Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[mordant]

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.

Unless, apparently, you're chopping off the head of a despot who caused massive ill-being to millions.

Everything is contextual, even with wellbeing as a basis.

I'm having a debate with a theist on another forum who insists that morality is objective. His go-to example is the apologist canard of "torturing innocent babies purely for personal pleasure", or in other words, "the most contrived example I can possibly concoct that you would be afraid to disagree with." Since "everyone agrees" that torturing innocents is objectively wrong, then at least some morality is objective.

I think this is confusing clarity with objectivity. There's nothing particularly objective about the visceral reaction most people would have to torturing innocents. It's just that virtually all societies in all eras instinctively sanction such behavior because allowing it would make the society collapse rather quickly. There are a handful of things like this that virtually no one disagrees with, but that does not make it objective.

[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.

Unless, apparently, you're chopping off the head of a despot who caused massive ill-being to millions.

Everything is contextual, even with wellbeing as a basis.

I'm having a debate with a theist on another forum who insists that morality is objective. His go-to example is the apologist canard of "torturing innocent babies purely for personal pleasure", or in other words, "the most contrived example I can possibly concoct that you would be afraid to disagree with." Since "everyone agrees" that torturing innocents is objectively wrong, then at least some morality is objective.

I think this is confusing clarity with objectivity. There's nothing particularly objective about the visceral reaction most people would have to torturing innocents. It's just that virtually all societies in all eras instinctively sanction such behavior because allowing it would make the society collapse rather quickly. There are a handful of things like this that virtually no one disagrees with, but that does not make it objective.

Well-being was just one example, what ever context you wish to add to your foundation would change how you view each moral decision. If your foundation is simply well-being, then chopping off somebody's head is objectively detrimental to their well being. The point being that even if your morality is founded on subjective foundations you can still reach objective conclusions based on those foundations.

[The Grand Nudger]

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.

Unless, apparently, you're chopping off the head of a despot who caused massive ill-being to millions.

Everything is contextual, even with wellbeing as a basis.

Nah, it's still a bad thing to chop his head off.  Generally speaking, we'll want to get a guy like that in front of a jury.  Though, if that's the only way, we're more than willing to do a bad thing to prevent even greater harm.  Exclusively sub-optimal fields.

I'm having a debate with a theist on another forum who insists that morality is objective. His go-to example is the apologist canard of "torturing innocent babies purely for personal pleasure", or in other words, "the most contrived example I can possibly concoct that you would be afraid to disagree with." Since "everyone agrees" that torturing innocents is objectively wrong, then at least some morality is objective.

Sure, when there are few competing moral facts of a matter it's easy to make inarguable statements.  

I think this is confusing clarity with objectivity. There's nothing particularly objective about the visceral reaction most people would have to torturing innocents. It's just that virtually all societies in all eras instinctively sanction such behavior because allowing it would make the society collapse rather quickly. There are a handful of things like this that virtually no one disagrees with, but that does not make it objective.

It's only clear insomuch as there are few to no competing moral facts of the matter.  If something were unclear it wouldn;t be any less objective.  Imagine a sign in the distance, occluded by fog, and the slight glare of sunrise.  There are many objective and subjective reasons for this lack of clarity, but the sign still says one thing or another - objectively. The same could be, would be, and is true of any objective moral system. There are any number of things that rob us of clarity. Thankfully, there are also tools to cut through that.

[mordant]

Imagine a sign in the distance, occluded by fog, and the slight glare of sunrise.  There are many objective and subjective reasons for this lack of clarity, but the sign still says one thing or another - objectively.  The same could be, would be, and is true of any objective moral system.  There are any number of things that rob us of clarity.  Thankfully, there are also tools to cut through that.

The question is whether a moral "fact" exists "out there" somewhere, like your example sign. I would say not. Rather, a given act has likely and also potentially unexpected / unknowable consequences that we have an imperfect ability to predict.

Torturing innocents for no particular reason is a highly contrived scenario that is unlikely to even happen, but if it did, it cuts so sharply to the needs of society that almost no one would imagine a possible excuse or net benefit and I can't imagine anyone ending up regretting stopping the torture for any likely reason. I mean, if the child grew up to be another Hitler, maybe, but this is stretching.

Back here in the real world where moral conundrums are more prosaic and hazy and our natural impulses are more unhelpful, I don't think there are signs on the horizon that will resolve when we get there. A better metaphor is that there's a foggy landscape that we are unsure of until we're past it and we can tell what it was like by the mud splatters on the car, the damage to the suspension, the dings on the body. Or the lack thereof.

As a society we have the collective input of various actors to say, don't go down this particular road because beyond the likely consequences to you personally, which would normally be your personal problem, it will cause these various problems for us collectively. That's all morality is.

Once upon a time we had different ideas such as that certain sexual activities were inherently harmful or that slavery was acceptable. Our understanding evolved and we changed. Someone a hundred years ago might have felt that a woman showing leg or someone enjoying jazz music was "clearly" a harm and would undermine society. Today we have evolved our understanding of these things. All of this sounds pretty subjective to me, but the subjectivity is beside the point.

[Brian37]

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!

---

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?

No sorry, you do not get to confuse observation as being paranoia. If you want paranoid just look at the head character of your holy book. God cant stand competition, cant stand criticism and at the end of the book, threatens you with revenge for not kissing his ass. THAT is paranoia.

Observing a bait and switch is an observation. Just like one knows the street corner Vegas ball and cup or 3 card Monty is a trick. See it enough over countless observations you see a pattern.

Now to be fair EVERY religion does this. Humans evolutionary wise are tribal and mostly get sold the religions of their parents before they can develop critical thinking skills. Humans have a tendency to protect that which is local and that which they are familiar with. 

Now if you have a belief then defend it, but don't pretend you are not saying one thing in one thread and then something entirely different in another thread. You do, so just admit it.

Hardly paranoid. You got sold a mental ball and cup, and now you are simply either trying to convince yourself, which is not a neutral objective attitude, or you do want to convince others but don't want to admit it. It could be one or the other or a combo of both, but at a minimum it is at least one of those.

See here is what I can do that you cant do or lie to yourself and claim you are not doing. I DO want to convince you that GOD/gods/deities or the super natural in general are not true. I am not afraid of my position. I don't have to say one thing in one thread and something else in another to pretend like I don't care.

I do care about facts And the fact is our behaviors as a species do not come from any holy book, not yours not any. Sure, humans think they do. But if a label magically made humans only do good, surely we should at a minimum see a nation with no prisons, but the fact is, every nation has prisons. 

Why are you here then? If you are not here to argue for the existence of the god you believe to be real, what is the point? It can only be that you are trying to convince yourself in that context.

[RoadRunner79]

---

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!

---

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?

No sorry, you do not get to confuse observation as being paranoia. If you want paranoid just look at the head character of your holy book. God cant stand competition, cant stand criticism and at the end of the book, threatens you with revenge for not kissing his ass. THAT is paranoia.

Observing a bait and switch is an observation. Just like one knows the street corner Vegas ball and cup or 3 card Monty is a trick. See it enough over countless observations you see a pattern.

Now to be fair EVERY religion does this. Humans evolutionary wise are tribal and mostly get sold the religions of their parents before they can develop critical thinking skills. Humans have a tendency to protect that which is local and that which they are familiar with. 

Now if you have a belief then defend it, but don't pretend you are not saying one thing in one thread and then something entirely different in another thread. You do, so just admit it.

Hardly paranoid. You got sold a mental ball and cup, and now you are simply either trying to convince yourself, which is not a neutral objective attitude, or you do want to convince others but don't want to admit it. It could be one or the other or a combo of both, but at a minimum it is at least one of those.

See here is what I can do that you cant do or lie to yourself and claim you are not doing. I DO want to convince you that GOD/gods/deities or the super natural in general are not true. I am not afraid of my position. I don't have to say one thing in one thread and something else in another to pretend like I don't care.

I do care about facts And the fact is our behaviors as a species do not come from any holy book, not yours not any. Sure, humans think they do. But if a label magically made humans only do good, surely we should at a minimum see a nation with no prisons, but the fact is, every nation has prisons. 

Why are you here then? If you are not here to argue for the existence of the god you believe to be real, what is the point? It can only be that you are trying to convince yourself in that context.

---

Well, with that attitude, there is nothing I can say, to convince you that it is all in your head.  I can't reason with a closed mind and your wrong assumptions.   But if you decide to contribute to a conversation (in context), instead of just trolling;  I'm happy to discuss, and give my reasons for what I believe and why (on a number of topics.  I'll also consider your position (if you decide) to switch it up, and actually discuss.

[Brian37]

No sorry, you do not get to confuse observation as being paranoia. If you want paranoid just look at the head character of your holy book. God cant stand competition, cant stand criticism and at the end of the book, threatens you with revenge for not kissing his ass. THAT is paranoia.

Observing a bait and switch is an observation. Just like one knows the street corner Vegas ball and cup or 3 card Monty is a trick. See it enough over countless observations you see a pattern.

Now to be fair EVERY religion does this. Humans evolutionary wise are tribal and mostly get sold the religions of their parents before they can develop critical thinking skills. Humans have a tendency to protect that which is local and that which they are familiar with. 

Now if you have a belief then defend it, but don't pretend you are not saying one thing in one thread and then something entirely different in another thread. You do, so just admit it.

Hardly paranoid. You got sold a mental ball and cup, and now you are simply either trying to convince yourself, which is not a neutral objective attitude, or you do want to convince others but don't want to admit it. It could be one or the other or a combo of both, but at a minimum it is at least one of those.

See here is what I can do that you cant do or lie to yourself and claim you are not doing. I DO want to convince you that GOD/gods/deities or the super natural in general are not true. I am not afraid of my position. I don't have to say one thing in one thread and something else in another to pretend like I don't care.

I do care about facts And the fact is our behaviors as a species do not come from any holy book, not yours not any. Sure, humans think they do. But if a label magically made humans only do good, surely we should at a minimum see a nation with no prisons, but the fact is, every nation has prisons. 

Why are you here then? If you are not here to argue for the existence of the god you believe to be real, what is the point? It can only be that you are trying to convince yourself in that context.

Well, with that attitude, there is nothing I can say, to convince you that it is all in your head.  I can't reason with a closed mind and your wrong assumptions.   But if you decide to contribute to a conversation (in context), instead of just trolling;  I'm happy to discuss, and give my reasons for what I believe and why (on a number of topics.  I'll also consider your position (if you decide) to switch it up, and actually discuss.

Just the opposite, your God is all in your head. And please spare me the "closed minded" garbage, I am not the one clinging to an old book. My current position is based on modern knowledge not old mythology.

Now, if you really insist on claiming it is "all in my head", then from now on to be logically consistent, do not argue for the existence of your God again in any post nor create another new thread doing that. You wont do that so no, it is not all in my head.

[RoadRunner79]

Well, with that attitude, there is nothing I can say, to convince you that it is all in your head.  I can't reason with a closed mind and your wrong assumptions.   But if you decide to contribute to a conversation (in context), instead of just trolling;  I'm happy to discuss, and give my reasons for what I believe and why (on a number of topics.  I'll also consider your position (if you decide) to switch it up, and actually discuss.

Now, if you really insist on claiming it is "all in my head", then from now on to be logically consistent, do not argue for the existence of your God again in any post nor create another new thread doing that. You wont do that so no, it is not all in my head.

I'll post on what I like.... when I like. I'm not however going switch topics and de-rail a thread, because you think you are a mind reader. Nothing inconsistent (logically or otherwise) about it. Now, I'm going to ignore your trolling. If you have something useful or intelligent to say, perhaps we can talk again.

[Astonished]

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

---

Reminds me of a co-worker of mine from a few years ago; he said if he didn't smoke, the rest of us would all be suffering for it. So in spite of that habit being harmful to himself and the rest of us, apparently he was sparing us a worse fate. But I'm not sure if the reasoning behind that is the same as this...

[The Grand Nudger]

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?

If he was trying to keep his wife from harm he wouldn't be cheating on her.  Kind of basic stuff buddy.  Deceit is a dead give away that a person knows what they're doing is harmful, in addition to being yet another vector of harm in and of itself. That you have to ask suggests that your moral agency is......lacking.

The question is whether a moral "fact" exists "out there" somewhere, like your example sign. I would say not. Rather, a given act has likely and also potentially unexpected / unknowable consequences that we have an imperfect ability to predict.

Dos our imperfect ability to predict the future change that, in the present, the act of rape is harmful?  

Torturing innocents for no particular reason is a highly contrived scenario that is unlikely to even happen, but if it did, it cuts so sharply to the needs of society that almost no one would imagine a possible excuse or net benefit and I can't imagine anyone ending up regretting stopping the torture for any likely reason. I mean, if the child grew up to be another Hitler, maybe, but this is stretching.

Even then you'd just be doing some bad thing x to prevent some future bad thing y.  It's a contrived scenario, sure, but we use contrived scenarios to show in stark contrast how principle plays out.  In practice most moral decisions are no more or less difficult than that contrived scenario, honestly.  The more difficult ones, however, can still be assessed...it;s difficult to imagine how we would successfully do so in the absence of some objective schema.  It would be an endless round of "well, I feel this, I feel that, a spirit said x, a spirit said y".

Back here in the real world where moral conundrums are more prosaic and hazy and our natural impulses are more unhelpful, I don't think there are signs on the horizon that will resolve when we get there. A better metaphor is that there's a foggy landscape that we are unsure of until we're past it and we can tell what it was like by the mud splatters on the car, the damage to the suspension, the dings on the body. Or the lack thereof.

Sure, past experience is helpful, I commented on that in another thread.  We create and play with moral hypotheticals now when we have time to consider them and file away answers to difficult questions for later use, when time is short or when or moral agency is compromised.

As a society we have the collective input of various actors to say, don't go down this particular road because beyond the likely consequences to you personally, which would normally be your personal problem, it will cause these various problems for us collectively. That's all morality is.

I think it's a bit more than that.  

Once upon a time we had different ideas such as that certain sexual activities were inherently harmful or that slavery was acceptable. Our understanding evolved and we changed. Someone a hundred years ago might have felt that a woman showing leg or someone enjoying jazz music was "clearly" a harm and would undermine society. Today we have evolved our understanding of these things. All of this sounds pretty subjective to me, but the subjectivity is beside the point.

Yes, they might have felt that, but could they objectively demonstrate it to be so?  This is the difference between a subjective and an objective morality.  We didn;t -just stop- or even evolve, in any meaningful sense..away from feeling that way, people worked hard at it, breaking barriers and removing objections.  They had no prior experience from which to draw upon, all prior experience conformed to the "woman showing leg bad" school of thought - and yet here we are. We posess a compelling moral argument based upon objective metrics, and this has lead us (or..at least, some of us) to repudiate those ignorant moral propositions of the past and call them for what they always were. Immorality masquerading as virtue. Showing leg doesn;t make the volcano god angry, jazz doesn't turn women into lustful race traitors.

---

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

---

Reminds me of a co-worker of mine from a few years ago; he said if he didn't smoke, the rest of us would all be suffering for it. So in spite of that habit being harmful to himself and the rest of us, apparently he was sparing us a worse fate. But I'm not sure if the reasoning behind that is the same as this...

In that there -was- no reasoning behind either your coworkers claim or RR's post....they're -exactly- the same.