Objective Morality?

[theVOID]

Desirism and Contractatrianism are 2 such examples.

Well... I agree with the former to an extent, my own moral framework came from desirism, especially it's reductionist outlook centered around value theory. Contractarianism is however false, social contracts don't exist, it's also flawed in that morality must be defined as abiding by a contract, and I don't really buy the notion that something is either morally good or bad based on whether or not it is in line with this "social contract".

Now they may be right or wrong, but should automatically be prefererd as simpler explanations to an unverifiable and meaningless god concept. What the theist is really saying is that there is an absolute morality decided by a god; which is holed by the Euthyphro dilemma. There are also many things christianity cannot account for however, but non-thesitic objective morality can.

Well said

I can say that it is morally wrong:

- to commit genocide
- to hold someone guilty for the crimes of our ancestors
- to claim that babies are born evil
- to hold that the worth of a man is not based on his actions but his beliefs
- that you should receive infinite punshment for finite 'crimes'
- to rape victims of war crimes

Based on what framework do you make these claims? I happen to agree with them for the record, but I'd like to know the mechanics of how you arrived at being able to claim these to be morally wrong.

---

I refer to the bold above, I'm the one who put it in bold. I say really, just read through this forum and you will see that some atheist here are not completely honest and as for supporting the natural, homosexuality is not natural it goes against nature, it is completely nonproductive and many atheist on this forum have stated that they support homosexuality.

I refer to the COMPLETE BULLSHIT in bold above.

If homosexuality is not "Natural", as in does not arise from natural processes, then it is by definition artificial, last time I checked though there weren't scientists running around various mammalian populations injecting the young with a "gay virus" so they would develop an attraction to the same sex.

And if Homosexuality is "unnatural" because it "goes against nature" then isn't a volcano that wipes out a pregnant animal also "unnatural"? After all, both have the effect of removing reproductive possibilities, and that was the only criteria you even attempted to list for why homosexuality qualifies as "unnatural".

Homosexuality is at worst "Abnormal".

Do not misunderstand, I believe that they have the rights of all in this country, except for those things that are against scripture.

And this is the problem with you theist/authoritarian assholes. YOU are completely free to live your own life according to WHATEVER fucking fairy tales you like, but you assholes don't get to make OTHER people abide by your sycophantic little delusion. Feel free to try and convince them all you like, but legislating it for no other reason than it's written in your copy of "mother goose" is something that makes me want to re-open Auschwitz and jam you all inside.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Hey Void,good to have you back,I enjoyed that,and it has made me think about 'social contracts'.

Not entirely sure I understand.The concepts which comes to mind are power and conflict theory,which I accept as more realistic than the consensus theory of power. Am I anywhere near what you're talking about,or have I misunderstood?

[Godscreated]

Most christians I know have and do read their Bibles often then I know those who are followers. I could give several reasons but they would be only my opinion in most cases. The reason I say this is the other day I had a short discussion with an atheist and he made the same statement . I asked him how he knew this and his answer was this, I've been to many churches and observed in the worship services that people only followed along as the pastor read from the Bible. Well that's what the worship services is about ie. teaching from the pastor. I asked him if he attended Sunday School at these churches or Wednesday Bible study or the many home Bible studies that go on in homes during the week that church members setup on their own, his answer was no. So I said then you do not know how much Bible study goes own in the christian church and he agreed, he did not say he would, but I got a sense he was going to go to some to see if what I was saying was true, if he did then I commend him for his search for what was happening in the church.

I was raised a catholic for 12 years and I did the church thing, the bible study thing and catechism thing with various pastors and nuns over the years. They all taught the same thing, the 'pretty' versions of the bible. It was once I started reading and asking questions that I realized they were full of shit. "It is the mystery of god". My interpretation of that response is "You are right, it does not make sense, that is why we ignore it and only teach the 'pretty' parts.".

And for your information, I have read the bible, several times and the book of Enoch, and the Qur'an and other various assorted 'scriptures'.

The Bible was not handed to mankind by God, nor was it dictated to human stenographers by God. It has nothing to do with God. In actuality, the Bible was VOTED to be the word of God by a group of men during the 4th century.

Yet you live by the sayings of a cartoon character.

[Statler Waldorf]

Which is often, if not always, considered in a court of law as well as in any discussion of morality.

That’s the is/ought fallacy, you can’t reason from the way the court system does things to the way morality should be considering the court system is based off of concepts of morality (Judeo-Christian ones that do punish thought crime). Account for morality given your worldview, not mine.

Shooting someone dead with malice of forethought is murder 1.
Shooting someone dead in the fit of passion is murder 2.
Shooting someone dead in a moment of negligence is manslaughter.
Shooting someone dead in self defense is justifiable homicide.

Again, this is all consistent with my worldview because God punishes people for intent, you have not accounted for the punishing of thought crime given your worldview though.

Really, I feel like I'm teaching remedial ethics here. This is embarrassing that I even have to elaborate on these issues. You amaze me with your inability to wrap your brain around no-brainer moral issues.

Your irrational thinking is what amazes me; this is just a red herring fallacy. I can account for all of these things given my views on morality, I am asking you to account for them given yours. So saying I don’t know why certain things are wrong is absurd sense I already have a reason for believing they are wrong. You have failed to even account for simple moral issues like adultery given your worldview which is what is really embarrassing.

The rest of your post I'm not commenting on because I've told you enough times already about empathy, the social contract, about how we're community beings, etc. I really get tired of repeating myself. If you still don't get it, go take a basic college course in ethics. I'm sure your local community college might be able to help.

I am getting tired of you committing the is/ought fallacy, you can’t reason from the fact that most humans feel empathy towards others to a moral statement that most humans should behave that way. I guess I will just mark down morality as just another thing you believe in but can’t account for given your worldview. The list is growing….

@SW. You are just begging the question on naturalism. Reality is absolute axiomatically. Existence, exists and does so independently of the will of consciousness. Thus necessarily our ability to comprehend and reason on that reality means we establish objective truth.

So you are saying rationality is merely a conventional product of the human mind depending upon how it comprehends reality?

The cartoon universe of theism where one will (a god) can change reality whimsically, hardly provides a rock solid foundation for induction, morality or anything.

It’s a good thing we live in a universe created by the Christian God and not some other god who is is whimsical then isn’t it?

It's just special pleading on top of a meaningless concept to turn round and claim that because it's god will it makes it OK. You're stuck on the horns of the Euthyphro dilemma. Natural ethical systems can therefore be objective, theists ones cannot be. So you still need to demonstrate the contrary if you want to then ask "what makes it wrong if no - one sees it questions".

First I’d like for you to account for these natural ethical laws given your naturalistic worldview, are they material? Immaterial? Describe them a bit more for me please.

Your moral judgements clearly don't tally with those of the bible, in all cases. You can squirm and wriggle all you like ( like we didn't see that coming). But the words mean what they say. The morality exposed in them is abhorrent and only natural ethical systems can be relied upon to make solid judgements and xtians borrow from them every day.

This is your response to all of the Bible verses I explained to you? Seriously? I thought I explained them pretty well actually. Which one did you struggle over?

To rationalize the bible to say god wills it is OK, is to abandon your own moral autonomy. This is exactly the point I made and you have amply demonstrated. This in itself renders theistic morality an oxymoron.

How so?

I know fundies don't like to bothered with what scientists say, but the American Psychological Association disagrees with your definition:
http://www.apa.org/topics/sexuality/orientation.aspx

If you are going to try to argue against scripture then use the definitions that scripture uses, to do anything otherwise is equivocation. Scripture forbids the act of homosexuality.

I don't know why you think you're qualified to judge whether or not love has anything to do with it. Again, I can tell you from personal experience that the emotions are the same. As for the physical act, the distinction between sex with the same gender and with the opposite gender is more of a variation on a theme than a significantly different experience.

Whether it involves love or not is irrelevant, the act is what is forbidden, a father may really love his daughter, but engaging in sexual behavior with her is wrong for the exact same reason as the act of homosexuality, God forbids both.

So since body parts are the only distinction, why does the similarity make either the emotions or act evil?

The act violates God’s decreed moral law, therefore it is morally wrong.

[Captain Scarlet]

Based on what framework do you make these claims? I happen to agree with them for the record, but I'd like to know the mechanics of how you arrived at being able to claim these to be morally wrong.

I have always struggled to wrestle my own view on morality down waivering between moral realism, relativism and nihilism. All seem to make valid points. I cannot affirm some things are not really wrong, but there is clearly no consistency in time and space around most morality. Killing babies for example was acceptable to the Incas, Romans etc. Then there is the absolutism of theism which makes me think all this stuff is ultimately meaningless. I think desirism has helped concrete my own personal position. If I paraphrase some of the learning I have from desirism:

Moral relativism is a fact. Moral statements describe a relationship between a part of reality we need to evaluate and a given set of reasons for action (desires). The relative position of that desire to that part of reality we need to evaluate may have an entirely different relationship to a different set of desires and that same part of reality. This accounts for the truth of relativism, however it doesn't underwrite subjectivism. Someone who asserts there is a relationship between their desires ( brain states) and an objective part of reality must be talking about things that exist else we can dismiss their statements out of hand. So their statements are either objectively true or false depending on whether the relationships between reality and desires are objectively true or false.

I have a strong desire to ensure my children do not encounter harm. As such I do not wish other individuals to castigate them as being evil. This is because this could lead to a culture that could meet out excessive 'discipline' and dehumanization of my children, and ultimately harm. I consider this relationship objectively true and thus I would promote a society by praise, condemnation etc which militated against such thinking, and I would consider it objectively wrong that others would think that children (in general) could be evil.

[Captain Scarlet]

I am getting tired of you committing the is/ought fallacy, you can’t reason from the fact that most humans feel empathy towards others to a moral statement that most humans should behave that way. I guess I will just mark down morality as just another thing you believe in but can’t account for given your worldview. The list is growing….

You're overplaying your hand here. Hume also argued you could derive ought from is in 2 classes: 1) sentiment 2) Some combination of (1) Is pleasing to self (2) Is useful to self (3) Is pleasing to others (4) Is useful to others. All these IS conditions Hume though could move to an OUGHT. I see no problem with DPs analysis here, except the focus on the social contract. Whilst we should prefer that to Theism and their synthetic cartoon morality, the social contract looks to be losing ground. However it can claim that morality is objective.

So you are saying rationality is merely a conventional product of the human mind depending upon how it comprehends reality?

Not sure I even understand your question here I'm afraid, even less what you are driving at. Can you restate what you are asking?

It’s a good thing we live in a universe created by the Christian God and not some other god who is is whimsical then isn’t it?

Come now. We live in a self contained block universe, the only possible way one can account for the 'mysteries' that theism loves to pose around, morality, logic and induction. According to your own faith god not only has intervened in the universe historically, he does so every day to help his adherents and prevent nature taking it's course. He is the chief cartoonist, who can erase that anvil that wily-e-coyote has set in a trap for you and is about to fall on your head.

First I’d like for you to account for these natural ethical laws given your naturalistic worldview, are they material? Immaterial? Describe them a bit more for me please.

Ah Theists. Trapped in a world where there are laws and commands and of course a law giver or commander to dish them out. Who said objective moral truth was based on a law? Desirism holds that morality is the social practice of praise, condemnation, reward and punishment to re-enforce desires we wish to see fulfilled and minimize actions that would thwart them. Those desires are brain states (part of the natural world) and they pertain to relationships about objective facts about reality. Those relationships are either objectively true or not. But there is really no such thing as an absolute morality from a moral law giver, and if there is he has made a sh!t job of communicating it. Apparently in the only bit of bible he was motivated to directly author himself, he thought that calling him names and taking a fancy to your neighbors donkey was a more serious crime than child abuse, slavery, equality between sexes and races. Natural objective morality would never conclude this. I am not minded to affirm materialism in it's narrow definition, happy to affirm the necessity of naturalism and that nature is all that exists. We are still uncovering the nature of reality however.

This is your response to all of the Bible verses I explained to you? Seriously? I thought I explained them pretty well actually. Which one did you struggle over?

Yeah seriously, as unbelievable as it is to you that I could be so dense. You sound disappointed that I did not agree that you could justify versus condoning rape. Infact I am so backward I struggled with all your rationalizations. The words in the bible are there for all to see, I guess it's for each individual to reach their own conclusion.

How so

I am not going to explain moral autonomy again.

[Mister Agenda]

The right 6% for mole rats. Other species probably up to 85-90%, this is just a guess on my part. Has a homosexual gene been found, if not would not this argument be more toward choice, which for christians it would be any way. I would like to make a statement here, before I became a christian I found that homosexuality was repulsive to me, so as far as not understanding homosexuals and believing the act was not natural came from a nonbelievers point of view. I never claimed to be a biological specialist, and I do not believe you are a Bible scholar or even a Bible student, so you see why I doubt any argument you make from scriptures and this applies to most if not all nonbelievers on this forum.

I used to be repulsed by homosexuality when I was younger, I got that 'squick' feeling when I saw two men kissing, and maybe it's still a bit of a squick for me. So I don't watch men kissing very much. I don't particularly like to see unattractive people getting hot and heavy either, and handle it the same way. I accept that my personal reactions don't justify me treating them differently or condemning them.

Good thing I didn't make an argument from scriptures. You made an argument from biology and it was refuted on scientific grounds. I think the issue on homosexuality in the Bible is more complex than you make it out to be, but I prefer to leave that to someone more learned on the subject than I. I've only read the Bible cover-to-cover twice, some parts, like Genesis (especially the first few chapters) many times, but that hardly makes me a Bible scholar.

---

Most christians I know have and do read their Bibles often then I know those who are followers.

I don't doubt this has been your experience, some denominations and some churches emphasize Bible reading more than others. Statistically, atheists know more about religion in general than Christians do, and even more about Christianity than most Christians do, but Evangelicals do know more about their own religion than any other group does, including (on average) atheists. I attribute this to a tradition of Bible study among Evangelicals and fundamentalists; but that's my interpretation of the data based on my experience as a Pentecostal (most of my Bible reading was from my Pentecostal days).

[The Grand Nudger]

More garbage "you have not accounted for" from Stat? Color me unimpressed. You don't actually have any case of your own to make do you? I haven't seen you account for anything, must not have happened (you have not accounted for "blah blah blah")....doesn't satisfy when it's leveled back at you does it? Make a strong positive claim, support it with credible evidence, avoid fallacious arguments, or be dismissed as a complete loon, as usual.

[Statler Waldorf]

I have a strong desire to ensure my children do not encounter harm. As such I do not wish other individuals to castigate them as being evil. This is because this could lead to a culture that could meet out excessive 'discipline' and dehumanization of my children, and ultimately harm. I consider this relationship objectively true and thus I would promote a society by praise, condemnation etc which militated against such thinking, and I would consider it objectively wrong that others would think that children (in general) could be evil.

How do you avoid committing the is/ought fallacy here? You can’t reason from the way things are (you not wishing harm to come to your children) to the way things ought to be (no one ought to commit harm to any child)?

Secondly, why would a child automatically be innocent?

Thirdly, how do you define “evil”?

You're overplaying your hand here. Hume also argued you could derive ought from is in 2 classes: 1) sentiment 2) Some combination of (1) Is pleasing to self (2) Is useful to self (3) Is pleasing to others (4) Is useful to others. All these IS conditions Hume though could move to an OUGHT. I see no problem with DPs analysis here, except the focus on the social contract. Whilst we should prefer that to Theism and their synthetic cartoon morality, the social contract looks to be losing ground. However it can claim that morality is objective.

Just because David Hume said something is the case does not make it the case, he also said that atheists cannot use inductive reasoning, do you also agree with this position? Atheists are not allowed to invoke the is/ought fallacy when reasoning anymore than anyone else is.

Not sure I even understand your question here I'm afraid, even less what you are driving at. Can you restate what you are asking?

Maybe I missed your position, explain what rationality is first and I will see if the point I was driving at still applies.

Come now. We live in a self contained block universe, the only possible way one can account for the 'mysteries' that theism loves to pose around, morality, logic and induction. According to your own faith god not only has intervened in the universe historically, he does so every day to help his adherents and prevent nature taking it's course. He is the chief cartoonist, who can erase that anvil that wily-e-coyote has set in a trap for you and is about to fall on your head.

How does a block universe explain induction?

God always is involved in His creation, that is why we see an underlying uniformity to nature and can use induction, because we are told by Him that the governing of creation we see today will resemble the governing of creation in the future.

Who said objective moral truth was based on a law? Desirism holds that morality is the social practice of praise, condemnation, reward and punishment to re-enforce desires we wish to see fulfilled and minimize actions that would thwart them. Those desires are brain states (part of the natural world) and they pertain to relationships about objective facts about reality.

So you are saying that if someone desires to commit adultery then it is morally right to do so? If someone desires to kill someone else then it is morally right to do so? If someone desires to own slaves then it is morally right to do so?

Yeah seriously, as unbelievable as it is to you that I could be so dense. You sound disappointed that I did not agree that you could justify versus condoning rape. Infact I am so backward I struggled with all your rationalizations. The words in the bible are there for all to see, I guess it's for each individual to reach their own conclusion.

Haha, oh so the words in the Bible are there for all to see? Please point out in the ESV where the word “rape” appears in any of those verses you were talking about. Thanks.

I am not going to explain moral autonomy again.

Again?

Make a strong positive claim, support it with credible evidence, avoid fallacious arguments,

Check and check, still waiting for you to account for the things you assume to be true….still waiting…..

[Captain Scarlet]

How do you avoid committing the is/ought fallacy here? You can’t reason from the way things are (you not wishing harm to come to your children) to the way things ought to be (no one ought to commit harm to any child)?
Secondly, why would a child automatically be innocent?
Thirdly, how do you define “evil”?

I have made my case. I ought to act in accordance with my strongest desires which stand in relationship to objective facts (is) about reality. It seems to me that you can either accept that or keep asking why? But that’s an easy and silly game to play when it could be returned to you and I could ask why ‘godwillsit’ for eternity. But you also have the Euthyphro dilemma from which you cannot escape, and which disproves your thesis, ie your position doesn’t even get off the ground.

Just because David Hume said something is the case does not make it the case, he also said that atheists cannot use inductive reasoning, do you also agree with this position? Atheists are not allowed to invoke the is/ought fallacy when reasoning anymore than anyone else is.

Strawmanning again. I also did not say that Hume was right (my position on morality would infact suggest he got it wrong). I said that even Hume thought that this Is/Ought gap was bridgeable and that you are overplaying your hand.

God always is involved in His creation, that is why we see an underlying uniformity to nature and can use induction, because we are told by Him that the governing of creation we see today will resemble the governing of creation in the future.

Think what you like it has no effect on reality outside of your brain states nor is it a response to the examples I gave you.

Haha, oh so the words in the Bible are there for all to see? Please point out in the ESV where the word “rape” appears in any of those verses you were talking about. Thanks.

Again strawman. I said you were justifying passages which condoned rape. Whether the passages use the word ‘rape’, clearly depends on which translation you read. Its a childish attempt to avoid the issue. I stand by the charge. But if you are justifying passages that do condone the act of rape if sanctioned by god, then at least that is consistent with xtian morality if not reality.

ESV Isaiah 13:15-18
15 Whoever is found will be thrust through, and whoever is caught will fall by the sword. 16 Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.