Evil

[robvalue]

By the way, this is a very interesting discussion I've not met an atheist before who believes in objective morality. (Although I did find out soon after Simon does too!)

To the last question: if I think something is moral, given the beliefs I have, then it is moral to me. Simple as that, it is a judgement call. If I knew my intent was to do the "right thing" at the time, then it was a moral action. I may look back at previous actions, when my ideas about what is right and wrong has changed, and think those actions would be immoral if I did them now. It's about intent. Can we agree it's about intent? If you don't think morality is about intent, we really are discussing entirely different subjects and it's not surprising we don't agree.

This is why I'm so concerned with definitions. If I find out now that you don't think morality is about intent, this whole discussion has been us talking past each other and will continue to be.

Yeah, I'm saying an action can be judged moral by one person and immoral by another. Neither are right objectively, because morality is a value judgement and as such is not inherently correct or incorrect. Even if we agree on such a goal as human wellbeing, how we go about measuring that wellbeing is a subject for discussion. To say one "correct" way of measuring wellbeing exists seems nonsensical to me. At best, it can be a consensus of opinion. If there is some cosmic objectively right way to measure wellbeing but everyone on the planet feels completely differently to it, what use is it, even if it did somehow exist?

My whole point is in defining what morality is in the first place. If we agree that the word morality means intending to progress human wellbeing, then yes, ISIS seem like bollocks. But it may still be that they really believe serving Allah is ultimately in man's best interest. If they do truly believe that (I'm not saying they do), and they are doing what they think is right, then I'd consider such actions moral, from their point of view. But if I did the same thing, it wouldn't be moral because I hold different beliefs. It's the intent which is important.

If we only consider consequences and not intent, am I being immoral if I accidentally hurt someone?

If we agree for the sake of discussion that morality does mean maximising wellbeing then it makes sense to compare, or at least discuss, differing approaches. If your argument is that morality already means this to everyone, then that's fine, as long as everyone in the discussion agrees. If a member of ISIS joins the discussion, we would need to start again. Just saying "ISIS are wrong" doesn't go any way to including them in the discussion. You'd probably say it's impossible to include them in the discussion, I would agree. Similarly, we couldn't be included in their discussion. The versions of morality are too different.

Yes, I do believe what I said about ISIS, simply because "right and wrong" are meaningless words until you say what they represent. For example, I define "right" as cutting people's heads of as much as possible. Now ISIS is more moral than us.

Clearly, I can consider another person's actions immoral while they consider themselves moral. How could it be any other way? Insisting that one of us has to be "right" doesn't make it so. Yes, I think treatment of animals is wrong. Other people think it's right. A clear contradiction. Is one of the two parties actually objectively right? If so, which one? I'm saying neither are. To me, morality "obviously" includes not killing things if you can avoid it. Most other people think morality "obviously" is more concerned with humans, and animals come a weak second. So clearly it's not actually obvious from either standpoint. Who gets to say who is right? We can both put forward our reasons for why we feel that way, and perhaps one of us will change our mind. That is how morality evolves. What good would it do for me to announce being vegan is objectively more moral than not being vegan? Even if it were "true", no one is going to change their actions based on that statement. So it's totally irrelevant whether the universe "thinks" I'm more moral. If I can't describe why I feel that way, nothing will change. People may agree, they may not.