum...

It's always the same, with the claim of "objective morality" from the theists who then claim that "objective morality" was come from a god.

What I would call "objective morality", would be something more akin to the morality of the majority, the collection of subjective moral values from a given group of people. Where the subjective morality belongs to a single individual.
From this collection, you then extract the overall moral rules... how? Some groups would go for a democratic method, others go for the opinion of a few enlightened people.... others go for the opinions of one man.
Which is best? beats me.

Where does the individual's morality come from? parents and the society around them, it seems. We are, after all, social animals. Where do other social animals get their morals? their rules of social interaction? How do they keep from raping and killing each other?

@Heywood
-We don't really know what is at the center of a black hole so we say its a singularity.
Scientists consider that to be true because that is a statement that has not been proven wrong yet. Show them evidence that there isn't a singularity in the center of a black hole and you will convince them to change their minds.

(July 23, 2014 at 10:31 am)Baqal Wrote: @Heywood
-We don't really know what is at the center of a black hole so we say its a singularity.
Scientists consider that to be true because that is a statement that has not been proven wrong yet. Show them evidence that there isn't a singularity in the center of a black hole and you will convince them to change their minds.

If you ask a scientist what a singularity is they will tell you its a mathematical phenomenon based upon the absentia of a physical theorem for quantum gravitation, and not a real physical actuality. In other words...they will tell you they don't really know what it is. "Singularity" is just a phrase/word for ignorance.....just like "God works in mysterious ways".

Quote:From this collection, you then extract the overall moral rules... how? Some groups would go for a democratic method, others go for the opinion of a few enlightened people.... others go for the opinions of one man.
Which is best? beats me.

Declaration of human rights is a good basic source for the Human Race's objective morality.

(July 23, 2014 at 10:55 am)Blackout Wrote: From this collection, you then extract the overall moral rules... how? Some groups would go for a democratic method, others go for the opinion of a few enlightened people.... others go for the opinions of one man.
Which is best? beats me.
Declaration of human rights is a good basic source for the Human Race's objective morality.

And how did humanity reach such a declaration?
Did it pop into the mind of some enlightened person, one day?
Was there a vote on the matter?
how?

(July 23, 2014 at 11:06 am)pocaracas Wrote:

(July 23, 2014 at 10:55 am)Blackout Wrote: From this collection, you then extract the overall moral rules... how? Some groups would go for a democratic method, others go for the opinion of a few enlightened people.... others go for the opinions of one man.
Which is best? beats me.
Declaration of human rights is a good basic source for the Human Race's objective morality.

And how did humanity reach such a declaration?
Did it pop into the mind of some enlightened person, one day?
Was there a vote on the matter?
how?

After all the atrocities, wars and injustices committed, not only in WWII but also before it, since the prehistoric period, Man can reach an agreement on our fundamental values. We are talking about a minimum everybody is inclined to defend. Only a small (and I mean REALLY small) minority of people will say torture, murder and slavery are morally correct. And I believe if we take away religion and public opinions influenced by religious thoughts, a bigger number of people would defend human rights and equality.

They didn't show up by magic, after historical and cultural occurrences some values were shown to be more important to support and preserve. Our values have an explanation, they are always a product of sociological, historical, religious (some), political, cultural and other kind of events who have shaped mankind's world view regarding morality.

I hope I helped explaining it