Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

No matter what the OP thinks, I derive my morality subjectively and make no claims otherwise.

If this is the case, then moral acts are neither right or wrong. They are just preferences and desires, not right or wrong.

---

Animals act on instinct for its own survival or altruistic, not right/wrong.

Harsh words coming from an animal.  Don't you act according to what is right or wrong?  Also, ofc, your own survival and your own instincts and whatever you take to be altruism?

Under atheism, there is no right or wrong morally.

I do things for survival, but that doesnt make it right or wrong. If North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb that maximised sufferring and  killed of the human species, have they done something wrong? In the absence of OM, then no. They may have done something undesirable, but not wrong.

We see in the wild where a group of ducks pack rape a female duck. Are they doing anything wrong? No they are not. if they are not doing anything wrong, then why is it wrong if me and my friends pack rape a girl?

If you have to ask, you're probably no more a moral agent than the duck.  

Ok, so if me and my friends raped a young girl, with all of us trying to get her pregnant so we can pass our genes, we havent done anything wrong, just like the ducks according to you, is this correct?

Under naturalism/atheism, humans are just animals, animals with more complex nervous systems, but still just animals.

That's true "under" whatever you believe as well.  

Not under Christianity.

Why is it not wrong for ducks to pack rape, but wrong for humans to pack rape? where does this obligation come from that doesnt exist for any other animal, but it does for humans?

We call it moral agency, moral competency.  It's not actually unique to us, but we definitely have an ovedeveloped sense of it compared to all the other animals.

If OM doesnt exist, then it is neither right or wrong. Just an adaptation like hands and feet that makes it beneficial for survival, but not right or wrong.

We also see apes kill each other for land. Is it wrong for apes to kill each other in the wild? No. 

Humans also kill each other for land, so why is it wrong for humans and not for other animals including apes?

These sentences were redundant, humans are apes and we do kill each other for land and we -don't- always consider it wrong.  

So if i came to your house and killed you to claim your house, have i done anything wrong? If yes, why is it wrong for me but not for apes in the wild when they kill each other? 
Why the difference in answer IF we are also just apes?

You can say humans can reason, but that just presupposes moral facts do indeed exist, ie objective morality.

The ability to reason doesn't presuppose moral facts or an objective morality.  It just gives us a better tool than thee other apes for investigating whatever moral facts of the matter there may be, if there are any.  

Of course it does. When you say reason, it means you are coming to a truth, otherwise how can you call it reason?

Empathy? Empathy does not make something right or wrong.

No one said it did, but without empathy you will find it very difficult to underatand -why- we think some thing x is wrong.  You will find yourself asking questons like..

"Why is it wrong for me and my buddies to rape some girl?  Ducks do it!"
"Why is it wrong for me to kill somebody and take their apartment? Other apes do it!"

Right/wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts. They dont exist in relation to non facts.
It is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. If i said the sun rotates around the earth, then i am wrong. I am only wrong because the statement was in relation to a fact.

If i said chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake, i am neither right or wrong because it is not a fact that chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.

---

Correct, but nothing about the subject ITSELF we are talking about.

The subject of some comment regarding our tastes...is our tastes...so?

Yes, but that has nothing to do with the subject itself. 

Here is another example. Little Henry thinks the sun rotates around the earth. It is a fact that Little Henry thinks the sun rotates around the earth.

Is it a fact itself that the sun rotates around the earth?

Ok, lets keep it simple...lets assume it is a piece of fruit.

Was it responsibly grown?  How is the labor compensated?  Does it come from a region currently in some civil war and do the proceeds of the proverbial banana fund the republic?  Fun fact, a significant amount of the food that americans eat, particularly in the winter, is grown on land owned by or business interests aligned with, mexican cartels.  Chocolate comes almost exclusively from the most war torn shitholes on earth.  The producers actually have to sift live ammo out of the beans for safety.  At a basic level, are you just a gluttonous chump who's on his forth heaping helping of fruit while a hungry and homeless person watches you through the cafe window like daylight porn?

Are you saying that if it doesnt meet that criteria then it is wrong to do it that way?

Nothing about food or morality, is simple..lol  

lol

So if i told you i have been raping a young girl, will you tell me that for a fact i am doing something wrong?

Sure would.

Ok, according to what?

[brewer]

---

Hi LH.

I notice that like to set up a scenario that supports your position but I don't think it came with much thought. Not to many people are concerned with the morals of eating, unless you run up against a militant vegan or PETA member. Try eating meat around them and see is your are not morally judged. How's your food analogy now?

As to the rape and murder scenarios, you've certainly picked a couple of extremes that (I believe) almost all people would say is morally wrong. But morals get applied to more than just rape and murder. Stealing, lying, cheating, gambling, killing (murders lesser cousin), war, stem cells, abortion, gambling, sex, .......... Would you like to tell us your moral positions on these issues when considered in a range of situations? 

If you are honest I believe that you will have to admit that when looking at gambling (an easy one to pick) the moral aspect is subjective (I say it exists on a sliding scale). So if I'm a total ass and gamble every day to excess to the harm of myself and my family or work most would say I am wrong. If I buy a lottery ticket once a week and harm no one am I wrong to the same extent? It's still gambling. Can you take a moral factual position?

So, are you honest (watch out, moral people are watching)?

You only have to show 1 example of OM to illustrate that OM exists.

bold mine: you seem to be having some issues when responding. And I think you should have said "I" and not "You". 

Well, well, that's quite the non-response and not unexpected. Didn't address one thing in my post. Can I consider that not entirely honest?

If only one case/example of an objective moral (one) exists and can be applied to our society, then I would say that objective morals (many) are pretty must useless.

[Little Henry]

I think alot of the confusion arises with the use of the words right and wrong in this context.

If objective morality (OM) does not exist, then the words are being used naively and incoherently. It doesn't make sense. What do i mean by this?

The words right and wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts.

A fact is something that is true or exists REGARDLESS of anyone's opinion, preference, taste or desire.

Let me use some examples.
It is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. It does not matter what i or anyone's else's opinion, preference or desire is, the earth rotates around the sun. If i said the sun rotates around the earth, then i am wrong. I am only wrong because the statement was in relation to a fact.

If i sat an exam, and the question asked was, "does the sun rotate around the earth" and i answered with "yes", then i would get a cross. Would i get a cross because of how the examiner or marker feels? There preference? Desire? No. They would give me a cross because they would compare my answer against the FACT.

If i said chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake, i am neither right or wrong because it is not a fact that chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.
Suppose you sat an exam and the question was asked, "does chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake?" Well, if you said yes, will you get a tick or a cross?
Well, you wouldnt get a tick or a cross, because it is not a fact. There is no fact if chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.

Suppose you said yes, and somehow you get a cross, well you would immediately see the marker or examiner. How could the examiner justify giving you a cross? Suppose they said carrot cake tastes better than chocolate, but you prefer chocolate cake over carrot, then who is right or wrong? No one.
You cannot give a tick or a cross.
This is because taste in food is subjective. The words right and wrong cannot be used in relation to non facts.

[The Grand Nudger]

---

Under atheism, there is no right or wrong morally.

What a silly thing to say.  Atheism doesn't comment on morality, it's not a moral position at all.  I don't believe in god.  Right and wrong have nothing to do with god...and I'm capable of distinguishing between the two just like pretty much everyone on earth.

I do things for survival, but that doesnt make it right or wrong. If North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb that maximised sufferring and  killed of the human species, have they done something wrong? In the absence of OM, then no. They may have done something undesirable, but not wrong.

A person can freely comment on the "wrongness" of that act from either objective -or- subjective morality, and we do.  

Ok, so if me and my friends raped a young girl, with all of us trying to get her pregnant so we can pass our genes, we havent done anything wrong, just like the ducks according to you, is this correct?

There's very little about anything you've written, at all, that's correct.  Like I said before..if you have to ask, you're no more a moral agent than the duck is.  

Not under Christianity.

It doesn't matter what fairies you believe in, or even if there are fairies.  You're still an animal, still an ape.  Christian belief, despite what many christers think, does not alter reality.

If OM doesnt exist, then it is neither right or wrong. Just an adaptation like hands and feet that makes it beneficial for survival, but not right or wrong.

I understand that someone told you that, but that person probably doesn't respect you, or the subject of morality very much.  They lied to you, and now you're here repeating that lie to us.  What;s the moral status on that?  As people have told you, if their subjective opinion that something is wrong, is subjective..it;s styill their subjective opinion that said something is wrong.  You think it;s wrong, I think it;s wrong, they think it;s wrong.  It's a fact that they are relating to you, and they have their reasons for it..but ultimately, if you don;t agree with those reasons....they can understand why you wouldn't think it was wrong.  

So if i came to your house and killed you to claim your house, have i done anything wrong? If yes, why is it wrong for me but not for apes in the wild when they kill each other? 

OFC.  Why don't you just go buy your own house, like a moral person?  We don't generally consider the moral culpabiulity of gorillas..and if we decided that one gorilla did something immoral for having killed another gorilla..we probably wouldn;t waste our time locking them up.  This is just silly.

Why the difference in answer IF we are also just apes?

Not all apes are the same, numbskull. Case in point..can you identify some difference between yourself and a gorilla? I';m asking you,...because I'm starting to wonder if there is any.

Of course it does. When you say reason, it means you are coming to a truth, otherwise how can you call it reason?

No, it doesn't.  The existence of truth does not imply that there is any truth to your moral ramblings, for example.  You;re butchering whatever it was you thought was so brilliant.  Why don't you just link the resource?

Right/wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts. They dont exist in relation to non facts.
It is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. If i said the sun rotates around the earth, then i am wrong. I am only wrong because the statement was in relation to a fact.

You're just getting sloppy, now.  To say that something is morally wrong and to say that something is factually wrong are not at all the same.  If you would like to do this right, you're going to need to point to some moral fact of the matter to refer to, but in the meantime I'll accept your subjective moral assessment of whatever it is you think is right or wrong.

If i said chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake, i am neither right or wrong because it is not a fact that chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.

Nope, you're right about that, chocolate -does- taste better than carrot cake.  What's the problem?

[ignoramus]

They are right or wrong in the eyes of the law. Our local laws are a reflection of our morals. eg: don't steal my land, I won't steal yours. Don't rape my daughter, I won't rape yours, etc. Pretty straight forward laws for a society to thrive. What tells you which parts from the bible you cherry pick (I assume you do, unless you like raping and slaves, etc) to consider moral acts? Does God magically do the cherry picking of his own inerrant book for you or does your ape instincts guide you? If I punch you in the face and it hurts, that's bad, right? Because it hurts! No God needed to tell you that. Not only are we just glorified apes still, but we have jails and millions of laws to remind us to not act instinctively as if we were still in the jungle.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think alot of the confusion arises with the use of the words right and wrong in this context.

Agreed, but you aren;t going to be the one educating, on this count.  You;re in sore need of an education.

If objective morality (OM) does not exist, then the words are being used naively and incoherently. It doesn't make sense. What do i mean by this?

It means exactly what they've said.  Regardless of whether or not a person thinks that some act x is wrong according to some objective morality, or because that;s a consequence of their subjective morality...they are telling you that it's wrong.  

The words right and wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts.

That's borderline crazy.  The words exist even if moral facts of any matter don't..even if morality is entirely subjective.  We're both entirely capable of considering each other's fact free opinions wrong.

A fact is something that is true or exists REGARDLESS of anyone's opinion, preference, taste or desire.

Sure, and the fact of the matter in a subjective moral assessment is that person a thinks x is wrong, regardless of anyone else's opinion, preference, taste or desire.  

Let me use some examples.
It is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. It does not matter what i or anyone's else's opinion, preference or desire is, the earth rotates around the sun. If i said the sun rotates around the earth, then i am wrong. I am only wrong because the statement was in relation to a fact.

If i sat an exam, and the question asked was, "does the sun rotate around the earth" and i answered with "yes", then i would get a cross. Would i get a cross because of how the examiner or marker feels? There preference? Desire? No. They would give me a cross because they would compare my answer against the FACT.

If i said chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake, i am neither right or wrong because it is not a fact that chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.
Suppose you sat an exam and the question was asked, "does chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake?" Well, if you said yes, will you get a tick or a cross?
Well, you wouldnt get a tick or a cross, because it is not a fact. There is no fact if chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.

Suppose you said yes, and somehow you get a cross, well you would immediately see the marker or examiner. How could the examiner justify giving you a cross? Suppose they said carrot cake tastes better than chocolate, but you prefer chocolate cake over carrot, then who is right or wrong? No one.
You cannot give a tick or a cross.
This is because taste in food is subjective. The words right and wrong cannot be used in relation to non facts.

Equivocative use of the word "wrong" is only an example of why you can't accurately summarize others moral positions or moral agency.  It's an example of why -you- are wrong...but not...case in point.....in any moral sense.

[Little Henry]

Saying OM does not exist but then saying "moral act X is wrong according to me" does not make sense.

Suppose you and i grab a tennis racket and ball. We go to a back street with no lines on the street.

You hit the ball, as soon as it bounces i scream "out". Naturally, you will say, "out according to what", i will say "according to me it is out".

You will then say "how can it be out, there is no line we never agreed on anything". I will say "according to me it is out".

So, in this example, what am i saying. There is nothing on the road, no lines, we never agreed on anything, how can i say the ball is out?

Well, i must have some imaginary line in my head. This line does not exist in reality, it is just something i made up in my head that does not exist in reality.

In this case, i am suffering from a delusion, ie, i am acting in accordance to something that does not exist in reality.

If OM does not exist, ie, moral facts, then claiming a moral act as wrong is the same as the tennis example. You are suffering from a delusion.

Now you might say, well, what if you drew a line and you both agreed where the line should start and stop, all of a sudden, the line exists in reality. Now we are talking. However, the line that you and i draw has no reference to reality. What do i mean by this. Well, if you and i drew a line, it is just something we both made up from our heads and we are playing according to this construct.

It is no different to you and i saying, lets pretend you and i are batman and superman. We can act as if we are batman and superman, but in reality we are not. We are just living according to some delusion that we made up. A mental construct.

Thats all morality is if you want to say if OM does not exist, but want to live as if moral rights and wrongs exist.

If you say morality is subjective, according to me rape is wrong is just another way of saying, i am suffering from a delusion.

[Whateverist]

Saying OM does not exist but then saying "moral act X is wrong according to me" does not make sense.

Trouble is we all say it -X is wrong!- and have been doing so since before people were able to articulate why, let alone reason regarding why it is wrong.  Moral behavior is part of our species deal.  You like to imagine something fantastical that no one can detect maintains the moral facts.  That to me is absurd.

You think it is absurd for people to go on saying acts are wrong when we understand that it is our feeling and not our reason that is doing the talking.  I say that is as it's always been.  So what?

[Little Henry]

---

Under atheism, there is no right or wrong morally.

What a silly thing to say.  Atheism doesn't comment on morality, it's not a moral position at all.  I don't believe in god.  Right and wrong have nothing to do with god...and I'm capable of distinguishing between the two just like pretty much everyone on earth.

Right and wrong according to what?

I do things for survival, but that doesnt make it right or wrong. If North Korea detonated a nuclear bomb that maximised sufferring and  killed of the human species, have they done something wrong? In the absence of OM, then no. They may have done something undesirable, but not wrong.

A person can freely comment on the "wrongness" of that act from either objective -or- subjective morality, and we do.  

If something is subjective how can it be deemed wrong? 

Ok, so if me and my friends raped a young girl, with all of us trying to get her pregnant so we can pass our genes, we havent done anything wrong, just like the ducks according to you, is this correct?

There's very little about anything you've written, at all, that's correct.  Like I said before..if you have to ask, you're no more a moral agent than the duck is.

So i havent done anything wrong...is this correct? I am just an animal according to you..Ducks pack rape, bed bugs violently rape. Why is it not wrong for them, yet it would be for me and my friends if we packed raped and violently raped? I am just an animal arent i?

Not under Christianity.

It doesn't matter what fairies you believe in, or even if there are fairies.  You're still an animal, still an ape.  Christian belief, despite what many christers think, does not alter reality.

Under Christianity, we are made in the image of God.

If OM doesnt exist, then it is neither right or wrong. Just an adaptation like hands and feet that makes it beneficial for survival, but not right or wrong.

I understand that someone told you that, but that person probably doesn't respect you, or the subject of morality very much.  They lied to you, and now you're here repeating that lie to us.  What;s the moral status on that?  As people have told you, if their subjective opinion that something is wrong, is subjective..it;s styill their subjective opinion that said something is wrong.  You think it;s wrong, I think it;s wrong, they think it;s wrong.  It's a fact that they are relating to you, and they have their reasons for it..but ultimately, if you don;t agree with those reasons....they can understand why you wouldn't think it was wrong.  

I still dont get that if something is deemed subjective, then it cannot be right or wrong.

So if i came to your house and killed you to claim your house, have i done anything wrong? If yes, why is it wrong for me but not for apes in the wild when they kill each other? 

OFC.  Why don't you just go buy your own house, like a moral person?  We don't generally consider the moral culpabiulity of gorillas..and if we decided that one gorilla did something immoral for having killed another gorilla..we probably wouldn;t waste our time locking them up.  This is just silly.

So why are we morally culpable but not a gorilla? Arent we just also goriilas or apes or whatever? 
Where does this obligation or culpabiulity imposed on humans come from that does not exist on any other animal? Who imposes this? 
Doesnt make sense if we are ALL just animals. Every other animal does not have this obligation but it all of a sudden comes on humans? Cmon man.

Why the difference in answer IF we are also just apes?

Not all apes are the same, numbskull.  Case in point..can you identify some difference between yourself and a gorilla?  I';m asking you,...because I'm starting to wonder if there is any.

Under atheism, we are just apes....i dont see how there is any culpabiulity or obligations on humans morally then.

Of course it does. When you say reason, it means you are coming to a truth, otherwise how can you call it reason?

No, it doesn't.  The existence of truth does not imply that there is any truth to your moral ramblings, for example.  You;re butchering whatever it was you thought was so brilliant.  Why don't you just link the resource?

If you and i are trying to reason, it means we are trying to get to a truth.

Right/wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts. They dont exist in relation to non facts.
It is a fact that the earth rotates around the sun. If i said the sun rotates around the earth, then i am wrong. I am only wrong because the statement was in relation to a fact.

You're just getting sloppy, now.  To say that something is morally wrong and to say that something is factually wrong are not at all the same.  If you would like to do this right, you're going to need to point to some moral fact of the matter to refer to, but in the meantime I'll accept your subjective moral assessment of whatever it is you think is right or wrong.

To deny OM exists, ie morality is subjective and then say moral acts are wrong, is implying that you are suffering from an illusion.

If i said chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake, i am neither right or wrong because it is not a fact that chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake.

Nope, you're right about that, chocolate -does- taste better than carrot cake.  What's the problem?

If morality is the same, then there are no moral rights/wrong.

---

They are right or wrong in the eyes of the law. Our local laws are a reflection of our morals. eg: don't steal my land, I won't steal yours. Don't rape my daughter, I won't rape yours, etc. Pretty straight forward laws for a society to thrive. What tells you which parts from the bible you cherry pick (I assume you do, unless you like raping and slaves, etc) to consider moral acts? Does God magically do the cherry picking of his own inerrant book for you or does your ape instincts guide you? If I punch you in the face and it hurts, that's bad, right? Because it hurts! No God needed to tell you that. Not only are we just glorified apes still, but we have jails and millions of laws to remind us to not act instinctively as if we were still in the jungle.

Which law? 
It was law to kill Jews, homosexuals, etc at one stage.
Why is it a fact that societies ought to flourish? It may be desirable but how does that make it a fact that they ought to?
If i punch you in the face and it hurts you, why is that wrong? Why is it wrong to impose on others?

[ignoramus]

The jails are full of people "suffering delusions" which hurt others in society.
We take the grey area out of the tennis lines and hardcode them as black and white laws for the most part.

We get booked for speeding. Nobody got booked for almost speeding.