Objective Morality, Anyone?

[Mudhammam]

I love the fact that people assume their ability to reason is responsible for every other idea and belief they hold... except morality. On that we must appeal to authority!

[DeistPaladin]

I love the fact that people assume their ability to reason is responsible for every other idea and belief they hold... except morality. On that we must appeal to authority!

Honestly, I suspect that the whole Moral Argument is not really intended as an argument for their god as much as a way for theists to feel smug and morally superior to atheists and other non believers.

I say this because the entire foundation for the argument is a logical fallacy, appeal to consequences. Even if it WERE true that without their god, there would be no basis of morality, it wouldn't prove that their god exists. After all, just because it would be bad if something weren't true doesn't mean it's true.

What the argument really attempts to do is make the theist feel like they have a basis for their moral judgments while the non-believer does not. Thus, it supports their already existing preconception that they are morally superior because they are theists.

[shep]

hmm, could a largely accepted moral be considered objective? if so then perhaps a objective morality could exist in that sense. i'm pretty much a relativist though

[DeistPaladin]

hmm, could a largely accepted moral be considered objective? if so then perhaps a objective morality could exist in that sense. i'm pretty much a relativist though

No. Not even if the opinion were unanimous. Objective by definition means free of opinion or values.

[tor]

Objective morality is useless without a method of discovering it. Nobody showed me such a method.

[Mudhammam]

Objective morality is useless without a method of discovering it. Nobody showed me such a method.

First, morality must be defined. Once it is understood as the paradigm by which all conscious experiences are measured, starting with a roughly defined point on the "landscape" of sentience and moving around the various environmental conditions that comprise these brain states and their corresponding phenomenology, we can discuss how this morality might be described in objective terms. It's important to bear in mind that semantics matter. It makes no more sense to me to distinguish between "cruel and pointless suffering" and that which is "bad" any more than it does to separate what it is I call an "apple" from the thing that looks like an apple, feels like an apple, and tastes like an apple!

[tor]

Everything relies on subjective axioms which can't be proven. But math can be tested.
How can moral axioms be tested if you can't even find a common ground? It's all preferences.
How is bullying wrong for instance? Can you prove that bullying is wrong? Sure you can say that it causes harm to the bullied but how can you prove that his well being is important for the species? It was around forever and humanity as a whole doesn't get affected much.

[Mudhammam]

Everything relies on subjective axioms which can't be proven. But math can be tested.
How can moral axioms be tested if you can't even find a common ground? It's all preferences.
How is bullying wrong for instance? Can you prove that bullying is wrong? Sure you can say that it causes harm to the bullied but how can you prove that his well being is important for the species? It was around forever and humanity as a whole doesn't get affected much.

You can't prove that any more than you can prove that math is a language to describe how external objects interact. I could always assume that reality is nothing more than my conscious experience of it. Sure 2+2 seems to equal 4 to me but I can't prove that your mental computation of numbers is exactly like mine. I can always chalk agreement between us to my bias towards the model of reality I've created (how do I know "red" appears to you as "red" appears to me?).

The term bullying, if we are to strip it of any meaning, is neither good nor bad. Yet what is explicitly meant by the term necessarily carries with it negative connotations. Keeping this in mind, "bullying is bad" is tautologous.

Of course, I don't think morality is objective. Only if we first agree on what morality ought to represent can then we find an objective approach to discussing it.

[tor]

Everything relies on subjective axioms which can't be proven. But math can be tested.
How can moral axioms be tested if you can't even find a common ground? It's all preferences.
How is bullying wrong for instance? Can you prove that bullying is wrong? Sure you can say that it causes harm to the bullied but how can you prove that his well being is important for the species? It was around forever and humanity as a whole doesn't get affected much.

You can't prove that any more than you can prove that math is a language to describe how external objects interact. I could always assume that reality is nothing more than my conscious experience of it. Sure 2+2 seems to equal 4 to me but I can't prove that you're mental computation of numbers is exactly like mine.

The term bullying, if we are to strip it of any meaning, is neither good nor bad. Yet what is explicitly meant by the term necessarily carries with it negative connotations. Keeping this in mind, "bullying is bad" is tautologous.

So objective morals don't exist.

[Mudhammam]

You can't prove that any more than you can prove that math is a language to describe how external objects interact. I could always assume that reality is nothing more than my conscious experience of it. Sure 2+2 seems to equal 4 to me but I can't prove that you're mental computation of numbers is exactly like mine.

The term bullying, if we are to strip it of any meaning, is neither good nor bad. Yet what is explicitly meant by the term necessarily carries with it negative connotations. Keeping this in mind, "bullying is bad" is tautologous.

So objective morals don't exist.

As in somehow existing independently outside of conscious observers? Absolutely not.