morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Edwardo Piet]

Says who though?

We don't have to prove what words are the right words to use. Can we prove that we ought to use the word "health" to describe someone who isn't sick? No, the word is just a label. But health is still a matter of objective facts. And when it comes to immorality... whether we call it "suffering" or "bad" or not... it's still an objective fact that suffering is suffering. And you can have more and less suffering. I don't see the difference between saying that and saying you can have more or less badness.

What if a child is suffering after the pain of getting a vaccine, why isn't that wrong?

Because the payoff is worth it. If they don't get the vaccine and they get ill they'll suffer much, much more.

[Jackalope]

Ok, let me approach this from another tack.  What does "objective" mean in the context you're using here.  

My understanding is that it means "independent of opinion, reason, or mind".  I suppose if you assert that your law giver has none of those qualities it works, however, I don't think a mindless automation is what theists have in mind.

Put more plainly, if the law is a product of a law giver's thought process, it is necessarily and tautologically subjective.

The difference between my opinion and God's "opinion" is that He's the one who created the world we live in and all of its Laws and how it works. We call it Natural Law. It's like me creating my own board game and designing how the game works and the rules that go with it. The rules of the game are integral to the way the entire game was designed to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

Assuming for the moment the truth of what you're saying,inn what way does that make it *objective* (that is, existing independently of opinion, reason, or mind)? You're describing something else I think.

Are those God's rules moral because God commands it, or does god command it because it's moral? This isn't a question that gets sidestepped so easily by asserting that a hypothetical creator gets to make the rules - that may be true or not, but it doesn't describe objectivity.

[Catholic_Lady]

Says who though?

We don't have to prove what words are the right words to use. Can we prove that we ought to use the word "health" to describe someone who isn't sick? No, the word is just a label. But health is still a matter of objective facts. And when it comes to immorality... whether we call it "suffering" or "bad" or not... it's still an objective fact that suffering is suffering. And you can have more and less suffering. I don't see the difference between saying that and saying you can have more or less badness.

Suffering is suffering, yes. But you were claiming that suffering = wrongness. I was wondering on what grounds you make this claim.

What if a child is suffering after the pain of getting a vaccine, why isn't that wrong?

Because the payoff is worth it. If they don't get the vaccine and they get ill they'll suffer much, much more.

So then suffering doesn't necessarily = wrongness, as you said lol. Suffering can be for the better, and it depends on whether the person thinks some suffering to potentially improve or prevent something else is worth it.

---

The difference between my opinion and God's "opinion" is that He's the one who created the world we live in and all of its Laws and how it works. We call it Natural Law. It's like me creating my own board game and designing how the game works and the rules that go with it. The rules of the game are integral to the way the entire game was designed to work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

1. Assuming for the moment the truth of what you're saying,inn what way does that make it *objective* (that is, existing independently of opinion, reason, or mind)?  You're describing something else I think.

2. Are those God's rules moral because God commands it, or does god command it because it's moral?  This isn't a question that gets sidestepped so easily by asserting that a hypothetical creator gets to make the rules - that may be true or not, but it doesn't describe objectivity.

1. It makes it objective because Natural Law is integral to how the universe was made and how the universe works. Just as rules to a game a person creates are integral to how the game was framed and how it is set up to work. For this reason, Natural Law is the objective reality of the world around us. 

2. They are moral because they are in accordance with God's nature. And God created the world in accordance with His own nature. So the two things (morality and God) cannot be separated.

[Whateverist]

 
If morals have grey areas then they are not objective/absolute.

By that, I just mean they are dependent on circumstances, but that they are still objective within those circumstances.

Example:

The morality of yelling at someone is a grey area. 

It is objectively wrong to yell at a random person simply because you are having a bad day and need someone to take your anger out on, even though the person has nothing to do with why you are upset. 

It is objectively not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child.

I wonder what exactly you feel adding "objectively" here adds to what you're saying.  How are these different?

"It is not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child."

"It is objectively not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child."

"It is certainly not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child."

"It is in every sense not wrong to yell at someone you just caught abusing your child."


Is an assertion that something is humorous or beautiful likewise enhanced by adding that it is "objectively" so?

"The Mona Lisa painting is objectively beautiful".

"That George Carlin was one objectively funny guy."


Also, why is your standing up for a value you think is "objectively" correct supposed to have more value than my standing up for a subjective value I hold which I recognize not everyone may share?  Something about this feels off to me.  Do see what I mean?

[Homeless Nutter]

[...]
So my question is this... for those who feel both these things are true - if there is no real right or wrong, and if people don't have the freedom to choose their behavior - then why do you get angry about people acting (or thinking) any certain way? After all, not only is there no right or wrong anyway, but these people don't even choose to act as they do.[...] 

And I don't "choose" to get angry. Anger is an emotion - neither I, nor you consciously decide to have them. In fact, you could say we get angry, because we don't have a choice. It's just that you feel the need to justify your instinctive responses to your environment - especially the irrational ones - with some stories from an old book, so that you can smugly straddle your high horse and salivate at the thought of "just" punishment awaiting people, whose actions you disapprove of.

The traffic jam on the way to work doesn't "choose" to be there and people stuck in it aren't doing anything "wrong" - you can still get angry, or otherwise upset, over the consequences of running late...

[Edwardo Piet]

Suffering is suffering, yes. But you were claiming that suffering = wrongness. I was wondering on what grounds you make this claim.

On the grounds that there are no instances in which suffering, in and of itself, isn't wrong and there are no instances when wrongness, in and of itself, isn't suffering (or the cause of suffering).

So then suffering doesn't necessarily = wrongness, as you said lol. Suffering can be for the better, and it depends on whether the person thinks some suffering to potentially improve or prevent something else is worth it.

No, it does=wrongness in my example. More suffering= more wrong than less suffering. Taking the vaccine minmimzes the suffering.

---

Are those God's rules moral because God commands it, or does god command it because it's moral?

I think that only in the latter case is objective morality possible. If "it's moral because God commands it" then that's identical to all amoral, moral and immoral things being treated in practice as if they're moral if God says they are even when they aren't. And there's absolutely no way to verify "because God says so" as actually moral.

If something is truly objectively and intrinsically moral then God is unnecessary and irrelevant. If what God says is moral is indeed moral it will only be so because He's stating things that are objectively moral with or without Him.

I find the idea that God is required for objective morality rather funny. It's quite the opposite.

[SteveII]

My understanding is the only reason to think we do not have free will is to presuppose naturalism. So it is not a belief the atheists necessarily wants to believe, it is one they are stuck with. Same with morality--most people actually believe there are objective moral truths, but the atheist can't admit that because it is a necessary conclusion of naturalism that there is not.

[Neo-Scholastic]

I wonder what exactly you feel adding "objectively" here adds to what you're saying...Is an assertion that something is humorous or beautiful likewise enhanced by adding that it is "objectively" so? Also, why is your standing up for a value you think is "objectively" correct supposed to have more value than my standing up for a subjective value I hold which I recognize not everyone may share?  Something about this feels off to me.  Do see what I mean?

One indicates an imperative. The other is a preference. Consider circumstances of ambiguity where the outcome of someone's decisions could go various ways. If there is an imperative then it is incumbent on the agent to determine, as best he can, the right course of action. If there is no imperative then the choice has no import and any outcome will do. The qualifier of objectivity adds real significance to action, facts that exists beyond one's own opinions.

---

My understanding is only reason to think we do not have free will is to presuppose naturalism. So it is not a belief the atheists necessarily wants to believe, it is one they are stuck with. Same with morality--most people actually believe there are objective moral truths, but the atheist can't admit that because it is a necessary conclusion of naturalism that there is not.

That's exactly right. The notion that the physical universe is causally closed is the unfalsifiable second-order principle.

[Edwardo Piet]

My understanding is the only reason to think we do not have free will is to presuppose naturalism.

Wrong. Here's why supernaturalism and a soul is useless:





Q.E.D.

[Catholic_Lady]

Suffering is suffering, yes. But you were claiming that suffering = wrongness. I was wondering on what grounds you make this claim.

On the grounds that there are no instances in which suffering, in and of itself, isn't wrong and there are no instances when wrongness, in and of itself, isn't suffering (or the cause of suffering).

What about exercising? I certainly suffered when my cross country coach had me run endless laps around the trails. Both when I was doing it, and for the next 2 days of being incredibly sore. Also when I stayed up for hours doing homework in college, exhausted mentally an physically and with a sore neck.

What if you steal from someone and they never even notice you stole from them? Clearly you aren't causing any suffering. But stealing is still wrong. Same with lying or cheating, assuming no one ever finds out and no suffering comes from it.

I don't think suffering = wrongness, in and of itself. I don't think it makes sense to base morality on suffering.

(edited)