Question for Atheists

[theVOID]

False, values can be calculated. They're all only really one thing. Desires, and they are brain states. which are quantifiable.

Interesting. Is anything subjective then, since it would seem that subjective matters are based on brain states?

Yeah, plenty of thins are subjective (grounded in the opinion of person(s)).

Anything can become an objective measurement relative to something else, the hard part is finding an object of evaluation that is not arbitrarily chosen fort subjective reasons.

For example, music could be measured relative to it's ability to stimulate the most brains in the most significant way, and this measurement would be objective, however the justification for the object of evaluation (the ability to stimulate the most brains) is still subjective because it is an arbitrarily chosen constraint from a wide range of constraints. The stimulation would also not necessarily be positive, and changing the evaluation to "the ability to stimulate the most brains in the most enjoyable way" just introduces another arbitrary standard (and enjoyment is also subjective. You might as well have anything such as "the best music is that contains the most harmonic minors"

Bentham's choice of Pleasure vs Pain was just as arbitrary. Why not green vs blue? Because it seems to fit our intuitions better or it's what most people like? Either one of these is fallacious so the argument is invalid.

Desires on the other hand, if I am correct that they are the only source of values, are necessarily the only objects of evaluation, thus measurements relative to desires are neither arbitrary or subjective.

You've been under a rock for the past 200 years it seems. Pleasure Utilitarianism was a step in the right direction, but his case for "pleasure" being the object of moral evaluation was flawed.

You'll have to pardon my ignorance in matters of formal philosophy, then. I'm mostly self-educated with only a business ethics class under my belt. Do tell if Bentham's ideas have been refined since.

I'm entirely self educated on the matter, I don't see what that is other than a red hearing.

"Benthams ideas" isn't the best way of putting it, but his train of thought (utility and consequence) is perhaps the most practical and applicable moral theory to exist. There have been many attempts from Peter Stingers "preference utilitarianism" to John Stuart Mill's "Theory of Liberty" all address some of the problems, but they have the same fundamental flaw of having arbitrary conditions.

"Utilitarianism as a goal" might well be the problem, that is in contrast with my "utilitarianism as a conclusion".

I disagree, Divine attitude theory solves these problems.

How? If God is a being, than like any other being Its subjective evaluations would remain subjective by definition. Sure we may respect the wisdom and experience of some beings more than others, and some command more respect for their moral judgment than others, but subjective still remains subjective no matter the power, intelligence or experience of the being.

Because in DA God is necessarily good not through choice or conscious effort (he is also the source of all value) and all acts that are consistent with the nature of this God are necessarily good. You may think of it as being "that which is consistent with God necessarily has the greatest positive value from conflicting acts".

The God in DA is less "personal" and more "mechanical" but that seems to be a bullet many theistic ethicists are willing to bite.

That to me sounds like "I don't like == wrong" where "I don't like" is your three arbitrary standards of evaluation.

Not so much arbitrary as analytical. I came by these rules by asking myself why something is wrong and found that my negative reactions are based on perceived violations of the three rules I mentioned.

But if someone reacted negative to being less than the center of attention then that would be just as 'foundational' as your own reaction. We might as well say "that which does not upset the balance between blue and green is good" or any other arbitrary condition.

If it is all your opinion/feelings regarding certain categories of acts that you have chosen yourself then you're just saying "I like" which makes you are a Nihilist, at least in any practical sense.

You sure you aren't a nihilist in disguise?

That would be an interesting self-discovery. I'm not sure how nihilist - deist would work but perhaps I need to brush up on the term "nihilism". Remember, I am self-taught in this field.

The deity created no moral values or the capacity for them to exist or to be evaluated outside personal preference? That would work I think.