Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

There IS no objective secular morality. That's a paradox. You expect that kind of thing out of a theist proponent, but attaching it to any sort of secular humanist philosophy, it's just...blech. There's no way to say 'X action is always across time and regardless of who perpetrates it, bad/good morally'. Objective principles can be established as the framework for good or bad, yes, but not actions across the board. If your principle isn't well-being, but getting god's dick hard or soft for example, your actions are going to be different in terms of whether they're morally good or bad, aren't they? So if you've got your standard, you evaluate your actions and those are subjectively good or bad depending on circumstance. Morality is about actions and their consequences but because the principle can change depending on your viewpoint, it's better to ground it in something that can be determined empirically. Even then, science can reveal new information and potentially yield something that would merit changing the foundation and principle. It's in flux based on what we learn and as we improve our understanding.

Let's also not forget that people are subjective creatures. What I consider good for my well-being might differ from what you think, but if I have a certain goal in mind, there may be a trade-off that has to be made for some benefit in the long run that just can't be seen or which I value more than you happen to (like owning a very expensive car despite it putting a big dent in my savings that could be better spent elsewhere or something. Or I just may prefer a certain approach to things like how I get bad news delivered or if I prefer to have someone be bluntly honest with me even if it hurts my feelings as opposed to preferring to be handled gingerly. Those are subjective principles, where a higher priority is placed on honesty in one case than another, but honesty itself is still part of the overall principle.

So there's no objective 'good' or 'bad' actions, and even the principles are in flux even if there's a certain goal in mind and there are simplistic definitions to it. 'Life and health - good' and 'Death and suffering - bad' is all well and good if you want to label those as objective but there's gradients and what work for some don't work for others in all cases. All we can do is our best, and negotiate, honor the social contract we believe will best benefit us according to what we value, and take care to learn and evolve. Objective standards don't leave room for any of that. That's just asking to kowtow to an authoritarian dictator, and as I pointed out, not even that gets you anywhere with objective standards.

 So it is not a fact or it is always wrong that raping and torturing a child for fun regardless of time, location?

---

How does a feeling or desire make something right or wrong?

Precisely.  So how do you ascertain that your feeling and desires haven't fooled you as you attempt to make your leap from your subjective experience to objective certainty?

So when you see ISIS blind fold 2 men having sex in each other and throw them off a building or when you see ISIS capture a 6 year old girl and rape her do you react and say  "that is wrong what they are doing, it just seems so obvious it is wrong, like 1+1=3 is wrong. But hang on, i am actually sufferring from a delusion when i think this. Evolution has fooled me into thinking it is wrong, it is not wrong, i find it udesirable, but certainly not wrong. Move on, there is nothing to see here."

I mean if OM does not exist, you should really react the same way when you hear these stories about ISIS as you would when you hear one of your mates eat a food you dislike...i mean, if taste in food is subjective, if morality is also subjective, why have stronger thoughts about 1 and not the other?

Is this how you react?

[Whateverist]

Precisely.  So how do you ascertain that your feeling and desires haven't fooled you as you attempt to make your leap from your subjective experience to objective certainty?

So when you see ISIS blind fold 2 men having sex in each other and throw them off a building or when you see ISIS capture a 6 year old girl and rape her do you react and say  "that is wrong what they are doing, it just seems so obvious it is wrong, like 1+1=3 is wrong. But hang on, i am actually sufferring from a delusion when i think this. Evolution has fooled me into thinking it is wrong, it is not wrong, i find it udesirable, but certainly not wrong. Move on, there is nothing to see here."

I mean if OM does not exist, you should really react the same way when you hear these stories about ISIS as you would when you hear one of your mates eat a food you dislike...i mean, if taste in food is subjective, if morality is also subjective, why have stronger thoughts about 1 and not the other?

Is this how you react?

Seriously? You're presenting your conclusion in the example of the ISIS fighters raping and killing as evidence that you and you alone are in position of the one true objective morality? Isn't that bar rather low as a test?

[Astonished]

It is a fact that it is harmful and that humans value health and harmony over pain and misery (barring some massive defect). I already said there's no absolute or objective morality, whatever you may want to claim to the contrary, and I don't even have to go outside of your own philosophy to prove it. There's no authority saying what's 'right and wrong' but what's 'good and bad' in terms of health and its synonyms and antonyms. If there's another quantitative metric on which to base morality, I have never heard of it. The aforementioned vindictive invisible sky fairy commanding this and that while wantonly doing the exact same things and not seeing the hypocrisy there need not enter the equation.

If something is harmful to humans, in the absence of OM, how does it make such an act wrong?
If something is undesirable, it doesnt make it wrong if OM does not exist.

Let me break it down to the level of the average person I expect to converse with on this subject. Someone walks up to me and says they want to rip my scrotum off and stuff it into my mouth. I say I would prefer they not do that. They ask me why. I tell them that it would hurt enormously, so much so that I might drop dead from the shock, or from blood loss. They ask me why they should not do that. I tell them that if they attempt to do this, I will violently defend myself. They ask me why I would do that. I tell them that if given the choice I would go to just about any length to prevent the experience of great pain and death for as long as possible. They ask why. I tell them that pain and suffering are the worst experiences a person like myself can go through and something in me, not simply the certain knowledge of how badly I would turn out under the circumstances they had previously threatened, but an instinctive sense of self-preservation would motivate me to act even if I was in a state of depression or something which would make me prefer death or contemplate suicide. They then ask why I did not threaten them with the same mutilation upon first meeting them. I say that because I understand how badly that would hurt me, my sense of empathy makes me opposed to the idea of causing another person such grief. They ask why that is of any significance, or if I would because it would benefit me. I say that again, my empathy will cause me to seriously consider the consequences of my actions and that bringing harm to anyone would need to seriously outweigh the negative effects, and not just personally, because I will experience guilt and that is harmful to me. I offer to agree not to do this to them if they will make the same agreement, in the interest of not having to sleep with one eye open, a knife in each hand, with locks and chains over wherever I decide to lay my head at night.

All what you have done is explain how undesirable such an act is. If OM does not exist, then it cannot be wrong. Its not hard to understand.

So there it is. It's based on what you value; living over dying, health and harmony over pain and suffering, the idea of live and let live rather than paranoia and mistrust, security over fear, fulfillment over apathy, intellect over idiocy, rationality and reason over superstition and delusion. It's really sad how frequently the religious will be convinced that they are on one side of each of these and yet they're so far on the other it's amazing to those on the outside looking in just how far down the rabbit hole they are.

Again, you have just explained a preference. If OM does not exist, and i ripped your scrotum and shoved it in your mouth, i havent done anything wrong. You trying to defend yourself has absolutely nothing to do with the matter.

---

There is no such thing as a moral act.  Only what we perceive as moral. 

You cannot objectively define morals, you can only subjectively define them.  For example: Why is being gay wrong? 

"Because God Says so!" is a subjective answer.  Why is what god says so moral?  If God says "Murder your children" is it immoral to not murder your children?
"Because it's against nature!" is also a subjective answer.  Why is going against nature immoral?  If it's one's nature to kill, is it immoral NOT to kill then?
There's only subjective answers to the question.

It is not for me to define, that is why it is called OM. By being OM, it has nothing to do with what i think or how i can define it.

Also, it is not because God says so. It is not his opinion. Rather they derive from his nature.

Henry, Henry, Henry.

You keep saying 'show me OM, show me OM' and I keep fucking saying there IS NO GOD FUCKING DAMN OBJECTIVE MORALITY YOU JACKTARD. 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.

Plug any axiom you want into the machine and that becomes the 'zero' on your number line to determine net effect of your actions on whatever it is you've put there. You can swap that out with anything you want, you make a SUBJECTIVE call on what goes in there. That changes anything and everything that you do's effect. What works nicely for human well-being works horribly for bringing Yahweh to climax if that deity's ego is the subject of your morality. We decide which of those two is more important because of what we come to opine is of greater benefit to the self and/or others (even if they're made up and could give a fuck about us). Even if you could concretely determine what Have It Yahweh really wants and there was no cause for concern regarding contradictions and inconsistencies, that's an appeal to authority, that's trusting without reference or evidence that this source is in fact the all-knowing ultimate determinant of law and ethics which you have to SUBJECTIVELY decide is the true case, and is by nature unalterable and not subject to change which is just ASKING for trouble because we live in a practical reality and such an idea is preposterous on its face. I mean, I don't want to be the one asshole who pulls out the Hitler card, but for the love of fuck, we have empirical proof that deference to authority figures as a basis for personal morals is a recipe for worldwide catastrophe within a generation that is still somewhat alive today.

You seem to want to claim that a subjective basis for morality is meaningless without OM. I reject this premise outright not only because OM does not exist but because OM is in theory just as meaningless. You cannot say that OM is justified by the mere existence of a supreme authority figure. How then does that supreme authority figure justify anything it does? See how that works? Creating a fictional agent to solve the problem of a lower-ranking tier creates the infinite regress of 'what does this higher thing say'. That it's so common for theists to not see this has long since stopped being amusing. You can't justify getting out of bed in the morning by citing 'god' if the answer to 'What does god use to justify getting out of bed in the morning' is 'he doesn't need a justification'. The only 'justification' (I'm okay with calling it rationalization instead, it's just as good in this case because the opposition's position is ludicrous) for subjective morality is, if a person values personal comfort and is willing to make sacrifices for it, then a social contract can (and does) exist that is for the most part honored because of common goddamn fucking sense. You seeking a deeper meaning into it is not only foolhardy and laughable but it's a waste of time and that way lies madness, case in point. That's asking to get roped into this dictatorial appeal to authority with no sense of personal identity or decision-making or reflection or even intrinsic 'goodness' since that is willingly ignoring what will genuinely lead to human well-being given that it's the only sensible axiom at this time. Only, because you make that one critical choice to abdicate the remainder of your own moral responsibility, that makes you a piece of shit morally. There's no getting around that, you're guilty and can't weasel your way out of it any more than your assumed authority figure.

[Little Henry]

If that is the case, then it seems incoherent to condemn such acts.

Because we can't have the subjective opinion that it's important to condemn such acts?

It essentially means nothing. If OM does not exist, then you are just expressing your preference, just like 1 person expresses their preference for blondes over brunette or NFL over golf. 
You are not making a statement with an intent for it to be a fact are you? So who really cares.
Or are you?

We know taste in food is subjective, if ISIS members ate a food you disliked, would you condemn them and say them eating and enjoying that food is wrong?

I subjectively feel more strongly about murder preferences than food preferences.

Who cares. If OM does not exist, then who cares if you like pizza or burgers or the other way around. Thats all it really means.

So if morality is also subjective, why would you say it is wrong what ISIS members do when they rape little girls?

Yes, my subjective morality obligates me to do so.

But if OM does not exist, it cannot be wrong. Just undesirable. 

I mean, you will never say it is wrong if they eat and enjoy a food you dislike, so why you say they are doing something wrong if they rape a little girl?

Yeah, the difference between those two things, that seems to be a tough one for Christians unless they have a God commanding them not to do it...which he doesn't, btw.

?????

If you really believed morality is subjective, then when you hear that they rape little girls, you would respond in a way such as "well, i find that disgusting, but its not wrong".

How did you jump from morality being subjective to it being nonexistent?

Because if something is subjective, it cannot be wrong. Just undesirable as best.

Taste in movies is subjective. If i liked a movie you dont, am i wrong for liking that movie?

Is that what you believe?

Of course not, and I don't believe that you really think we do.

Personally, I believe in an objective basis for morality given an axiom like 'what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad', but if you can't accept that axiom, we can't agree on a basis for morality. Moral reasoning involves logic, and logic is grounded in axioms. We can reach the same conclusions with different axioms, but the process of getting to those conclusions will be different, and that we'll reach the same ones is not a given.


ISIS is using a different axiom as the basis for their moral reasoning than I do. Is your axiom more like theirs or more like mine? I can accept mine as a brute fact of our nature as a reasoning social species. If you want to tack a 'because God' onto it, we can still be on the same page in our moral conclusions.

But this just begs the question. You are talking about prudence or prudential value here. Let me give an example.

If you want to be fit and healthy, then you ought to eat fruit, veges, exercise, dont smoke, drink etc etc. However is it a fact that you ought to be fit and healthy? If you are not fit and healthy have you done something wrong? No.

All you have done is begged the question or assumed the end goal ("what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad'") and described such as acts that dont achieve these as being bad or wrong.

These things that you mentioned "what promotes human health, liberty, and well-being is good and what diminishes those things is bad' are just preferences, desires. They are not facts that humans OUGHT to achieve or do. You cannot derive an ought from an IS.

Also, you have made a value judgements,ie good and bad. Why are these things good or bad? Sure they maybe desirable, but how do you cross the bridge and say they are good?

If i want to maximise sufferring and eliminate the human species, have i done something bad?

---

Empathy - "the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

How does empathy make such moral acts right or wrong? Just because you share or understand another's feeling, doesnr make something right or wrong.

Okay, so apparently "empathy" would not be your answer to my question regarding how it is you think you obtained the correct objective morality.  But do you mean to answer my question?  You claim to be in possession of the one and only correct objective morality.  I've asked you how you arrived at that. On what authority do you make such a claim?

Let me ask you

If i told you me and my friends have been raping and torturing a child for fun for the past 6 months, have we been doing something wrong? Like if i say 1+1=3 wrong? LIke if i say the earth is flat wrong? or if i say the sun rotates around the earth wrong?

Or do you only find me and my friends acts distasteful or undesirable....like if we told you we have been eating a fruit you really hate?

This should give you an idea where i am coming from?

[Amarok]

Also, it is not because God says so. It is not his opinion. Rather they derive from his nature.

Circular reasoning gods nature or decisions based on his nature does not make something good

[Little Henry]

So when you see ISIS blind fold 2 men having sex in each other and throw them off a building or when you see ISIS capture a 6 year old girl and rape her do you react and say  "that is wrong what they are doing, it just seems so obvious it is wrong, like 1+1=3 is wrong. But hang on, i am actually sufferring from a delusion when i think this. Evolution has fooled me into thinking it is wrong, it is not wrong, i find it udesirable, but certainly not wrong. Move on, there is nothing to see here."

I mean if OM does not exist, you should really react the same way when you hear these stories about ISIS as you would when you hear one of your mates eat a food you dislike...i mean, if taste in food is subjective, if morality is also subjective, why have stronger thoughts about 1 and not the other?

Is this how you react?

Seriously?  You're presenting your conclusion in the example of the ISIS fighters raping and killing as evidence that you and you alone are in position of the one true objective morality?  Isn't that bar rather low as a test?

So when you see ISIS do these things, it doesnt seem obvious that they are doing something wrong like when someone says 1+1=3?

[Amarok]

Treating subjective morality as question of aesthetics is just dumb and shows how clueless the OP of this thread is

[Little Henry]

Also, it is not because God says so. It is not his opinion. Rather they derive from his nature.

Circular reasoning gods nature or decisions based on his nature does not make something good

Its not. When we say God, we mean a maximally great being. A trait of a MGB is omnibenevolence. Perfectly good, perfectly holy, just etc etc.

God's commands flow this nature of omnibenevolence.

---

Treating subjective morality as question of aesthetics is just dumb and shows how clueless the OP of this thread is

Why? aesthetics  is purely subjective.

If morality is also subjective, then why treat them differently?

[The Grand Nudger]

It's also a fact that most of us have decided that rape is bad enough to have cops kill you if you don't surrender, and if you subjectively don't agree with that assessment, it won't keep you out of jail. I think there are objectively better and worse ways to run a society, and one that let's rapists do as they will is worse than one that constrains them, all other things being equal. I think that the good of society overrides the freedom of the rapist. But we have to agree that society is better off with rape being illegal to agree on this. I think it's the natural conclusion for anyone who is empathetic and can see how such a society is in their own best interests; but if we don't share that, you're going to reach a different conclusion. That's the subjective part.

That's the direction that objective moral theorists go, as well.  They contend that there are moral facts of the matter - that the moral schema itself is rooted in objectivity...but that our moral agency is subjective.. our moral competency compromised.

@Henry.

I don't see what a god adds to the discussion of objective morality, it's certainly not a requirement. Often enough, it seems as though god belief is a major impediment to objective morality, and to people acting in accordance with an objectively grounded moral schema. To people doing what gods will, rather than what is right.

God belief is, at least, one way to get a good man to do a bad thing. It seems to be a part of our subjective agency, a direct source of moral incompetence.

[Amarok]

Circular reasoning gods nature or decisions based on his nature does not make something good

Its not. When we say God, we mean a maximally great being. A trait of a MGB is omnibenevolence. Perfectly good, perfectly holy, just etc etc.

God's commands flow this nature of omnibenevolence.

Yes it is

And appealing to the ontological argument doesn't help you