Theistic morality

[Edwardo Piet]

The only things we can value are things that interest us. Because if we weren't interested then we wouldn't "value" it, we'd be indifferent to it. And since that is the case we shouldn't value anything that doesn't interest us, since "ought" implies "can": it makes no sense to tell someone they "should" do something that they can't. To tell a baby that they must save a woman's life, for example, when they are unable to understand that statement and so can't, makes no sense. It makes no sense to say that something "should be" when it can't be. And so, since then that the only things that can be valued are our interests, it makes no sense to say we should value anything else. How's that for an argument?

EvF

[The Omnissiunt One]

How, then, do you judge an action that fulfills the interests of some but hinders the interests of some? Is it by mere numbers in each group, i.e., the group being fulfilled vs. the group being hindered? Is it a composite of the numbers in each group, the level of fulfillment, and the level of hindering? If a composite, how would one go about determining it?

It would depend on the significance of the interests involved to each person. A hundred people receiving a pin prick wouldn't outweigh one being burnt alive, as pain cannot be taken into account cumulatively, as it is confined within each individual's consciousness. Strength of interest being equal, though, it would depend on the numbers in each group, yes. Of course, it isn't an exact science, but it can be approximated, and rough moral decisions can be made.

The side who has office. For example, take the healthcare bill that passed. It only passed because the majority of Congress is Democrat. If the majority of Congress was Republican, it wouldn't have passed.

That doesn't mean the side that has office is morally right. Hitler had office, but that doesn't mean the Nazis and their supporters were right. Unless you think it did...

And if they didn't look at religious texts, where would they look for ground-work? They would go off their own beliefs of right and wrong. Which goes back to what society does or does not approve of...

But once we have some basic moral principle, like 'pain is bad', we can use reason and evidence, rather than just people's beliefs and prejudices, to decide.

[Purple Rabbit]

Oh, I can condemn those acts from within my moral view just as you can from your allegedly objective moral framework. The only difference would be that you claim absoluteness, IOW you're right and the others are wrong and that's an absolute.

But if it's just your moral framework, it's meaningless.

It's time to put some arguments to that statement. I gave you examples, I showed you meaning, I explained you how the confrontation of frameworks playes out and you just state that it all is meaningless. Restating your claim is not argument, you should do better than that.

You can't claim superiority.

Are you serious? Why should I want to claim superiority? I prefer an open mind. I prefer the possibility that I can be proven wrong. I prefer critical thinking over an apriori claim of superiority.

It's not an absolute, because if people could show me that their way is ultimately more beneficial, then my mind would be changed.

And out goes your alleged superiority! Thrashed, pawned and dissed.

Of course, condemning isn't going to help. Informed reasoning, though, presupposes some objective standard to which we can appeal. If, as you say, morality is just what society agrees upon, then all you can say is, 'That's what your society thinks, this is what mine thinks.'

Informed reasoning supposes language and reasoning rules but not agreement on moral values up front. If language and basic reasoning is lacking than communication is not possible, end of story, your story and my story. If these things are present, the informed reasoning part can be used to examen the rationale.
With your alleged yet unproven objectivistic framework you would face the same difficulties 'That's what your society thinks, this is what mine thinks.' It really is totally absurd that you claim that your claim accomplishes anything at all. Also it is just your claim. You cannot prove that it is objective. So put some meat to the bone Omnissiunt and give your evidence that you have an objective moral framework. You may start right now!

Non sequitur. It does not follow from an absence of an objective moral standard that moral standards cannot influence each other or cannot be changed. Moral standards change because they influence each other, moral rationale is (re)examined in the process and goals are reformulated as a result of trading and negotiating processes (if you grant me this I'll grant you that). The claim of an absolute standard is what inhibits moral change more than anything. That is the claim of traditional christianity, that is the claim of Judaism, that is the claim of muslim fundamentalism, that is the claim of any totalitarian state. Stating the immutable is what constitutes fundamentalistic dogma and inhibits moral evolution.

Again, you're conflating moral objectivism, or moral realism, with moral absolutism. Moral absolutism would state, 'Stealing is always wrong.' A moral realist, though, could say, 'Stealing is sometimes wrong, depending on the consequences.' You talk of moral rationale, but what is this rationale you're referring to, if morality is just society's view or a personally held view? If, though, we say that what's moral is what benefits most people, and harms fewest people, then we have a rationale from which we can work out how best to run society.

To claim objectivism is claiming absolutism. It IS the same. If a statement is 100% objective fact there is nothing it depends on, it is valid on earth and valid on a planet near Sagittarius A, it is valid in this universe and valid in every other possible universe, it is valid under circumstance A and valid under circumstance B, it is valid for you and valid for Bin Laden. There is no conflation in equaling objectivistic moral truth to absolute moral truth. If you think they are different please provide an example of an objective moral fact that is not abolute. Moral realism is quite distinct from moral objectivism. I'd say that moral realism is more a kind of moral relativism than an objective moral.

[Edwardo Piet]

To claim objectivism is claiming absolutism. It IS the same.

What about science? Science is objective but not absolute is it not?

100% objective and any objectivity is not the same right? 100% objective may be absolute, but what about the objectivity of science? Not 100% absolute objectivity, not "absolute", but still "objective" right?

So the label "immoral" more or less reveals your personal values, your personal rationale behind it and your personal moral goal you've set.

But if I'm to value anything, if I'm to have any morality at all, how are the feelings and interests or "values" of myself an others not the only thing I can value? If I didn't value my feelings, values, interests, or others feelings, values, or interests - then they wouldn't be values. If I value rocks it is only because I'm interested or find them useful in some way for myself or others. And since then this is all I can value, and since it makes no sense whatsoever to say I should value things I can't, what else could morality be?

EvF

[Purple Rabbit]

To claim objectivism is claiming absolutism. It IS the same.

What about science? Science is objective but not absolute is it not?

100% objective and any objectivity is not the same right? 100% objective may be absolute, but what about the objectivity of science? Not 100% absolute objectivity, not "absolute", but still "objective" right?

Science is not objective in the philosophical meaning of the word. Because it relies on perception. We have no access to the noumenon as Kant would say, only to the phenomenon.

Not totally objective is of course just subjective or relative. So there is no real distinction between subjectivity and anything less than 100% objectivity.

---

So the label "immoral" more or less reveals your personal values, your personal rationale behind it and your personal moral goal you've set.

But if I'm to value anything, if I'm to have any morality at all, how are the feelings and interests or "values" of myself an others not the only thing I can value? If I didn't value my feelings, values, interests, or others feelings, values, or interests - then they wouldn't be values. If I value rocks it is only because I'm interested or find them useful in some way for myself or others. And since then this is all I can value, and since it makes no sense whatsoever to say I should value things I can't, what else could morality be?

I did not argue against the value of values ;-). Values are guidelines for behaviour and serve a role in choosing behaviour.

[Edwardo Piet]

But since values or interests are all that can be valued otherwise they wouldn't be "values" then if we should value anything, we should, ultimately value values, interests, feelings, etc.... if we are to have any objective morality I mean. Since because we can't value anything else it makes no sense to say that anything else should be valued or considered "moral" because "ought" implies "can" - is what I'm saying.

EvF

[The Omnissiunt One]

It's time to put some arguments to that statement. I gave you examples, I showed you meaning, I explained you how the confrontation of frameworks playes out and you just state that it all is meaningless. Restating your claim is not argument, you should do better than that.

But your claim that morality is just subjective or relative makes any moral claim, by definition, meaningless. If I said, 'My taste in ice cream is better than yours', it is meaningless, because it's subjective.

Are you serious? Why should I want to claim superiority? I prefer an open mind. I prefer the possibility that I can be proven wrong. I prefer critical thinking over an apriori claim of superiority.

How would anyone prove you wrong if it's just their opinion? What could they say to change your mind?

And out goes your alleged superiority! Thrashed, pawned and dissed.

What are you talking about? Because someone can change my mind, that somehow means the claim can't be superior? So no scientific theory is better than any other, because it can be disproven?

Informed reasoning supposes language and reasoning rules but not agreement on moral values up front. If language and basic reasoning is lacking than communication is not possible, end of story, your story and my story. If these things are present, the informed reasoning part can be used to examen the rationale.

Yes, but there must be some agreement over a basic moral principle, or you'll get nowhere. For instance, you might say, 'Legalised abortion stops women from dying in botched back-alley jobs.' Then then the other person says, 'I don't care. God's against it.' Language and reasoning rules don't help, because there's no common objective standard to which either of you can appeal!

With your alleged yet unproven objectivistic framework you would face the same difficulties 'That's what your society thinks, this is what mine thinks.' It really is totally absurd that you claim that your claim accomplishes anything at all. Also it is just your claim. You cannot prove that it is objective. So put some meat to the bone Omnissiunt and give your evidence that you have an objective moral framework. You may start right now!

Okay, well, it's clearly true that others' interests weigh as heavily with them as ours do with us. This can be shown by the fact that, for instance, the same stimuli produce the same level of pain in others, and the same desire to escape that pain. Once we recognise this, we can see that others' interests are as important as our own, so we should therefore do what maximises the number of interests satisfied.

To claim objectivism is claiming absolutism. It IS the same. If a statement is 100% objective fact there is nothing it depends on, it is valid on earth and valid on a planet near Sagittarius A, it is valid in this universe and valid in every other possible universe, it is valid under circumstance A and valid under circumstance B, it is valid for you and valid for Bin Laden. There is no conflation in equaling objectivistic moral truth to absolute moral truth. If you think they are different please provide an example of an objective moral fact that is not abolute. Moral realism is quite distinct from moral objectivism. I'd say that moral realism is more a kind of moral relativism than an objective moral.

The only thing that is absolute about my ethical system is the claim that others' interests matter. Otherwise, all moral claims are dependent upon showing that an actions fulfils more interests than it hinders.

[Edwardo Piet]

Others' interests matter by definition because interests and "values" or "what matter" are the same thing. So, if anything is to matter that is, values are.

EvF

[chasm]

That doesn't mean the side that has office is morally right. Hitler had office, but that doesn't mean the Nazis and their supporters were right. Unless you think it did...

I never said it would be morally right. I was pointing out that if one side or another had office, that's what would be the deciding factor.

But once we have some basic moral principle, like 'pain is bad', we can use reason and evidence, rather than just people's beliefs and prejudices, to decide.

How do you get this moral principle?

I mean, how can you even go off "pain is bad"? Buddhists and Scientologists thinking suffering and pain are good.

[Edwardo Piet]

I mean, how can you even go off "pain is bad"? Buddhists and Scientologists thinking suffering and pain are good.

Unless you're a sadist or a masochist pain is not something you can generally value, so therefore it isn't something you generally should. "ought" implies "can"