Objective Morality?

[Captain Scarlet]

I am getting tired of you committing the is/ought fallacy, you can’t reason from the fact that most humans feel empathy towards others to a moral statement that most humans should behave that way. I guess I will just mark down morality as just another thing you believe in but can’t account for given your worldview. The list is growing….

You're overplaying your hand here. Hume also argued you could derive ought from is in 2 classes: 1) sentiment 2) Some combination of (1) Is pleasing to self (2) Is useful to self (3) Is pleasing to others (4) Is useful to others. All these IS conditions Hume though could move to an OUGHT. I see no problem with DPs analysis here, except the focus on the social contract. Whilst we should prefer that to Theism and their synthetic cartoon morality, the social contract looks to be losing ground. However it can claim that morality is objective.

So you are saying rationality is merely a conventional product of the human mind depending upon how it comprehends reality?

Not sure I even understand your question here I'm afraid, even less what you are driving at. Can you restate what you are asking?

It’s a good thing we live in a universe created by the Christian God and not some other god who is is whimsical then isn’t it?

Come now. We live in a self contained block universe, the only possible way one can account for the 'mysteries' that theism loves to pose around, morality, logic and induction. According to your own faith god not only has intervened in the universe historically, he does so every day to help his adherents and prevent nature taking it's course. He is the chief cartoonist, who can erase that anvil that wily-e-coyote has set in a trap for you and is about to fall on your head.

First I’d like for you to account for these natural ethical laws given your naturalistic worldview, are they material? Immaterial? Describe them a bit more for me please.

Ah Theists. Trapped in a world where there are laws and commands and of course a law giver or commander to dish them out. Who said objective moral truth was based on a law? Desirism holds that morality is the social practice of praise, condemnation, reward and punishment to re-enforce desires we wish to see fulfilled and minimize actions that would thwart them. Those desires are brain states (part of the natural world) and they pertain to relationships about objective facts about reality. Those relationships are either objectively true or not. But there is really no such thing as an absolute morality from a moral law giver, and if there is he has made a sh!t job of communicating it. Apparently in the only bit of bible he was motivated to directly author himself, he thought that calling him names and taking a fancy to your neighbors donkey was a more serious crime than child abuse, slavery, equality between sexes and races. Natural objective morality would never conclude this. I am not minded to affirm materialism in it's narrow definition, happy to affirm the necessity of naturalism and that nature is all that exists. We are still uncovering the nature of reality however.

This is your response to all of the Bible verses I explained to you? Seriously? I thought I explained them pretty well actually. Which one did you struggle over?

Yeah seriously, as unbelievable as it is to you that I could be so dense. You sound disappointed that I did not agree that you could justify versus condoning rape. Infact I am so backward I struggled with all your rationalizations. The words in the bible are there for all to see, I guess it's for each individual to reach their own conclusion.

How so

I am not going to explain moral autonomy again.