Objective Morality?

[IATIA]

Yet you live by the sayings of a cartoon character.

Cartoon characters are no more real than your god. The cartoon characters do not say anything. Man puts words in their mouths.

[Statler Waldorf]

I have made my case. I ought to act in accordance with my strongest desires which stand in relationship to objective facts (is) about reality.

I think you are not following me at all here, sure you can think you ought to act according to your strongest desires but what if someone doesn’t agree with that? Do you have any moral authority to tell them otherwise? It seems like your view on morality is completely powerless because it lacks any authority.

But that’s an easy and silly game to play when it could be returned to you and I could ask why ‘godwillsit’ for eternity.

You can ask me any question you’d like about my beliefs, doesn’t bother me any.

But you also have the Euthyphro dilemma from which you cannot escape, and which disproves your thesis, ie your position doesn’t even get off the ground.

This is an interesting assertion, things are morally wrong because God decrees them to be so….so what? I see no issue there; feel free to correct me though if you feel I am in error.

Strawmanning again. I also did not say that Hume was right (my position on morality would infact suggest he got it wrong). I said that even Hume thought that this Is/Ought gap was bridgeable and that you are overplaying your hand.

…and as I pointed out, what Hume thought is irrelevant. There is no logical merit to reasoning from the way things are to the way things ought to be, that’s pretty basic logic.

Think what you like it has no effect on reality outside of your brain states nor is it a response to the examples I gave you.

Actually it was a response to the examples you gave because it demonstrated how they were misrepresenting the Christian view of reality and thus attacking a straw man. Christians do not believe in a “cartoon reality” as you so put it.

I said you were justifying passages which condoned rape.

Nope, I was pointing out that none of the passages even condoned rape to begin with so there was no justification to even make.

But if you are justifying passages that do condone the act of rape if sanctioned by god,

I already demonstrated quite easily that no such passages even exist; do you have any others you didn’t present?

ESV Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.

Again, this is speaking of events to come, how can this possibly be looked at as condoning anything? If I say, “yeah there will likely be sexual assaults in the city of Detroit next summer” am I condoning the act of sexual assault? I was a bit surprised to see you even try to use this passage because most atheists realize what it is talking about (prophecy); your reasoning is just ridiculous on this one. I am sure you will still come up with some other excuse dealing with this passage because you want it to be condoning rape, but it just doesn’t even come close.

[The Grand Nudger]

How powerful is your moral authority Stat? Seen any smitings recently?

[Statler Waldorf]

How powerful is your moral authority Stat? Seen any smitings recently?

God is all powerful.

[The Grand Nudger]

Except when confronted with iron chariots, thoughts, or people he doesn't like. In each situation he appears to be completely powerless. Good thing there are people like you who might be swayed to deal with the latter eh?

[Statler Waldorf]

Except when confronted with iron chariots, thoughts, or people he doesn't like. In each situation he appears to be completely powerless. Good thing there are people like you who might be swayed to deal with the latter eh?

Oh the old iron chariot canard, you really are a funny little man.

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh the old god canard, you really are a funny little boy.

[Captain Scarlet]

I think you are not following me at all here, sure you can think you ought to act according to your strongest desires but what if someone doesn’t agree with that? Do you have any moral authority to tell them otherwise? It seems like your view on morality is completely powerless because it lacks any authority.

Nah I do follow you but don’t agree. Why does it need an ’authority’ to be objective? I think this is the mistake you’re making. To have abosulte morality you need authority but I don’t accept that exists, for objective moral truth authority figures exist. To move from an IS to an OUGHT one simpley does the following transformation (I have already explained why I think its objective).

DESIRE – To stay alive and flourish as an individual
FACT/IS - My metabolism naturally requires dead organisms to be ingested to work and prevent my death
OUGHT – I ought to eat dead organisms.. and by extension if that includes omnivorous habits (which in the case of homo sapiens it does), organisms can include other animals
OBJECTIVELY - therefore ‘meat is NOT murder’.

I need no authority to move from IS to OUGHT for this to be objectively true for me and millions of other of my fellow creatures. Whilst vegetarianism is perfectly justifiable on the grounds of a lifestyle or personal taste choice, to me it is NOT a moral issue and I can objectively state they are wrong if they claim it is a moral issue. And we all love a steak, right?

You can ask me any question you’d like about my beliefs, doesn’t bother me any.

Dare I say I think I know your position. I was pointing out that I could return your line of questioning and ultimately it doesn’t get either of us to a better understanding ie asking why continually is the crowbar of the ad nauseum fallacy.

This is an interesting assertion, things are morally wrong because God decrees them to be so….so what? I see no issue there; feel free to correct me though if you feel I am in error.

Not interesting but factual. I admire your grasping of the horns, but objective morality disappears on the will of a sovereign, unaccountable being. As such they are subjective. Yes I have discounted his wonderful perfection, it matters not to the substantive point. It is this view which undermines your iown moral autonomy, makes you subservient and abolishes your moral construct.

…and as I pointed out, what Hume thought is irrelevant. There is no logical merit to reasoning from the way things are to the way things ought to be, that’s pretty basic logic.

Well again you’re overplaying this. I demonstrated moving from IS to OUGHT without invoking a god.

Again, this is speaking of events to come, how can this possibly be looked at as condoning anything? If I say, “yeah there will likely be sexual assaults in the city of Detroit next summer” am I condoning the act of sexual assault? I was a bit surprised to see you even try to use this passage because most atheists realize what it is talking about (prophecy); your reasoning is just ridiculous on this one. I am sure you will still come up with some other excuse dealing with this passage because you want it to be condoning rape, but it just doesn’t even come close.

I stand by all I’ve said. Your enthusiasm for justifying the unjustifiable in these horrific passages is exactly why I can lay claim to the ‘objective moral high ground’ and you cannot. What difference does it make whether it has happened, will happen, or is happening. Do you condone the justification of rape in the bible in the past, present or future event? Using your example would you advise those who may (but haven’t) committed sexual assaults in Detroit that it is OK, because the bible indicates so? The bible says what it says, which is why so many even today want to expunge the horrors of the OT by saying it was all superceeded by NT. To be fair to the Marcionites at least they advised starting again, even though their theology was equally bonkers to orthodoxy.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Habitually telling people "you're not following me" or "You don't understand" is an ad hominem attack, implying one is stupid or ignorant. A poor substitute for rational,articulate discussion.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's difficult to follow someone who isn't going anywhere........ Your train of thought derailed from the track of morality a few thousand years ago, similarly it lost it's footing in scientific reality a couple hundred years ago. There is nothing to follow. You are standing still.