RE: Objective morality as a proper basic belief
June 26, 2017 at 11:09 am
(This post was last modified: June 26, 2017 at 11:34 am by The Grand Nudger.)
I'd like to point out, btw, that if gods commands are somehow constrained by gods nature, the nature of good...then there's no need to refer to gods commands in order to do good - even if there were a god.
We can refer instead, to what constrains god. The nature of good. All that we could be doing in referring to his alleged commands is creating a way to get it wrong. Chiefly in that those commands are, more accurately, the commands of a semi literate bronze age goatfucker.
Did god, in his goodness, by his good nature, incapable of anything other than good..really order a raid on a town for loot, pillage, and little girls? Or was that the order of the child sex trafficker in charge of the raiding party? Any christer wanna take a crack at that? Any christer wanna comment on the objective morality of god's supposed command..in that instance?
I think that the above encapsulates why you have misconceptions about objective morality (over and above the shit that religious absolutists, subjectivists, and absurdists feed you, mind you).
A moral objectivist can and will objectively establish for you that the subject of morality is human wellbeing..even between groups that do not have moral agreement. That's where moral objectivism starts, that's it's foundation. You may not, after having this demonstrated to you, agree..but you would be disagreeing with their facts, not their opinions. Yes, some people value well-being more than others, some people (and some creatures) are less capable of making these judgements or even understanding the subject. All of this is contained -within- an objective morality, and is established by explicit reference to fact. Where there is no fact, or where there are equally compelling or competing facts..even in an objective morality, there is moral ambiguity - we will all still, ultimately, have to decide for ourselves. The subject of objective morality is not that, not you, it is the means or metrics by which you engage in it.
I'd actually bet that, with more knowledge, more facts...a simple absolutist or subjectivist moral statement becomes a very, very difficult objective moral question.
We can refer instead, to what constrains god. The nature of good. All that we could be doing in referring to his alleged commands is creating a way to get it wrong. Chiefly in that those commands are, more accurately, the commands of a semi literate bronze age goatfucker.
Did god, in his goodness, by his good nature, incapable of anything other than good..really order a raid on a town for loot, pillage, and little girls? Or was that the order of the child sex trafficker in charge of the raiding party? Any christer wanna take a crack at that? Any christer wanna comment on the objective morality of god's supposed command..in that instance?
(June 26, 2017 at 10:49 am)Astonished Wrote: We subjectively say that morality is derived from what is good for human well-being (animals and other things by proxy based on our SUBJECTIVE opinion on what else deserves or or how much) because we value not being in constant pain or seeing others in that state. There is no universal consensus on this because of varying levels of intelligence and mental health, or because of people valuing individual well-being more than the collective well-being. There is no universal natural law that says this is what we should value, if we weren't here the universe doesn't give a shit about how we ought to have treated each other. No objectivity can be found anywhere to say what we should value most, it's what we decide on for ourselves.
I think that the above encapsulates why you have misconceptions about objective morality (over and above the shit that religious absolutists, subjectivists, and absurdists feed you, mind you).
A moral objectivist can and will objectively establish for you that the subject of morality is human wellbeing..even between groups that do not have moral agreement. That's where moral objectivism starts, that's it's foundation. You may not, after having this demonstrated to you, agree..but you would be disagreeing with their facts, not their opinions. Yes, some people value well-being more than others, some people (and some creatures) are less capable of making these judgements or even understanding the subject. All of this is contained -within- an objective morality, and is established by explicit reference to fact. Where there is no fact, or where there are equally compelling or competing facts..even in an objective morality, there is moral ambiguity - we will all still, ultimately, have to decide for ourselves. The subject of objective morality is not that, not you, it is the means or metrics by which you engage in it.
I'd actually bet that, with more knowledge, more facts...a simple absolutist or subjectivist moral statement becomes a very, very difficult objective moral question.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
