Why "mysterious ways" don't matter.

[The Grand Nudger]

-and when someone else uses that capacity, and arrives at a conclusion which is contradictory to your own "moral perception"....what then?

My perceptions tell me that the contents of your morality and the contents of my own are dissimilar, in fact - contradictory. My perceptions tell me that a very particular article of your faith is "objectively" immoral. I should trust my own perceptions, shouldn't I? Are we both simultaneously and equally correct with regards to contradictory propositions of "objective" morality?

Good luck with -that- knot.

[Esquilax]

Just as we have the capacity to perceive objective beauty, love, logic, etc., we have the capacity to perceive objective right and wrong. The default position is to trust our perceptions until proven otherwise.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must not have been clear to you: I was asking for evidence, not a repeat of the same fiat assertion you made a post before.

Also? If you actually think what you just said counts as evidence, there's the little problem of slipping your conclusion into one of the premises you think demonstrates it, so even your idea of evidence is begging the question.

Is it more probably that objective beauty exists or not?

Objective beauty doesn't exist. Our perceptions of beauty vary wildly, and we find its origin in our evolution, specifically those things we've been programmed to find visually appealing as a survival mechanism. It's no coincidence, off the top of my head, that the traits we find visually appealing in animals- big eyes, symmetry, soft hair- are reminiscent of traits found in human infants, whereas traits we find undesirable- bared teeth, boniness- are hallmarks of aggression in predators.

Is it more probably that objective love exists or not?

Love is an emotion derived from conscious experience. By its very nature it is subjective to the person experiencing it.

Is it more probably that logic exists or not?

Logic exists as observations based on consistent patterns and conformation to reality. Not as some external force.

Is it more probably that objective right and wrong exists or not?

The frame through which we derive moral right and wrong exists objectively, but it's not the source you think it is.

[Minimalist]

I don't have to make a list.

It's called the burden of proof asshole. YOU are asserting these things exist.

Perhaps you simply can't demonstrate such things? That would at least be an honest admission....although honesty doesn't come easily to you people.


Anyway, you don't get to ask a question until you've answered the ones put to you so for now you can take your silly god and blow it out your ass.

[SteveII]

I don't have to make a list. You already know what they are because they are imprinted on every rational (and otherwise mentally undamaged) human. Unless you are damaged in which case I could try to come up with a list.

The list would be the point. I think you would have trouble coming up with a list of objective morals that some human society (not just person but a society) wouldn't disagree with.

For example, I'm sure you and I would agree that murder is wrong. But there is hardly human agreement over what constitutes murder. In fact there is so little agreement about it that it is hardly a rule at all. Is it murder to kill a woman for having been raped (that's happening in the world right now). What about revenge killings? Killing enemy soldiers during war? How about killing civilians? Sacrificing people to the gods? Mandatory suicide missions? (Japan during WWII). Duels? (most of Europe until the 1800s) Execution of children for the crimes of their parents? (much of the Middle East and East thought so at one time). Exposing babies? Mercy killings? A father's right to execute any of his children (Rome during the Republic and early Empire). There are or have been societies that thought all of these things were moral.

Jenny, first let me say that I like you. You are smart, always thoughtful and certainly not disrespectful. When others finish their sentences or posts with some snide remark, name calling, or disrespectful term, it gives the impression that they just hang out here because it make them feel superior; and they really aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer and are parroting what others say.

I will be the first to say that I am not good at posting here. I am looking for counter arguments to my beliefs and I am learning to articulate them better.

I actually think that most would agree on most of that list. You will get some differing opinions on war.

I think there is evidence that there are/were people even in those societies with objectionable practices that know it to be wrong and it is only by some external pressure (religion, shame, tradition, fear for oneself or family, significant mental conditioning etc.) that individuals participate. It would seem that leaders (those with the power to perpetuate the practice) could often have other motives in addition to the ones above (as a deterrent, personal gain, political gain, etc.).

[The Grand Nudger]

"They secretly knew in their hearts that we were right and they were wrong"

[Jenny A]

The list would be the point. I think you would have trouble coming up with a list of objective morals that some human society (not just person but a society) wouldn't disagree with.

For example, I'm sure you and I would agree that murder is wrong. But there is hardly human agreement over what constitutes murder. In fact there is so little agreement about it that it is hardly a rule at all. Is it murder to kill a woman for having been raped (that's happening in the world right now). What about revenge killings? Killing enemy soldiers during war? How about killing civilians? Sacrificing people to the gods? Mandatory suicide missions? (Japan during WWII). Duels? (most of Europe until the 1800s) Execution of children for the crimes of their parents? (much of the Middle East and East thought so at one time). Exposing babies? Mercy killings? A father's right to execute any of his children (Rome during the Republic and early Empire). There are or have been societies that thought all of these things were moral.

Jenny, first let me say that I like you. You are smart, always thoughtful and certainly not disrespectful. When others finish their sentences or posts with some snide remark, name calling, or disrespectful term, it gives the impression that they just hang out here because it make them feel superior; and they really aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer and are parroting what others say.

Thanks, I try to be polite, but you are arguing with some pretty sharp cookies, and my politeness doesn't make me any brighter.

I actually think that most would agree on most of that list. You will get some differing opinions on war.

I think there is evidence that there are/were people even in those societies with objectionable practices that know it to be wrong and it is only by some external pressure (religion, shame, tradition, fear for oneself or family, significant mental conditioning etc.) that individuals participate. It would seem that leaders (those with the power to perpetuate the practice) could often have other motives in addition to the ones above (as a deterrent, personal gain, political gain, etc.).

Sure there were individuals who disagreed, often covertly. But the point is that many many people really did and really do think some of the things on my list are moral. And some really really do think killing in war time is not moral. The OT not only condones, but requires a number of items on my list that most people today would find grossly immoral. And I'm not picking on the Bible, just using it as evidence of past moral standards A number of the things on that list occurred during the Roman Republic and were lawful under Roman law--lauded even. I left off killing heretics but that was once (and still is in places) thought moral and right. Men in the 1700s not only thought duels were moral they considered those who turned them down to be immoral cowards. They can't all have been sociopaths.

Morals evolve socially. We can try to set objective standards for arguing them. But there is no Platonic perfect morality out there. If there were, our standards of morality wouldn't change over time.

[Bad Wolf]

Just as we have the capacity to perceive objective beauty, love, logic, etc., we have the capacity to perceive objective right and wrong. The default position is to trust our perceptions until proven otherwise.

Is it more probably that objective beauty exists or not?
Is it more probably that objective love exists or not?
Is it more probably that logic exists or not?
Is it more probably that objective right and wrong exists or not?

I am yet to see any evidence for what you claimed. Try again or admit that there isn't any.

[SteveII]

Just as we have the capacity to perceive objective beauty, love, logic, etc., we have the capacity to perceive objective right and wrong. The default position is to trust our perceptions until proven otherwise.

Oh, I'm sorry. I must not have been clear to you: I was asking for evidence, not a repeat of the same fiat assertion you made a post before.

Also? If you actually think what you just said counts as evidence, there's the little problem of slipping your conclusion into one of the premises you think demonstrates it, so even your idea of evidence is begging the question.

Is it more probably that objective beauty exists or not?

Objective beauty doesn't exist. Our perceptions of beauty vary wildly, and we find its origin in our evolution, specifically those things we've been programmed to find visually appealing as a survival mechanism. It's no coincidence, off the top of my head, that the traits we find visually appealing in animals- big eyes, symmetry, soft hair- are reminiscent of traits found in human infants, whereas traits we find undesirable- bared teeth, boniness- are hallmarks of aggression in predators.

Is it more probably that objective love exists or not?

Love is an emotion derived from conscious experience. By its very nature it is subjective to the person experiencing it.

Is it more probably that logic exists or not?

Logic exists as observations based on consistent patterns and conformation to reality. Not as some external force.

Is it more probably that objective right and wrong exists or not?

The frame through which we derive moral right and wrong exists objectively, but it's not the source you think it is.

Beauty is a good analogy because objective beauty does exist and our perception of it certainly can't be explained by evolution. We perceive a sunset or a mountain vista as beautiful. We perceive some music as beautiful. If you are suggesting the beauty in a persons face is somehow programmed by evolution, I think that is also wrong. There is no evolutionary value in a pretty face. All that would count is that the opposite sex be young, fertile, and otherwise healthy. It is absurd to think that 60 year old Kim Basinger is not more attractive then most 60 year old women--none of which are ready to bare children.

So, just as we have an aesthetic sense, we have a moral sense. By intuition, we know when a situation is right or wrong. There are baby studies that show that even infants and toddlers recognize right and wrong. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

When I mentioned love, it was not a good analogy. We can perceive love by observing two other people. We trust our perceptions that such a thing as love exists. We know it when we see it--just like right and wrong. The same with logic.

[Minimalist]

Thanks, I try to be polite,

I don't. He's already blown that chance.

[SteveII]

Jenny, first let me say that I like you. You are smart, always thoughtful and certainly not disrespectful. When others finish their sentences or posts with some snide remark, name calling, or disrespectful term, it gives the impression that they just hang out here because it make them feel superior; and they really aren't the sharpest knives in the drawer and are parroting what others say.

Thanks, I try to be polite, but you are arguing with some pretty sharp cookies, and my politeness doesn't make me any brighter.

I actually think that most would agree on most of that list. You will get some differing opinions on war.

I think there is evidence that there are/were people even in those societies with objectionable practices that know it to be wrong and it is only by some external pressure (religion, shame, tradition, fear for oneself or family, significant mental conditioning etc.) that individuals participate. It would seem that leaders (those with the power to perpetuate the practice) could often have other motives in addition to the ones above (as a deterrent, personal gain, political gain, etc.).

Sure there were individuals who disagreed, often covertly. But the point is that many many people really did and really do think some of the things on my list are moral. And some really really do think killing in war time is not moral. The OT not only condones, but requires a number of items on my list that most people today would find grossly immoral. And I'm not picking on the Bible, just using it as evidence of past moral standards A number of the things on that list occurred during the Roman Republic and were lawful under Roman law--lauded even. I left off killing heretics but that was once (and still is in places) thought moral and right. Men in the 1700s not only thought duels were moral they considered those who turned them down to be immoral cowards. They can't all have been sociopaths.

Morals evolve socially. We can try to set objective standards for arguing them. But there is no Platonic perfect morality out there. If there were, our standards of morality wouldn't change over time.

So the question is are morals invented, discovered or always known? If invented then they are surely subjective. If they are discovered, as I think you and Esquilax have implied, then that does nothing to undermine the argument that there are objective standards but does not go as far as having them being innate. hmm...