Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Amarok]

I will point out the ancient Greeks didn't rape the same way we do . Which is why they causally made fun of it . But overall yes the point still stands .

[The Grand Nudger]

I strongly doubt that the mechanics and method of rape is time and culture specific.  Insert, thrust, repeat...disregard. 

[JackRussell]

Explain sociopaths and psychopaths then? Evolution has a pretty good stab at this. [1]

I am Bi-Polar, give me the God's honest truth on the hell I've lived through. [2]

And I still submit that you and I are more moral than the god of your book and the god you think you talk to. [3]

If we met, we would probably have a nice time and agree on many things. Why would you think I think that? [4]

1. What do you want me to explain? A defect somewhere in the brain? 

2. Sorry to hear that. However, isn't that something that isn't working quite right in the brain?

3. You would have to believe in objective morality to even make that statement. So, what is the explanatory ultimate of objective morality?

4. Almost certainly. I don't know to what you think I think you think.

1: Why has God given me a defect in my brain?

2: There are evolutionary/genetic and behavioural studies on this, trust me I have read LOADS on this.

3: Brain states and evolution baby. It ain't objective, it's all about wellbeing, and cantankerous primates can disagree, we aren't all alpha-males and I don't feel the need to be right. I just want to be nice and have never seen the evidence for the supernatural, that's your bag.

4: Come to England and drink a warm beer, that might piss you off. But I am a remainer and would offer you a French lager.


But seriously, why could morality not come from human experience? Do you not think we knew that murder was wrong before Sinai? And even if you are right, how does that make your claim different from any other posited god?

I prefer Occam and evidence. Parsimony and libations.

[The Grand Nudger]

It is the consensus of virtually all societies that rape is a great harm. That isn't just some individual's offhanded opinion. As a result it isn't likely you'll find many individuals (other than, I suppose, some rapists) who hold the opinion that it's not harmful. But this isn't remotely the same as proving it's a moral fact. It's just a widely held and agreed on moral consensus in the civilized world.

My moral fact of a matter is not that people agree or that there is consensus (in fact there is -great- disagreement on what is or is not harmful).  My moral fact of the matter is that rape -is- harmful...not that people regard it as such.  

Where is there a thing-in-itself "out there" that we can point to that rape is factually immoral? Like all moral principles it IS in fact "just" an opinion. What's wrong with it being "just" that? It's no less useful to society because it's not a concrete "thing" that renders opinion moot. All a moral principle requires is for society, as a whole, to subscribe to it, agree with it, and therefore hold a common "opinion", and to use laws, taboos, conventions, or threats of withheld social reciprocity to encourage the widespread acceptance of the principle.

Harm. You're right, though, in that a subjective morality is a sufficient morality. Theres no -need- for an objective morality, and between two correlative moralities there is no practical difference.

"Opinion" is not a dirty word. Opinions can be wrong, but they can also be right. Failing to take up an opinion but rather claiming rape is a harm because I say so or because the government says so or because my strongman god says so, is avoiding the hard work of wrestling with moral questions, but questions demand answers (unless you want to just suppress them and avoid them altogether) and answers require opinions. So?

OFC not, there are good opinions, bad opinions, just batshit out there opinions.  Rape -isn't- harmful just because you say so, and wouldn't be less harmful if you said otherwise. Questions do, though, demand answers, how do you plan on providing a cogent answer without a sound proposition? If someone asks you "why is rape bad" do you respond "because, like, people think it is, and that's their opinion, man".............? Or do you try to help them see some moral fact of the matter, an X that makes the object itself, rape... bad, apart from any subjects appraisal -of- it?

[Amarok]

I strongly doubt that the mechanics and method of rape is time and culture specific.  Insert, thrust, repeat...disregard. 

Just bouncing idea's around .

[mordant]

My moral fact of a matter is not that people agree or that there is consensus (in fact there is -great- disagreement on what is or is not harmful).  My moral fact of the matter is that rape -is- harmful...not that people regard it as such.

Says who? Says society. On this particular issue there's widespread agreement that it's a harm. I don't think you can escape that if most people don't regard something as a harm they are not going to regard it as immoral.

Rape -isn't- harmful just because you say so, and wouldn't be less harmful if you said otherwise.

Which was exactly the point I made. Rape isn't wrong because I say so, or you say so, or an imagined god says so. It's wrong if it's harmful and that moral judgment has societal force if enough of society supports the notion.

Questions do, though, demand answers, how do you plan on providing a cogent answer without a sound proposition?  If someone asks you "why is rape bad" do you respond "because, like, people think it is, and that's their opinion, man".............?  Or do you try to help them see some moral fact of the matter, an X that makes the object itself, rape... bad, apart from any subjects appraisal -of- it?

I appeal to the principle of not violating someone else's free will and (non)consent, particularly when the harmful psychological effects to the person raped are so well understood and documented. So would most people, and so therefore society says it's wrong.

I guess what it comes down to (and what we agree on) is that which is harmful is immoral, but harm is somewhat subjective in many cases. Not so much in the case of rape, which is why everyone "sees" a "moral fact of the matter" (though participants in rape culture often do not; e.g, "no" doesn't really mean "no" by their lights). But generically, the case for harm may depend on context or be quite weak, in which case, the will of society to oppose or sanction it becomes dicey.

Beyond that, morality can and does change. There was a time for example when ice cream parlors were considered dens of iniquity and conducive to "white slavery", now they are places for innocent children to have fun. These are all based on judgments about harms, which ultimately are opinions and not always accurate. But it's good that morals change, based on new information. Not as objectively necessarily as scientific understanding changes, but the same general principle applies. This is another reason I don't see morality as objective.

[Astonished]

My moral fact of a matter is not that people agree or that there is consensus (in fact there is -great- disagreement on what is or is not harmful).  My moral fact of the matter is that rape -is- harmful...not that people regard it as such.

Says who? Says society. On this particular issue there's widespread agreement that it's a harm. I don't think you can escape that if most people don't regard something as a harm they are not going to regard it as immoral.

Rape -isn't- harmful just because you say so, and wouldn't be less harmful if you said otherwise.

Which was exactly the point I made. Rape isn't wrong because I say so, or you say so, or an imagined god says so. It's wrong if it's harmful and that moral judgment has societal force if enough of society supports the notion.

Questions do, though, demand answers, how do you plan on providing a cogent answer without a sound proposition?  If someone asks you "why is rape bad" do you respond "because, like, people think it is, and that's their opinion, man".............?  Or do you try to help them see some moral fact of the matter, an X that makes the object itself, rape... bad, apart from any subjects appraisal -of- it?

I appeal to the principle of not violating someone else's free will and (non)consent, particularly when the harmful psychological effects to the person raped are so well understood and documented. So would most people, and so therefore society says it's wrong.

I guess what it comes down to (and what we agree on) is that which is harmful is immoral, but harm is somewhat subjective in many cases. Not so much in the case of rape, which is why everyone "sees" a "moral fact of the matter" (though participants in rape culture often do not; e.g, "no" doesn't really mean "no" by their lights). But generically, the case for harm may depend on context or be quite weak, in which case, the will of society to oppose or sanction it becomes dicey.

Beyond that, morality can and does change. There was a time for example when ice cream parlors were considered dens of iniquity and conducive to "white slavery", now they are places for innocent children to have fun. These are all based on judgments about harms, which ultimately are opinions and not always accurate. But it's good that morals change, based on new information. Not as objectively necessarily as scientific understanding changes, but the same general principle applies. This is another reason I don't see morality as objective.

If it's based on someone's ignorance of whether something is harmful, that's not morality, that's stupidity. They're objectively wrong, ergo their moral assessment is irrelevant.

[The Grand Nudger]

Says who? Says society. On this particular issue there's widespread agreement that it's a harm. I don't think you can escape that if most people don't regard something as a harm they are not going to regard it as immoral.

This is the value of an objective framework, the subjective invocation of someone or some society's opinion is irrelevant.  

Which was exactly the point I made. Rape isn't wrong because I say so, or you say so, or an imagined god says so. It's wrong if it's harmful and that moral judgment has societal force if enough of society supports the notion.

Then it's objectively wrong, even when societal support -isn't- there.  It wouldn't be the first time a society collectively did something horribly wrong, nor would it be the last.  

I guess what it comes down to (and what we agree on) is that which is harmful is immoral, but harm is somewhat subjective in many cases. Not so much in the case of rape, which is why everyone "sees" a "moral fact of the matter" (though participants in rape culture often do not; e.g, "no" doesn't really mean "no" by their lights). But generically, the case for harm may depend on context or be quite weak, in which case, the will of society to oppose or sanction it becomes dicey.

You're commenting on the difficulty of arriving at a moral fact of the matter, that doesn't make harm subjective, it makes it difficult to objectively assess in the face of competing moral facts of a matter or when we...for whatever reason, do not have access or knowledge of them.  It's true that the will to enforce moral prohibitions or compulsion can falter - but this doesn't make any morality any less objective either - it's simply an acknowledgement of the moral weakness of said society.  

Beyond that, morality can and does change. There was a time for example when ice cream parlors were considered dens of iniquity and conducive to "white slavery", now they are places for innocent children to have fun. These are all based on judgments about harms, which ultimately are opinions and not always accurate. But it's good that morals change, based on new information. Not as objectively necessarily as scientific understanding changes, but the same general principle applies. This is another reason I don't see morality as objective.

Is it just your opinion, ultimately, that rape causes harm? Is it an inaccurate opinion? You've given many reasons why you see morality as subjective...but none of them have had anything to do with morality being subjective. It can be difficult, we don't always get it right, there are more ways to fail than to succeed, and over time we've recognized past moral failures, sure.....but?

---

If it's based on someone's ignorance of whether something is harmful, that's not morality, that's stupidity. They're objectively wrong, ergo their moral assessment is irrelevant.

A standard description of diminished moral agency.  A person with diminished moral agency would be -expected- to get something wrong, and wrong along the very lines that caused the issue.  It's why christers get shit wrong when that shit is included in the articles of their faith. It's why they fail to recognize the immorality of their good god, and the moral abhorrence of vicarious redemption. Ultimately, it's the reason that they are incapable of justifying an objective morality or..in the case of a couple of these fine individuals, even understanding what that is or would look like, while simultaneously arguing -against- an objective morality that does not have a god clause. Their moral assessments, thusly, are irrelevant....which is kindof sad..because you can tell just by listening to them that morality is super duper important for them.

Religion poisons everything.

[SteveII]

1. What do you want me to explain? A defect somewhere in the brain? 

2. Sorry to hear that. However, isn't that something that isn't working quite right in the brain?

3. You would have to believe in objective morality to even make that statement. So, what is the explanatory ultimate of objective morality?

4. Almost certainly. I don't know to what you think I think you think.

1: Why has God given me a defect in my brain?

2: There are evolutionary/genetic and behavioural studies on this, trust me I have read LOADS on this.

3: Brain states and evolution baby. It ain't objective, it's all about wellbeing, and cantankerous primates can disagree, we aren't all alpha-males and I don't feel the need to be right. I just want to be nice and have never seen the evidence for the supernatural, that's your bag.

4: Come to England and drink a warm beer, that might piss you off. But I am a remainer and would offer you a French lager.


But seriously, why could morality not come from human experience? Do you not think we knew that murder was wrong before Sinai? And even if you are right, how does that make your claim different from any other posited god?

I prefer Occam and evidence. Parsimony and libations.

1. I don't believe God was the cause of the defect.
2. Evolutionary?
3. Read the NT. Talk to someone who was changed. Talk to a missionary who ministered in some remote place where God's work is more apparent and needed.
4. Was in England last month. 25th wedding anniversary trip. Portsmouth, Oxford, Harrogate, Lake District. 

I believe that morality is written on the heart of every (normal) human.

Occam was a monk, philosopher and theologian. His razor principle is one applied to scientific inquiry. Investigating God is not scientific in the slightest. 

The fact that there are other religions have no bearing on the question of truth. There are many ways in which Christianity is better evidenced and reasoned than other religions.

[Mister Agenda]

3. If someone reads the Quran, talks to someone who was changed, talks to a Muslim missionary, and gets a fine and impressive series of experiences; should they believe Islam? If not, why not?