Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[RoadRunner79]

It's ok,..as long as no harm is done or intended right? We could also return to harm, that is not immoral if you like. If you want to discuss, I would suggest that you cut out the sophism, and try reasoning through it. You don't get to immoral through harm alone (it may not even be present). Correlation does not imply causation, or mean that it is the basis.

[Brian37]

It's ok,..as long as no harm is done or intended right?  We could also return to harm, that is not immoral if you like.  If you want to discuss, I would suggest that you cut out the sophism, and try reasoning through it.  You don't get to immoral through harm alone (it may not even be present). Correlation does not imply causation, or mean that it is the basis.

Please lecture everyone here on morality, when your old book of mythology has God taking it out on KIDS over a beef he has with an adult king. Please lecture us on morality when God allows mass genocide in a flood which would mean that innocent men and women and KIDS would have drowned. I am glad those fictitious stories are not true, but is is sad that in this day and age people believe them, and far worse find them to be moral.

If that is the best an allegedly "all powerful" "all loving" God can do being perfect, sorry, he sucks at his job. I think the better option as to why people wrote that crap was because it reflected the very tribal times they lived in where loyalty to the rulers was much more of a demand.

[Astonished]

Khem, if you did say we're not removing our subjective natures from it, that's all you had to say, we're done. Thank you for finally making that clear.

We may standardize things and call them 'law' but that doesn't mean it's the correct, or best, approach and even those who agree about objective morality can disagree with the application of these laws and penalties on the same grounds. So the entire statement you made about it is utterly irrelevant. If you already agree about the above statement, breath is wasted going further.

[JackRussell]

Some people like harm, it can be consensual. Personally I don't get it but, well...

Again one can make a subjective moral decision and then assess a morally objective action.

If I like having my balls nailed to a plank of wood, that may cause harm, even irreparable, but is it wrong?

I don't think it would be a good thing for me, but another person can validly disagree.

It causes no harm to others. It is against wellbeing, but affords the person pleasure at no apparent cost to another.

Morality is difficult, subjective but not without moral actions being objectively defined.

If there was an absolute moral objectivity, one could not explain sociopaths or psychopaths. Evolutionary speaking these extremes are rather trivial.

NO GODS REQUIRED

[Brian37]

Some people like harm, it can be consensual. Personally I don't get it but, well...

Again one can make a subjective moral decision and then assess a morally objective action.

If I like having my balls nailed to a plank of wood, that may cause harm, even irreparable, but is it wrong?

I don't think it would be a good thing for me, but another person can validly disagree.

It causes no harm to others. It is against wellbeing, but affords the person pleasure at no apparent cost to another.

Morality is difficult, subjective but not without moral actions being objectively defined.

If there was an absolute moral objectivity, one could not explain sociopaths or psychopaths. Evolutionary speaking these extremes are rather trivial.

NO GODS REQUIRED

Morals are certainly not absolute. Slavery was once considered moral, but not to the slaves themselves. Women in the west would not consider being forced to dress in a tent moral, but the men in Afghanistan do consider it moral.

But our artificial constructs we create as humans, still do not change our species evolutionary reaction to harm to ourselves as individuals. If you are forced against your consent or physically harmed against your consent, you will react to it, either by flight or fight. 

I think viewing human behavior in natural terms will be a far better guide than old mythology. It would be a secular version of the "golden rule" but with a slight twist, "Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself."

[JackRussell]

Some people like harm, it can be consensual. Personally I don't get it but, well...

Again one can make a subjective moral decision and then assess a morally objective action.

If I like having my balls nailed to a plank of wood, that may cause harm, even irreparable, but is it wrong?

I don't think it would be a good thing for me, but another person can validly disagree.

It causes no harm to others. It is against wellbeing, but affords the person pleasure at no apparent cost to another.

Morality is difficult, subjective but not without moral actions being objectively defined.

If there was an absolute moral objectivity, one could not explain sociopaths or psychopaths. Evolutionary speaking these extremes are rather trivial.

NO GODS REQUIRED

Morals are certainly not absolute. Slavery was once considered moral, but not to the slaves themselves. Women in the west would not consider being forced to dress in a tent moral, but the men in Afghanistan do consider it moral.

But our artificial constructs we create as humans, still do not change our species evolutionary reaction to harm to ourselves as individuals. If you are forced against your consent or physically harmed against your consent, you will react to it, either by flight or fight. 

I think viewing human behavior in natural terms will be a far better guide than old mythology. It would be a secular version of the "golden rule" but with a slight twist, "Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself."

I agree, If I misspoke I apologise.

I think morality and ethics are situational. I do not accept moral absolutes.

I am happy however to consider decisions on moral actions as absolutely right or wrong. It is the action that is judged, not an overarching idea of morality.

[RoadRunner79]

It's ok,..as long as no harm is done or intended right?  We could also return to harm, that is not immoral if you like.  If you want to discuss, I would suggest that you cut out the sophism, and try reasoning through it.  You don't get to immoral through harm alone (it may not even be present). Correlation does not imply causation, or mean that it is the basis.

Please lecture everyone here on morality, when your old book of mythology has God taking it out on KIDS over a beef he has with an adult king. Please lecture us on morality when God allows mass genocide in a flood which would mean that innocent men and women and KIDS would have drowned. I am glad those fictitious stories are not true, but is is sad that in this day and age people believe them, and far worse find them to be moral.

If that is the best an allegedly "all powerful" "all loving" God can do being perfect, sorry, he sucks at his job. I think the better option as to why people wrote that crap was because it reflected the very tribal times they lived in where loyalty to the rulers was much more of a demand.

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?   I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?

[JackRussell]

Please lecture everyone here on morality, when your old book of mythology has God taking it out on KIDS over a beef he has with an adult king. Please lecture us on morality when God allows mass genocide in a flood which would mean that innocent men and women and KIDS would have drowned. I am glad those fictitious stories are not true, but is is sad that in this day and age people believe them, and far worse find them to be moral.

If that is the best an allegedly "all powerful" "all loving" God can do being perfect, sorry, he sucks at his job. I think the better option as to why people wrote that crap was because it reflected the very tribal times they lived in where loyalty to the rulers was much more of a demand.

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?   I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?

Good question. Who knows the correct basis for assessing morality. I am saying it can only be the self and an understanding of empathy. I absolutely admit that doesn't address the problem of hard solipsism, but I don't know where that gets anybody.

I am sick and tired of morality as abstracts and I ain't no philosopher. Practical morality seems obviously secular, even to a well versed theist. Unless you subscribe to a divine command theory, because there are many biblically mandated things that are immoral to me. The it's just a game of he said, she said.

Name me a moral judgement that a theist could make that an un-beiliver couldn't?

I dare you.

[Astonished]

I keep being accused of misunderstanding.  So I want to make sure I address you properly.   Are you trying to change the subject, or is this a poisoning the well attempt?   I believe that you hold to a subjective ontology of morality, so are you judging on the correct basis, or do you think that you are the basis?

Good question. Who knows the correct basis for assessing morality. I am saying it can only be the self and an understanding of empathy. I absolutely admit that doesn't address the problem of hard solipsism, but I don't know where that gets anybody.

I am sick and tired of morality as abstracts and I ain't no philosopher. Practical morality seems obviously secular, even to a well versed theist. Unless you subscribe to a divine command theory, because there are many biblically mandated things that are immoral to me. The it's just a game of he said, she said.

Name me a moral judgement that a theist could make that an un-beiliver couldn't?

I dare you.

LOL, I love that challenge. Hitchens always said it best, but I loved his follow-up; name something you could only get someone to do via their religious beliefs.

[downbeatplumb]

It is not immoral because Jack did not intend harm, however Jack can still feel awful because intentionally or not he caused harm.

At that point the harm is the issue rather than the intent.

I can feel sorry for my wife when she stubbs her toe, I had no part in the stubbing but I have empathy.

Keep in mind, that I was just examining the reasons given by the other poster.  In doing so, I'm not making any assumptions, beyond what they had said (because it causes harm, and that you can equate harm and immorality).

I agree, that most people are going to come to a similar conclusion as you did.  And thus come to the outcome that the syllogism is wrong. While harm may normally be involved in what we call immoral, harm alone, isn't a sufficient basis.  Intent also comes into play.  I would say that the intent is more important in the matter than the harm (actualized or not). Would you agree?

What of a man who is cheating on his wife and ensures that she never finds out.  There is no harm done (physical or emotional). There is not an intent to harm, which is why he keeps it from her. But there is betrayal and disloyalty.  Is this immoral?

It is wrong in my mind because it opens the possibility to hurt for the other half and makes the introduction of sexual diseases more likely.

In fact I know a serial adulteror who explained his reasoning thusly. He weighed the concequences of his actions against the amount of enjoyment he would get and if the fun outweighed the concequences he would fill his boots.

I think what he did was wrong, but he seemed to enjoy it and the women lined up to be the other woman. He was an ex swimwear model for speedo so that may have had something to do with it.

But I'm curious as to what difference a god makes to the situation, how would there being a god be different from there not being one?