Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[JackRussell]

labels don't equal morality, actions do.

No gods required.

[RoadRunner79]

I'm just going by what you say.   If you say that harm equates with immoral, then contradict that, and then still try to tell me, that harm equates with immoral; I'm going to ask questions and disagree.  Now I normally strive to not insert assumptions into your position.  So perhaps it's my fault, for not gong beyond what you say.  And sometimes I ask questions for clarity.  Sometimes I expect you to agree, and I'm seeking to find a common ground from which to work from.  When you say you disagree, or start calling me names (the argument of a 12 yr old), then is it incorrect to respond to that.  If you mean something else, then say so.  If we agree, then acknowledge that and we'll move on.    If you mostly agree, but want to add something... then do so.  It's not that difficult.

Now in saying that "harm is the axiom of morality"  I don't think that is the correct term, but perhaps I get the gist of what you are saying (or you can clarify what you mean). I would agree, that harm, damage, or sometimes just the intention to inflict such  is often seen in what is called immoral.  However, I think that you also at times need to stretch things to make this work.  And the objectiveness, that you appealed to earlier, isn't seen when harm is intended, but not successful (not actualized).  Something you agree is still immoral.  And while harm may often be seen in what is immoral, and think you will run into more difficulty with this "axiom" when you start looking at the opposite, and moral virtues.  Things such as courage, fortitude, temperance.

So, while I may agree somewhat, I think it is far too simplistic to be complete.

[JackRussell]

I'm just going by what you say.   If you say that harm equates with immoral, then contradict that, and then still try to tell me, that harm equates with immoral; I'm going to ask questions and disagree.  Now I normally strive to not insert assumptions into your position.  So perhaps it's my fault, for not gong beyond what you say.  And sometimes I ask questions for clarity.  Sometimes I expect you to agree, and I'm seeking to find a common ground from which to work from.  When you say you disagree, or start calling me names (the argument of a 12 yr old), then is it incorrect to respond to that.  If you mean something else, then say so.  If we agree, then acknowledge that and we'll move on.    If you mostly agree, but want to add something... then do so.  It's not that difficult.

Now in saying that "harm is the axiom of morality"  I don't think that is the correct term, but perhaps I get the gist of what you are saying (or you can clarify what you mean). I would agree, that harm, damage, or sometimes just the intention to inflict such  is often seen in what is called immoral.  However, I think that you also at times need to stretch things to make this work.  And the objectiveness, that you appealed to earlier, isn't seen when harm is intended, but not successful (not actualized).  Something you agree is still immoral.  And while harm may often be seen in what is immoral, and think you will run into more difficulty with this "axiom" when you start looking at the opposite, and moral virtues.  Things such as courage, fortitude, temperance.

So, while I may agree somewhat, I think it is far too simplistic to be complete.

Or what your own brain has arrived upon about these questions? right or wrong. Simple but evident.

[Amarok]

I'm just going by what you say.   If you say that harm equates with immoral, then contradict that, and then still try to tell me, that harm equates with immoral; I'm going to ask questions and disagree.  Now I normally strive to not insert assumptions into your position.  So perhaps it's my fault, for not gong beyond what you say.  And sometimes I ask questions for clarity.  Sometimes I expect you to agree, and I'm seeking to find a common ground from which to work from.  When you say you disagree, or start calling me names (the argument of a 12 yr old), then is it incorrect to respond to that.  If you mean something else, then say so.  If we agree, then acknowledge that and we'll move on.    If you mostly agree, but want to add something... then do so.  It's not that difficult.

Now in saying that "harm is the axiom of morality"  I don't think that is the correct term, but perhaps I get the gist of what you are saying (or you can clarify what you mean). I would agree, that harm, damage, or sometimes just the intention to inflict such  is often seen in what is called immoral.  However, I think that you also at times need to stretch things to make this work.  And the objectiveness, that you appealed to earlier, isn't seen when harm is intended, but not successful (not actualized).  Something you agree is still immoral.  And while harm may often be seen in what is immoral, and think you will run into more difficulty with this "axiom" when you start looking at the opposite, and moral virtues.  Things such as courage, fortitude, temperance.

So, while I may agree somewhat, I think it is far too simplistic to be complete.

Or what your own brain has arrived upon about these questions? right or wrong. Simple but evident.

Dear rod he's still not getting it jack you and kam have patients of a Buddha's .

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm just going by what you say.   If you say that harm equates with immoral, then contradict that, and then still try to tell me, that harm equates with immoral; I'm going to ask questions and disagree.  Now I normally strive to not insert assumptions into your position.  So perhaps it's my fault, for not gong beyond what you say.  And sometimes I ask questions for clarity.  Sometimes I expect you to agree, and I'm seeking to find a common ground from which to work from.  When you say you disagree, or start calling me names (the argument of a 12 yr old), then is it incorrect to respond to that.  If you mean something else, then say so.  If we agree, then acknowledge that and we'll move on.    If you mostly agree, but want to add something... then do so.  It's not that difficult.

Can you think of some harmless immoral thing?  Care to propose a harmless sin?  

Now in saying that "harm is the axiom of morality"  I don't think that is the correct term, but perhaps I get the gist of what you are saying (or you can clarify what you mean). I would agree, that harm, damage, or sometimes just the intention to inflict such  is often seen in what is called immoral.  However, I think that you also at times need to stretch things to make this work. 

Stretch things?  A full moral assessment of any given x..like any assessment of any other thing, cannot be satisfied by simply stating the axiom out of which any positions may follow, which I've already explained.  

And the objectiveness, that you appealed to earlier, isn't seen when harm is intended, but not successful (not actualized).  Something you agree is still immoral.

The person in your example objectively intended harm.  In fact..when we can't determine that, we don't call it immoral...we call it careless or clumsy - like your many responses. It wasn;t so much the case that you were -trying- to murder objective morality, as you simply didn't see it there, right in front of your clown car. Ergo you simply manslaughtered it.

 And while harm may often be seen in what is immoral, and think you will run into more difficulty with this "axiom" when you start looking at the opposite, and moral virtues.  Things such as courage, fortitude, temperance.

So, what you'd actually like to discuss is either moral compulsion or moral virtue?  I think that you'll find more frustration in these topics than you did with an objective morality based upon harm. How about this for the moral virtue, abstaining from or preventing harm? Why is courage virtuous, courage in the face of what? Fortitude...as in courage in the face of...what...again? How about temperance...what are we attempting to moderate? While we're at it, why should you follow The Rules™? Why should others be made to follow The Rules™, even if they don't agree?

Harm, harmity harm harm harm. Good job.

You see, that's how this works, with harm as axiomatic to a moral system (objective, subjective...doesn't matter in this)...all subsequent statements consistent with that system will invariably reduce to some relationship with the moral fact of the matter. Which, for reference.......in case you're still unclear.....is harm.

So, while I may agree somewhat, I think it is far too simplistic to be complete.

Oh, something's far too simplistic, alright........

[Mister Agenda]

I think a case can be made for Objective Morality being a properly basic belief. However, it only seems to be atheists trying to make that case.

[RoadRunner79]

What do you mean by "with harm as axiomatic to a moral system"? What are you saying this relationship between harm and morality is"

---

I think a case can be made for Objective Morality being a properly basic belief. However, it only seems to be atheists trying to make that case.

I don't disagree with that.... I think it is similar what is referred to as an inate sense, in many arguements by theists.

[The Grand Nudger]

What do you mean by "with harm as axiomatic to a moral system"? What are you saying this relationship between harm and morality is"

Just stop, you're done.

I don't disagree with that.... I think it is similar what is referred to as an inate sense, in many arguements by theists.

You'd have to be arguing for an objective morality, you aren't. Our innate sense, that provides us with reliable moral guesses, is called "empathy". It helps us, for example, understand harm. It doesn't..however, provide or inform us as to an objective moral schema.

[Astonished]

What do you mean by "with harm as axiomatic to a moral system"? What are you saying this relationship between harm and morality is"

Just stop, you're done.

I don't disagree with that.... I think it is similar what is referred to as an inate sense, in many arguements by theists.

You'd have to be arguing for an objective morality, you aren't. Our innate sense, that provides us with reliable moral guesses, is called "empathy".  It helps us, for example, understand harm.  It doesn't..however, provide or inform us as to an objective moral schema.

And from an evolutionary standpoint it makes far more sense than anything theists claim; otherwise we'd be perfectly fine with slavery instead of instinctively feeling that it's an abhorrent thing. You have to be indoctrinated or sociopathic to think otherwise (or both). Deference to authority also makes more sense in an evolutionary sense because otherwise we would ONLY consider one authority to be viable and yet it can go in any direction imaginable, not towards the alleged 'one true god' and its will.

You just can't remove subjective aspects from it so you have to take that into account. What act is worse than another, whose life is worth more than another if you can only save one or the other, etc., the shitty gritty things we don't deal with as often, thankfully. So while that removes the idea of an absolute authority (which makes no sense anyway) it doesn't render the whole thing irrelevant or incoherent whatsoever. It's all that works with whatever little we have and we don't have anything else that can actually be demonstrated to work in the same consistent way.

[The Grand Nudger]

And from an evolutionary standpoint it makes far more sense than anything theists claim; otherwise we'd be perfectly fine with slavery instead of instinctively feeling that it's an abhorrent thing. You have to be indoctrinated or sociopathic to think otherwise (or both). Deference to authority also makes more sense in an evolutionary sense because otherwise we would ONLY consider one authority to be viable and yet it can go in any direction imaginable, not towards the alleged 'one true god' and its will.

OFC it makes more sense than fairies.  It's hard to make less sense.  Deference to authority is, to some extent, our evolutionary inheritance in that we belong to a genus that has elaborate and unmistakable displays and relationships surrounding dominance.  However, a moral standard can both justify or delegitimize an authority.  An objective morality standard would do so demonstrably. 

You just can't remove subjective aspects from it so you have to take that into account. What act is worse than another, whose life is worth more than another if you can only save one or the other, etc., the shitty gritty things we don't deal with as often, thankfully. So while that removes the idea of an absolute authority (which makes no sense anyway) it doesn't render the whole thing irrelevant or incoherent whatsoever. It's all that works with whatever little we have and we don't have anything else that can actually be demonstrated to work in the same consistent way.

An objective moral schema doesn't remove the idea of an absolute authority, in a meaningful sense it becomes one. This is -why- religions seek to conflate the character of their gods with an objective moral standard. I don't think that the things you consider to be subjective -are- subjective.  I think that -we- are subjective agents attempting to manufacture moral statements by reference to purportedly objective standards. What's worse...murder or manslaughter? Why?