Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[JackRussell]

Theists don't like icky stuff, but sex, sex of any kind, menstruation, and jesus boy having a secret companion.

And the Christian score card on immolating witches, homos and un believers should tell any sane person that we are dealing with human prerogatives.

No shame in admitting that, but it is ohhhhhh so human.

I am morally superior to the judeo-christian god. I take offence with any god botherer that cares to tell me otherwise. The sad thing is that they should know that's true as well!

[Brian37]

Please lecture everyone here on morality, when your old book of mythology has God taking it out on KIDS over a beef he has with an adult king. Please lecture us on morality when God allows mass genocide in a flood which would mean that innocent men and women and KIDS would have drowned. I am glad those fictitious stories are not true, but is is sad that in this day and age people believe them, and far worse find them to be moral.

If that is the best an allegedly "all powerful" "all loving" God can do being perfect, sorry, he sucks at his job. I think the better option as to why people wrote that crap was because it reflected the very tribal times they lived in where loyalty to the rulers was much more of a demand.

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?   I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?

I have been at debate online since 01, and long ago I learned that a theist always has an end game. You will try in this thread to argue you are not trying to convince anyone your God exists, then argue in another thread, or start another thread, here or on another website that he does exist. Now, do yourself a favor, if you buy the Christian bible, and view it as your source of morality, then stop trying to dodge it.

You are not the first theist I have debated, nor are you the only religion I have debated. 

If you have a God belief, and you use a holy book to justify your morality then there is no way to avoid the subject because that is where you are filtering your sense of morality from.

But please do not insult my intelligence and pretend you have no end motive.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's ok,..as long as no harm is done or intended right?  We could also return to harm, that is not immoral if you like.  If you want to discuss, I would suggest that you cut out the sophism, and try reasoning through it.  You don't get to immoral through harm alone (it may not even be present). Correlation does not imply causation, or mean that it is the basis.

Yeah, if no harm is done or intended, it's not even a moral consideration.  Your hypothetical was not an example of no harm being done..or of no harm being intended, but of a person who did not want to get caught intentionally doing that which causes harm.... so?  This is why kicking a rock is amoral, whereas kicking you in the rocks..is not. You could intentionally kick a rock, or unintentional kick a rock. Still ammoral. Kiocking you -in- the rocks is only modified to be -less- immoral in the lack of intent..but even then...carelessness, a lack of intent but surplus of apathy, is often considered immoral. The only time we hand out a free pass is in the odd event that your nuts just happened to be where my foot was. It's a hard argument to make, particularly if you're making it to the one who's nuts here kicked.

What's this correlation and causation bit?  An axiom isn't proven, it's a foundational claim or assertion upon which all other claims follow.  A properly basic belief.  Ideally, it would be self evident, as the foundation of harm in morality is self evident.  

Khem, if you did say we're not removing our subjective natures from it, that's all you had to say, we're done. Thank you for finally making that clear.

It's only about the third time I've told you that, specifically, and twice as many more again in thread.  

We may standardize things and call them 'law' but that doesn't mean it's the correct, or best, approach and even those who agree about objective morality can disagree with the application of these laws and penalties on the same grounds. So the entire statement you made about it is utterly irrelevant. If you already agree about the above statement, breath is wasted going further.

Another version of "that's like, your opinion, man".  Yes, it is my opinion, is my opinion wrong?  Is it wrong because I;m a subjective agent?  Is it somehow not objective, on account of it? If my opinion were different, would rape be less harmful? Explaining that and how harm is fundamental doesn't tell us how to best approach things like agency, or moral desert, it simply lays out a necessary foundation for an objective morality. That it;s the "best" way to approach an objective morality is made apparent in that we approach morality no other way, it's what we're talking about when we talk about morality. Inescapable and self evident. It' not a magic wand. It won't immediately provide you with one answer to rule them all that holds in every situation or that every person has access to or can correctly discern. It can't and it doesn't have to. It's simply the kernel of fact around which any pursuant answer is formed.

[Astonished]

It's ok,..as long as no harm is done or intended right?  We could also return to harm, that is not immoral if you like.  If you want to discuss, I would suggest that you cut out the sophism, and try reasoning through it.  You don't get to immoral through harm alone (it may not even be present). Correlation does not imply causation, or mean that it is the basis.

Yeah, if no harm is done or intended, it's not even a moral consideration.  Your hypothetical was not an example of no harm being done..or of no harm being intended, but of a person who did not want to get caught intentionally doing that which causes harm.... so?  This is why kicking a rock is amoral, whereas kicking you in the rocks..is not.  You could intentionally kick a rock, or unintentional kick a rock.  Still ammoral.  Kiocking you -in- the rocks is only modified to be -less- immoral in the lack of intent..but even then...carelessness, a lack of intent but surplus of apathy, is often considered immoral.  The only time we hand out a free pass is in the odd event that your nuts just happened to be where my foot was.  It's a hard argument to make, particularly if you're making it to the one who's nuts here kicked.  

What's this correlation and causation bit?  An axiom isn't proven, it's a foundational claim or assertion upon which all other claims follow.  A properly basic belief.  Ideally, it would be self evident, as the foundation of harm in morality is self evident.  

Khem, if you did say we're not removing our subjective natures from it, that's all you had to say, we're done. Thank you for finally making that clear.

It's only about the third time I've told you that, specifically, and twice as many more again in thread.  

We may standardize things and call them 'law' but that doesn't mean it's the correct, or best, approach and even those who agree about objective morality can disagree with the application of these laws and penalties on the same grounds. So the entire statement you made about it is utterly irrelevant. If you already agree about the above statement, breath is wasted going further.

Another version of "that's like, your opinion, man".  Yes, it is my opinion, is my opinion wrong?  Is it wrong because I;m a subjective agent?  Is it somehow not objective, on account of it?  If my opinion were different, would rape be less harmful?  Explaining that and how harm is fundamental doesn't tell us how to best approach things like agency, or moral desert, it simply lays out a necessary foundation for an objective morality.  That it;s the "best" way to approach an objective morality is made apparent in that we approach morality no other way, it's what we're talking about when we talk about morality.  Inescapable and self evident.  It' not a magic wand.  It won't immediately provide you with one answer to rule them all that holds in every situation or that every person has access to or can correctly discern.  It can't and it doesn't have to. It's simply the kernel of fact around which any pursuant answer is formed.

I'm saying law does not automatically equate with morality, dude, fuck. It's based more around what people in power want because under the circumstances their subjective opinions matter more than ours. So why even bring up law?

[The Grand Nudger]

I'm saying law does not automatically equate with morality, dude, fuck.

Ayup, mentioned that not but three posts back..but in the case of moral desert, murder, and manslaughter - it correlates.  The moral and legal fact of the matter is that killing someone is wrong.  Different types of killing are classified as different crimes with different punishments.  So we have a moral fact of the matter, a discussion of moral agency, and a conclusion of moral desert.  

It's based more around what people in power want because under the circumstances their subjective opinions matter more than ours. So why even bring up law?

"People in power" are meant to be kept in check by a rule of law, rather than a rule by monarchs.  Technically, there;s no need to bring up law, it;s just one of those times where the law runs a parralel course. Ultimately, it makes no difference to a consideration of murder and manslaughter.  Killing is bad, unintential killing is still bad, but it's an accident.  We do not extend the same moral condemnation for those two disparate moral situations. This isn;t because the standard or the process (moral or legal) is subjective...but because it objectively refers to disparate situations.

[Astonished]

I'm saying law does not automatically equate with morality, dude, fuck.

Ayup, mentioned that not but three posts back..but in the case of moral desert, murder, and manslaughter - it correlates.  The moral and legal fact of the matter is that killing someone is wrong.  Different types of killing are classified as different crimes with different punishments.  So we have a moral fact of the matter, a discussion of moral agency, and a conclusion of moral desert.  

It's based more around what people in power want because under the circumstances their subjective opinions matter more than ours. So why even bring up law?

"People in power" are meant to be kept in check by a rule of law, rather than a rule by monarchs.  Technically, there;s no need to bring up law, it;s just one of those times where the law runs a parralel course.  Ultimately, it makes no difference to a consideration of murder and manslaughter.  Killing is bad, unintential killing is still bad, but it's an accident.  We do not extend the same moral condemnation for those two disparate moral situations.  This isn;t because the standard or the process (moral or legal) is subjective...but because it objectively refers to disparate situations.

Got tired of watching you argue with Beep-Beep so I must have missed that one. But again, you brought up law, quite uselessly, I was just pointing that out.

[RoadRunner79]

[hide]

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?   I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?

Good question. Who knows the correct basis for assessing morality. I am saying it can only be the self and an understanding of empathy. I absolutely admit that doesn't address the problem of hard solipsism, but I don't know where that gets anybody.

I am sick and tired of morality as abstracts and I ain't no philosopher. Practical morality seems obviously secular, even to a well versed theist. Unless you subscribe to a divine command theory, because there are many biblically mandated things that are immoral to me. The it's just a game of he said, she said.
[/hdie]

Name me a moral judgement that a theist could make that an un-beiliver couldn't?

I dare you.

I don't claim that there is a difference here. I think that morality is objective and that we have an innate sense of right and wrong. It may not be perfect, and there may be various reasons why some are on the mark more than others; but I think that unbelievers can and do make moral assessments.

---

Keep in mind, that I was just examining the reasons given by the other poster.  In doing so, I'm not making any assumptions, beyond what they had said (because it causes harm, and that you can equate harm and immorality).

I agree, that most people are going to come to a similar conclusion as you did.  And thus come to the outcome that the syllogism is wrong. While harm may normally be involved in what we call immoral, harm alone, isn't a sufficient basis.  Intent also comes into play.  I would say that the intent is more important in the matter than the harm (actualized or not). Would you agree?

What of a man who is cheating on his wife and ensures that she never finds out.  There is no harm done (physical or emotional). There is not an intent to harm, which is why he keeps it from her. But there is betrayal and disloyalty.  Is this immoral?

It is wrong in my mind because it opens the possibility to hurt for the other half and makes the introduction of sexual diseases more likely.

In fact I know a serial adulteror who explained his reasoning thusly. He weighed the concequences of his actions against the amount of enjoyment he would get and if the fun outweighed the concequences he would fill his boots.

I think what he did was wrong, but he seemed to enjoy it and the women lined up to be the other woman. He was an ex swimwear model for speedo so that may have had something to do with it.

But I'm curious as to what difference a god makes to the situation, how would there being a god be different from there not being one?

Yes, and he is keeping his wife from harm.   I'm not arguing that this is moral or not (though I do think it is wrong).  Just examining the claim that harm is the basis for morality.
In the area of epistemology (how we know what is right and wrong and is what we are talking about) I don't think it does make that big of a difference.  A Christian may point to the scriptures for insight, but I don't see that as a large inequality.  Many who don't believe will come to the same conclusion.

[The Grand Nudger]

The man cheating on his wife is keeping her from harm.  That's an interesting assessment.  

---

Ayup, mentioned that not but three posts back..but in the case of moral desert, murder, and manslaughter - it correlates.  The moral and legal fact of the matter is that killing someone is wrong.  Different types of killing are classified as different crimes with different punishments.  So we have a moral fact of the matter, a discussion of moral agency, and a conclusion of moral desert.  

"People in power" are meant to be kept in check by a rule of law, rather than a rule by monarchs.  Technically, there;s no need to bring up law, it;s just one of those times where the law runs a parralel course.  Ultimately, it makes no difference to a consideration of murder and manslaughter.  Killing is bad, unintential killing is still bad, but it's an accident.  We do not extend the same moral condemnation for those two disparate moral situations.  This isn;t because the standard or the process (moral or legal) is subjective...but because it objectively refers to disparate situations.

Got tired of watching you argue with Beep-Beep so I must have missed that one. But again, you brought up law, quite uselessly, I was just pointing that out.

[Mr.wizard]

Morality itself is not objective, you can get to objective moral conclusions depending on the foundation you are using to measure it. For example, if you use well-being as a foundation, then it is objectively immoral to chop off somebody's head.

[RoadRunner79]

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?   I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?

I have been at debate online since 01, and long ago I learned that a theist always has an end game. You will try in this thread to argue you are not trying to convince anyone your God exists, then argue in another thread, or start another thread, here or on another website that he does exist. Now, do yourself a favor, if you buy the Christian bible, and view it as your source of morality, then stop trying to dodge it.

Does your paranoia also think that my posting in the Dr. Who thread is just a big ruse?  I'm still not very impressed with your mind reading by the way.   Now earlier in this thread, I did enter in, to correct some misconceptions about the moral argument and objective morality.  Then the topic changed, and I stayed in, to have an interesting and reasoned discussion.  To maybe open up to new ideas, that I had not thought of before, or perhaps to do the same for others.

And even though I'm not really aiming towards your imagined end game or have some hidden plan; even if I was, my motivations, have no bearing on reasonable discussion.  It doesn't change the rational conclusion.  And I don't care how long you have been debating.  Do you have something that you would like to add to the discussion at hand?   Because this seems more of an attempt to close down reason and discussion!

---

It's ok,..as long as no harm is done or intended right?  We could also return to harm, that is not immoral if you like.  If you want to discuss, I would suggest that you cut out the sophism, and try reasoning through it.  You don't get to immoral through harm alone (it may not even be present). Correlation does not imply causation, or mean that it is the basis.

Yeah, if no harm is done or intended, it's not even a moral consideration.  Your hypothetical was not an example of no harm being done..or of no harm being intended, but of a person who did not want to get caught intentionally doing that which causes harm.... so? 

He was trying to keep his wife from harm.  Would that be moral under your axiomatic basis of harm? 
Can you please explain in the example where the harm or intention to harm was to meet your basis?