In defense of objective morals

Healthy skepticism of ALL worldviews is good. Skeptical of non-belief like found in Atheism? Post your challenging questions. Responses are encouraged.
User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17307
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby RickD » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:19 am

Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

As I've said countless times before, Rape in that instance is wrong; subjectively wrong. To Categorize something as subjective or objective doesn't change the morality of the action.


Ken

Kenny,

You're not getting it. Subjective morality means morality based on one's opinion. So if morality is subjective, what you may think is wrong, I may not. So, while rape may be wrong for you, it may not be wrong for someone else. And since subjective morality is opinion based, your saying rape is wrong, has no more meaning than you saying chocolate ice cream is the best. If there's no objective morality, then what's wrong for you can be right for me. It's all just opinions. You say rape is wrong, and chocolate ice cream is the best. I say rape is not wrong, and vanilla ice cream is the best.

So to sum it up, if objective morality doesn't exist, you have absolutely no basis to say rape is wrong for me, in the situation I gave.

Are you seeing it yet?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17307
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby RickD » Fri Jul 17, 2015 7:21 am

Nicki wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

As I've said countless times before, Rape in that instance is wrong; subjectively wrong. To Categorize something as subjective or objective doesn't change the morality of the action.


Ken


That doesn't make much sense to me. Saying it's subjectively wrong means it's wrong in your opinion (and most people's) but someone else's opinion that it's fine could be equally valid.

Yes Nicki! I'm glad someone gets it!

Maybe Kenny will listen to you.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Kenny » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:42 am

Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:Oh, weren't you just calling "rape" easy?

Easy to call wrong? Yes! Don’t you agree?

Please explain how you call it wrong.
I don't believe it is wrong for a man to want his genes to survive.
Do you?

I consider it wrong because it goes against the Golden Rule. Other people might have other reasons; but that's mine.

That's nice. I like chocolate.
So because of that, a man shouldn't be stopped from doing what is natural and passing on his jeans, err genes.

I just explained why I believe he should be stopped. If we assume objective morality; please explain why he should be stopped.

Ken

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Kenny » Fri Jul 17, 2015 8:44 am

RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

As I've said countless times before, Rape in that instance is wrong; subjectively wrong. To Categorize something as subjective or objective doesn't change the morality of the action.


Ken

Kenny,

You're not getting it. Subjective morality means morality based on one's opinion. So if morality is subjective, what you may think is wrong, I may not. So, while rape may be wrong for you, it may not be wrong for someone else. And since subjective morality is opinion based, your saying rape is wrong, has no more meaning than you saying chocolate ice cream is the best. If there's no objective morality, then what's wrong for you can be right for me. It's all just opinions. You say rape is wrong, and chocolate ice cream is the best. I say rape is not wrong, and vanilla ice cream is the best.

So to sum it up, if objective morality doesn't exist, you have absolutely no basis to say rape is wrong for me, in the situation I gave.

Are you seeing it yet?

And how does objective morality change this? How does objective morality prevent a person from claiming rape is objective morally right?

Ken

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 17307
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Living in Parricide just north of Jacob's bosom

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby RickD » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:08 am

Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

As I've said countless times before, Rape in that instance is wrong; subjectively wrong. To Categorize something as subjective or objective doesn't change the morality of the action.


Ken

Kenny,

You're not getting it. Subjective morality means morality based on one's opinion. So if morality is subjective, what you may think is wrong, I may not. So, while rape may be wrong for you, it may not be wrong for someone else. And since subjective morality is opinion based, your saying rape is wrong, has no more meaning than you saying chocolate ice cream is the best. If there's no objective morality, then what's wrong for you can be right for me. It's all just opinions. You say rape is wrong, and chocolate ice cream is the best. I say rape is not wrong, and vanilla ice cream is the best.

So to sum it up, if objective morality doesn't exist, you have absolutely no basis to say rape is wrong for me, in the situation I gave.

Are you seeing it yet?

And how does objective morality change this? How does objective morality prevent a person from claiming rape is objective morally right?

Ken

Kenny,
Objective morality doesn't prevent anyone from believing what they want. Just because we Christians believe in objective morality, that doesn't mean OM forces us to do the right thing. I hope you're not thinking that I'm saying that those of us who believe in OM, are somehow more moral, or are better people than those who don't believe in OM.
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Kurieuo
Technical Admin
Posts: 8565
Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
Location: Qld, Australia

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Kurieuo » Fri Jul 17, 2015 9:17 am

Kenny wrote:
Kurieuo wrote:
Kenny wrote:I consider it wrong because it goes against the Golden Rule. Other people might have other reasons; but that's mine.

That's nice. I like chocolate.
So because of that, a man shouldn't be stopped from doing what is natural and passing on his jeans, err genes.

I just explained why I believe he should be stopped. If we assume objective morality; please explain why he should be stopped.

Oh, he should be stopped if you find what he does distasteful.
Just kill the bastard. Nothing wrong with that.

Optionally, you could try to spread continue your genes also.
You might have more fun. Seems to be inline more with nature, continuing your line, survival, you know...

What would you like to choose, strawberry icecream or chocolate?
"Whoever will call on the name of the Lord will be saved." (Romans 10:13)

___________________

Image

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Kenny » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:33 am

RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:
Kenny wrote:
RickD wrote:So,

Rape in that instance is not wrong, correct?

As I've said countless times before, Rape in that instance is wrong; subjectively wrong. To Categorize something as subjective or objective doesn't change the morality of the action.


Ken

Kenny,

You're not getting it. Subjective morality means morality based on one's opinion. So if morality is subjective, what you may think is wrong, I may not. So, while rape may be wrong for you, it may not be wrong for someone else. And since subjective morality is opinion based, your saying rape is wrong, has no more meaning than you saying chocolate ice cream is the best. If there's no objective morality, then what's wrong for you can be right for me. It's all just opinions. You say rape is wrong, and chocolate ice cream is the best. I say rape is not wrong, and vanilla ice cream is the best.

So to sum it up, if objective morality doesn't exist, you have absolutely no basis to say rape is wrong for me, in the situation I gave.

Are you seeing it yet?

And how does objective morality change this? How does objective morality prevent a person from claiming rape is objective morally right?

Ken

Kenny,
Objective morality doesn't prevent anyone from believing what they want. Just because we Christians believe in objective morality, that doesn't mean OM forces us to do the right thing.

So weather morality is objective or subjective, doesn't make a bit of difference does it, People will react the same. Would you agree?

Ken

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Jac3510 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 11:51 am

Proinsias wrote:
Jac3510 wrote:
    a. Slavery is wrong
    b. I think of slavery as wrong

Prefixing your thoughs with "I think" doesn't change much. If you think it does you are being silly.

Unicorns are pretty.

The ice cream comparrison makes a mockery of the suffering and slavery of animals in the dairy industry and the beliefs of millions. Stop it, pick something else to inflate your ego and equate your opinions with that of the divine.

As you say, it's all about misunderstanding where one's opinion becomes fact.

It changes things dramatically, and if you don't recognize it, you are being obtuse. As I wrote later on in the post,

    But it gets worse, because B type sentences can be interpreted in one of two ways. Consider these two examples:

      b1: I think slavery is wrong, meaning, I attribute wrongness to slavery itself
      b2: I think slavery is wrong, meaning, I prefer there be no slavery
    Now, b1 clearly just reverts back to A type statements. Your opinion or judgment is that a particular moral notion ought to be predicated to the act itself. But as we have seen, if there is no objective moral reality, then such statements are meaningless. Thus, if there is no objective moral reality, then all B type statements must be reduced to b2 type statements. In other words, without objective moral reality, all we have left is not moral language, but statements of personal preference.
Again, there is a necessary distinction to be made between attributing moral language to acts/things themselves and merely attributing that language to ourselves, where such language is really just expressing personal emotional states, especially desire or aversion.

As to slavery, the ice cream example does make a mockery of the suffering, and that is why I use it. No one in their right mind would suggest that my preference for vanilla over chocolate the same type of thing as the evil of slavery. The difference is not one of degrees of of types. That is, there is an ontological difference in slavery and my preferred flavor of ice cream. But precisely because of that, it is the idiotic commentary from people who want to claim that moral language is not objective--that moral values don't exist--that is the truly horrendous and offensive idea. THAT is the idea that makes a mockery of the suffering of the enslaved. For such language does reduce their suffering to a mere issue of preference. And as far as I'm concerned, such language ought not be tolerated. It is wicked, evil, and disgustingly offensive for reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with religion and everything to do with reason. Kenny's arguments are as equally appalling, dehumanizing, and offensive as those of a skinhead who trumpets white supremacy. The proper response to one is exactly the same as the proper response to the other: public shame and derision for such hateful, dehumanizing, disgusting rhetoric.

Jac3510 wrote:Of course, everyone thinks that slavery really is wrong

No, they don't. There are more slaves in the world now than there were people on earth back when Aristotle was arguing animals are beasts of burden and certain people, of course not him, were natural slaves. Let's be correct about this "Jac thinks that everyone thinks that slavery is wrong" :lol:

Don't be stupid. You know hyperbole when you see it.

Would you like to actually address the substance of the argument now rather than complaining about figures of speech and having your precious sensibilities offended by serious dialogue (along with refusing to interact with what I've actually said, such that I have to repaste my own words), or are you content to lazily throw rocks?

The argument is simple: if there is no such thing as objective moral values, then moral language cannot be attributed to something in an objective manner. Either you accept the premise and deny objective moral values, or you dispute the premise and show how language can refer objectively to that which has no objective existence.
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Proinsias » Fri Jul 17, 2015 3:54 pm

Your op gives the impression that ice cream is not a moral issue and slavery is, correct me if I am wrong. I'm a little worried about how you relate to non-human life.

The objective/subjective divide is great but problems and suffering arise when we take these things too seriously. I worry you take these things to heart, subject and object are useful, not real.

User avatar
Jac3510
Ultimate Member
Posts: 5488
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2004 6:53 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Location: Fort Smith, AR
Contact:

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Jac3510 » Fri Jul 17, 2015 5:04 pm

Right, preference for ice cream is not a moral issue. Suffering is. And there's no need to be concerned about how I relate to non-human life. There's not even a need to be concerned about how I relate to non-life. That's actually the beauty of embracing objective morality rooted not even in God's own preferences but in essence and, ultimately, the non-distinction between Existence and Good.

Be that as it may, you are threatening to go down the same path kenny did. You are implicitly asking an epistemological question--how we know how to relate to non-(human)life. But such matters are completely unrelated to my argument. I could be a racist fool who thinks that the earth is ours for the raping. I could be wrong about every conceivable moral issue. I could not have an iota of an idea of how to explain to you my moral convictions beyond an appeal to personal sentiment. And none of that would matter. What does matter is the argument itself:

Either moral language can be predicated objectively to acts or it cannot. If it cannot, morality itself does not exist. If it can, objective moral values exist. For all my long OP, this is actually a very obvious point. If the color "red" just did not exist, then the word "red" wouldn't refer to anything. Put differently, suppose I said, "look at that red apple." That sentence presumes that at least three things really and truly exist: looking, redness, and apples. Moreover, it assumes that those three concepts are related to each other in such a way that those words can meaningfully (not just grammatically!) be strung together. Against that, remember Chomsky's point that "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously." Just as that sentence is non-sense, the sentence about red apples would be non-sense if redness simply did not exist, that is, if there were no property in apples to which the word "red" corresponds.

Exactly the same thing is true about morality, because exactly the same thing is true about ALL predication. A word either refers to something or it does not. So when we say, "slavery is evil" we are taking the word "evil" and assuming it refers to something real. Now there are three, and ONLY three, ways in which we can interpret this sentence:

1. "evil" has no reality of any kind. In this case, the word refers to absolutely nothing and is meaningless. We may as well say, "slavery is aoiwnafaslkrl."
2. "evil" has merely cognitive reality (like unicorns). since things that only have cognitive reality do not, by definition, exist in actual, non-mental things, then there is no "evil" in slavery (which is an actual, non-mental thing). Therefore, the word "evil" in the sentence refers to nothing at all. Again, the sentence means exactly the same thing as "slavery is aoweinfaweoihfawl;fh." If, though, the phrase is taken to refer not to slavery (since there is no evil in slavery) but rather to my own self, such that "evil" refers to my preferences, then the phrase actually means, "slavery is something I detest/prefer did not exist." notice that the words "slavery, something, I, detest/prefer, exist" all refer to actual realities. But since "evil" is not an actual reality, but only a cognitive one, we can't predicate it to something. So the phrase isn't talking about slavery after all, but rather talking about me and my preferences.
3. "evil" has objective reality. therefore, the phrase is attributing something real (evil) to something real (slavery).

That is ALL the options. To claim that good or evil have no objective reality is to claim that things like slavery aren't really evil and things like humility aren't really good. It's all mere preferences. And THAT makes a mockery of suffering, and you should be ashamed and embarrassed that you would even entertain such a notion. Because you are saying that suffering isn't really evil after all. Sure, you don't prefer it. But the only difference in that and me not preferring chocolate is degree. It is exactly the same thing. I don't prefer chocolate. You REALLY don't prefer suffering. But they are exactly the same idea by nature, and the fact that you would reduce the suffering of people to a mere preference is absolutely disgusting. You may object that you are not reducing it so, but that's just your failure to be intellectually honest about what your beliefs entail.

The objective/subjective divide is great but problems and suffering arise when we take these things too seriously. I worry you take these things to heart, subject and object are useful, not real.

And this, of course, is absurd. You are collapsing the distinction between the knower and the known. This idea entails radical monism, in which everything is the same thing, including truth and falsehood. That violates the law of non-contradiction and is self-defeating.

Now, if your response to my argument is just to say that everything is really the exact same thing, then I'll write you off as exactly as foolish conspiracy theorists who think Bush was behind 9/11, that we never landed on the moon, or that we're all in some giant Truman Show of our own. f you are going to go as far as to deny reason itself in order to avoid submitting to what reason insists upon, then pretending not to recognize hyperbole and attempting to derail serious conversation through that is the least of your problems.

So, again, I ask, would you like to engage with the substance of what I'm saying, or are you going to continue to fuss about implications (that don't even follow, which further demonstrates your failure to grasp the original point) and attack reason itself?
Proinsias wrote:I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue

And that, brothers and sisters, is the kind of foolishness you get people who insist on denying biblical theism. A good illustration of any as the length people will go to avoid acknowledging basic truths.

Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Proinsias » Sat Jul 18, 2015 5:48 am

I don't think you are hearing me. Preference for ice cream is a moral issue, whether the ice cream is chocolate or the slaves are brown the suffering is still a very real issue. You still don't seem to able to take this on board. Your OP shows a complete disregard for suffering which I can understand but I've pointed it out and you still really couldn't care less, it's a shame.

If you want to discuss the moon landings, 9/11 or mass surveillance I suggest you open new threads.

I am enaging with your argument, I'm pointing out your example of slavery vs ice cream is grim and poorly thought out. Instead of admitting this, reframing your argument in less offensive terms and moving forward you just keep on keeping on whilst painting those who disagree as nutjobs and sticking by a poor argument.

And it's not radical monism, it's dual monism.

User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby jlay » Sat Jul 18, 2015 8:25 am

Kenny wrote:
The point I was making has nothing to do with weather the treatment of these animals is wrong or not, it’s about the fact that people disagree on the issue, and their position cannot be demonstrated as right or wrong.

Yes, people disagree. Again, this isn't an argument that undermines OM. You keep saying it is. It's a bald assertion.

No; it assumes if OM existed such a standard would exist. The fact that such a standard doesn’t makes the case that OM doesn’t exist

You are just begging the question here. You say a standard doesn't exist. Your reason? Disagreement? Lack of being obvious? Those both have been debunked. Sorry Kenny, but you aren't the standard. I've already shown that this doesn't support your claim. You said "fact." Demonstrate that this is a fact. If it's a fact, then by your own words, you should be able to do so empirically.

Actually I wasn’t just offering my opinion, I looked up several sites and saw how the terms are used.

Then why do resort to your own personal views of defining objective, such as everyone must agree?
Sure Kenny, 1+1=2 can be demonstrated. But this ignores what is really occurring here. It ignores a myriad of mathematical proofs that aren't so easily demonstrated. And even if you could it doesn't mean that a person will understand. It actually works against your point. The basics of morality are obvious and demonstrable. That is, it does matter how we treat one another. That order and justice are better than disorder and anarchy. Where you and so many make the mistake is getting into certain interpretations and specific rules, where people do disagree. Such as, why doesn't everyone agree on the treatment of animals. It really doesn't matter. Jac, has explained better why it doesn't. I'm not saying how animals are treated doesn't matter. I'm saying the ultimate question of whether OM exist doesn't hinge on people having a consensus on this subject. In fact, that is the very nature of OM. If it is truly objective then it isn't contingent on intelligent beings having a consensus. Consensus is really just another example of subjectivity.


No; if morality were objective, we could be perfect moral creatures.


What are you basing this on? I would say, theoretically that we can.

No, just because the gauge is broken doesn’t mean you can’t determine how much fuel is in the tank. You can take the car apart, put a stick down the spout, if there is any way you can provide proof of how much fuel is in the tank, that proof is an objective fact/truth. If there is no way of providing proof, and all you have are opinions, then it is a subjective opinion

Again, this supports my opinion. Sure, we can do those things. But this assumes that a person has the means and tools to do so. You would have to also grant a situation where those things simply aren't at their resource and the person is completely dependent on the gauge. Think about what you are saying. You are saying the amount of fuel in the tank is dependent on being able to provide proof. That simply isn't true. Instead, the amount of fuel in the tank is an objective fact, whether you can demonstrate it or not. If there is no way of providing proof, opinions will abound, but objective reality remains. So, how does this support your position? All you can do is try to keep breaking down the analogy until it fails. And all analogies fail at some point.
Let's assume that the genetic condition that causes color blindness takes over the entire population. Now, the entire population can't distinguish objects that reflect red and green spectrum. Everyone agrees that they are seeing the same thing. No one has the means by which to tell the difference. The consensus doesn't determine what is objectively the case. OM doesn't mean it's etched in stone. It means there is a source, outside of individual or collective opinion, that sources moral values and facts.

If we assume your claim of my views on animal treatment is correct (which it is not) why is there no reason for anyone to agree with me?

If your views are correct, according to what? Again, you've ignorantly allowed OM to slip in the back door unaccounted for. When you state terms like 'correct' what you are implying, whether you realize it or not (and i suspect you don't) is OM exist. As an example, many Christians wrongly claim that the bible is a source of OM. It isn't. It might be a revelation of an objective law giver, but it isn't the source itself.

You mistakenly assume subjective views of right vs wrong change on a regular basis

Nope. I am saying, that following your claim, there is no reason to think they can't or won't change. If you argue otherwise, then you are again smuggling in OM, or a standard of how things ought to be at all times and places. Are you saying there is a rule that SM can't or won't change at any moment? If not, then my claim is verified. If so, then OM exists.

No, I said because morality is subjective, I am unable to demonstrate it as wrong.

Really? You can't demonstrate rape is wrong? Seriously? This is absolutely ridiculous.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious

Kenny
Ultimate Member
Posts: 2356
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 1:17 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Kenny » Sat Jul 18, 2015 9:11 am

Jlay
You are just begging the question here. You say a standard doesn't exist. Your reason? Disagreement? Lack of being obvious? Those both have been debunked. Sorry Kenny, but you aren't the standard. I've already shown that this doesn't support your claim. You said "fact." Demonstrate that this is a fact. If it's a fact, then by your own words, you should be able to do so empirically.

Ken
If such a standard exists, why isn’t there a consensus on what this standard is?


Jlay
Then why do resort to your own personal views of defining objective, such as everyone must agree?
Sure Kenny, 1+1=2 can be demonstrated. But this ignores what is really occurring here. It ignores a myriad of mathematical proofs that aren't so easily demonstrated.


Ken
I said mathematical equations. Do you know of any mathematical equations that can’t be demonstrated?


Jlay
And even if you could it doesn't mean that a person will understand. It actually works against your point.

Ken
You don’t have to understand it for it to be objective, just as long as those who do understand it agree.


Jlay
The basics of morality are obvious and demonstrable. That is, it does matter how we treat one another. That order and justice are better than disorder and anarchy.

Ken
Allow me to play “devils advocate” for a moment. Assume I disagree, I would like you to demonstrate why it matters how we treat each other, and demonstrate why order and justice is better than disorder and anarchy.


Jlay
Think about what you are saying. You are saying the amount of fuel in the tank is dependent on being able to provide proof.

Ken
No. I said weather the claim is objective or subjective is dependent upon if it can be proven or not. Just because you don’t have the tools, or are ignorant on how to provide the proof doesn’t mean it is subjective; as long as it is demonstrable, it is objective.


Jlay
OM doesn't mean it's etched in stone. It means there is a source, outside of individual or collective opinion, that sources moral values and facts.

Ken
So what is this source? And can you provide proof that this is the actual source and not something else?

Jlay
If your views are correct, according to what? Again, you've ignorantly allowed OM to slip in the back door unaccounted for. When you state terms like 'correct' what you are implying, whether you realize it or not (and i suspect you don't) is OM exist

Ken
When I say correct, I mean correct in my subjective opinion.


Jlay
Really? You can't demonstrate rape is wrong? Seriously? This is absolutely ridiculous.

Ken
Perhaps you can demonstrate why rape is wrong.

Ken

Proinsias
Advanced Senior Member
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 3:09 pm
Christian: No
Sex: Male
Creation Position: I don't believe in creation
Location: Scotland

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby Proinsias » Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:44 am

Jac3510 wrote: a. Slavery is wrong
b. I think of slavery as wrong

In the first, moral language (the word "wrong") is attributed to the actual act of slavery. In the second, moral language is predicated to my opinion. What I am arguing is that, if objective moral values do not exist, then sentences of the first type are meaningless. The reason is that if there is no objective moral reality, then moral language doesn't refer to any existent thing.


There appears to be confusion here. As I can read it the first is you expressing an opinion on slavery as is the second, your reading is injecting interpretation which isn't there and you're coming up with something like:

a. Slavery is objectively wrong
b. Slavery is wrong

Where 'b' is me giving you an opinion, as in 'unicorns are pretty' and 'a' is an attempt to beef up my opinion to the point where any disagreement with it will be met with cries of 'troll' or trotting out Avicenna's beating and burning.

Could you be right? yeah, it's possible. Could unicorns be pretty? yeah it's possible.

User avatar
jlay
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3616
Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist

Re: In defense of objective morals

Postby jlay » Sat Jul 18, 2015 11:53 am

Kenny wrote:Ken
If such a standard exists, why isn’t there a consensus on what this standard is?


This is the same question you seem stuck on. I've already given reason why consensus can't be found. The burden is on you. you've made a claim as to why consensus is required. Claims require supportive arguments. You haven't provided one.


Ken
I said mathematical equations. Do you know of any mathematical equations that can’t be demonstrated?

Ken, you do realize that there was a time prior to those equations becoming understood or identified. Did they suddenly become objective? You realize that defeats the entire notion of objective. I'd guess that there could be more equation that we've yet to reveal or demonstrate. Further, as I stated, there are plenty of equations that I lack the skills to understand. My lack of mathematical acumen doesn't make them any more or less objective. But, you do realize that a lot of math is abstract, right?


Ken
You don’t have to understand it for it to be objective, just as long as those who do understand it agree.

Again, this dichotomy makes no sense. You've just ventured into absurdity, which is exactly what folks have been telling you for well over a year. Agreement is a subjective matter. You've yet to show how this is a condition for objective truth regarding moral values. Amazing you can't see the major problems by taking this position. Let's say someone writes the statement, "there are no living humans on the planet," on a piece of paper. They don't believe the statement, but write it down. Is this statement true? No. Why? Because it doesn't correspond to reality. Not because people agree. Moments later, all the oxygen disappears and all of humanity dies. Is the statement true? Yes, even though the one who wrote the statement didn't believe it when it was written. It is objectively true even though there isn't anyone to demonstrate this to. If there were no humans on this planet, and a squirrel who has two acorns in its nest gathers two more, it now has four acorns. It has nothing to do with being able to demonstrate or agree.


Ken
Allow me to play “devils advocate” for a moment. Assume I disagree, I would like you to demonstrate why it matters how we treat each other, and demonstrate why order and justice is better than disorder and anarchy.

Simple, I take a club and beat you about the head. When you object, I simply tell you that you just stated that it doesn't matter how we treat each other. If you object, then you prove that it does matter. Any other ridiculous positions you'd like to advocate??


Ken
No. I said weather the claim is objective or subjective is dependent upon if it can be proven or not. Just because you don’t have the tools, or are ignorant on how to provide the proof doesn’t mean it is subjective; as long as it is demonstrable, it is objective.

Ken, it's "whether" not weather. This about the 2nd or 3rd time i've seen this.
-Again, bald assertion. You keep claiming this, but it doesn't make it correct. Something isn't objective because it's demonstrable. Either support this or quit making the claim.


Ken
So what is this source? And can you provide proof that this is the actual source and not something else?

Prove? Kenny, I'm not trying to prove the source. That is a different argument. A metaphysical argument isn't "proven" like a mathematical proof. You should know this. In this sense, science can't 'prove' gravity. Further, the argument is to show we have grounds for accepting objective morality, and thus a source for it. What or who that source is, is another matter all together. Take Sam Harris for example. He is a full-fledged, card carrying atheist, yet he adheres to OM.


Ken
When I say correct, I mean correct in my subjective opinion.

That is a vacuous statement. And that is being kind. In reality, it's meaningless and arbitrary. Correct might as well mean incorrect. You don't use the terms this way. If you do, you would have no way to even present an argument. After all, your opinion on the non-objectivity of morality is also subjective. Nothing personal, but your opinion is untenable. It's self-defeating and nonsensical. You might as well say, "I like things i don't like."

Ken
Perhaps you can demonstrate why rape is wrong.

Rape is wrong regardless of opinion. Let's say we stumbled upon a culture that promoted the rape of children as a virtuous thing. If we can't demonstrate it's wrong, and we assume therefore that it is strictly their preference, then we would have no reason to try and force our opinion upon them. In fact, following this thinking (if we are consistent) we should be equally open to adopt the practice of the culture and participate. Now, your likely argument is that it's your subjective opinion, and therefore you don't have to adopt their position. Sure, but that isn't how you are using the term. You REALLY think rape is wrong, not simply in the sense that you prefer not rape over rape. Now, in this case you really do think that rape is wrong, but your worldview doesn't permit you to demonstrate that rape is wrong. Why? well because you think all moral choices are subjective. Therefore, you are impaired by your worldview. So, what should you do? Abandon your worldview. You KNOW rape is wrong in all times and places.

If that doesn't work, we can always have the natives rape you until you repent of such a stupidity.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord

"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious


Return to “Questioning Non-belief”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider] and 1 guest