Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

You're overlooking some things.  Indeed with taste preferences nothing rides on it which directly affects me if you eat something I wouldn't.  There are no facts involved in what one should or shouldn't enjoy eating.  With conduct toward others what you do can very much affect others.  And there are facts regarding what you should or shouldn't do to others. But those facts aren't written by God, they are codified in laws enforced by men.  Morals are the sentiments which modify our actions; laws are the consensus of societal agreement of what will or will not be tolerated.  You might like to yell at Jeffrey Dahmer that he is a monster but I wouldn't.  I have no more expectation that anything useful would come of that than I have that my preferences in food will motivate your choices.  I don't have a reasonable expectation of finding common moral ground with Jeffrey Dahmer.  But I do have confidence that moral consensus which shapes the laws of the land will stop him and that is good enough for me.

Which men? ISIS? Hitler? Al Qada? North Korean president? Stalin? Trump? Pope?

If there is any objectivity to morality it comes through consensus, not through God.  And why wouldn't there be substantial moral agreement?  We are shaped as much by nurture as nature and we are highly social animals.  Long eons of living socially may even have instilled propensities for some values in our very nature.

Consensus has nothing to do with if something is a fact or not. At one stage it was the consensus that the earth was flat.

---

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

Is that what you believe?

What seems incoherent is your claim that it is unreasonable to expect agreement morally (my bolded) unless god.  God is uncertain, but substantial moral agreement is common place.  You can't know that god is required for that to be so.  Like me, you just know that it is so.  Your "how could it be otherwise?" won't win you any arguments here.

For something to be objective, it must be true or exist regardless of any human opinion. Such moral values and duties would have to have existed before any humans arrived on the scene.

---

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

Is that what you believe?

Where this falls down, of course, is that having food isn't the same as rape.  I find pizza - in all forms - to be revolting and anathema to decent people.  But when you or anyone else eats a pizza, you aren't harming anyone.  You can't seriously expect us to consider that gustutatory preferences are on the same moral level as the pain and suffering that accompany the rape of a child.

Ok, so you are admitting to objective morality? Ie, it is a FACT that you OUGHT not harm others?

You and your ilk also routinely make the mistake that 'objective morality' and 'universal morality' are the same thing.  That morality is subjective is a fact sustained by observation and the history of our species.  We no longer, for example, toss an unwanted or malformed infant on the local rubbish tip, but a Roman mum who did so would be behaving morally.  Morality varies from time to time and even from place to place in the current era.  If what you mean when you say 'objective morality' were the case, then the ancient Assyrians would have the same moral strictures in place as the modern Japanese, who would follow the same moral code Dutch Jews  in 1656 (look it up).

The fact that moral rules are clearly shaped by geography, religious traditions, and (to a surprisingly large extent) economics, the notion that there is some overarching standard of universal morality doesn't hold up.

Boru

So you saying we have improved morally? If so, this admits to objective morality.

---

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

No fictional invisible sky hero needed to gap fill to explain where our morals come from.

Now watch this video and you tell me how this cat figured out right from wrong and doesn't pray to a cat god. And please dont insult my intellect by trying to answer with "poof" or "miracle".

Animals act on instinct for its own survival or altruistic, not right/wrong.

We see in the wild where a group of ducks pack rape a female duck. Are they doing anything wrong? No they are not. if they are not doing anything wrong, then why is it wrong if me and my friends pack rape a girl?

Under naturalism/atheism, humans are just animals, animals with more complex nervous systems, but still just animals.

Why is it not wrong for ducks to pack rape, but wrong for humans to pack rape? where does this obligation come from that doesnt exist for any other animal, but it does for humans?

We also see apes kill each other for land. Is it wrong for apes to kill each other in the wild? No. 

Humans also kill each other for land, so why is it wrong for humans and not for other animals including apes?

You can say humans can reason, but that just presupposes moral facts do indeed exist, ie objective morality.

Empathy? Empathy does not make something right or wrong.

---

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

Is that what you believe?

No because my morality is built on my own empathy.
I can imagine what it would be like to be a brutailised girl and I think its horrible. I am nice to a certain value of nice so I would not want to inflict harm on others.
But do you know what you need to overcome morality in people who have empathy?
You need a strong enough idea, such as religion or nationalism.
With these you can make normal people monsters.

Empathy does not make something right or wrong. It may make it desirable or undesirable, but not right or wrong.
Consider a sociopath, he does not have any empathy, is it still wrong if he rapes a girl? Yes.