Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

[hide]

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?   I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?

Good question. Who knows the correct basis for assessing morality. I am saying it can only be the self and an understanding of empathy. I absolutely admit that doesn't address the problem of hard solipsism, but I don't know where that gets anybody.

I am sick and tired of morality as abstracts and I ain't no philosopher. Practical morality seems obviously secular, even to a well versed theist. Unless you subscribe to a divine command theory, because there are many biblically mandated things that are immoral to me. The it's just a game of he said, she said.
[/hdie]

Name me a moral judgement that a theist could make that an un-beiliver couldn't?

I dare you.

I don't claim that there is a difference here. I think that morality is objective and that we have an innate sense of right and wrong. It may not be perfect, and there may be various reasons why some are on the mark more than others; but I think that unbelievers can and do make moral assessments.

---

Keep in mind, that I was just examining the reasons given by the other poster.  In doing so, I'm not making any assumptions, beyond what they had said (because it causes harm, and that you can equate harm and immorality).

I agree, that most people are going to come to a similar conclusion as you did.  And thus come to the outcome that the syllogism is wrong. While harm may normally be involved in what we call immoral, harm alone, isn't a sufficient basis.  Intent also comes into play.  I would say that the intent is more important in the matter than the harm (actualized or not). Would you agree?

What of a man who is cheating on his wife and ensures that she never finds out.  There is no harm done (physical or emotional). There is not an intent to harm, which is why he keeps it from her. But there is betrayal and disloyalty.  Is this immoral?

It is wrong in my mind because it opens the possibility to hurt for the other half and makes the introduction of sexual diseases more likely.

In fact I know a serial adulteror who explained his reasoning thusly. He weighed the concequences of his actions against the amount of enjoyment he would get and if the fun outweighed the concequences he would fill his boots.

I think what he did was wrong, but he seemed to enjoy it and the women lined up to be the other woman. He was an ex swimwear model for speedo so that may have had something to do with it.

But I'm curious as to what difference a god makes to the situation, how would there being a god be different from there not being one?

Yes, and he is keeping his wife from harm.   I'm not arguing that this is moral or not (though I do think it is wrong).  Just examining the claim that harm is the basis for morality.
In the area of epistemology (how we know what is right and wrong and is what we are talking about) I don't think it does make that big of a difference.  A Christian may point to the scriptures for insight, but I don't see that as a large inequality.  Many who don't believe will come to the same conclusion.