Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[The Grand Nudger]

Your post are showing signs of degression.  Attacking the person, changing the subject, and trying to attack arguments I'm not making.   This is not part of intelligent discussion. 

How would you know what an intelligent conversation is?  

There is a big difference, in claiming, that there is "some connection" between harm and morals, and claiming that they are the basis for it.Which is it, that you are claiming to be the axiom?   I also notice a connection between humans and morality.   And while we at it, can you confirm exactly what statement or premise, that you are claiming to be axiomatic?  While your rhetoric and sophism game may be good (i assume that is the "game" you where referring to earlier), many words, is not a substitute for substance and logical thinking.

In my experience, people complain about sophism when they've been completely stymied.  There's more than just "some connection", ofc, yet another example of your disingenuous nature.  The connection is inescapable and fundamental to all moral systems.  They all refer to harm.  I keep telling you that, we keep seeing how every example I offer, or you offer, or bob down the street offers....refers inexorably back to harm.  What is the -point- in attempting to maintain a disagreement on this? 

And if you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, and just want to shout down everything I say, without addressing it.  Fine, I look towards some smarter atheist to reason with.

I'm "shouting" because your posts indicate a person who is hard of hearing.  Your questions have been answered, ad naus.  Your objections have been coopted ad naus.  You have nothing intelligent to say on the subject of morality, objective or otherwise.

[JackRussell]

Ok

Define a morality that comes from a an exterior superior being, and then define how you know it's moral?

Must include justification for slavery and genocide.

The lack of god ideas presented work, albeit imperfectly. The omniscient god's version should work perfectly.

No fancy smanshy philosophy required, this should be trivially easy.

[RoadRunner79]

Attacking the person, changing the subject, and trying to attack arguments I'm not making. This is not part of intelligent discussion. 

How would you know what an intelligent conversation is?  

Do you disagree with what I said above? You did ok for a while, I'll give you credit for that.

However if this is what you think intelligent discussion is about.... I'll seek elsewhere!

[SteveII]

---

It's as transparent as your objections which each, themselves, referred back to harm.  Now you think that you can object by complaining that it wasn't written on a cave wall somewhere?  "Some connection" is all that needed to be shown, since my use of harm as axiomatic is based precisely on the fact that morality and harm are inescapably connected.  Harm is the foundation of all moral systems, that's what makes it axiomatic, that's what makes it a properly basic belief.  No system is complete by simple reference to an axiom..that's why it's called a system.  What moral principle am I smuggling in..have I ever referred to anything other than some relationship to harm?  Have I been less than explicit in anything?

Isn't this a precious freudian slip?  I deliver sarcasm because your comments have been -ridiculous-...they deserve them.  

If he wished to avoid emotional harm to his wife he shouldn't have cheated on her.  After having cheated on her, if faced with a field of exclusively sub-optimal moral decisions, he chooses the most harmful but personally convenient of the field..he is compounding past immorality with present and continued immorality.  At what point do two wrongs make a right?  

OFC I do, since I'm simply explaining to you that your own moral system is also based on harm.  It doesn't matter that what you believe is a ridiculous ghost story, that ridiculous ghost story is the backdrop for a moral system based upon harm.  I don't have to believe in ghost stories for that to be demonstrably true, and your ghost stories being objectively immoral doesn;t change the fact that the attempt was maid.  As I said -waaaaay- way back.  Godism moved on objective, harm based morality like a bitch, but couldn't get there.  

Showing that all moral considerations reduce to some comment on a relationship to harm is -exactly- how one demonstrates the accuracy and utility of their axiom.  You literally can't talk about morality without talking about harm.  No other thing in your moral system, or in anyone else's, has meaning aside from that referent.  

OFC you made it up................?  If you're not talking about harm in any sense meaningful to morality, then you aren't talking about morality, you're playing with words.  You could have stopped, or never did it..since you obviously understand that it was disingenuous...but that's just the kind of guy you are, I guess.  What's the harm, amiright?  

You're not examining any claim of mine.  You're denying what cannot be denied, attempting to change the subject, and flailing around with words and concepts you don't understand.  You wouldn't know objective morality, moral agency, moral desert, moral compulsion, moral reasoning, harm, or virtue if they jumped up and bit you in the ass...and this is why you cannot competently engage with me, anyone else, or yourself.... on the subject.  You are literally incapable.

---

Your post are showing signs of degression.  Attacking the person, changing the subject, and trying to attack arguments I'm not making.   This is not part of intelligent discussion. 

There is a big difference, in claiming, that there is "some connection" between harm and morals, and claiming that they are the basis for it.Which is it, that you are claiming to be the axiom?   I also notice a connection between humans and morality.   And while we at it, can you confirm exactly what statement or premise, that you are claiming to be axiomatic?  While your rhetoric and sophism game may be good (i assume that is the "game" you where referring to earlier), many words, is not a substitute for substance and logical thinking.

And if you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, and just want to shout down everything I say, without addressing it.  Fine, I look towards some smarter atheist to reason with.

The bluster covers the thin reasoning. He does not want to get anywhere near the fact that there exist a basic objective morality built into every human being that is not so cut and dried as his 'harm axiom'.

[The Grand Nudger]

......................................................................? I'm the only person in thread arguing for an objective morality possessed or accessible by human beings, so?

LOL, this, apparently, is what happens when you go off whatever "atheists say" script these jackasses are working from - they have a stroke. One thinks I must be smuggling something, somewhere, but can;t point it out, and the other thinks I'm arguing against or omitting a basic objective morality, by arguing for a basic objective morality.

[Amarok]

......................................................................?  I'm the only person in thread arguing for an objective morality possessed or accessible by human beings, so?

LOL, this, apparently, is what happens when you go off whatever "atheists say" script these jackasses are working from - they have a stroke.  One thinks I must be smuggling something, somewhere, but can;t point it out, and the other thinks I'm arguing against or omitting a basic objective morality, by arguing for a basic objective morality.

This is why I generally don't debate theists on morality .For the same reason I don't argue with a broken record .

[JackRussell]

Your post are showing signs of degression.  Attacking the person, changing the subject, and trying to attack arguments I'm not making.   This is not part of intelligent discussion. 

There is a big difference, in claiming, that there is "some connection" between harm and morals, and claiming that they are the basis for it.Which is it, that you are claiming to be the axiom?   I also notice a connection between humans and morality.   And while we at it, can you confirm exactly what statement or premise, that you are claiming to be axiomatic?  While your rhetoric and sophism game may be good (i assume that is the "game" you where referring to earlier), many words, is not a substitute for substance and logical thinking.

And if you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, and just want to shout down everything I say, without addressing it.  Fine, I look towards some smarter atheist to reason with.

The bluster covers the thin reasoning. He does not want to get anywhere near the fact that there exist a basic objective morality built into every human being that is not so cut and dried as his 'harm axiom'.

Explain sociopaths and psychopaths then? Evolution has a pretty good stab at this.

I am Bi-Polar, give me the God's honest truth on the hell I've lived through.

And I still submit that you and I are more moral than the god of your book and the god you think you talk to.

If we met, we would probably have a nice time and agree on many things. Why would you think I think that?

[RoadRunner79]

Your post are showing signs of degression.  Attacking the person, changing the subject, and trying to attack arguments I'm not making.   This is not part of intelligent discussion. 

There is a big difference, in claiming, that there is "some connection" between harm and morals, and claiming that they are the basis for it.Which is it, that you are claiming to be the axiom?   I also notice a connection between humans and morality.   And while we at it, can you confirm exactly what statement or premise, that you are claiming to be axiomatic?  While your rhetoric and sophism game may be good (i assume that is the "game" you where referring to earlier), many words, is not a substitute for substance and logical thinking.

And if you don't want to have an intelligent conversation, and just want to shout down everything I say, without addressing it.  Fine, I look towards some smarter atheist to reason with.

The bluster covers the thin reasoning. He does not want to get anywhere near the fact that there exist a basic objective morality built into every human being that is not so cut and dried as his 'harm axiom'.

See I don't think this discussion had anything to do with the moral argument and an objective morality.   It seemed more about epistemology and how we know.

The other thing to watch for, is I think I seen some equivocation with the term objective.  It seems like I often run into the other meaning of the term about being able to make an objective statement.  And that is not the sense in which the moral argument is using it.  I'm not necessarily faulting the instances where I believe this was the case, and I didn't bring it up, because it wasn't pertinent to the discussion.  But it is something to be aware of, because some do try to equivocate the two meanings.

I had seen an example a little while ago, which I think aptly demonstrates the two (even if the original was used in a slightly different way).

You have an un-opend gift at a birthday party.   A number of people inspect the package, and give an educated guess to what they think it may be.  There are a few different conclusions as to what is in the package.  Some good, some just wild guesses and obviously off the mark a lot of people come to the same conclusion.
Now apart from perhaps those with prior knowledge, no one can make an objective statement as to what is inside the gift.  They can provide their reasons for their conclusions, and some may be correct, some may be close, some completely wrong (even if the reasoning is sound).  However, we can say that what is in the package is objective and not subjective.  The subjective statements and reasons for what the gift is, don't change the fact of what it actually is.

[Brian37]

The bluster covers the thin reasoning. He does not want to get anywhere near the fact that there exist a basic objective morality built into every human being that is not so cut and dried as his 'harm axiom'.

Explain sociopaths and psychopaths then? Evolution has a pretty good stab at this.

I am Bi-Polar, give me the God's honest truth on the hell I've lived through.

And I still submit that you and I are more moral than the god of your book and the god you think you talk to.

If we met, we would probably have a nice time and agree on many things. Why would you think I think that?

To be fair, the planet is bi polar. It has two poles . HA I MADE A FUNNY! 

[The Grand Nudger]

@Jack

Interesting thing about that, and while it's important to say that conclusive findings regarding a nuerological theory of sociopathy are far, far from robust - a recent fmri study of something like 100 inmates showed that areas of the brain associated with empathy both failed to "light" and failed to make the expected connections to areas associated with decision making in subjects considered to have an average or normal psychological profile.  It's important to note here that this would not mean they were incapable of morality or moral reasoning (objective or otherwise)..but that, at the very least, they were disadvantaged.  Their subjective agency was either damaged or under/abnormally developed.  More than that, the higher they scored into the realm of psycopathy, the more likely the fmri was to show the parts of their brains associated with pleasure lit.  

It appears that some of these poor motherfuckers may have permanently crossed wires. Their "built in system" is either missing or malfunctioning. OTOH, there have probably been a fair few people diagnosed with either that had no crossed wires, no damage or chemical imbalance, just assholes.