Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Yeah, me either.  You know, while it's all well and good that these arguments can be made...I find that most of my moral response is either not moral reasoning, or moral reasoning happening at a lvl beneath or around or above (just other than) a conscious level.  I don;t generally bust out the quick moral objectivists field guide and check the index, right?  

My moral heuristics, whatever they are, seem to reliably point me in the direction that a more elaborate justification would take me, for the most part.

The only time I'm even actively aware of any moral dimension to a situation is when some little internal buzzer goes off and says "hey, stand up straight and listen you chimp...this shit is difficult, and important!".

[Amarok]

Astonished does not know shit about cows

The bull does not rape the cow the cow gives of pheromones signaling her desire that she's ready to mate  . No smart dairy by the way would ever use an overly aggressive bull as breeding stock . It might injure a valuable cow thus potentially rending it useless. As for milking it actually good for the cow as her udder hurts from the pressure of being full . And it's a relief for them to have the milk taken out. And with modern milking machines they tend not to try and damage or irritate the nipple as it's my become infected.

As for using a different moral standard for cow then men that's objective .

[Thumpalumpacus]

God as the author of life has the right to redeem life as he sees fit. He has no obligation to you or anyone to prolong ones existence in this world.

Don't look now, but you're practicing moral subjectivity.

[Mister Agenda]

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

Because we can't have the subjective opinion that it's important to condemn such acts?

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

I subjectively feel more strongly about murder preferences than food preferences.

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

Yes, my subjective morality obligates me to do so.

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

Yeah, the difference between those two things, that seems to be a tough one for Christians unless they have a God commanding them not to do it...which he doesn't, btw.

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

How did you jump from morality being subjective to it being nonexistent?

Is that what you believe?

Of course not, and I don't believe that you really think we do.

Personally, I believe in an objective basis for morality given an axiom like 'what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad', but if you can't accept that axiom, we can't agree on a basis for morality. Moral reasoning involves logic, and logic is grounded in axioms. We can reach the same conclusions with different axioms, but the process of getting to those conclusions will be different, and that we'll reach the same ones is not a given.

ISIS is using a different axiom as the basis for their moral reasoning than I do. Is your axiom more like theirs or more like mine? I can accept mine as a brute fact of our nature as a reasoning social species. If you want to tack a 'because God' onto it, we can still be on the same page in our moral conclusions.

[Little Henry]

Empathy does not make a moral act right or wrong.

It may make it desirable, preferable, but not right or wrong.

And how exactly are you so sure of that?  What means have you used to determine that you have the correct objective morality?  Don't tell me you accepted it on faith?

Empathy - "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

How does empathy make such moral acts right or wrong? Just because you share or understand another's feeling, doesnr make something right or wrong.

[Mister Agenda]

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.

So you actually do not understand the difference between morally right or wrong and factually right or wrong?

BTW, if you say you think chocolate cake tastes better than carrot cake and you actually think that, your statement is correct: right. If you say you think rapists ought to be stopped and prevented from having a chance to rape again; and that's actually what you think; again, your statement is correct: right. It's a fact that this is what you think.

It's also a fact that most of us have decided that rape is bad enough to have cops kill you if you don't surrender, and if you subjectively don't agree with that assessment, it won't keep you out of jail. I think there are objectively better and worse ways to run a society, and one that let's rapists do as they will is worse than one that constrains them, all other things being equal. I think that the good of society overrides the freedom of the rapist. But we have to agree that society is better off with rape being illegal to agree on this. I think it's the natural conclusion for anyone who is empathetic and can see how such a society is in their own best interests; but if we don't share that, you're going to reach a different conclusion. That's the subjective part.

[Little Henry]

How does a feeling or desire make something right or wrong?

---

So it is a fact that harming living beings is wrong?

It is a fact that it is harmful and that humans value health and harmony over pain and misery (barring some massive defect). I already said there's no absolute or objective morality, whatever you may want to claim to the contrary, and I don't even have to go outside of your own philosophy to prove it. There's no authority saying what's 'right and wrong' but what's 'good and bad' in terms of health and its synonyms and antonyms. If there's another quantitative metric on which to base morality, I have never heard of it. The aforementioned vindictive invisible sky fairy commanding this and that while wantonly doing the exact same things and not seeing the hypocrisy there need not enter the equation.

If something is harmful to humans, in the absence of OM, how does it make such an act wrong?
If something is undesirable, it doesnt make it wrong if OM does not exist.

Let me break it down to the level of the average person I expect to converse with on this subject. Someone walks up to me and says they want to rip my scrotum off and stuff it into my mouth. I say I would prefer they not do that. They ask me why. I tell them that it would hurt enormously, so much so that I might drop dead from the shock, or from blood loss. They ask me why they should not do that. I tell them that if they attempt to do this, I will violently defend myself. They ask me why I would do that. I tell them that if given the choice I would go to just about any length to prevent the experience of great pain and death for as long as possible. They ask why. I tell them that pain and suffering are the worst experiences a person like myself can go through and something in me, not simply the certain knowledge of how badly I would turn out under the circumstances they had previously threatened, but an instinctive sense of self-preservation would motivate me to act even if I was in a state of depression or something which would make me prefer death or contemplate suicide. They then ask why I did not threaten them with the same mutilation upon first meeting them. I say that because I understand how badly that would hurt me, my sense of empathy makes me opposed to the idea of causing another person such grief. They ask why that is of any significance, or if I would because it would benefit me. I say that again, my empathy will cause me to seriously consider the consequences of my actions and that bringing harm to anyone would need to seriously outweigh the negative effects, and not just personally, because I will experience guilt and that is harmful to me. I offer to agree not to do this to them if they will make the same agreement, in the interest of not having to sleep with one eye open, a knife in each hand, with locks and chains over wherever I decide to lay my head at night.

All what you have done is explain how undesirable such an act is. If OM does not exist, then it cannot be wrong. Its not hard to understand.

So there it is. It's based on what you value; living over dying, health and harmony over pain and suffering, the idea of live and let live rather than paranoia and mistrust, security over fear, fulfillment over apathy, intellect over idiocy, rationality and reason over superstition and delusion. It's really sad how frequently the religious will be convinced that they are on one side of each of these and yet they're so far on the other it's amazing to those on the outside looking in just how far down the rabbit hole they are.

Again, you have just explained a preference. If OM does not exist, and i ripped your scrotum and shoved it in your mouth, i havent done anything wrong. You trying to defend yourself has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.

---

Empathy does not make a moral act right or wrong.

It may make it desirable, preferable, but not right or wrong.

There is no such thing as a moral act.  Only what we perceive as moral. 

You cannot objectively define morals, you can only subjectively define them.  For example: Why is being gay wrong? 

"Because God Says so!" is a subjective answer.  Why is what god says so moral?  If God says "Murder your children" is it immoral to not murder your children?
"Because it's against nature!" is also a subjective answer.  Why is going against nature immoral?  If it's one's nature to kill, is it immoral NOT to kill then?
There's only subjective answers to the question.

It is not for me to define, that is why it is called OM. By being OM, it has nothing to do with what i think or how i can define it.

Also, it is not because God says so. It is not his opinion. Rather they derive from his nature.

[Mister Agenda]

Not under Christianity.

Comparing Christianity to atheism is apples and oranges. The proper comparison is theism to atheism. And there is no moral system under theism. You can be a theist and sacrifice babies to Ba'al or ritually consume the hearts of your slain foes.

Theism is believing some sort of god is real and atheism is not believing that. Morals don't come from either of those.

If you want to compare Christianity with humanism, which is actually a nontheistic moral system, then you can have a legitimate conversation about the differences and similarities.

---

Also, it is not because God says so. It is not his opinion. Rather they derive from his nature.

How do you know that?

[Little Henry]

Empathy does not make a moral act right or wrong.

It may make it desirable, preferable, but not right or wrong.

If something is desirable or preferable, it is subjectively right.  That's as close as we can get to morality.  When someone's subjective idea of right and wrong is in disagreement with that of the culture he lives in, as long as he isn't harming anyone else there is no cause for action.  If, on the other hand, his actions violate others' rights by causing them harm, that's a matter for law enforcement -- not for gods or philosophers.

You cannot use the words subjective and right in the same sentence. If something is subjective, then you are admitting such facts do not exist.

Taste in food is subjective, if i say olives are disgusting, am i right or wrong? Neither. What if you find olives delightful? Then how can it be a fact that olives are delightful and disgusting at the same time? It would violate the laws of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

At best we say, Little Henry finds olives to disgusting and Astreja finds them delightful. Thats all they are,expressions of preference and taste.

we are not making a claim about the olives ITSELF. Just our position in regards to it.

Again, you are speaking on both sides of your mouth, you say " as long as he isn't harming anyone else there is no cause for action"...are you saying it is a fact that is wrong to harm others? If you deny OM, then how can you say that? At best you can say i hope they dont harm others or i find it undesirable, but it cannot be wrong.

---

---

Actually its not William Lane Craig's quote. It is from Michael Ruse who is an atheist.

Sorry, my mistake. Found it in an article by WLC. Does it matter who you took it from without giving credit? Or do you plan to dodge and by default take the moral high ground?

I actually did. Check out page 8.

[Whateverist]

And how exactly are you so sure of that?  What means have you used to determine that you have the correct objective morality?  Don't tell me you accepted it on faith?

Empathy - "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

How does empathy make such moral acts right or wrong? Just because you share or understand another's feeling, doesnr make something right or wrong.

Okay, so apparently "empathy" would not be your answer to my question regarding how it is you think you obtained the correct objective morality.  But do you mean to answer my question?  You claim to be in possession of the one and only correct objective morality.  I've asked you how you arrived at that. On what authority do you make such a claim?