One sentence that throws the problem of evil out of the window.

[Aoi Magi]

Hmm, interesting thread...

To CL and Pool, why exactly is child rape wrong?

[Whateverist]

@Whatevs
IMO, at least some of the times a person tells you about their subjective position of some moral issue, when you ask why they hold it you get an objective description of just what it is that makes that thing x immoral.  Perhaps people don't realize that they're describing an objective morality because they have misapprehensions and expectations of an objective morality that are well beyond the realm of reality?

That, for example, if there were an objective morality there would be a "correct" answer to every moral question, or no room for disagreement between two people on the status of x as a moral issue, or that the moral answer to a moral question would be absolute and without any possible mitigation.  That all foggy moral issues would be resolved in some simple moral arithmetic.

An objective morality doesn;t do -any- of that...it;s utility mostly comes down to having a means to seperate, in our own moral frameworks..what is somehow objectively immoral from what is subjectively immoral.  By and large, we've begun to think that punishing people for the subjectively immoral is not as well grounded as punishing them for the objectively immoral.  Miscegeny was subjectively immoral, we no longer consider it a crime because we no longer feel that it is objectively immoral.  I say we, but that "we" obviously excludes Yahweh and other assorted racists.

As a practical endeavor, morality can be argued objectively based on shared valuations.  And I agree both that not every minor moral decision would be decided the same way even amongst those capable of agreeing on the big things.  At some point, you move down the scale from arguing morality to arguing over manners.

[The Grand Nudger]

If I get zapped I won't be looking up to find the god that did it, I'll definitely be scanning the area for his overly helpful followers.

Yup, but our lack of belief in that god should not be taken as a way to avoid the reality that the same god condones that sort of thing time and time again.  If such a god did exist, that;s what it thinks is right.  That;s the heart of what many people..yourself to some extent and myself from my wig to my shoebuckle...find abhorrent about the very idea of god.

Here is a creature that punishes the most and the most severely for it's subjective moral appraisal, while allowing those who run afoul of it's objective moral appraisals to skate on their actions....by killing some jew.

This is a complete inversion of goodness and justice , of morality, as it's come to be seen.  Even the faithful have to rationalize the whole story away as something else entirely.

As a practical endeavor, morality can be argued objectively based on shared valuations.

Regardless of whether or not you and I share a valuation, rape is what it is. This is the objectivity being refered to in objective morality. Not that we share a valuation, but that any agreement or disagreement between us is not with reference to what is being observed. It;s neither of our opinions that rape is harmful. It isn't made more or less so by us thinking that it is or isn't, or by one of us thinking that it is and the other thinking that it isn't. It;s important to note that, otherwise we'll end up with pages and pages of the shared opinion trap, lol.

[Catholic_Lady]

I meant the morality of it, whether its right or wrong, being personal opinion.

Well then what does subjective or objective have to with that.  Do you think all subjective experience is on the same level as the holding of an opinion?  I don't think you've thought this through.

Objective means there is a correct answer to moral questions (example: it IS immoral to rape kids, and those who think it's moral are incorrect). Subjective means there is no correct answer, it's just a matter of opinion (example: I think it's immoral to rape kids. Bob thinks it's moral to rape kids. Neither one of us is correct or incorrect).

I'm not sure I understand your question about experience though.

[I_am_not_mafia]

For the record, I don't think it's right to treat animals inhumanely before slaughter. With that being said, I don't think it's immoral for a lion, or bear, or wolf or whatever it is to eat us.

Are you vegan? Do you only eat food that you have hunted yourself? I take it that you also avoid all dairy products as well because the dairy industry is totally inhumane.

This is the thing. You are asserting that morality is objective. Your argument is that there is this one act that you and almost everyone else condemns as evil and that because you feel so strongly about it, then this shows that it is objectively true.

It's a falsifiable hypothesis. It takes just one person to think that raping and torturing children is not necessarily evil to show that there is a difference of opinion and therefore is subjective. But you ignore any posts where people mention groups like Nambla, or any mention of a society that may enforce it (e.g. Sparta)·

And then you call atheists who acknowledge that not everyone has the same opinion as thinking that a "person who rapes, tortures, and kills a child is not an evil person. And doing those things to a child is not an evil thing to do." I (subjectively) find that quite offensive.

Yet like most theists you excuse animal examples of evil as animal behaviour, while ignoring that humans too are animals. But by doing so you thereby constrict evil to human acts, yet at the same time assert that evil will still exist even if the human race were wiped out.

You do not understand what subjective and objective means.

Subjective means that something is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

Objective is "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

So if you assert that evil exists and it is not a subjective opinion, then define what it is. If it is a fact, then it is an observable, falsifiable and reproducible feature of reality, then show us how to measure it. When is evil present and when is it absent? But as I said, you won't be able to do this. Whatever definition you come up with, will fail in the grey areas. Tell us how objective evil works and how it influences human behaviour. Although how you will square this with a belief in free will I don't know.

Do evil people know that they are evil? Most people rationalise and excuse what they do, even when they know that it is bad. It's easy to say child rape is evil, but what about less heinous acts? By focusing on one act and ignoring the grey areas of morality you are falling into the trap of biary religious thinking. At what point is something evil? I am almost completely vegan myself so I could consider any meat eater or dairy consumer to be evil because they knowingly subject many animals to a lifetime of suffering. But I eat fish as well for health reasons so will a complete vegan consider me evil? Especially as I actually like fish and know what the suffering that I am subjecting them to. I

All you have for an argument is, I feel really strongly about this particular act, but only when performed on a human on another human (and not by cute fluffy animals on each other), and therefore cannot imagine how someone could argue against that therefore my own viewpoint must be a universal law.

[Whateverist]

If I get zapped I won't be looking up to find the god that did it, I'll definitely be scanning the area for his overly helpful followers.

Yup, but our lack of belief in that god should not be taken as a way to avoid the reality that the same god condones that sort of thing time and time again.  If such a god did exist, that;s what it thinks is right.  That;s the heart of what many people..yourself to some extent and myself from my wig to my shoebuckle...find abhorrent about the very idea of god.

Here is a creature that punishes the most and the most severely for it's subjective moral appraisal, while allowing those who run afoul of it's objective moral appraisals to skate on their actions....by killing some jew.

This is a complete inversion of goodness and justice , of morality, as it's come to be seen.  Even the faithful have to rationalize the whole story away as something else entirely.

You know, for me, it isn't really so much about the logical extension of the hypothetical existence of such a being, though I can see that is what bothers a lot of us.  For me I just wince at the way exalting a literal god invariably goes hand in hand with devaluing our human potential.  Witnessing self-abnegation makes me sad.

[Edwardo Piet]

Whatever suffering possible in this world,  if we are patient and steadfast in midst of it, and in midst peril, out of love of the Great Ultimate Beauty that sees us exactly as we are,  the love that ensues to us from that loving being, is worth it, as well as the honourable position we will have in its absolute eye which is the vision of the absolute truth.

One sentence that counters that:

No it isn't.

Tell that to the starving children with parasites eating through their eyeballs. Tell that to the children that get molested, beaten to death and dumped in a river. NOTHING is worth that. It would be FAR better if the world didn't exist in the first place. It is NOT worth it.

[The Grand Nudger]

It's a falsifiable hypothesis. It takes just one person to think that raping and torturing children is not necessarily evil to show that there is a difference of opinion and therefore is subjective. But you ignore any posts where people mention groups like Nambla, or any mention of a society that may enforce it (e.g. Sparta)·

That demonstrates moral disagreement, not moral subjectivity.  Moral disagreement would (and does) exist regardless of whether or not morality is subjective or objective.  One has to acknowledge moral disagreement, ofc, but it's not a sufficient objection to moral objectivity.  

The moral objectivist simply replies that..yes, there are people who disagree with this moral statement x, and they are wrong...and here's why. 

You know, for me, it isn't really so much about the logical extension of the hypothetical existence of such a being, though I can see that is what bothers a lot of us.  For me I just wince at the way exalting a literal god invariably goes hand in hand with devaluing our human potential.  Witnessing self-abnegation makes me sad.

Brings to mind Hitchens', "maximum of servility and maximum of solipsism" comment.

[Catholic_Lady]

For the record, I don't think it's right to treat animals inhumanely before slaughter. With that being said, I don't think it's immoral for a lion, or bear, or wolf or whatever it is to eat us.

Are you vegan? Do you only eat food that you have hunted yourself? I take it that you also avoid all dairy products as well because the dairy industry is totally inhumane.

This is the thing. You are asserting that morality is objective. Your argument is that there is this one act that you and almost everyone else condemns as evil and that because you feel so strongly about it, then this shows that it is objectively true.

It's a falsifiable hypothesis. It takes just one person to think that raping and torturing children is not necessarily evil to show that there is a difference of opinion and therefore is subjective. But you ignore any posts where people mention groups like Nambla, or any mention of a society that may enforce it (e.g. Sparta)·

And then you call atheists who acknowledge that not everyone has the same opinion as thinking that a "person who rapes, tortures, and kills a child is not an evil person. And doing those things to a child is not an evil thing to do." I (subjectively) find that quite offensive.

Yet like most theists you excuse animal examples of evil as animal behaviour, while ignoring that humans too are animals. But by doing so you thereby constrict evil to human acts, yet at the same time assert that evil will still exist even if the human race were wiped out.

You do not understand what subjective and objective means.

Subjective means that something is "based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions".

Objective is "(of a person or their judgement) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

So if you assert that evil exists and it is not a subjective opinion, then define what it is. If it is a fact, then it is an observable, falsifiable and reproducible feature of reality, then show us how to measure it. When is evil present and when is it absent? But as I said, you won't be able to do this. Whatever definition you come up with, will fail in the grey areas. Tell us how objective evil works and how it influences human behaviour. Although how you will square this with a belief in free will I don't know.

Do evil people know that they are evil? Most people rationalise and excuse what they do, even when they know that it is bad. It's easy to say child rape is evil, but what about less heinous acts? By focusing on one act and ignoring the grey areas of morality you are falling into the trap of biary religious thinking. At what point is something evil? I am almost completely vegan myself so I could consider any meat eater or dairy consumer to be evil because they knowingly subject many animals to a lifetime of suffering. But I eat fish as well for health reasons so will a complete vegan consider me evil? Especially as I actually like fish and know what the suffering that I am subjecting them to. I

All you have for an argument is, I feel really strongly about this particular act, but only when performed on a human on another human (and not by cute fluffy animals on each other), and therefore cannot imagine how someone could argue against that therefore my own viewpoint must be a universal law.

I'm not vegan, but I try to buy organic when available or at least meats labeled "humanely raised/pasture raised". 

I don't believe animals have moral free will, so I don't hold them morally culpable or evil for "raping" their babies, eating their babies, etc. Moral free will seperates us from the rest of the animals. 

Evil and immorality are acts, so I'm not sure why you're asking for their measurement or taking issue with the fact that they are not physical things. I don't understand your question. 

As far as people who are evil, technically, I can't measure that for sure because I can't see what is in those people's hearts or their motives, etc. It's up for God's judgement. Nonetheless, I feel pretty comfortable taking an educated guess that Hitler was probably evil. And if there was a man who went around raping, torturing, and then killing little kids, I'd guess that person is probably evil too. Basically someone who conscientiously chooses to do evil things.

[Whateverist]

As a practical endeavor, morality can be argued objectively based on shared valuations.

Regardless of whether or not you and I share a valuation, rape is what it is.  This is the objectivity being refered to in objective morality.  Not that we share a valuation, but that any agreement or disagreement between us is not with reference to what is being observed.  It;s neither of our opinions that rape is harmful.  It isn't made more or less so by us thinking that it is or isn't, or by one of us thinking that it is and the other thinking that it isn't.  It;s important to note that, otherwise we'll end up with pages and pages of the shared opinion trap, lol.  

For me this is just the difference between my willingness to be ruthlessly practical in implementing justice, where I hang back from codifying moral experience out of regard for the possibility of a difference in subjective experience which I just can't be sure of.

You know nature is pretty good about diversifying its portfolio. In general, sickle cell anemia is an undesirable condition but because of it, in the face of a malaria outbreak, at least the population pulls through and more sickle cell free individuals will be born to enjoy the good times. It wouldn't shock me to find that some individuals are morally blind, only able to regard their fellow human beings practically as useful or detrimental to their ends. Such individuals, though pariahs in the good times, might likewise pull through keep the population going in circumstances where cooperation wasn't getting it done. Purely speculative on my part but it is why I don't assume we are all the same morally.

So perhaps what you're calling objective morality is what we normals acknowledge as morally permissible or not.