RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
July 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm
(This post was last modified: July 1, 2017 at 10:13 pm by Little Henry.)
(June 29, 2017 at 11:18 am)Astreja Wrote:But everytime you look at an act like rape and murder, you are admitting to objective morality.(June 29, 2017 at 4:52 am)Little Henry Wrote: I am merely pointing out the logical conclusions if morality is subjective.
All you people keep on saying i that there certain acts are right or wrong morally. If you say this you are ADMITTING to OM.
I admit no such thing. Stop pretending to read our minds.
Until otherwise demonstrated, all morality is subjective -- including morality that allegedly comes from a god.
The god of the Bible is a particularly egregious and ugly example of this. It sets up the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" but violates it regularly, with wild abandon. If there is an objective standard upon which the commandment is based, Yahweh is in clear violation of it and accordingly can be ignored as an authority on morality.
Subjective morality is simple: If you don't want it to happen to you, don't do it to someone else.
(June 30, 2017 at 8:45 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: @Little Henry:Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma. It fails to take int account the 3rd option.
You make the same mistake that creationists do, assuming that by attacking an alternative explanation of the facts they will thereby be validating their own. It doesn't work that way as that presents a false dichotomy between your views and the alternative. You still have to defend your own view of objective morality if you want to claim that it exists.
"Is God's nature good because it is God's, or is God's nature good because it is morally good (i.e. it conforms to an independent standard of good)?" You see, playing the ontology card has gained you nothing. Just as the Euthyphro dilemma applies to Divine Command Theory, it also applies to the argument that morality is derived from God's nature. Either God's nature is arbitrarily good simply because it is God's, which results in an arbitrary set of morals which by definition is not moral. Or God's nature is good in that it conforms to a standard of goodness that is independent of God, making God's nature superfluous to the question of morals. You have accomplished nothing by your detour into ontology except to confuse the issue. God is still an unsatisfactory source of morality, and you're left empty handed, claiming the existence of objective morals that you can't explain.
Goodness is grounded in Gods nature and his commands flow from that.
(June 30, 2017 at 2:19 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Any concept of taking life is killingHe doesnt kill...He merely removes people from this temporal existence into another existence.
And he has this right because ? don't tell me
He created life . And that means he has the right to kill it because?
He owns you. And that ownership comes from ?
He can . Might makes right ?
Quote:I am merely pointing out the logical conclusions if morality is subjective.
No your not your masking empty assertions and being called out for it
The author of a book doesnt have the right to remove characters from his book?
(June 30, 2017 at 11:02 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Little Henry, you claim I don't believe in OM. How did you arrive at that conclusion?You dont agree with him because you dont like the logical conclusion from it.
Little Henry Wrote:You guys need to read more of Michael Ruse
"Morality, or more strictly our belief in morality, is merely an adaptation put in place to further our reproductive ends. Hence the basis of ethics does not lie in God’s will—or in the metaphorical roots of evolution or any other part of the framework of the Universe. In an important sense, ethics as we understand it is an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes to get us to cooperate. It is without external grounding. Ethics is produced by evolution but is not justified by it because, like Macbeth’s dagger, it serves a powerful purpose without existing in substance.…Unlike Macbeth’s dagger, ethics is a shared illusion of the human race.16"
Again, if you dont believe in OMVs, then everytime you say acts like rape and torture are wrong, you are sufferring from an illusion.
You like Michael Ruse because he agrees with you about 'what atheists must think'. I don't agree with him, and I don't see him saying anything that compelling. As philosophers go, he's a mixed bag, and there are literally hundred of other atheist philosophers you could have turned to if your goal was to find nontheistic philosophical support for moral realism.
(June 30, 2017 at 1:51 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote:(June 29, 2017 at 6:29 pm)Little Henry Wrote: God does not kill.
As the author of life he has the right to remove anyone from this temporal existence to another existence as he sees fit.
Still practicing moral subjectivity, and adding semantics into the mix. Good times!
Its not though
(June 30, 2017 at 8:27 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: And once again there is no conflict between objecting to rape and torture and saying it's subjective . And Once again Ruse isn't the final authority on morality. Just because he happens to be an atheist.
Sure, but the most you can say is, i dislike rape, murder etc.
But you cannot say it is wrong.
Because right and wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts.
Taste in food is subjective, i can prefer grapes to olives, but i cannot say it is a fact that grapes taste better than olives. I cannot say that it is right that grapes taste better than olives.
Your preference or desire doesnt make something right or wrong.
I want all of you to explain to me how your preference or desire makes something right or wrong.
I want all of you to explain to me how your preference or desire makes something right or wrong.
I want all of you to explain to me how your preference or desire makes something right or wrong.
(July 1, 2017 at 9:41 pm)Little Henry Wrote:(June 29, 2017 at 11:18 am)Astreja Wrote: I admit no such thing. Stop pretending to read our minds.But everytime you look at an act like rape and murder, you are admitting to objective morality.
Until otherwise demonstrated, all morality is subjective -- including morality that allegedly comes from a god.
The god of the Bible is a particularly egregious and ugly example of this. It sets up the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" but violates it regularly, with wild abandon. If there is an objective standard upon which the commandment is based, Yahweh is in clear violation of it and accordingly can be ignored as an authority on morality.
Subjective morality is simple: If you don't want it to happen to you, don't do it to someone else.
(June 30, 2017 at 8:45 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: @Little Henry:Euthyphro dilemma is a false dilemma. It fails to take int account the 3rd option.
You make the same mistake that creationists do, assuming that by attacking an alternative explanation of the facts they will thereby be validating their own. It doesn't work that way as that presents a false dichotomy between your views and the alternative. You still have to defend your own view of objective morality if you want to claim that it exists.
"Is God's nature good because it is God's, or is God's nature good because it is morally good (i.e. it conforms to an independent standard of good)?" You see, playing the ontology card has gained you nothing. Just as the Euthyphro dilemma applies to Divine Command Theory, it also applies to the argument that morality is derived from God's nature. Either God's nature is arbitrarily good simply because it is God's, which results in an arbitrary set of morals which by definition is not moral. Or God's nature is good in that it conforms to a standard of goodness that is independent of God, making God's nature superfluous to the question of morals. You have accomplished nothing by your detour into ontology except to confuse the issue. God is still an unsatisfactory source of morality, and you're left empty handed, claiming the existence of objective morals that you can't explain.
Goodness is grounded in Gods nature and his commands flow from that.
(June 30, 2017 at 2:19 am)Tizheruk Wrote: Any concept of taking life is killingHe doesnt kill...He merely removes people from this temporal existence into another existence.
And he has this right because ? don't tell me
He created life . And that means he has the right to kill it because?
He owns you. And that ownership comes from ?
He can . Might makes right ?
No your not your masking empty assertions and being called out for it
The author of a book doesnt have the right to remove characters from his book?
(June 30, 2017 at 11:02 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Little Henry, you claim I don't believe in OM. How did you arrive at that conclusion?You dont agree with him because you dont like the logical conclusion from it.
You like Michael Ruse because he agrees with you about 'what atheists must think'. I don't agree with him, and I don't see him saying anything that compelling. As philosophers go, he's a mixed bag, and there are literally hundred of other atheist philosophers you could have turned to if your goal was to find nontheistic philosophical support for moral realism.
(June 30, 2017 at 1:51 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Still practicing moral subjectivity, and adding semantics into the mix. Good times!
Its not though
(June 30, 2017 at 8:27 pm)Tizheruk Wrote: And once again there is no conflict between objecting to rape and torture and saying it's subjective . And Once again Ruse isn't the final authority on morality. Just because he happens to be an atheist.
Sure, but the most you can say is, i dislike rape, murder etc.
But you cannot say it is wrong.
Because right and wrong ONLY exist in relation to facts.
Taste in food is subjective, i can prefer grapes to olives, but i cannot say it is a fact that grapes taste better than olives. I cannot say that it is right that grapes taste better than olives.
Your preference or desire doesnt make something right or wrong.
I want all of you to explain to me how your preference or desire makes something right or wrong.
