Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

philologos

I disagree. The fact that there are objective standards that convict us of what is wrong are more a defender of liberty than those who ignore those objective standards to further their own ends (tyrants, schoolyard bullies, abusive clergy, mass murderers, serial rapists, the list goes on and on.)

The fact that what is wrong and what is right is not dependant on human opinion frees us from this issue. Focusing on Almighty God rather than the words of men, is liberating. The Gospel that Jesus proclaimed can free us from despotic leaders much in the same way as it can free us from vain philosophy, and the wages of all rebellion against God (sin). I'd rather that than the slavery of sin, the slavery of following mere men in respect to ethical truths. Objective morality in a Biblical sense teaches that morality is not in the preserve of clerics, morality is not in the preserve of any man. Even the Pope.

Oh and proof only lies in the realm of mathematics, so if you want to base ethical beliefs on "proof" you're going to be stuck.

You present an absurd dichotomy between a" law based society" (What the heck is that even?) and a morality based one. That's a dysfunctional dichotomy. Laws have existed since the beginning of time and will exist until the end of time. Christianity affirms the idea that states should have laws and rulers have been given authority over their subjects (Romans 13). Christianity however also says that they do not have absolute authority. God Almighty does. And King Jesus will judge the secrets of men.

You do understand that law is not the same thing as morality, don't you?

As for subjectivity. Not virtually everything is subjective. If it were, I wouldn't understand a word of what you were saying. Hermeneutics and common interpretation would go out the window. Good and evil are objective. Simply because the truth is that human disputes are based on objective authority. The atheist is inconsistent, because saying that X is good, or Y is evil is practically the same thing as making a truth claim about the earth.

Christianity actually has a much more consistent approach to ethics than atheism does. Christianity says that if you are to say X is evil, one must be held to account on that principle. The law based society actually works on a similar principle. If something is illegal, one must be held to account for it. A subjective moral system would say that wrongdoers shouldn't be held to account at all in any meaningful way. After all, how could I know what is wrong? What's wrong about me going fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime? If I enjoy it, who are you to tell me otherwise.

The problem for the atheist moral subjectivist / moral nihilist is that one can't give me a good reason as to why that should be wrong objectively. Subjective morality means that you must concede that actually it might be right for someone to go fieldshooting humans.

After all, the atheistic moral subjectivist / moral nihilist view logically concludes that right and wrong are whatever I want them to be.

That's dangerous, and it's an idea that should be opposed by any reasonable person.

philologos

If I was to sum up my argument in a simplified form:

1. If there were truly no God, there would be no possible objective standard for good and evil.
2. Humanity seems to work on the basis of an objective moral standard when ethical disputes arise in reality.
3. Therefore it it is reasonable to conclude that there is an objective moral standard, and as a result there has to be a moral law giver (God).

Andrewf20

Has anybody seen the following videos from qualiasoup. I thought they were very interesting.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

If I was to sum up my argument in a simplified form:

1. If there were truly no God, there would be no possible objective standard for good and evil.
2. Humanity seems to work on the basis of an objective moral standard when ethical disputes arise in reality.
3. Therefore it it is reasonable to conclude that there is an objective moral standard, and as a result there has to be a moral law giver (God).

1, there is no objective standard for good and evil
2, Humanity does not work on the basis of an objective moral standard, it works somewhere on a continuum between the law of the jungle and the rule of law ( Stalins law , Democratic law ,- take your pick)
3, Therefore it is reasonable to conclude there is no God and no moral law giver. We are all alone.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

I disagree. The fact that there are objective standards that convict us of what is wrong are more a defender of liberty than those who ignore those objective standards to further their own ends (tyrants, schoolyard bullies, abusive clergy, mass murderers, serial rapists, the list goes on and on.)

The fact that what is wrong and what is right is not dependant on human opinion frees us from this issue. Focusing on Almighty God rather than the words of men, is liberating. The Gospel that Jesus proclaimed can free us from despotic leaders much in the same way as it can free us from vain philosophy, and the wages of all rebellion against God (sin). I'd rather that than the slavery of sin, the slavery of following mere men in respect to ethical truths. Objective morality in a Biblical sense teaches that morality is not in the preserve of clerics, morality is not in the preserve of any man. Even the Pope.

Oh and proof only lies in the realm of mathematics, so if you want to base ethical beliefs on "proof" you're going to be stuck.

You present an absurd dichotomy between a" law based society" (What the heck is that even?) and a morality based one. That's a dysfunctional dichotomy. Laws have existed since the beginning of time and will exist until the end of time. Christianity affirms the idea that states should have laws and rulers have been given authority over their subjects (Romans 13). Christianity however also says that they do not have absolute authority. God Almighty does. And King Jesus will judge the secrets of men.

You do understand that law is not the same thing as morality, don't you?

As for subjectivity. Not virtually everything is subjective. If it were, I wouldn't understand a word of what you were saying. Hermeneutics and common interpretation would go out the window. Good and evil are objective. Simply because the truth is that human disputes are based on objective authority. The atheist is inconsistent, because saying that X is good, or Y is evil is practically the same thing as making a truth claim about the earth.

Christianity actually has a much more consistent approach to ethics than atheism does. Christianity says that if you are to say X is evil, one must be held to account on that principle. The law based society actually works on a similar principle. If something is illegal, one must be held to account for it. A subjective moral system would say that wrongdoers shouldn't be held to account at all in any meaningful way. After all, how could I know what is wrong? What's wrong about me going fieldshooting humans on a Sunday lunchtime? If I enjoy it, who are you to tell me otherwise.

The problem for the atheist moral subjectivist / moral nihilist is that one can't give me a good reason as to why that should be wrong objectively. Subjective morality means that you must concede that actually it might be right for someone to go fieldshooting humans.

After all, the atheistic moral subjectivist / moral nihilist view logically concludes that right and wrong are whatever I want them to be.

That's dangerous, and it's an idea that should be opposed by any reasonable person.

Philologos, it seems to be that you cannot conceive of a world without the existance of God and all that that entails including a objective moral code. Ok good luck to you , but desire is not proof .

When asked you are unable to give any examples of this objective moral code and the process seems to work backwords , I believe so my actions must be guided by objective morality kind of thing.

Than is all well and good when you believe in a benign God and you are a nice person , What if you are not ? What if you are a suicide bomber , a member of the kkk , or any other nut job that thinks posting an image is worthy of death. But it is ok because I believe.

I fully understand that law is completely different than morality, and every day I am grateful that it is so. Sex outside marriage, masturbation, false idols , certain images, all images, blasphemy , divorce , contraception, miscegenation, music , nudity, homosexuality , infidelity,charging interest, the list is endless ( astonishing the obsession with sexuality though), are all immoral according to someones objective list of right and wrong or good and evil . Thankfullu none of them are illegal in the world in which I live and long may it continue and to spread elsewhere.

As for the fieldshooting of humans - that is perfectly acceptable - just not on a Sunday:) Of course it is wrong , but not because it is good or evil but because at its most basic if we don't stop it , we could be next,. Which brings me nicely your next to your

'' After all, the atheistic moral subjectivist / moral nihilist view logically concludes that right and wrong are whatever I want them to be.''

And when you strip away all the niceties this is fundamentally correct. And the story of humanity has been the long and uneven journey from that truth to the realization that we either choose to survive together or hang separately.

F12

philologos wrote: »

If I was to sum up my argument in a simplified form:

1. If there were truly no God, there would be no possible objective standard for good and evil.
2. Humanity seems to work on the basis of an objective moral standard when ethical disputes arise in reality.
3. Therefore it it is reasonable to conclude that there is an objective moral standard, and as a result there has to be a moral law giver (God).

Morality, as a sense of living within or creating a system of evaluating and determining what is just and fair, can only be correctly formed according to the quality of reasoning applied to that end. That's the issue: the quality of the reasoning process which can create the operation of the morality itself, according to realities, not wished for and unbalanced thinking by which unavoidable harm will undoubtedly occur.

Reason itself operates according to the quality of knowledge used to explore possibilities and arrive at conclusions, so if the initial ideas that form the basis of the intended moral system are not based on good and sound principles, then the outcome will always end up with injustice, which, I think we might possibly agree, is not what morality is supposed to be about. The laws of cause and effect must be looked at.

Some of the questions we might ask ourselves are, for example:

What is the purpose of having a particular system of morality?
Are there identifiable benefits?
Is there a cost?
What is the price of having such a system?
What is the cost of not having one?

How will we decide on what is moral or not?

Do we have any knowledge of any other existing or previous systems of morality that may provide some indicators of what works well according to best practice? In other words, what works well already? Can we learn from others' experiences?

Do we have examples of systems of morality that have been shown to have failed, and if so, why did they fail? What was the outcome? Can we, yet again, learn from others?

Is the aim of this proposal to ensure, as far as is reasonably possible, a fair and just system whereby the good of the individual and the larger populace can be kept in balance? or

Will this system be merely a system of expediency, to serve the interests of the few over the many, thus ensuring predictably unjust outcomes?

Man, according to his capacity to reason, or lack thereof, determines what is acceptable to his sense of morality. The quality of the fruits of his mind is determined by the thinking process of his mind, so has he the capacity, the knowledge, the logic and the reason to ensure a good harvest, or will the crop be poor?

Determining what is moral according to selective interpretation of what a god or gods may or may not find offensive, is not a reasoned basis for a morality that is based on sound principles, as the initial presumption that the will of the gods can be determined is not something that can be ensured. History readily shows us that this does not work well, so why repeat the process when we already have experience of repeated outcomes? Is this a reasonable way to proceed?

Just a few ideas.

F

HamletOrHecuba

"19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:."

St Paul, Romans Chapter 1.

If God has manifested the truth of His existence so that they are without excuse in denying His existence, does anyone really think that they can give better arguments or make things clearer than God can? Is not arguing with atheists immense dangerous pride?

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and tear you."

Christ Himself, Matthew 7:6.

F12

HamletOrHecuba wrote: »

"Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and tear you."

Christ Himself, Matthew 7:6.

But is that not at the core of the problem Hamlet, that all the thousands of sects in the world all claim to be the ones that are 'holy' to the exclusion of all others, giving them excuse to denigrate them? They all claim to hold the 'pearls' of wisdom, and consider other to be 'pigs', if even metaphorically, if the views of those other believers vary only slightly from their own supposedly moral perspective?
Are they all not guilty of the wanton pride that they claim to detest so much in others, by judging them unworthy, and by making judgement that is contrary to the very teachings in their holy books? Where, do you think, is the morality in that way of thinking or behaving?

philologos

F12 wrote: »

But is that not at the core of the problem Hamlet, that all the thousands of sects in the world all claim to be the ones that are 'holy' to the exclusion of all others, giving them excuse to denigrate them? They all claim to hold the 'pearls' of wisdom, and consider other to be 'pigs', if even metaphorically, if the views of those other believers vary only slightly from their own supposedly moral perspective?
Are they all not guilty of the wanton pride that they claim to detest so much in others, by judging them unworthy, and by making judgement that is contrary to the very teachings in their holy books? Where, do you think, is the morality in that way of thinking or behaving?

You don't understand Christianity if you think that Christianity suggests that anyone can be holy in their own power. We are all sinners before a holy and righteous God (Romans 3:23). I'm no more a sinner than anyone else is.

It is only by God's mercy and grace by giving His Son Jesus to die the death I should have died, that I can be forgiven.

To be holy, in Greek hagios, or in Hebrew kadosh. Literally means to be separate. Christian living should be distinctive, we live by grace in utter thankfulness for God's mercy and we strive to live for Him and serve Him in all that we do. This is what should mark the Christian off as being distinct from the non-Christian.

The Christian perspective teaches us that we should long to inform others of the Gospel. It also informs us that we shouldn't treat it cheaply.

I'll come back to the argument on morality again soon enough. I'm still not convinced that atheism provides a more robust alternative to morality than Christianity or indeed that moral subjectivism is actually real in practice.

F12

philologos wrote: »

I'll come back to the argument on morality again soon enough. I'm still not convinced that atheism provides a more robust alternative to morality than Christianity or indeed that moral subjectivism is actually real in practice.

Fair enough, but I'm not suggesting that an 'atheist' morality is better or worse than 'Christian' morality, as it all depends on the individual's mind works. It's the quality of the humane aspect that determines the attitude and the resultant outcome.
I've met both atheists and Christians who were a mixed bunch when it came to dealing fairly with others. The only main difference between the two 'types', for want of a better word, was that one assumed that correct and fair conduct was bestowed by the will of their particular deity, and the other didn't. The same principle applied to many of the polytheists I've met, so on a case by case basis they acted according to what their natures allow and their culture. As different religions teach different things as regards what's moral, it all depends on the culture and example given by and to the people living in it. Western Christian culture today is not the same as it was say 300 years ago, when slavery was considered moral.

philologos

F12 wrote: »

Fair enough, but I'm not suggesting that an 'atheist' morality is better or worse than 'Christian' morality, as it all depends on the individual's mind works. It's the quality of the humane aspect that determines the attitude and the resultant outcome.
I've met both atheists and Christians who were a mixed bunch when it came to dealing fairly with others. The only main difference between the two 'types', for want of a better word, was that one assumed that correct and fair conduct was bestowed by the will of their particular deity, and the other didn't. The same principle applied to many of the polytheists I've met, so on a case by case basis they acted according to what their natures allow and their culture. As different religions teach different things as regards what's moral, it all depends on the culture and example given by and to the people living in it. Western Christian culture today is not the same as it was say 300 years ago, when slavery was considered moral.

This is an example of why I argue for objective morality. It's because we see commonalities in human ethical behaviour. Deep down ultimately we know what is right, and we know what is wrong, and we always have done. Your previous post mentions different moral systems. I'm not hugely convinced that there are major differences in how humans understand morality.

I'm not convinced that Christians are guaranteed to act any better than non-Christians. What I am convinced of, is if there is an objective system of morality and the evidence seems to point to this - what is a reasonable explanation for this other than there being an ultimate law giver for this objective moral law that informs our consciences?

Oh, and before we get into slavery. You'd do well to realise that colonial slavery is an entirely different beast to what was legislated for in ancient Israel. See this thread I posted in 3 years ago.

HamletOrHecuba

F12 wrote: »

But is that not at the core of the problem Hamlet, that all the thousands of sects in the world all claim to be the ones that are 'holy' to the exclusion of all others, giving them excuse to denigrate them? They all claim to hold the 'pearls' of wisdom, and consider other to be 'pigs', if even metaphorically, if the views of those other believers vary only slightly from their own supposedly moral perspective?
Are they all not guilty of the wanton pride that they claim to detest so much in others, by judging them unworthy, and by making judgement that is contrary to the very teachings in their holy books? Where, do you think, is the morality in that way of thinking or behaving?

The question however in this thread is the very existence of God though, not which revelation or philosophical understanding about Him is correct necessarily; I would not consider discussion with a Muslim or a Zoarastrian casting pearls before swine. There is also a difference in judging as in condemning, and judging as in discriminating. If as I believe God manifests the fact of His existence to all men and yet some refuse to acknowledge that, than my trying to make them to accept it is futile. The revealed Truths of Christianity on the other hand are not clearly manifested.

Also discussions where people share little or no common ground usually dont prove very fertile and indeed descend quickly into shouting matches; what is the profit for anyone in that?

philologos

marienbad wrote: »

Philologos, it seems to be that you cannot conceive of a world without the existance of God and all that that entails including a objective moral code. Ok good luck to you , but desire is not proof.

It's not desire. It's following simple logic. It's seeing how things work in the world around us. I've shown you extensively the reasoning behind that position. You choose to ignore what evidence we present as "extreme" examples. Yet, those examples are what point to objective good and evil.

You can either run away from the truth or you can acknowledge it. I hope you acknowledge it actually, but I can't force you to.

It's difficult to conceive a world without a sovereign and a holy God, because such a world would be illogical and such a world would be a different world from the one we actually live in.

marienbad wrote: »

When asked you are unable to give any examples of this objective moral code and the process seems to work backwords , I believe so my actions must be guided by objective morality kind of thing.

PDN and I have given you dozens of examples over the last few pages.

We've given you clear examples. What you are saying isn't true.

marienbad wrote: »

Than is all well and good when you believe in a benign God and you are a nice person , What if you are not ? What if you are a suicide bomber , a member of the kkk , or any other nut job that thinks posting an image is worthy of death. But it is ok because I believe.

Again! - PDN and I have explained this to you already. Morality is distinct from human opinion, much as truth claims are. I would even argue that many of those who don't hold to a benign God (whatever that is) would still hold the same ethical principles as most of us when push comes to shove in the vast majority of cases. Ethical conflict is resolved using an objective framework. People appeal to an objective source of ethics when conflict arises. It's a part of who humans are.

marienbad wrote: »

I fully understand that law is completely different than morality, and every day I am grateful that it is so. Sex outside marriage, masturbation, false idols , certain images, all images, blasphemy , divorce , contraception, miscegenation, music , nudity, homosexuality , infidelity,charging interest, the list is endless ( astonishing the obsession with sexuality though), are all immoral according to someones objective list of right and wrong or good and evil . Thankfullu none of them are illegal in the world in which I live and long may it continue and to spread elsewhere.

I am glad that God will judge. I'm glad that I believe in a God who hates evil. I'm glad that there are objective moral standards. I'm glad that God in His mercy has given us an opportunity to know Him and follow Him.

Many in the West treat morality as a curse word, but morality is only concerned with our wellbeing and our own good.

marienbad wrote: »

As for the fieldshooting of humans - that is perfectly acceptable - just not on a Sunday:) Of course it is wrong , but not because it is good or evil but because at its most basic if we don't stop it , we could be next,. Which brings me nicely your next to your

You say "of course it is wrong". Indeed. It is! Why is it obvious that fieldshooting humans is wrong?

This is objective morality marienbad. If it was subjective you would have no grounds for objecting to that kind of behaviour.

That is my point. That's what I've been trying to show you.

marienbad wrote: »

'' After all, the atheistic moral subjectivist / moral nihilist view logically concludes that right and wrong are whatever I want them to be.''

And when you strip away all the niceties this is fundamentally correct. And the story of humanity has been the long and uneven journey from that truth to the realization that we either choose to survive together or hang separately.

This contradicts what you just said though marienbad. That's my problem with the atheistic subjective / nihilistic view of existence. It's just a million miles away from moral reality.

marienbad

Philologos, I think we are just going round and round the houses here, but lets just recap.

- You say you have shown proof from the real world for this objective moral code- not a bit of it ! What you are doing is using questions and observations to reach a conclusion that it must be this way. Anyone can do that and come up with a different answer -and that is the fundamental point- the answer must always be the same -and it never is ! Proof consists of a process whereby anyone anywhere any time will arrive at the same conclusion, just like boiling that water .

As for examples you have given - not so- you are just picking extreme cases- knowing that after thousands of years civilisation most people would find them utterly wrong - that is until they don't find them so wrong after all - indiscriminate bombing of cities ,buildings, tube stations,knee cappings, beheading on television,genital mutilation of babies and children- the list is endless .

As for your argument that we can hold the same ethical principles irrespective of beliefs - so what. You again jump to the conclusion that their is some objective morality at play- not at all . Humans have always done that - copied and pasted to suit their own notions of right, wrong, efficient,ineffecient. For some abortion is ok , others the death penalty is ok., others still abortion and the death penalty are ok. It is no different that say the internet, invented one place and soon it is everywhere but modified to suit national, tribal, or religious dictats.

As for field shooting humans being wrong and my apparent contradiction - not so. I am using right and wrong as we are having a conversation. But in reality there is nothing ''wrong'' with it at all , just so long as you are the shooter and not the shootee and that is purely from a self- preservation level.

It is no more right or wrong moral or immoral that my neighbour pouring boiling water on an ants nest.

As I said previously , we came to the realisation eons ago that being one of the weaker mammals we either survived together or hang separately. And how we have succeeded ! The first 5 minutes of 2001 A space Odyssey will tell you all you need to know of the human condition and all set to glorious music. ( And not the music of the spheres either- just a lowly manmade tune)

Everthing else follows from that- our notions of justice,truth, beauty. And we even discuss these thing as if there were objective standards - but that does not make it so , as even the briefiest glimpse outside of our cosy living rooms will show that the law of the jungle is just lurking beneath the surface.

If I could make a comparision with notions of beauty - another human construct- is there an objective scale of beauty ?

Fanny Cradock

marienbad wrote: »

As for field shooting humans being wrong and my apparent contradiction - not so. I am using right and wrong as we are having a conversation. But in reality there is nothing ''wrong'' with it at all , just so long as you are the shooter and not the shootee and that is purely from a self- preservation level.

It is no more right or wrong moral or immoral that my neighbour pouring boiling water on an ants nest.

And there you have it!

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

I've explained on numerous occasions that the mechanics of ethical behaviour clearly show that humans work with an objective moral framework rather than a subjective one. Far from saying "Well it is what we believe".

And as has been explained to you many times in response, that is a silly argument, to which you proceed to explain that you think it is clear that Christianity is the true objective morality, to which when pressed you back up with subjective opinion.

Just because a human thinks that their moral opinion is objective, or in line with an objective moral framework, has no bearing on whether it actually is or not, or even if there is an objective moral framework in the first place.

You don't even have to reject moral objectivity to see this, there are plenty of people who hold moral positions that are mutually exclusive to other moral opinions held by others. Even if objective morality exists some of these people must be wrong, yet they continue to think they are right. Thinking you are right doesn't mean you are right, any more than thinking that morality is objective means it is.

Appealing to the fact that a lot of people subscribe to moral objectivity to support moral objectivity is like appealing to the existences of Muslims to support the truth of Islam.

Your point also ignores my last point, which is that even if you believe that there is an objective moral framework you have only your subjective opinion as to what that is. Your morals are as subjective as mine since before you can even start appealing to an objective moral framework you have to subjectively pick one.

philologos wrote: »

As a portrayal, that's quite dishonest given how many discussions we've ended up with on this subject.

Clearly you never read any of the actual replies to these many discussions we've ended having on this subject.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

The tangible difference is that people make a genuine effort to discover what is right and what is wrong - not as convenient social constructs based on popularity, but as objective truths that are worth sacrificiong for and working for.

Given that people could equally be making a genuine effort to discover what is objectively right and wrong in a universe where there is no objective moral standard, they just don't know it, I don't see that as a tangible difference.

You seem to be suggesting that if we were in a universe with out an objective moral standard no one would believe there was one. I see no reason to believe that.

PDN wrote: »

Without this you have no Martin Luther King. He stood up for civil rights because it was a moral good - not because it was utilitarian.

Well no. He stood up for civil rights because he believed it was moral good. He could believe that in a universe where it actually is objectively morally good, and he could equally believe it in a world where there is no objective moral good, he just thinks there is. At no point was Rev. King or anyone else for that matter, able to objectively demonstrate it was actually good or not, not that I think they would have particularly cared.

Given no one mentioned anything about utilitarianism I'm going to side step that attempt to drag us down that rabbit hole.

PDN wrote: »

For King, a society without segregation was good in an objective sense, just as a society with segregation was objectively bad. These were not mere preferences - like whether you wear a blue shirt or a red shirt - they were objective moral truths.

And given that Rev. King's personal beliefs don't determine the nature of reality I'm at a loss as to what relevance you think that has?

I doubt it even had much relevance to Rev. King. Imagine for example that there does exist an objective moral standard and it actually says that black people should not have civil rights. Do you think Rev. King would have cared? Would he have gone "Oh, I guess I was wrong, better give all this up". Would you have cared? I doubt it. I wouldn't have.

PDN wrote: »

In practice, of course, people who believe in a subjective morality often live and talk as if there is objective good and evil. They may do this because they are fooling themselves, or in order to fool others. But deep down there is nothing to stop them, if they feel the circumstances permit, from deciding to murder, rape or torture babies. Their actions in doing so might be 'different' or 'unpopular', but they would not, unless they contradict themselves, be 'wrong'.

And what stops a mass murdering baby rapists who believes in objective morality and thinks everything he is doing is objectively moral?

PDN wrote: »

No, it doesn't answer your question, but it does show your question up to be a deliberate attempt at evasion and distraction.

Evolution is either true or false. At one time people were unaware of it even as a possibility - but that did not change it's objective status as true or false. It remains objectively true, or false, irrespective of whether the evidence you present to Wolfsbane is convincing or not.

And objective morality either objectively exists or it doesn't. It is either real or it isn't. If it isn't it isn't no matter how many Christians proclaim that it is. If it is it is no matter how many atheists proclaim that it isn't.

So, again, can you can you give an objective measurement to support the concept that it is objectively real?

PDN wrote: »

That is a smokescreen.

If there is no correct objective moral standard then it is pointless to search for one. Torturing babies is as equally good from a moral standpoint as is volunteering to nurse lepers.

If there is a correct objective moral standard then we seek to discover it. That is a discussion I am very happy to have with anyone, Christian or not, who actually cares about moral goodness and shares the quest to attain it.

It would, of course, be pointless to have such a discussion with someone who does not believe that there is a real moral goodness to which we should aspire, who is simply looking for an argument, and who thinks that under certain circumstances it can be morally OK to torture babies to death.

Thank you for neatly demonstrating my point. It would be pointless of course because all you have is the subjective opinions of those people having the discussion.

I can show Wolfsbane the evidence, the objective measured evidence, for evolution. He can ignore it if he likes, but they will still exist objectively contradicting his views.

You cannot do that with me or anyone else. Even if objective morality does actually exist you still have to convince me to subjectively accept your assertion of the existence of objective moral standard. It is an appeal to subjectivity. You don't say "Look at the laser pointer, the moon is 65 million kms away" You say well doesn't it make sense to you that morality should be objective?

It would be like me trying to convince Wolfsbane of evolution by just saying "Well doesn't it make sense to you personally that animals evolve?" and then claiming we were some how "discovering" objective truth.

The reality is that you have no evidence morality is objective other than your belief that it is. You have no evidence which of the claims to the objective moral standard is the actual true one other than your subjective acceptance of one.

You are, in reality, living in exactly the same situation as if morality is entirely subjective. You just believe it is. There is again no tangible difference between each version of such a universe. They work exactly the same way, you believe what you believe and act accordingly and I believe what I believe and act accordingly.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

Given that people could equally be making a genuine effort to discover what is objectively right and wrong in a universe where there is no objective moral standard, they just don't know it, I don't see that as a tangible difference.

You seem to be suggesting that if we were in a universe with out an objective moral standard no one would believe there was one. I see no reason to believe that.



Well no. He stood up for civil rights because he believed it was moral good. He could believe that in a universe where it actually is objectively morally good, and he could equally believe it in a world where there is no objective moral good, he just thinks there is. At no point was Rev. King or anyone else for that matter, able to objectively demonstrate it was actually good or not, not that I think they would have particularly cared.

Given no one mentioned anything about utilitarianism I'm going to side step that attempt to drag us down that rabbit hole.



And given that Rev. King's personal beliefs don't determine the nature of reality I'm at a loss as to what relevance you think that has?

I doubt it even had much relevance to Rev. King. Imagine for example that there does exist an objective moral standard and it actually says that black people should not have civil rights. Do you think Rev. King would have cared? Would he have gone "Oh, I guess I was wrong, better give all this up". Would you have cared? I doubt it. I wouldn't have.



And what stops a mass murdering baby rapists who believes in objective morality and thinks everything he is doing is objectively moral?



And objective morality either objectively exists or it doesn't. It is either real or it isn't. If it isn't it isn't no matter how many Christians proclaim that it is. If it is it is no matter how many atheists proclaim that it isn't.

So, again, can you can you give an objective measurement to support the concept that it is objectively real?



Thank you for neatly demonstrating my point. It would be pointless of course because all you have is the subjective opinions of those people having the discussion.

I can show Wolfsbane the evidence, the objective measured evidence, for evolution. He can ignore it if he likes, but they will still exist objectively contradicting his views.

You cannot do that with me or anyone else. You have to convince me to subjectively accept your assertion of the existence of objective moral standard.

The reality is that you have no evidence morality is objective other than your belief that it is. You have no evidence which claim to the objective moral standard is the actual true one other than your acceptance of one.

You are, in reality, living in exactly the same situation as if morality is entirely subjective. You just believe it is. There is again no tangible difference between each version of such a universe. They work exactly the same way, you believe what you believe and act accordingly and I believe what I believe and act accordingly.

I wasn't presenting anything as proof for an objective moral standard.

I was pointing out the difference between believing in an objective moral standard or not, and the consequences of being consistent in those beliefs.

If you actually read what I posted properly then you could have saved yourself a lot of needless typing and goalpost shifting.

Pushtrak

Zombrex wrote: »

I doubt it even had much relevance to Rev. King. Imagine for example that there does exist an objective moral standard and it actually says that black people should not have civil rights. Do you think Rev. King would have cared? Would he have gone "Oh, I guess I was wrong, better give all this up". Would you have cared? I doubt it. I wouldn't have.

This is a very important point. With moral subjectivity, a discussion can be had on the pros and cons. If civil rights were an objective wrong, then it would try to act as a conversation closer. With subjectivity we can iron out reasoning for why something is good or bad for society and make laws to that effect. So, reality.

We can have discussion on particulars of morality, and bring up points about why it it is right or wrong, and that is a worthy discussion to have. "It is this way because it is objective" to me seems a conversation stopper, and a thought process stopper. Gets nowhere.

Things that are bad can be ironed out with justifications. And exceptions. For instance, assuming killing is objectively wrong, you add a disclaimer like except in self defence. If it were objectively wrong, this disclaimer wouldn't be accepted would it? Or is objective not as objective as proposed. Examples like this need to be addressed. Not the appeal to emotion examples like the torture of a child. In my subjective opinion, of course.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

And there you have it!

PDN wrote:

I was pointing out the difference between believing in an objective moral standard or not, and the consequences of being consistent in those beliefs.

For posterity, I'll point out that there is no operational difference between a moral realist and a moral nihilist. Both act the same way in any given situation. I.e. The difference is on a meta-ethical level, not an ethical level. There are no adverse consequences of one position that would not also be present in the other.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

I wasn't presenting anything as proof for an objective moral standard.

I didn't claim you were. You claimed that our discussion is akin to me trying to convince Wolfsbane of evolution, and that because it is up to him to decide to accept it or not that must mean according to me evolution is subjective.

I was pointing out how nonsense your point was. There are objective measurements to support evolution. There is nothing objective to support the assertion that there is an objective morality. It is purely a subjective opinion held by some. Which makes any appeal to objective morality all subjective anyway. As we like to say 1 theory of electromagnetism, 40,000 religions

PDN wrote: »

I was pointing out the difference between believing in an objective moral standard or not, and the consequences of being consistent in those beliefs.

Well that wasn't actually the question I asked (ironic given you are giving out I'm not reading your posts correctly), but your "consequences of being consistent" is a nonsense point that has been ripped to pieces many times on this forum.

The idea that if we all believe morality is subjective then we will not be able to justify stopping things we consider bad from happening because we have no way of demonstrating it is objectively bad is a straw man, though that doesn't stop it being consistently rehashed on this forum.

In reality we have no way to demonstrate something is objectively bad or not anyway and that doesn't stop us stopping people doing things we believe are bad. If you are doing something I consider immoral I will attempt to stop you, even though I believe in subjective morality. You can say I can't prove it is wrong, but my response is I don't care I'm still going to stop you. And vice versa. If you tried to stop me doing something you consider immoral I could say you cannot prove it is, and you would no doubt not care.

People who do not believe in an objective morality simply realize this, where as those who believe in objective morality seem to be just kidding themselves that their subjective moral opinions are some how likely to be in line with the mythical objective standard.

PDN

Zombrex wrote: »

I didn't claim you were. You claimed that our discussion is akin to me trying to convince Wolfsbane of evolution, and that because it is up to him to decide to accept it or not that must mean according to me evolution is subjective.

I was pointing out how nonsense your point was. There are objective measurements to support evolution. There is nothing objective to support the assertion that there is an objective morality. It is purely a subjective opinion held by some. Which makes any appeal to objective morality all subjective anyway. As we like to say 1 theory of electromagnetism, 40,000 religions

More goal post shifting.

You argued that, because different people disagree about morality, that therefore it is more likely that there is not an objective true morality.

I pointed out to you that was a massive non-sequitur. Disagreement over an issue does not, in any shape or form, carry any implication as to an objective reality lies behind the issue or not.

It is a clear and unescapable point - and, despite all your squirming and obfuscation, you have not provided a coherent response to it.

marienbad

PDN wrote: »

More goal post shifting.

You argued that, because different people disagree about morality, that therefore it is more likely that there is not an objective true morality.

I pointed out to you that was a massive non-sequitur. Disagreement over an issue does not, in any shape or form, carry any implication as to an objective reality lies behind the issue or not.

It is a clear and unescapable point - and, despite all your squirming and obfuscation, you have not provided a coherent response to it.

But when all comes to all, it is a meaningless point PDN , for arguments sake lets us concede there is an objective moral code out there- so what ?

How do we objectively interpret it ? Your interpretation will be different that mine and both of us will differ from Mullah Omar and we will all believe we are right.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

More goal post shifting.

You argued that, because different people disagree about morality, that therefore it is more likely that there is not an objective true morality.

Er, no I didn't?

I argued that there is no tangible difference between a world where there is objective morality but no one knows what it is and is just subjectively guessing what it might be, and a world where there is none at all.

I've no idea if there is actually objective morality. I think it is very unlikely given that morality appears to simply be a product of human instincts and reasoning which were developed by evolution.

But equally I don't think it matters a jolt, for two reasons.

Firstly until someone can actually measure this objective morality and demonstrate someone is actually right or wrong in any meaningful fashion other just their opinion, all moral decisions are subjective.

And as I hopefully demonstrated in the Rev. King thought experiment, even if it turned out that something I believed was right, such as equal rights among whites and blacks, was actually wrong I wouldn't care. Neither would you. The only morality that ever genuinely matters to us is our own.

PDN

PDN wrote:

It is wrong to torture babies to death for the fun of it. Now, you can view that statement in one of two ways:

a) It describes a moral absolute. That means that torturing babies to death as a recreational activity is always wrong, and always will be wrong, irrespective of any circumstances. That is objective morality.

b) It describes a social construct that has evolved to aid the survival of our species. That means that, because of our particular circumstances, we don't like the concept of torturing babies to death as a recreational activity. But, since morality is subjective, it is perfectly possible that another society might find it biologically useful to treat babies in such a manner. And, if that society does come to such a conclusion, then their position is no more right or wrong than ours. Since there is no objective morality, their behaviour towards children is, essentially, a matter of preference such as whether we open our boiled eggs at the pointy end or the rounded end. That is subjective morality.

Zombrex wrote:

Given that some people do torture babies to death for fun it would seem that b) is closest to reality, would it not?

PDN wrote:

You argued that, because different people disagree about morality, that therefore it is more likely that there is not an objective true morality.

Zombrex wrote:

Er, no I didn't?

Fair enough - this discussion is over from my end.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

For posterity, I'll point out that there is no operational difference between a moral realist and a moral nihilist. Both act the same way in any given situation. I.e. The difference is on a meta-ethical level, not an ethical level. There are no adverse consequences of one position that would not also be present in the other.

Yes, in the same way that placing a scoop of chunky choc and gooey toffee ice cream into a cone is operationally the same as placing a scoop of horse manure into a cone.

(I'm not, of course, equating all subjective morals to horse manure.)

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

For posterity, I'll point out that there is no operational difference between a moral realist and a moral nihilist. Both act the same way in any given situation. I.e. The difference is on a meta-ethical level, not an ethical level. There are no adverse consequences of one position that would not also be present in the other.

Yes, but if there is an objective moral premise that both work off, even if it's minutea are unknown to everybody, than that is exactly what one would expect to see?

In other words, irregardless of cultural differences etc. and even if value 'opinions' may differ, they agree far more often than not, simply because morality is not an opinion but the premise of all opinion. Otherwise the arguement just seems to be begging the question somewhat no?

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, in the same way that placing a scoop of chunky choc and gooey toffee ice cream into a cone is operationally the same as placing a scoop of horse manure into a cone.

(I'm not, of course, equating all subjective morals to horse manure.)

Knowing that someone is a moral nihilist tells you in nothing about what moral decisions they will take. It simply tells you how they view morals in general.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

In other words, irregardless of cultural differences etc. and even if value 'opinions' may differ, they agree far more often than not, simply because morality is not an opinion but the premise of all opinion.

Almost as if we are all the same species of animal that act in similar ways around key areas of evolutionary advantage, such as protecting children.

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

Knowing that someone is a moral nihilist tells you in nothing about what moral decisions they will take. It simply tells you how they view morals in general.

I agree. Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my post.

Zombrex

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I agree. Perhaps I did not make myself clear in my post.

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "operationally".

A moral nihilist might save a person from a burning building, or they might not, depending on what they personally believe.

A moral objectivist might save a person from a burning building, or they might not, depending on what they personally believe.

If that is what you meant then we are in agreement

Fanny Cradock

Zombrex wrote: »

If that is what you meant then we are in agreement

NEVER!

Zombrex wrote: »

I guess I'm not sure what you mean by "operationally".

You would probably have to ask Mobert about that. I think I understands what he means but I can't be sure of that. He's so damn subjective that Mobert.

Zombrex wrote: »

A moral nihilist might save a person from a burning building, or they might not, depending on what they personally believe.

A moral objectivist might save a person from a burning building, or they might not, depending on what they personally believe.

Yes, I understand this. But it does not address whether it is morally right to rescue the person or not. That surely is the debate at hand.

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Yes, in the same way that placing a scoop of chunky choc and gooey toffee ice cream into a cone is operationally the same as placing a scoop of horse manure into a cone.

(I'm not, of course, equating all subjective morals to horse manure.)

They are operationally different (manure tastes like sh*t).

A flavour realists believes toffee ice cream is intrinsically better tasting. A flavour nihilists believes taste is construct of the taster. They both, however, like to eat toffee ice-cream.

EDIT: By operationally identical, I mean a person operates/interacts/behaves the same way, whether they are a realist or a nihilist.

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

They both, however, like to eat toffee ice-cream.

Which is interesting, no?

Morbert

lmaopml wrote: »

Yes, but if there is an objective moral premise that both work off, even if it's minutea are unknown to everybody, than that is exactly what one would expect to see?

In other words, irregardless of cultural differences etc. and even if value 'opinions' may differ, they agree far more often than not, simply because morality is not an opinion but the premise of all opinion. Otherwise the arguement just seems to be begging the question somewhat no?

That (almost) all people have a disposition towards compassion, sympathy (or the more sterile biological term: altruism) fits both positions equally well. This sharing of sensibilities is not an argument for realism any more than the existence of opposing moral positions is an argument against it.

lmaopml

Zombrex wrote: »

Almost as if we are all the same species of animal that act in similar ways around key areas of evolutionary advantage, such as protecting children.

Well you are a moral relativist so naturally you will say it's all about evolution of moral standards etc. etc. Indeed Christians believe you are 'human' and very many support the theory of evolution, they just think it's directed, whereas you obviously believe in chance

There is a subtle difference here though. The difference is that when we give an opinion based on the premise that both of us recognise is a 'reality'

We say because it's something we 'ought' to do because it is the 'right thing to do, to protect children, the poor, the innocent and vulnerable etc. etc.' It seems rational to say that even if a good Nazi followed the orders of his society his society and Nazism was morally wrong, clearly and definitely rather than Nazism was just **** that happened in another society and it wasn't wrong it's just that it didn't make lots of us feel too good relatively speaking.

Whereas you can only ever really say the reason why you do anything is not because it's 'right', but because it feels good to you personally not to kill or torture a baby, and the guy or elements of a society that do engage in this are not strictly wrong, they're just not really pleasing you personally with that choice.


I prefer the more courageous definition of the premise we both work off that we both recognise in eachother - (that would be the basis for all conversations on morality at all, deciding what is good, bad, fair or not fair, ie Objective morality) we both know it's there, it's the premise we work off not the opinion after the fact.

Still, you can be an atheist and believe in naturalism no good or bad anything really - I just don't, I'm a Christian and I certainly don't think there is anything irrational about saying why we 'ought' to do anything towards eachother is merely because it's the right or wrong way to behave. In fact I can be a right judgy pants and look at whole societies and say they are behaving 'wrong' towards the meek. This is the way the world works. Everytime you say something isn't 'fair' towards you, you are appealing to some kind of inherent reasoning that things should be 'fair' towards you -

Morbert

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Which is interesting, no?

It is very interesting. Richard Dawkins was probably an ethologist for this very reason

Fanny Cradock

Morbert wrote: »

It is very interesting. Richard Dawkins was probably an ethologist for this very reason

Shame he strayed out of his field.

philologos

Zombrex wrote: »

And as has been explained to you many times in response, that is a silly argument, to which you proceed to explain that you think it is clear that Christianity is the true objective morality, to which when pressed you back up with subjective opinion.

Where this argument comes in. Is in showing that there is an objective standard of good and evil. I agree that is open ended. However, as an atheist it is still a position that will undermine the credence of your position if true.

There are other arguments that can be used to demonstrate the specific veracity of Christianity. Although, Christianity clearly backs up a position of moral objectivism / universalism, and if this is true, it can be used as an argument for Christianity.

It's not a silly argument. There's clear logical difficulties for the atheist position. Ones that marienbad has just ignored on this thread when PDN has raised them to her.

Zombrex wrote: »

Just because a human thinks that their moral opinion is objective, or in line with an objective moral framework, has no bearing on whether it actually is or not, or even if there is an objective moral framework in the first place.

It's not about what people think. It's about how they function. The evidence in terms of functionality shows firstly that there is a huge amount of commonality in terms of what humans find right, and find wrong, and secondly it shows that humans point to objective morality when resolving conflicts.

On the other hand, there's no real argument for moral subjectivism.

Zombrex wrote: »

Appealing to the fact that a lot of people subscribe to moral objectivity to support moral objectivity is like appealing to the existences of Muslims to support the truth of Islam.

Not at all. See above.

Zombrex wrote: »

Your point also ignores my last point, which is that even if you believe that there is an objective moral framework you have only your subjective opinion as to what that is. Your morals are as subjective as mine since before you can even start appealing to an objective moral framework you have to subjectively pick one.

That's the question. Do I just have the subjective opinion? Or is that a claim that you are making without substance?

There's evidence that points us to the existence of objective standards. That's more than just a subjective opinion. We see it clearly in how people operate. That's more than a mere notion. It's more evidence than we have for the opposite position.

If an objective moral standard exists and there's good reason to believe that one does. Then we can probe into the reasons as to why such an objective moral standard exists, namely as to whether or not there is an objective moral law giver that will ultimately stand as judge.

Zombrex wrote: »

Clearly you never read any of the actual replies to these many discussions we've ended having on this subject.

Clearly you haven't read what I and others have posted on this subject before.

Morbert

philologos wrote: »

Where this argument comes in. Is in showing that there is an objective standard of good and evil. I agree that is open ended. However, as an atheist it is still a position that will undermine the credence of your position if true.

There are other arguments that can be used to demonstrate the specific veracity of Christianity. Although, Christianity clearly backs up a position of moral objectivism / universalism, and if this is true, it can be used as an argument for Christianity.

It's not a silly argument. There's clear logical difficulties for the atheist position. Ones that marienbad has just ignored on this thread when PDN has raised them to her.

It's not about what people think. It's about how they function. The evidence in terms of functionality shows firstly that there is a huge amount of commonality in terms of what humans find right, and find wrong, and secondly it shows that humans point to objective morality when resolving conflicts.

On the other hand, there's no real argument for moral subjectivism.

Not at all. See above.

That's the question. Do I just have the subjective opinion? Or is that a claim that you are making without substance?

There's evidence that points us to the existence of objective standards. That's more than just a subjective opinion. We see it clearly in how people operate. That's more than a mere notion. It's more evidence than we have for the opposite position.

If an objective moral standard exists and there's good reason to believe that one does. Then we can probe into the reasons as to why such an objective moral standard exists, namely as to whether or not there is an objective moral law giver that will ultimately stand as judge.

Clearly you haven't read what I and others have posted on this subject before.

Do you believe any animals have a moral compass?

marienbad

Philogos, I did'nt ignore any of the points the you or PDN raised - I just don't find them compelling .

When it all comes down to is that your view of the world as a christian requires that there is a higher moral objective code. To you nothing else makes sense. But that is not proof .

I would remind you again of PDN's post no .4423


''How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways:
a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust.
b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong.
c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another. ''

Can you explain to me how that would yield an objective result ?

By the way can you answer my question on beauty ? Is there an objective standard for beauty ?
__________________

philologos

Here's an example marienbad:

marienbad wrote:

When asked you are unable to give any examples of this objective moral code and the process seems to work backwords , I believe so my actions must be guided by objective morality kind of thing.

This is clearly false. PDN and I have explained this at length to you.

You clearly haven't listened to what we are saying. I'm kind of wondering what the point is.

You say, nothing else makes sense to me. That's right. It doesn't hold up logically to hold to moral subjectivism, so I don't hold to it. If there's no good reason to hold to moral subjectivism over moral objectivism, I won't hold to it, and I will explain my reasons for not believing it to be manifest in reality. I'm entitled to ask you how you can reasonably be a moral subjectivist. I don't believe you or anyone else actually is.

It's obvious why revelation would be objective. Simply put, if God has spoken into His Creation. His word is final. That's objectivity speaking into the world. It's also obvious how God can inform our consciences if A is true. It is also true that by seeing how other people operate as in C, that we can see evidence of A and B as we've already discussed.

Beauty is a different concept to morality. I don't see why drawing comparisons to it would be useful.

lmaopml

Morbert wrote: »

That (almost) all people have a disposition towards compassion, sympathy (or the more sterile biological term: altruism) fits both positions equally well. This sharing of sensibilities is not an argument for realism any more than the existence of opposing moral positions is an argument against it.

Fair enough. I totally agree that 'opinions' will differ, and people have and do argue and thrash them out to find the commonality in societies - However, the premise for any discussion of those opinions is the root of the moral law, it's the inherent value we place on being 'fair' imo, or that we even should be 'fair' - and that it's a good thing to be. Christians don't see it as a boomerang fairness, but quite simply a moral law on the hearts of all men that is 'true' a real and valid observable thing. We see it in all societies and the way the real world acts. I will admit however, that it's a bit of a stalemate as regards a 'proof' of God or indeed for that matter a 'proof' that God doesn't exist too. I just happen to think that the idea of that moral law and a law giver is a fairly rational observation .....but I'm a Christian not an Atheist, so I would. I thought Nietzche was kind of off his rocker, and perhaps an extremist, but will admit that not all Atheists are mini Nietzches in the making....


Thank God.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

Here's an example marienbad:


This is clearly false. PDN and I have explained this at length to you.

You clearly haven't listened to what we are saying. I'm kind of wondering what the point is.

You say, nothing else makes sense to me. That's right. It doesn't hold up logically to hold to moral subjectivism, so I don't hold to it. If there's no good reason to hold to moral subjectivism over moral objectivism, I won't hold to it, and I will explain my reasons for not believing it to be manifest in reality.

Beauty is a different concept to morality. I don't see why drawing comparisons to it would be useful.

Please Philologos , lets not go down that road, I have read and responded to everything that you and PDN have posted . It just dos'nt make any kind of logical sense.

Your proof consists of looking at the world and declaring that an objective moral code derived from a Creator is the only way to explain it. There is absolutely nothing logical about your methodology .If there were everone would see what you see - why don't they ?

And those ''proofs'' and conclusions so derived should be evident to all and sundry irrespective of their beliefs - why ar'nt they.

And when asked for examples all ye come up with is the torturing babies scenario. Lets take a more widespread example- slavery.

For argument sake lets pretend this discussion was taking place 300 years ago- and the objective moral code , eternal and unchanging was the subject of discussion- would slavery be ok or not ok ?

philologos

By the by, I've not argued that anything is "proof". There is good evidence to suggest that humans work with objective morality though. There's no evidence to suggest that morality operates on a subjective basis from what I can see around me.

See what I've said about slavery a few posts ago. I've answered that already.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

By the by, I've not argued that anything is "proof". There is good evidence to suggest that humans work with objective morality though. There's no evidence to suggest that morality operates on a subjective basis from what I can see around me.

See what I've said about slavery a few posts ago. I've answered that already.

Ok then if you are not arguing ''that anything is proof''. I suppose we each interpret the evidence with a degree of confirmation bias, but I just don't see case for objective morality that you do.

Can you give me the post number on slavery as I can't seem to find it- thanks.

Zombrex

philologos wrote: »

Where this argument comes in. Is in showing that there is an objective standard of good and evil. I agree that is open ended.

It doesn't show that. It simply shows that some people believe there is. And in fact appealing to this simply shows that everyone subjectively picks which version of this objective morality they believe exists.

philologos wrote: »

There are other arguments that can be used to demonstrate the specific veracity of Christianity. Although, Christianity clearly backs up a position of moral objectivism / universalism, and if this is true, it can be used as an argument for Christianity.

There is no objective argument for Christianity. You cannot measure the truth of Christianity. As such it cannot be used to objectively support the existence of objective morality. Which is why Islam exists. And Hinduism. And Moronism.

philologos wrote: »

It's not a silly argument. There's clear logical difficulties for the atheist position. Ones that marienbad has just ignored on this thread when PDN has raised them to her.

I missed that. If you want to post them here I'm happy to give them a ago. Though it shouldn't really need to be said that logical difficulties for the atheist position is no more support for Christianity than it is for any claimed deity.

philologos wrote: »

It's not about what people think. It's about how they function. The evidence in terms of functionality shows firstly that there is a huge amount of commonality in terms of what humans find right, and find wrong, and secondly it shows that humans point to objective morality when resolving conflicts.

On the other hand, there's no real argument for moral subjectivism.

The argument for moral subjectivism is the same. There is huge amount of commonality in humans with relation to moral behavior. This commonality though is not found anywhere else in nature. A rock will fall on your head, and not care a jot about it. The sea will happily kill you. Nature is amoral in its truest sense, in that morality simply does not exist there.There is no evidence the wider universe has any moral standard. Morality is confined exclusively to humans another animals that have evolved brains to add social interaction.

All evidence points to morality being an expressed function of the evolution of social interactions in humans. This is why morality relates so much to particular things and hardly at all to others. No one thinks is it moral to un-bend a paper clip, because such a question has no context in the survivial of human genes. The question is it moral to kill a child though stirs up great response.

The only argument from the objective side for such a correlation is that the universe (ie God) cares about the things we care about and vice versa, we care about the things the universe (God) cares about. This needless to say is hugely unsatisfactory retreat.

philologos wrote: »

That's the question. Do I just have the subjective opinion? Or is that a claim that you are making without substance?

There's evidence that points us to the existence of objective standards. That's more than just a subjective opinion. We see it clearly in how people operate. That's more than a mere notion. It's more evidence than we have for the opposite position.

There is evidence of shared characteristic human behavior. There is evidence of where this comes from (evolution of humans). There is not evidence for an objective standard as a property of the universe, independent to humans, or apes, or life itself.

Your argument is like saying because all humans have shared language traits, found in all people, therefore the universe must have a language, lets go see if we can find out what that is.

If you think I'm wrong please present evidence for the existence of this objective moral standard that is not just something found in humans.

philologos

marienbad: I don't agree. I think any impartial observer if they are honest will be able to note that humans when they are in disputes appeal to objective morality. People don't claim that morality is personal. Rather what people do when they are wronged is claim that people should know better. If morality was subjective and merely personal, why should we claim it is obvious that others should know better? Why would we expect them to understand?

This is what I find lacking about your position. Look back to this post in respect to slavery. It's a discussion I've got into before, and I don't see any reason why I should repeat myself on it.

Zombrex

lmaopml wrote: »

There is a subtle difference here though. The difference is that when we give an opinion based on the premise that both of us recognise is a 'reality'

We say because it's something we 'ought' to do because it is the 'right thing to do, to protect children, the poor, the innocent and vulnerable etc. etc.' It seems rational to say that even if a good Nazi followed the orders of his society his society and Nazism was morally wrong, clearly and definitely rather than Nazism was just **** that happened in another society and it wasn't wrong it's just that it didn't make lots of us feel too good relatively speaking.

Whereas you can only ever really say the reason why you do anything is not because it's 'right', but because it feels good to you personally not to kill or torture a baby, and the guy or elements of a society that do engage in this are not strictly wrong, they're just not really pleasing you personally with that choice.

Correct. You can say you believe it is objectively wrong to kill a baby. I can't.

I'm not sure what you think that gives you though.

A good example is the side of the road a car drives along.

Now I believe that is subjective. I don't believe there is an objective right or wrong side of the road to drive along. Because I'm human and think as a human I still say "Oh in France they drive on the 'wrong' side of the road". But I do not think rationally that it is actually objectively the wrong side of the road. It is wrong purely in the context of how we drive in Ireland.

Now imagine if someone did believe that it actually was, genuinely and objectively, the 'wrong' side of the road. First of all that wouldn't make that true. The existence of people who genuinely viewed it as the 'wrong' side of the road is not evidence that there is a wrong side or a right side of the road to drive on as far as the universe is concerned.

Second of all, what has it given them, other than a slightly inflated sense of ego to be able to proclaim that half the world's driving systems are "wrong". They can proclaim the French are wrong, but the French aren't going to care. Heck there may be some people in France who genuinely believe we drive on the objectively 'wrong' side of the road, and they will just think we are wrong.

You cannot demonstrate what is the objectively right or wrong side of the wrong, you can't even demonstrate that there is an objectively right or wrong side of the road.

All the same principles apply to morality.

lmaopml wrote: »

Still, you can be an atheist and believe in naturalism no good or bad anything really - I just don't, I'm a Christian and I certainly don't think there is anything irrational about saying why we 'ought' to do anything towards eachother is merely because it's the right or wrong way to behave. In fact I can be a right judgy pants and look at whole societies and say they are behaving 'wrong' towards the meek.

Of course you can. But why do you need morality to be objective to do that?

If you see someone driving the wrong way down a motorway you will probably shout at them they are driving down the wrong way of a motorway. You wouldn't say "Well you know wrong way or right way that is all just subjective based on what matters to humans, it is not an objective fact of the universe that he is on the wrong side of the road so who am I to dictate to anyone that they are on the wrong side of the road"

I have never understood why you guys feel you can't simply have a moral opinion without having to some how feel that your opinion is supported by the objective standards of the universe. France doesn't go "Well guys who are we to say left or right side".

lmaopml wrote: »

This is the way the world works. Everytime you say something isn't 'fair' towards you, you are appealing to some kind of inherent reasoning that things should be 'fair' towards you -

Which is a purely human construct. Appeal to a bear beating you to death, or a flood drowning you, that this isn't 'fair' is pointless since there is no notion of morality outside of humans and some other animals with higher brain functionality.

If the universe has an objective morality it certainly doesn't show it.

marienbad

philologos wrote: »

marienbad: I don't agree. I think any impartial observer if they are honest will be able to note that humans when they are in disputes appeal to objective morality. People don't claim that morality is personal. Rather what people do when they are wronged is claim that people should know better. If morality was subjective and merely personal, why should we claim it is obvious that others should know better? Why would we expect them to understand?

This is what I find lacking about your position. Look back to this post in respect to slavery. It's a discussion I've got into before, and I don't see any reason why I should repeat myself on it.

I can't find anything relevant to slavery as I have raised it Philogos, and don't worry I am not going back to bibical times .

All I am asking is as follows - I presume that you believe as do that slavery is wrong immoral unethical - however we define it.

I presume that 300 years you there were men and women discussing the very issues we are discussing - the existance of an objective moral code.

I further presume that you would not permit slavery based on this objective moral code.

My question is simply why was it not forbidden 300 years ago by christians ?

And in the real world that is the crux of the matter. Now I think I know why it was permitted - because morality/ethics/whatever is not objective - it is a constantly evolving construct and is one of humanities towering achievements .

Why do you think it was permitted ?