Objective morality as a proper basic belief

[Little Henry]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

[ignoramus]

Hi matey.
Since this is your first post, please go to the introductions section and tell us a bit about yourself so we can welcome you properly.

This topic as been done to death here. You may want to do a quick search.

Remember, as atheists, we have no agenda to convince anybody of anything.
If you do not like our science based responses, your beef is with the science not us, the messengers!

Hope you stay with us.......but...

(Even the word "proper" is highly subjective!)

[Jesster]

At this point I am prepared to start rolling my eyes at every belief that involves the words "properly" and "basic" in that specific order. It's become a nearly perfect synonym to "complete bullshit" at this point to me because of how it's always used. You may think that using those words together is making your argument appear more special, but it is in fact doing exactly the opposite.

On the other hand, it's the perfect red flag to inform me that it's not worth getting into, so thank you for following that herd so uniformly.

[downbeatplumb]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

What you have to realise is that because you and all the people you know feel one way about something does not make it true for the whole world for the whole of history.
Morality is entirely subjective and down to the society you live in at the time.
Lets take your example of raping a small girl.
This is being done now in the name of god in ISIS controlled areas, they take the girls of infidels and it is their holy duty to rape them.
In that society it is doing gods work and so is a moral duty.
Subjective.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/...index.html

[Little Henry]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

What you have to realise is that because you and all the people you know feel one way about something does not make it true for the whole world for the whole of history.
Morality is entirely subjective and down to the society you live in at the time.
Lets take your example of raping a small girl.
This is being done now in the name of god in ISIS controlled areas, they take the girls of infidels and it is their holy duty to rape them.
In that society it is doing gods work and so is a moral duty.
Subjective.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/...index.html

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

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?

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

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?

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".

Is that what you believe?

[Whateverist]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

You're overlooking some things.  Indeed with taste preferences nothing rides on it which directly affects me if you eat something I wouldn't.  There are no facts involved in what one should or shouldn't enjoy eating.  With conduct toward others what you do can very much affect others.  And there are facts regarding what you should or shouldn't do to others. But those facts aren't written by God, they are codified in laws enforced by men.  Morals are the sentiments which modify our actions; laws are the consensus of societal agreement of what will or will not be tolerated.  You might like to yell at Jeffrey Dahmer that he is a monster but I wouldn't.  I have no more expectation that anything useful would come of that than I have that my preferences in food will motivate your choices.  I don't have a reasonable expectation of finding common moral ground with Jeffrey Dahmer.  But I do have confidence that moral consensus which shapes the laws of the land will stop him and that is good enough for me.

If there is any objectivity to morality it comes through consensus, not through God.  And why wouldn't there be substantial moral agreement?  We are shaped as much by nurture as nature and we are highly social animals.  Long eons of living socially may even have instilled propensities for some values in our very nature.

---

What you have to realise is that because you and all the people you know feel one way about something does not make it true for the whole world for the whole of history.
Morality is entirely subjective and down to the society you live in at the time.
Lets take your example of raping a small girl.
This is being done now in the name of god in ISIS controlled areas, they take the girls of infidels and it is their holy duty to rape them.
In that society it is doing gods work and so is a moral duty.
Subjective.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/...index.html

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

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?

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

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?

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".

Is that what you believe?

What seems incoherent is your claim that it is unreasonable to expect agreement morally (my bolded) unless god.  God is uncertain, but substantial moral agreement is common place.  You can't know that god is required for that to be so.  Like me, you just know that it is so.  Your "how could it be otherwise?" won't win you any arguments here.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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

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?

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

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?

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".

Is that what you believe?

Where this falls down, of course, is that having food isn't the same as rape.  I find pizza - in all forms - to be revolting and anathema to decent people.  But when you or anyone else eats a pizza, you aren't harming anyone.  You can't seriously expect us to consider that gustutatory preferences are on the same moral level as the pain and suffering that accompany the rape of a child.

You and your ilk also routinely make the mistake that 'objective morality' and 'universal morality' are the same thing.  That morality is subjective is a fact sustained by observation and the history of our species.  We no longer, for example, toss an unwanted or malformed infant on the local rubbish tip, but a Roman mum who did so would be behaving morally.  Morality varies from time to time and even from place to place in the current era.  If what you mean when you say 'objective morality' were the case, then the ancient Assyrians would have the same moral strictures in place as the modern Japanese, who would follow the same moral code Dutch Jews  in 1656 (look it up).

The fact that moral rules are clearly shaped by geography, religious traditions, and (to a surprisingly large extent) economics, the notion that there is some overarching standard of universal morality doesn't hold up.

Boru

[Brian37]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

No fictional invisible sky hero needed to gap fill to explain where our morals come from.

Now watch this video and you tell me how this cat figured out right from wrong and doesn't pray to a cat god. And please dont insult my intellect by trying to answer with "poof" or "miracle".

[downbeatplumb]

What you have to realise is that because you and all the people you know feel one way about something does not make it true for the whole world for the whole of history.
Morality is entirely subjective and down to the society you live in at the time.
Lets take your example of raping a small girl.
This is being done now in the name of god in ISIS controlled areas, they take the girls of infidels and it is their holy duty to rape them.
In that society it is doing gods work and so is a moral duty.
Subjective.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/12/12/world/...index.html

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

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?

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

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?

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".

Is that what you believe?

No because my morality is built on my own empathy.
I can imagine what it would be like to be a brutailised girl and I think its horrible. I am nice to a certain value of nice so I would not want to inflict harm on others.
But do you know what you need to overcome morality in people who have empathy?
You need a strong enough idea, such as religion or nationalism.
With these you can make normal people monsters.

[The Grand Nudger]

It seems when we make moral claims, ie, rape is wrong, murder is wrong, we are saying something with an intent for that statement to be fact. We are not just expressing preferences/likes/desires, but trying to say something that is fact.

Agreed.

Here is an example.

Lets take something that we know is subjective, say the taste of food. If i say the taste of grapes are better than the taste of olives, it is obvious to me that this statement is just expression of taste, preference. I am not trying to say something that is fact. I mean, it is not a fact that grapes indeed taste better than olives. Think about it, if you and i had argument and you said olives taste better than than grapes, then who is right or wrong? Well neither of us can be right or wrong and neither of us can be both right as that would violate the law of logic, namely the law of non contradiction.

You dont have to argue about this, i mean, you dont argue with people about what tastes better, you just know that you are expressing your preferences and tastes.

Sure, when we talk about our tastes we're merely expressing some fact about our own personal tastes..most of the time. 

However, when we discuss morality, the conversation changes, we seem to be trying to say something that is FACT.

Lets say you and i sat at a cafe and i ordered some food that you didnt like or found disgusting, will you tell me i am wrong for eating that enjoying that food? Of course not. That would be incoherent. At most you will say, "how do you even like that that is disgusting". But you will fall short in saying that i am doing something wrong.

I guess it would depend on what you were eating and why a person found it disgusting.  They might have some moral objection to meat - or example..but yeah, for the most part "how can you eat that shit?" is a rhetorical question.  

Now lets say after i finish my meal, i say, "for the past 6 months, i have had a little girl in my garage who i have been raping and torturing", your response will be different. You will immediately say that what i have been doing is wrong. You will say that with the intent that you are saying something that is fact.

Is this cafe in hell?  

If morality was indeed subjective, then your response would be similar to that of the food i was eating, that is, "how do you even like that that is disgusting", but you will stop short of saying that i have done something wrong.

But when we talk about morality, we use the words right and wrong with an intent for it to be FACT.

Sure.  That's how we use them, regardless of whether or not they are. As evidenced by all of those people who make moral pronouncements that are clearly non-factual.

Some of our moral pronouncements might correlate to moral facts of a matter, but which are they and how would we go about establishing them? That we take something to be a fact won't actually make it factual, nor will it's use as a factual proposition.