Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Ravenshire]

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.

"Might makes right" and "do as I say, not as I do" are not good moral guides.

Doing what is right, no matter what you're told is far more moral than doing what you told, no matter what is right. From all I've ever seen, christers like you do the latter far more often than the former Because you all march in lock step to your interpretation of you holy book.

[The Grand Nudger]

Well, we know what Abraham would have done. It sure as shit wasn't to tell god to go fuck himself. "Doy doy doy" - and grabs the knife.

[Astonished]

Well, we know what Abraham would have done. It sure as shit wasn't to tell god to go fuck himself.  "Doy doy doy" - and grabs the knife.

It's curious, I've never heard a response to Matt Dillahunty's brilliant, "If god was the sort to demand human sacrifice (i.e. basically not a god anyone who tries to defend as 'purely good'), Abraham clearly believed fully that Yahweh was the sort of god who would demand human sacrifice. But if god wasn't that type of thing (according to Abraham's knowledge of god), why didn't Abraham reject the voice he heard as not possibly being able to be his god, who would never demand such a thing?" Wonder if Henry wants to take a stab at that. But then considering the bible says god likes the smell of a good human barbecue, I doubt we'll get anything meaningful.

[The Grand Nudger]

It sounds absurd because it is absurd, but the story isn't about the moral status of god, and the author intentionally chose something downright immoral to convey the message.

To see god telling a person to do something real, real nasty - as a way to tell you (or the believer, as it were) what to do in that scenario.  What his faithful ancient ancestors would have done.   Why god favored them, and blessed them then, and how to secure that blessing now.  

If god tells you to kill your kid.  Grab the knife.

[Astonished]

It sounds absurd because it is absurd, but the story isn't about the moral status of god, and the author intentionally chose something downright immoral to convey the message.

To see god telling a person to do something real, real nasty - as a way to tell you (or the believer, as it were) what to do in that scenario.  What his faithful ancient ancestors would have done.   Why god favored them, and blessed them then, and how to secure that blessing now.  

If god tells you to kill your kid.  Grab the knife.

I'm talking about the nature of god, or at least the popular (completely fucking wrong) perception about it. I've just never heard a defense of that particular point and I'd like to hear one from the theists while we're on the subject of Abe n' Ike.

[Little Henry]

Why? aesthetics  is purely subjective.

If morality is also subjective, then why treat them differently?

1.Just because two things are subjective does not mean they are the same thing

2. You should treat them differently because there not the same . But if you wanna misrepresent someone else's position by all means

---

Simply defining gods nature with attribute x or y doesn't answer the question it's just you asserting attri1. 

1. By nature they are the same. What i mean by that is, if something is subjective, there is no right/wrong in regards to it.
2. Think about it. Lets pick items which are subjective by nature.
Taste in food, music, drinks, movies, aesthetics, holiday destinations, sports, houses, just to name a few.
There is no right/wrong in regards to these. 
That is, there is no fact to compare it against.

---

Let me ask you

If i told you me and my friends have been raping and torturing a child for fun for the past 6 months, have we been doing something wrong? Like if i say 1+1=3 wrong? LIke if i say the earth is flat wrong? or if i say the sun rotates around the earth wrong?

Or do you only find me and my friends acts distasteful or undesirable....like if we told you we have been eating a fruit you really hate?

This should give you an idea where i am coming from?

Nope.  You're out of questions.  I've answered each of yours without ever getting more than hints of an answer to mine.  Quid pro quo, Clarice.  Quid pro quo

Where did you answer the above question.

---

Let me be clear here I'm a moral realist and I don't believe morality is subjective but I will no abide other positions being misrepresented .

The Op keeps comparing subjective apples and oranges . Morality even if it was subjective can't be compared to a like of fruit .

Divine command theory and divine nature theory are as arbitrary as fuck. You can't take action like charity say it's positive and what maximally great being approves of . That's just you taking your presumed moral beliefs and imposing them on god then  defining it as positive and maximally good. Sorry simply saying he has this attribute and this attribute is this won't cut it.

If something is subjective, then there is no ontological basis to compare ones answer against to deem something right or wrong.

Its not that hard.

---

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.

First you'd have to prove that God exists.  Then you'd have to prove that the morals derive from his nature, and aren't just his opinion.  Good luck!

By admitting certain acts such as child rape for fun are wrong, you are essentially admitting God exists.

You are admitting that moral facts exist. These facts exist regardless of anyones opinion or attitude about them.

Remember moral facts are prescriptions, not descriptions.

Prescriptions or propositions come from minds/intelligence.

---

Let me ask you

If i told you me and my friends have been raping and torturing a child for fun for the past 6 months, have we been doing something wrong?

I would definitely not approve of your hobby and in my view it would be wrong. Indeed society in general views these things as being wrong but it is nor true for all societies at all times. This is why an evolving morality is superior to the ones set down eons ago in harsher societies. Societies were you would send your dughters to be raped rather than offend a male guest. Societies were slavery was A ok.
Morality shifts.
At the moment its shifting for the better. 

Our society accepts being gay as not immoral and that is better we are more tolerant of other faiths or no faiths, better.

A few problems here. Wrong according to what? Your opinion? Thats like you and i playing a game of tennis with no lines on the floor and as soon as the ball lands you scream that it is out. Well, no lines exist on the court then how can it be out? Essentially you are comparing where the ball landed against some imaginary line you created in your head. Exactly the same if you say OM does not exist then say such acts like rape are wrong. Well, you are comparing it against some imaginary line in your head.

Societies? Which societies? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany? North Korea?

Like if i say 1+1=3 wrong? LIke if i say the earth is flat wrong? or if i say the sun rotates around the earth wrong?

Those are objective facts.

Exactly...and it is the ONLY reason why something is right or wrong because you can compare it against it.

Or do you only find me and my friends acts distasteful or undesirable....like if we told you we have been eating a fruit you really hate?

This should give you an idea where i am coming from?

Not really you are confusing what is objective and what is subjective.
I think it is morally wrong to condemn homosexuality, that is subjective opinion. If morals were objective everyone would think it immoral to condemn homosexuals, but they don't do they!

How can something be wrong if it is subjective?

[/quote]

---

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

Because if something is subjective, it cannot be wrong. Just undesirable as best.

Taste in movies is subjective. If i liked a movie you dont, am i wrong for liking that movie?

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.

But this just begs the question. You are talking about prudence or prudential value here. Let me give an example.

If you want to be fit and healthy, then you ought to eat fruit, veges, exercise, dont smoke, drink etc etc. However is it a fact that you ought to be fit and healthy? If you are not fit and healthy have you done something wrong? No.

All you have done is begged the question or assumed the end goal ("what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad'") and described such as acts that dont achieve these as being bad or wrong.

What, you don't think it's a 'properly basic belief'? It's not self-evident to you? Then you're not going to think my morality is actually objective are you? While I believe it's an axiom (self-evident), you think it's an opinion. And your 'properly basic belief' fares no better. 'Properly basic beliefs' and 'axioms' are the same thing. Whatever question you think I'm begging, you begged in advance.

The difference is, i admit OM exists, you dont. Therefore your claims are are a delusion.

These things that you mentioned "what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad' are just preferences, desires. They are not facts that humans OUGHT to achieve or do. You cannot derive an ought from an IS.

That is true. My axiom is an 'ought' in the first place, not derived from an 'is'. If you can't see that it's a 'properly basic belief' I can only despair of what kind of morality you're likely to wind up with without it.

Just shifting the problem here. Is it a fact that humans ought to or is it just a preference?

Also, you have made a value judgements,ie good and bad. Why are these things good or bad? Sure they maybe desirable, but how do you cross the bridge and say they are good?

If i want to maximise sufferring and eliminate the human species, have i done something bad?

You haven't done something bad in your own eyes. If you've acted on that desire, you've done something bad in my eyes. I don't have to cross the bridge, I'm already there.

Morality being subjective doesn't mean you can't make value judgments. It just acknowledges that your value judgments are subjective. Do you really believe your value judgments aren't subjective?

---

Let me ask you

If i told you me and my friends have been raping and torturing a child for fun for the past 6 months, have we been doing something wrong? Like if i say 1+1=3 wrong? LIke if i say the earth is flat wrong? or if i say the sun rotates around the earth wrong?

Or do you only find me and my friends acts distasteful or undesirable....like if we told you we have been eating a fruit you really hate?

This should give you an idea where I am coming from?

Functional empathy should tell you the difference between how raping a child is wrong and how 1+1=3 is wrong. One is a factoid, the other is an outrage. The real question is: What is wrong with you? In your scenario, you and your friends should be removed from society for the safety of children and to punish you for your crimes. If you don't agree with my moral reasoning, that's not enough to keep you and your friends out of lockup.

So something is wrong with me and my friends? That is admitting OM exists.


And no one should have to explain this to you. The idea of the scenario you suggest makes me want to see the perpetrators harshly punished. Are you trying to say if the scenario turns my feels up to 10, it makes my assessment of the morality of the situation objective?

Why should we?

---

@OP

Forgive me as I don't have a complete understanding of the Abrahamic religions, let alone Christianity, but I don't understand how you can get to objective morality even with God. Dude regularly calls for acts of genocide or commits what we would consider heinous acts all the time. Then it turns around and commands us not to kill? How is that not subjective? He could command anything and it would be considered morally right. Before you start claiming OT OT, why does that make a difference? Guy's a flip flopper.

Is genocide wrong?

[Little Henry]

Conversation 1

Person A and person B sit at a cafe.

Person A says he watched the movie Taken 1 and Taken 2 last night. Person A says he thinks Taken 1 is better than Taken 2.

Person B disagrees and say Taken 2 is better than Taken 1.

Who is right or wrong? Is Taken 1 better than Taken 2 or is Taken 2 better than Taken 1?

Don't answer this question yet.

Conversation 2

Person A orders a plate of olives and Person B orders a plate of grapes. They both start eating
Person A says, olives are so nice, they taste better than grapes. Grapes are disgusting

Person B then says, olives are disgusting, grapes taste so much better than olives.

Who is right/wrong? Do olives taste better than grapes? Or are olives better tasting than grapes?

Don't answer yet.

Conversation C

While Person A and Person B are sitting down talking, one of Justin Bieber's songs come on.

Person A says, oh i love this song, it is so nice, so good.

Person B says, Justin Bieber's songs are horrible. I cant stand them.

Who is right or wrong? Are Justin Bieber's songs horrible or nice?

Don't answer this yet.

Conversation 4

Both Person A and B look out the window and they see a billboard and they see a picture Jessica Alba and Lucy Liu.

Person A says, Jessica Alba is so good looking. She is better looking than Lucy Liu.

Person B says, I disagree, Lucy Liu is better looking than Jessica Alba.

Who is right/wrong? Is Jessica Alba better looking than Lucy Liu or is Lucy Liu better looking than Jessica Alba?

Dont answer this yet.

Conversation 5

Person A orders a Jack Daniels and coke. Person B orders a beer.

Person A say JD and coke tastes so good, Beer is disgusting. JD and coke tastes better than beer.

Person B says, no Beer tastes better than JD and coke.

Who is right/wrong? Does JD and coke taste better than Beer or is beer taste better than JD and coke.

Dont answer this yet..

Conversation 6

Person A says baseball is such a great sport. It provides so much entertainment and they really enjoy watching it. Person A says, the game is so much better than the game of golf.

Person B says, Golf is so much more enjoyable to watch than baseball.

Who is right/wrong? Is Golf a more enjoyable sport than baseball? Or is baseball a more enjoyable sport better than golf?

Conversation 7

Person A says the earth rotates around the sun. Person B says no it does not , the sun rotates around the earth.

Who is right/wrong?

Conversation 8

Person A says the earth is flat. Person B says no its not. The earth is spherical in shape.

Who is right/wrong?

Ok. I am going to talk about this 1 more time. I dont think it can get more simpler than this.

I hope it is obvious to everyone, conversations 1-6, person A and person B are talking about things that are deemed SUBJECTIVE. Taste in food, drinks, music, looks, sport and movies.

Conversations 7 and 8, person A and person B are both talking about something that is OBJECTIVE.

Lets start off with conversations 7 and 8.

Conversation 7. Who is right or wrong? Person A is right. Is person A right because of your personal opinion? Preference or desire? No. It has nothing to do with your personal preference/desire or opinion. The earth actually rotates AROUND the sun. This is a FACT. It is deemed OBJECTIVE.
It has nothing to do with what anyone on earth thinks about the sun or the earth.
Person A is right and person is wrong. We can ONLY deem them to be right or wrong because we are comparing there statements to a FACT. The FACT is what deciphers between peoples statements and therefore makes them right or wrong.
I dont know how much more simpler i can state this. It is plain logic.
Can person A and person B BOTH be right? NO. They cannot be because either the sun rotates around the earth or the earth rotates around the sun.
If this question was asked in an exam, Person A would get a tick and Person B would get a cross.


Conversation 8.

Lets keep this simple. Who is right or wrong? Person A or B? It is a fact that the earth is spherical in shape. Person B is right. Person A is wrong.
Is person A wrong and person B right because of the way you feel? Prefer? Desire?
NO. It has nothing to do with what anyone of us feel, prefer or desire.
This is what we mean when we say OBJECTIVE. Like in conversation 7. It has NOTHING to do with what anyone of you think. The earth is still spherical even if everyone believed it to be flat, or if no one ever existed.This is what we mean by fact.
BECAUSE IT IS A FACT, IT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY WE CAN SAY PERSON A IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
We can compare person A and Person B comments AGAINST the fact and deem one to be right and wrong.
If this question was asked in an exam, Person B would get a tick and Person A would get a cross.

Now compare conversations 7 and 8 where Person A and B are talking about something OBJECTIVE with conversations 1 through to 6..
Conversations 1-6 are SUBJECTIVE.

In conversation 1, who is right or wrong.
Is Taken 1 a better movie than Taken 2 or Taken 2 better than Taken 1?
I would HOPE by now you would RECOGNIZE that NEITHER is right or wrong. Why?
Because UNLIKE in conversations 6 and 7, there is NOTHING to compare to there statements AGAINST. It is not a fact that Taken 1 or 2 is better or worse than the other. If there is no fact to compare it against therefore NEITHER IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
This is WHY IT IS CALLED subjective in its nature. At best, Person A can say, I PREFER Taken 1 over Taken 2. That is what i like more. In my opinion, it is better.
But it is NOT a fact that Taken 1 is a better movie than Taken 2.
If this question was asked in an exam, who would get a tick or a cross? NEITHER one would get a tick or a cross.
Isnt this plain obvious?

Now use this LOGIC to the other conversations, 2-6 and the CONCLUSIONS would be the same. There is NO RIGHT OR WRONG. You are jut EXPRESSING YOUR PREFERENCE/DESIRE.
It is not a fact that grapes itself taste better than olives, or JD and coke taste better than beer or Jessica Alba is better looking than Lucy Liu or Baseball is a better game than golf or Justin Biebers music is good or bad.

I hope you can all see the NATURE of items that are objective and items that are subjective and the conclusions of these?

All items that are subjective are NEITHER right or wrong.

All items that are objective are EITHER right or wrong.

You cannot DEEM something to be subjective then say your opinion about is right. That is using the words right and wrong in a MISLEADING way, a NAIVE way.

Now, is the nature of morality in conversations 1 through to 6 or is it classed in conversations 7-8?

Notice in conversations 7 and 8 that BOTH parties will argue and one of them trying to prove they are right? This is because they are arguing over something that is OBJECTIVE.
At the end, 1 will be right and the other will be wrong.

Notice in conversations 1-6 the parties will NOT argue who is right or wrong? They are just expressing their preferences. This is because neither of them are right or wrong.
See the difference.

If you want to label something subjective, then say it is right or wrong, this is an incoherent statement, because something ITSELF cannot be BOTH right and wrong at the same time. It violates the law of non contradiction.

Is it a FACT that harming someone is wrong? As in 1+1=3 is wrong or if someone says the sun rotates around the earth?

Or is it just an expression of preference/desire like when someone says they prefer grapes over olives? Baseball over golf?

You people are smarter than this. I can sense that you really KNOW certain moral acts are WRONG like child rape. You dont have to think to think about this. It is a proper basic belief.
I believe that you know moral facts like moral right and wrong DO EXIST, but you realise the consequence of admitting it because of what it would do to your wider belief system.

[Whateverist]

WOW

TL;DR

[brewer]

---

Conversation 1

Person A and person B sit at a cafe.

Person A says he watched the movie Taken 1 and Taken 2 last night. Person A says he thinks Taken 1 is better than Taken 2.

Person B disagrees and say Taken 2 is better than Taken 1.

Who is right or wrong? Is Taken 1 better than Taken 2 or is Taken 2 better than Taken 1?

Don't answer this question yet.

Conversation 2

Person A orders a plate of olives and Person B orders a plate of grapes. They both start eating
Person A says, olives are so nice, they taste better than grapes. Grapes are disgusting

Person B then says, olives are disgusting, grapes taste so much better than olives.

Who is right/wrong? Do olives taste better than grapes? Or are olives better tasting than grapes?

Don't answer yet.

Conversation C

While Person A and Person B are sitting down talking, one of Justin Bieber's songs come on.

Person A says, oh i love this song, it is so nice, so good.

Person B says, Justin Bieber's songs are horrible. I cant stand them.

Who is right or wrong? Are Justin Bieber's songs horrible or nice?

Don't answer this yet.

Conversation 4

Both Person A and B look out the window and they see a billboard and they see a picture Jessica Alba and Lucy Liu.

Person A says, Jessica Alba is so good looking. She is better looking than Lucy Liu.

Person B says, I disagree, Lucy Liu is better looking than Jessica Alba.

Who is right/wrong? Is Jessica Alba better looking than Lucy Liu or is Lucy Liu better looking than Jessica Alba?

Dont answer this yet.

Conversation 5

Person A orders a Jack Daniels and coke. Person B orders a beer.

Person A say JD and coke tastes so good, Beer is disgusting. JD and coke tastes better than beer.

Person B says, no Beer tastes better than JD and coke.

Who is right/wrong? Does JD and coke taste better than Beer or is beer taste better than JD and coke.

Dont answer this yet..

Conversation 6

Person A says baseball is such a great sport. It provides so much entertainment and they really enjoy watching it. Person A says, the game is so much better than the game of golf.

Person B says, Golf is so much more enjoyable to watch than baseball.

Who is right/wrong? Is Golf a more enjoyable sport than baseball? Or is baseball a more enjoyable sport better than golf?

Conversation 7

Person A says the earth rotates around the sun. Person B says no it does not , the sun rotates around the earth.

Who is right/wrong?

Conversation 8

Person A says the earth is flat. Person B says no its not. The earth is spherical in shape.

Who is right/wrong?

Ok. I am going to talk about this 1 more time. I dont think it can get more simpler than this.

I hope it is obvious to everyone, conversations 1-6, person A and person B are talking about things that are deemed SUBJECTIVE. Taste in food, drinks, music, looks, sport and movies.

Conversations 7  and 8, person A and person B are both talking about something that is OBJECTIVE.

Lets start off with conversations 7 and 8.

Conversation 7. Who is right or wrong? Person A is right. Is person A right because of your personal opinion? Preference or desire? No. It has nothing to do with your personal preference/desire or opinion. The earth actually rotates AROUND the sun. This is a FACT. It is deemed OBJECTIVE.
It has nothing to do with what anyone on earth thinks about the sun or the earth.
Person A is right and person is wrong. We can ONLY deem them to be right or wrong because we are comparing there statements to a FACT. The FACT is what deciphers between peoples statements and therefore makes them right or wrong.
I dont know how much more simpler i can state this. It is plain logic.
Can person A and person B BOTH be right? NO. They cannot be because either the sun rotates around the earth or the earth rotates around the sun.
If this question was asked in an exam, Person A would get a tick and Person B would get a cross.


Conversation 8.

Lets keep this simple. Who is right or wrong? Person A or B? It is a fact that the earth is spherical in shape. Person B is right. Person A is wrong.
Is person A wrong and person B right because of the way you feel? Prefer? Desire?
NO. It has nothing to do with what anyone of us feel, prefer  or desire.
This is what we mean when we say OBJECTIVE. Like in conversation 7. It has NOTHING to do with what anyone of you think. The earth is still spherical even if everyone believed it to be flat, or if no one ever existed.This is what we mean by fact.
BECAUSE IT IS A FACT, IT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY WE CAN SAY PERSON A IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
We can compare person A and Person B comments AGAINST the fact and deem one to be right and wrong.
If this question was asked in an exam, Person B would get a tick and Person A would get a cross.

Now compare conversations 7 and 8 where Person A and B  are talking about something OBJECTIVE with conversations 1 through to 6..
Conversations 1-6 are SUBJECTIVE.

In conversation 1, who is right or wrong.
Is Taken 1 a better movie than Taken 2 or Taken 2 better than Taken 1?
I would HOPE by now you would RECOGNIZE that NEITHER is right or wrong. Why?
Because UNLIKE in conversations 6 and 7, there is NOTHING to compare to there statements AGAINST. It is not a fact that Taken 1 or 2 is better or worse than the other. If there is no fact to compare it against therefore NEITHER IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
This is WHY IT IS CALLED subjective in its nature. At best, Person A can say, I PREFER Taken 1 over Taken 2. That is what i like more. In my opinion, it is better.
But it is NOT a fact that Taken 1 is a better movie than Taken 2.
If this question was asked in an exam, who would get a tick or a cross? NEITHER one would get a tick or a cross.
Isnt this plain obvious?

Now use this LOGIC to the other conversations, 2-6 and the CONCLUSIONS would be the same. There is NO RIGHT OR WRONG. You are jut EXPRESSING YOUR PREFERENCE/DESIRE.
It is not a fact that grapes itself taste better than olives, or JD and coke taste better than beer or Jessica Alba is better looking than Lucy Liu or Baseball is a better game than golf or Justin Biebers music is good or bad.

I hope you can all see the NATURE of items that are objective and items that are subjective and the conclusions of these?

All items that are subjective are NEITHER right or wrong.

All items that are objective are EITHER right or wrong.

You cannot DEEM something to be subjective then say your opinion about is right. That is using the words right and wrong in a MISLEADING way, a NAIVE way.

Now, is the nature of morality in conversations 1 through to 6 or is it classed in conversations 7-8?

Notice in conversations 7 and 8 that BOTH parties will argue and one of them trying to prove they are right? This is because they are arguing over something that is OBJECTIVE.
At the end, 1 will be right and the other will be wrong.

Notice in conversations 1-6 the parties will NOT argue who is right or wrong? They are just expressing their preferences. This is because neither of them are right or wrong.
See the difference.

If you want to label something subjective, then say it is right or wrong, this is an incoherent statement, because something ITSELF cannot be BOTH right and wrong at the same time. It violates the law of non contradiction.

Is it a FACT that harming someone is wrong? As in 1+1=3 is wrong or if someone says the sun rotates around the earth?

Or is it just an expression of preference/desire like when someone says they prefer grapes over olives? Baseball over golf?

You people are smarter than this. I can sense that you really KNOW certain moral acts are WRONG like child rape. You dont have to think to think about this. It is a proper basic belief.
I believe that you know moral facts like moral right and wrong DO EXIST, but you realise the consequence of admitting it because of what it would do to your wider belief system.

---

[The Grand Nudger]

I believe that you know moral facts like moral right and wrong DO EXIST, but you realise the consequence of admitting it because of what it would do to your wider belief system.

What is it supposed to do to their "wider belief system", lol?