Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astonished]

Why are you talking about hair? I'm talking about moral subjectivity. Do you really not grasp that?

If you are using different value judgements for the same act based on who the actor is, you are practicing moral relativity. This horseshit about ontology is irrelevant.

Yes, because as long as you are not committing a category error, the logic is the same.
And again, you seem to be confusing relative with subjective, which is the point; I was trying to make.

---

Try extrapolating it out to different nations and maybe that will help, and remove god from the equation (although Israeli schoolchildren were tested in this way and said it wasn't wrong for a god-backed army to do the same thing as a Chinese army that they did consider wrong). Is it wrong for X nation to gas the minority population that disagrees with the ruling party, but not for Y nation to do the same? If not then there's no way to justify any other party's immunity to this. Distinctions destroy the entire argument.

I find that morality more often than not, has to do with the why, rather than the what (when it comes down to it).

I agree, it's a result-oriented system with intention playing a big part behind the actions when well-being is the axiom. Things like the identity of the agent are superfluous largely, is all I'm getting at. Unless it comes down to things like a family member choosing between who they help or save, either their fewer loved ones or numerous strangers (or the sinking lifeboat situation where you have to choose which people to save based on attributes; but then that gets super subjective); but then that's one of the rarities and not a general rule, as are most things wherein there are certain situations where even a truly reprehensible act can be morally permissible depending on circumstances. And even if you can't call saving your own single child at the expense of five strangers' children, it can certainly be understood why a person would do that, and even if we were the parents of those lost children, we could empathize by putting ourselves in that parent's shoes and admitting we would probably do the same thing even if we generally feel that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[Angrboda]

You can assert all day his nature is necessarily good .You have not established it necessity. And you have yet to argue why it should be accepted as good. Aside you proclaiming  that it's good . So on and  on the baseless proclamations go.

Agreed Jorm or as Michael Martin puts it

In any case, appealing to God's character only postpones the problem since the dilemma can be reformulated in terms of His character. Is God's character the way it is because it is good or is God's character good simply because it is God's character? Is there an independent standard of good or does God's character set the standard? If God's character is the way it is because it is good, then there is an independent standard of goodness by which to evaluate God's character. For example, suppose God condemns rape because of His just and merciful character. His character is just and merciful because mercy and justice are good. Since God is necessarily good, God is just and merciful. According to this independent standard of goodness, being merciful and just is precisely what a good character involves. In this case, even if God did not exist, one could say that a merciful and just character is good. Human beings could use this standard to evaluate peoples' character and actions based on this character. They could do this whether or not God exists.....

Indeed, he's confusing "God's nature" with "the goodness of God's nature." While God's nature itself may be necessary, this does not assure that the goodness of that nature is necessary. The goodness of that nature is dependent upon what it derives from. And this is either from himself, or from a source outside himself. If the goodness of God's nature depends only upon Himself, then whatever it is by necessity, then it is also necessarily good, regardless of what that nature is. Since it is good regardless of the specific nature of God, then that makes it arbitrary. God's nature could be necessarily that he considers rape and murder good, and if the goodness of his nature is only dependent on Himself, then those things would necessarily be good. Little Henry has the matter totally confused. But I doubt he's actually thinking about the meaning of things. He's just chanting "it is necessary" like it's some sort of ward against the problem. It isn't. But he can't even allow himself to consider the possibility that he's wrong about God being the source of morality as that's a dogma of his faith. God's nature may be necessary, and still the goodness of that nature may be arbitrary. They aren't opposed in this case because they apply to two separate things. But he doesn't see that.

[Little Henry]

"Is God's nature good because it is God's, or is God's nature good because it is morally good (i.e. it conforms to an independent standard of good)?"  You see, playing the ontology card has gained you nothing.  Just as the Euthyphro dilemma applies to Divine Command Theory, it also applies to the argument that morality is derived from God's nature.  Either God's nature is arbitrarily good simply because it is God's, which results in an arbitrary set of morals which by definition is not moral.  Or God's nature is good in that it conforms to a standard of goodness that is independent of God, making God's nature superfluous to the question of morals.  You have accomplished nothing by your detour into ontology except to confuse the issue.  God is still an unsatisfactory source of morality, and you're left empty handed, claiming the existence of objective morals that you can't explain.

Gods nature is not arbitrarily good. It is necessary.

I never said God's nature is arbitrarily good.  What I did say was that the standard of goodness which God's nature meets must come from himself, or it must come from somewhere else.  Those are the two horns of the dilemma, and they are inescapable.  Saying that God's nature is "necessary" adds nothing to the question.  It is a non-answer.  Either the standard of goodness comes from God himself, in which case it's arbitrary, or it comes from somewhere else, obviating God.  It's irrelevant whether it "necessarily" comes from God or not.  Contingency and necessity have nothing to do with it.

By saying it can come from somewhere then you are saying that it is contingent.  That is to say it is a property that he could have lacked. This is incorrect. Gods moral character is ESSENTIAL to him. That is why i said it is a part of his nature. That is, there is no possible world in which God could have existed without those attributes. God didn't come to being loving, holy etc by accident or by luck.

Also his nature doesnt come from himself. He didnt decide his own nature.

Again, your version is based on an incorrect assumption that his nature of goodness is arbitrary.

I did no such thing.  I posed a dilemma with two horns.  Either God's nature is good because the standard of goodness comes from himself, or because the standard of goodness comes from somewhere else.  There is no third option.  Claiming I assumed something I didn't assume is just more waffling on your part.  You can't refute the dilemma, so you're just throwing out arbitrary answers.

Both horns have been refuted.

Again, your version is based on an incorrect assumption that his nature of goodness is arbitrary.

This is false.  I did no such thing.

You did.

---

Ok, so you subscribe to objective morality?

Well, it's kind of semantics to me. If you can agree that morality is about wellbeing, then I guess anything that goes against the wellbeing of another is wrong. I am not arguing necessarily of the absoluteness of it: is it wrong to kill or is it wrong to murder? I am saying morality is situational, but you can make moral pronouncements from the point of view of wellbeing.

Situational, that is why i am arguing for objective morality, not moral absolutes.

---

I this debate I am a bit of a simpleton.

I do not know of a god.

I agree, i also do not know of a god.

I have developed a morality through my upbringing, education and interaction with other social beings of my species.

We are not arguing how you came about or developed your morality. That is a question for epistemology. We are arguing about ONTOLOGY.

I have been wrong.

About what?

I have been right.

About what?

I understand and empathise with others and do not have a diagnosis of a brain condition that inhibits this.

Ok.

I am a social creature, that seems to be evidenced by simian evolution and is evidenced in other species too.

Just a social creature?

I understand what the amagdyla does to a limited extent in human  responses

Ok.

I have an incomplete understanding of how the human mind works, others know more, but nobody has the problem solved.

Ok

I don't want to be a dick.

Cool

I don't need the supernatural to help me do that.

Ok

God doesn't seem to resolve anything, moral problems can be difficult. The world's writings that claim to be fro gods include things that I find very immoral. If humans are flawed by either theistic or natural reasoning, how could they understand gods or aliens or supercomputers with advanced AI?

mmm

Why does this pint of Kronenbourg taste sooo good?

???

Experience is weird sometimes, but a god that wanted to let me know his objective moral commands certainly could. He hasn't.

Is it a fact that raping a child for fun is wrong?

Cue up pre-supp bullshit, but this whole argument from theists is soooooo tedious.

---

Ok, so you subscribe to objective morality?

Many of us do. But you'll find that won't stop us from picking at flawed arguments for OM. 'OM must be true or I can't call Nazis bad' is an appeal to emotion, and fallacious on at least two levels.

What are these 2 levels?

---

Please explain to me how if something is deemed SUBJECTIVE, it can be deemed wrong...in this case...rape.

Right and wrong are value judgements.  All value judgements depend on the point of view of the person making it, and are therefore subjective -- but this is not where it ends.  Rape is wrong in the eyes of the victim, and in the view of the average person, and according to the the laws of the country where I live.  We therefore have a social contract established to punish rapists.

Laws exist to protect us from people who do not respect our desire to be free from harm.  Is this really too hard for you to understand, Henry?

Good and bad are value judgements. Not right and wrong.

By denying an objective standard exist, you are declaring right and wrong dont exist in regards to the issue you are discussing.

Good and bad are value judgements. Again, if OM doesnt exist, then there is no such thing as objective good or bad.

Your problem my friend is that you like everyone else absolutely realises objective morality exists, but you are trying to ground it in something else other than God.

You cannot ground it in things like the victim. By doing so and being adamant that OM does not exist just really means that you are sufferring from a delusion. But it is obvious to you that you are not sufferring from a delusion because our moral experience indicates so strongly to us that certain acts are factually right and wrong. 

You are going around in circles. Your argument which i dont even think you believe to be true would result in a scenario where the victim thinks the rape is wrong while the rapist thinks its right.

I want you to think carefully now, how can something like rape be both right and wrong at the same time without the violating the law of non contradiction?

Its like saying the earth is both flat and spherical in shape. 

If you really DENY OM existing which i know you dont, at best you can only say, the victim finds it undesirable, but not wrong.

You really dont want to bring the country's laws into this discussion because at one stage it was legal to gas Jews and homosexuals in a particular country. Does that make it right?

---

lol of course something subjective can be wrong . This fools continuing to not get that subjective does not mean arbitrary. Nor relative  nor does relative  mean subjective.  Ultimately the whole dichotomy  is less important then it's made out to be.

Show me how.

Just to show how incoherent this notion is. Lets pick something that IS subjective and lets pretend it is asked in an exam.

Q. Chocolate ice cream ITSELF tastes better than vanilla ice cream.

Is the answer right or wrong?

Suppose you answer yes. The marker gives you a cross. 

Unless there is an external standard OUTSIDE both of you, ie the fact itself to decipher, then NO ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.

Please REFUTE THIS.

[Astreja]

Right and wrong are value judgements.  All value judgements depend on the point of view of the person making it, and are therefore subjective -- but this is not where it ends.  Rape is wrong in the eyes of the victim, and in the view of the average person, and according to the the laws of the country where I live.  We therefore have a social contract established to punish rapists.

Laws exist to protect us from people who do not respect our desire to be free from harm.  Is this really too hard for you to understand, Henry?

Good and bad are value judgements. Not right and wrong.

{Springy G bonks Henry over the head with a hardbound copy of Roget's Thesaurus)

Again, if OM doesnt exist, then there is no such thing as objective good or bad.

Correct.  There are times when saving a life is the wrong thing to do, and when destroying it is the right thing to do.  It's entirely dependent on the players and the circumstances.

Your problem my friend...

I am not your friend, Henry, and I have no interest in becoming your friend.

...is that you like everyone else absolutely realises objective morality exists...

So why aren't you on a psychic hotline with your Mad Mind-Reading Skillz?

...but you are trying to ground it in something else other than God.

Why would I ground morality in your imaginary friend?  Moreover, why would I want to?  I look at the Bible and I see a planet-drowning, blood-sacrifice-obsessed, genocide-commanding narcissistic bastard who's about as sharp as a sack of wet mice.

You cannot ground it in things like the victim.

And why not, pray tell?  Humans have evolved to be empathetic to one another's pain, and we see things as wrong largely because we recognize the pain they cause to the victim.

You are going around in circles. Your argument which i dont even think you believe to be true would result in a scenario where the victim thinks the rape is wrong while the rapist thinks its right.

If the rapist thought that rape is wrong, why would he commit such a crime?

I'm not the one going around in circles; I've been consistently on the side of subjective morality from the beginning of this argument.

I want you to think carefully now, how can something like rape be both right and wrong at the same time without the violating the law of non contradiction?

Oh, piss off, you sanctimonious little brat.  It's obvious that the "right" and "wrong" are vested in two separate viewpoints -- in other words, subjective.

If you really DENY OM existing which i know you dont, at best you can only say, the victim finds it undesirable, but not wrong. {emphasis mine}

Henry, as I intimated above, I'm pretty sure that you don't possess the ability to read minds, although we could set up a lab experiment to prove that beyond any reasonable doubt.  So much for "Thou shalt not bear false witness," wot?

You really dont want to bring the country's laws into this discussion because at one stage it was legal to gas Jews and homosexuals in a particular country. Does that make it right?

I call Godwin's Law on you.

[Amarok]

So you just repeat the same ignorant points over again . After they have been debunked. I predict you will continue so. Oh well I can play too. And will just keep referring back to my previous posts which refute you no matter how much you repeat the same flawed rhetoric .  

From now on when you repeat your derp about not understanding subjective morality . Mention a quote from ruse. Refuse to recognize the differences in subjectivities I'll simple  repeat back . fuddle duddle because that's all you have .

[surreptitious57]

Your problem my friend is that you like everyone else absolutely realises objective morality exists but you are trying to ground it in something else other than God

My non acceptance of objective morality disproves this. Morality by definition can only be subjective or inter subjective. Now I have no problem with the concept of objective morality in principle
It is just that it does not exist. And those who state that it does are ironically referencing a subjective opinion rather than an objective fact. Also the origin of morality is evolutionary not religious

[Amarok]

The problem with you is you think you can and have grounded objective morality in god and have failed . Can't comprehend your opponents position. and rely on idiots to prop up your points . And like a broken record repeat the same debunk shit over and over. But by far your greatest fault is thinking you a mind reader and know people better then themselves.

[JackRussell]

The problem with you is you think you can and have grounded objective morality in god and have failed  . Can't comprehend your opponents position. and rely on idiots to prop up your points . And like a broken record repeat the same debunk shit over and over. But by far your greatest fault is thinking you a mind reader and know people better then themselves.

Yep, and absolutely no sense of humour either.

[Mister Agenda]

Many of us do. But you'll find that won't stop us from picking at flawed arguments for OM. 'OM must be true or I can't call Nazis bad' is an appeal to emotion, and fallacious on at least two levels.

What are these 2 levels?

I had hoped at least the first one would be obvious, since I named it: Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences. And maybe appeal to incredulity. Plus it is factually untrue that that people who believe morality is entirely subjective can't condemn Nazi war crimes. They can and usually do.

As a side note, the Nazis, who largely subscribed to OM, did not seem to often consider their atrocities to be crimes.

[RoadRunner79]

What are these 2 levels?

I had hoped at least the first one would be obvious, since I named it: Appeal to emotion and appeal to consequences. And maybe appeal to incredulity.
Plus it is factually untrue that that people who believe morality is entirely subjective can't condemn Nazi war crimes. They can and usually do.

As a side note, the Nazis, who largely subscribed to OM, did not seem to often consider their atrocities to be crimes.

In my view I don't think that either side, can make a definitive argument for the conclusion. However I don't think that it is incorrect, to appeal to the consequences of the logical conclusion of a view (especially when adherents to that view don't behave in a manner inconsistent with that belief). This is part of what is meant, by appealing to an innate sense concerning objective morality. Now I would agree, that just because we don't like the consequences or it gives a negative emotional reaction, that we cannot logically conclude that it is either true or false. This would be the fallacy that you speak of. But I find a dissonance between what is said that subjective moralist believe, and how they behave. Requiring you to accept the consequences of said belief is not illogical or incoherant. Your example about condemning the Nazis is apropos.

I can't comment intelligently on the Nazis position on OM (perhaps they had varying views as the label doesn't require any particular holding that I know of) Also, an incorrect belief, doesn't change whether the topic at hand, is objective or subjective by nature (regardless of the subjects belief about it's nature). Here I normally ask the question though. What is it based on the subject that makes it wrong? Is it merely against your tastes or preferences? With a different subject thus a different basis, isn't their position equally valid; subjectively?

Now I find that most people behave as if there is a moral realism. That morals are objective, and actually honorable or wrong, regardless of the subject, time, or culture. That there is an innate sense, that some things are definitely wrong, outside of the subject (culture), and anything within them. Subjective is not the default position (neither is objective). And as I said, I don't think either can make a strong argument that it is one way or the other. However I find that the behavior of people shows more about what they really believe, rather than any statements or what they think the believe. It's similar to the post modern notion held by some, of objective truth or that of philosophical nihilism. In reality, they quickly betray what they say it is the believe.