Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Astreja]

Nope.  I subjectively do not want to be raped or murdered, nor do I want it to happen to others because I can imagine the pain that it would cause them.

"Objective": You keep using that word.  I do not think it means what you think it means.

Which is just as valid as the offender who subjectively wants to rape you.

If their is no objective right or wrong, then its just preferences and desires.

You not wanting to be raped is just as valid as the rapist who wants to rape you.

Objective means it is true or right regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

It *is* all preferences and desires.  There is no getting away from that.  Fortunately, in stable and successful cultures the vast majority of people tend to see rapists as criminals.

Objective morality is a totally useless hypothetical concept because it has no more effect on actual behaviour than does subjective morality.  It's the philosophical equivalent of a Trojan horse whereby believers such as yourself attempt to smuggle your god into an argument.  I don't see your alleged god zapping would-be rapists in the crotch and burning off their testicles, do you?

[Amarok]

I disagree that it's useless. But I agree any idiot . Anyone who relies on Michael Ruse as a serious thinker (and theist darling) is not worth taking seriously . But I get where subjectivists are coming from.

[Little Henry]

1. have read all of Ruse i'll ever need to he's wrong

2. You have said relevance to anything I have said repeating what have already said does not help you

3. For the love of Kermit the frog learn term terms

http://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/11727

Summed up I don't care 28 pages have proven how much you suck at defending objective morality . And this is coming from a moral realist

Goodness is grounded in Gods nature and his commands flow from that.

For the love of pastry this DOES NOT DEFEAT THE PROBLEM   it only moves it back idiot.

Which is just as valid as the offender who subjectively wants to rape you.

If their is no objective right or wrong, then its just preferences and desires.

You not wanting to be raped is just as valid as the rapist who wants to rape you.

Objective means it is true or right regardless of what anyone thinks about it.

It *is* all preferences and desires.  There is no getting away from that.  Fortunately, in stable and successful cultures the vast majority of people tend to see rapists as criminals.

Objective morality is a totally useless hypothetical concept because it has no more effect on actual behaviour than does subjective morality.  It's the philosophical equivalent of a Trojan horse whereby believers such as yourself attempt to smuggle your god into an argument.  I don't see your alleged god zapping would-be rapists in the crotch and burning off their testicles, do you?

Ok, so therefore if you got raped, while it maybe undesirable to you, the rapist hasnt done anything wrong. Is this your view?
Something that is undesirable doesnt make it wrong.

Who cares if it makes societies and cultures more stable. Still doesnt make it right or wrong.

It is not useless, because we all live our lives as if OM exists, hence that is why it is a proper basic belief.

[Astreja]

Ok, so therefore if you got raped, while it maybe undesirable to you, the rapist hasnt done anything wrong. Is this your view?
Something that is undesirable doesnt make it wrong.

Congratulations, Henry!  You have gotten my view completely ass-backwards.

In the eyes of the rapist, rape is okay.

In my eyes, however, it is definitely wrong.  I actually consider rape to be a capital offense and believe that people have the right to defend themselves with egregious lethal force to stop an attempted rape.

Who cares if it makes societies and cultures more stable.

What is morality good for, if not to make societies and cultures more stable?

[Little Henry]

Ok, so therefore if you got raped, while it maybe undesirable to you, the rapist hasnt done anything wrong. Is this your view?
Something that is undesirable doesnt make it wrong.

Congratulations, Henry!  You have gotten my view completely ass-backwards.

In the eyes of the rapist, rape is okay.

In my eyes, however, it is definitely wrong.  I actually consider rape to be a capital offense and believe that people have the right to defend themselves with egregious lethal force to stop an attempted rape.

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

Who cares if it makes societies and cultures more stable.

What is morality good for, if not to make societies and cultures more stable?

Again, if morality is subjective, then that is just a preference, desire......not a fact

[Thumpalumpacus]

Saying one group has X attribute that gives it an exemption is preposterous if the concern is the consequences and not the identity or characteristic of the agents involved.

When did I say any such thing?

[JackRussell]

I fully admit this a paraphrase of a discussion I heard between Tracie Harris and Matt Dillahunty, but it does closely follow my own thoughts.

Moral assessments are subjective. I may subjectively decide that rape is fine, but if I carry out that action my behaviour is objectively morally wrong as I have inflicted harm on another. My opinion is unimportant, it is the action that holds moral weight and with it societal consequences.

Some moral assessments are very hard: abortion, euthanasia etc; A secular system seeks to refine and better understand the problem. Divine morality is just unchanging fiat, with an imperfect human thinking he can understand the moral pronouncements of a god and declare them good. How could they know?

This OM +god is another god of the gaps argument trying to push god into a convenient area because it is a difficult discussion.

[Little Henry]

I fully admit this a paraphrase of a discussion I heard between Tracie Harris and Matt Dillahunty, but it does closely follow my own thoughts.

Moral assessments are subjective. I may subjectively decide that rape is fine, but if I carry out that action my behaviour is objectively morally wrong as I have inflicted harm on another. My opinion is unimportant, it is the action that holds moral weight and with it societal consequences.

Some moral assessments are very hard: abortion, euthanasia etc; A secular system seeks to refine and better understand the problem. Divine morality is just unchanging fiat, with an imperfect human thinking he can understand the moral pronouncements of a god and declare them good. How could they know?

This OM +god is another god of the gaps argument trying to push god into a convenient area because it is a difficult discussion.

Ok, so you subscribe to objective morality?

[JackRussell]

I fully admit this a paraphrase of a discussion I heard between Tracie Harris and Matt Dillahunty, but it does closely follow my own thoughts.

Moral assessments are subjective. I may subjectively decide that rape is fine, but if I carry out that action my behaviour is objectively morally wrong as I have inflicted harm on another. My opinion is unimportant, it is the action that holds moral weight and with it societal consequences.

Some moral assessments are very hard: abortion, euthanasia etc; A secular system seeks to refine and better understand the problem. Divine morality is just unchanging fiat, with an imperfect human thinking he can understand the moral pronouncements of a god and declare them good. How could they know?

This OM +god is another god of the gaps argument trying to push god into a convenient area because it is a difficult discussion.

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.

[Astonished]

Saying one group has X attribute that gives it an exemption is preposterous if the concern is the consequences and not the identity or characteristic of the agents involved.

When did I say any such thing?

Wasn't responding to your comments about anything, simply clarifying the position you called me on since you didn't seem to understand what I was getting at. Just disputing Henry's pathetic attempt to say god has a unique privilege to not be culpable for anything and yet the rest of us are.

Henry, I really don't see what's so difficult about this. If you value being alive you can't really fall back on any axiom for morality than well-being. To value the idea of a god or an afterlife more is to express a backward value toward life because they're in direct conflict as life is utterly meaningless in the face of a theistic theology that makes these promises. Since you're better off dead you can hardly argue that morality itself has any meaning, objective or otherwise, since this life and everything in it have to be completely pointless. None of it has any place in the discussion. The fact that there's zero reason to even believe any of that in the first place just rams it home even harder.

If we didn't exist, there's no universal law like gravity that says right and wrong even exist, let alone that x action constitutes either. We have to decide on a value, namely well-being, if we want to remain alive personally or as a species, otherwise we'll slowly go extinct burning witches, killing cats that would otherwise help prevent the spread of plague rats, and breed completely out of control until we all stave to death. Luckily we have certain instincts that make us fear death (odd how god would program that into us too when it's supposed to be the most wonderful thing, hm?) and pain so gravitating toward well-being as our axiom for determining how we ought to behave is also practically instinctive, but for the imposition of ill-fitting gears in our mental machinery that religion and indoctrination introduces.

To fail to acknowledge this is to open the door to nothing but answers like 'because god said so' and the absolutely deplorable precept of 'do as I say, not as I do' as the only lesson to contemplate in regards to what actions to take. Maybe I can't say with absolute authority (not that it would matter either way) that those are wrong in a cosmic sense, but you can't argue that those don't objectively result in far more harm to human well-being than not, because they do. And the fact that not even theists believing in the same god can agree on their own derivative morals should be more than enough to demolish your argument about deferring to an absolute authority, since how can an authority claim to hold this knowledge and be the paragon of all morality when it fails to be clear?