Objective Morality?

[Captain Scarlet]

I think you are not following me at all here, sure you can think you ought to act according to your strongest desires but what if someone doesn’t agree with that? Do you have any moral authority to tell them otherwise? It seems like your view on morality is completely powerless because it lacks any authority.

Nah I do follow you but don’t agree. Why does it need an ’authority’ to be objective? I think this is the mistake you’re making. To have abosulte morality you need authority but I don’t accept that exists, for objective moral truth authority figures exist. To move from an IS to an OUGHT one simpley does the following transformation (I have already explained why I think its objective).

DESIRE – To stay alive and flourish as an individual
FACT/IS - My metabolism naturally requires dead organisms to be ingested to work and prevent my death
OUGHT – I ought to eat dead organisms.. and by extension if that includes omnivorous habits (which in the case of homo sapiens it does), organisms can include other animals
OBJECTIVELY - therefore ‘meat is NOT murder’.

I need no authority to move from IS to OUGHT for this to be objectively true for me and millions of other of my fellow creatures. Whilst vegetarianism is perfectly justifiable on the grounds of a lifestyle or personal taste choice, to me it is NOT a moral issue and I can objectively state they are wrong if they claim it is a moral issue. And we all love a steak, right?

You can ask me any question you’d like about my beliefs, doesn’t bother me any.

Dare I say I think I know your position. I was pointing out that I could return your line of questioning and ultimately it doesn’t get either of us to a better understanding ie asking why continually is the crowbar of the ad nauseum fallacy.

This is an interesting assertion, things are morally wrong because God decrees them to be so….so what? I see no issue there; feel free to correct me though if you feel I am in error.

Not interesting but factual. I admire your grasping of the horns, but objective morality disappears on the will of a sovereign, unaccountable being. As such they are subjective. Yes I have discounted his wonderful perfection, it matters not to the substantive point. It is this view which undermines your iown moral autonomy, makes you subservient and abolishes your moral construct.

…and as I pointed out, what Hume thought is irrelevant. There is no logical merit to reasoning from the way things are to the way things ought to be, that’s pretty basic logic.

Well again you’re overplaying this. I demonstrated moving from IS to OUGHT without invoking a god.

Again, this is speaking of events to come, how can this possibly be looked at as condoning anything? If I say, “yeah there will likely be sexual assaults in the city of Detroit next summer” am I condoning the act of sexual assault? I was a bit surprised to see you even try to use this passage because most atheists realize what it is talking about (prophecy); your reasoning is just ridiculous on this one. I am sure you will still come up with some other excuse dealing with this passage because you want it to be condoning rape, but it just doesn’t even come close.

I stand by all I’ve said. Your enthusiasm for justifying the unjustifiable in these horrific passages is exactly why I can lay claim to the ‘objective moral high ground’ and you cannot. What difference does it make whether it has happened, will happen, or is happening. Do you condone the justification of rape in the bible in the past, present or future event? Using your example would you advise those who may (but haven’t) committed sexual assaults in Detroit that it is OK, because the bible indicates so? The bible says what it says, which is why so many even today want to expunge the horrors of the OT by saying it was all superceeded by NT. To be fair to the Marcionites at least they advised starting again, even though their theology was equally bonkers to orthodoxy.