Foundation for objective moral standards

[Sunstone]

No objective verifiable evidence provided.

You noticed that too, did you? I almost replied to that post but then I thought, "who cares?" The guy can't even come up with reasons for his own beliefs. Why should I care about the reasons for his beliefs if he doesn't?

 

[AmericanMuslim]

Turns out we can, as many in this thread have done.

Really, give it a try again. I am person in power and can do whatever evil I want. You prove to me why not robbing is good for me. Go ahead and I will see how you prove that to me logically.

 

[AmericanMuslim]

Because they harm the well being of sensitive beings, and thereby harm everyone's environment and perspectives for the present and future.

That is the very basis of morality.

All I care is that it benefits me, if it harms others then who cares. After all I am most powerful and can never be trialed and there is no life after death.

Give me another reason....

 

[AmericanMuslim]

Who created your consciousness who tells you what is right and what is wrong?

You know death is real, right? What does that mean? Does not that mean that someone has power over you and He can cause you to die whenever He wants?

Life isn't always fair and sometimes, people get away with bad behaviour. You seem to have problems accepting that and are happy to believe in supernatural shenannigans to try and resolve that inner conflict because it makes you sleep better at night and / or aren't willing to face reality.

I have no need for such wishfull thinking. I'm fine accepting that life isn't always fair and that justice won't always be served. We can only try and minimize it.

Suppose someone kills your entire family in front of your eyes and get away because you could not prove him/her guilty in the court. So you are telling me that you will be fine with that? That's pure nonsense.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Do we all agree that robbing, raping and killing is bad? If we do, can anyone give me a one logical reason to believe why these are bad?

Because you wouldn't want those things perpetrated against yourself, AND you can easily see what would be your own distress in such situations mirrored in the countenance of the person you are about to rob/rape/kill.

You must contemplate their distress because you contemplate your own. The moment you display that you think it is okay to rob/rape/kill is the moment you have to accept anyone else's attempts to rob/rape/kill YOU as completely justified. And if you don't think those things perpetrated against yourself can be justified, then you cannot justify your own actions as such against others. It really is that easy.

 

[LuisDantas]

All I care is that it benefits me, if it harms others then who cares. After all I am most powerful and can never be trialed and there is no life after death.

Give me another reason....

Honest question: are you trying to be funny?

Pretending to have no discernment and no wisdom?

Claiming to lack those virtues?

Or what?

 

[oldbadger]

Because they harm the well being of sensitive beings, and thereby harm everyone's environment and perspectives for the present and future.

That is the very basis of morality.

No........ that is the very basis of humanity.

 

[LuisDantas]

No........ that is the very basis of humanity.

I don't know that there is a difference as such.

The one thing that IMO makes humanity noticeable is that so far it is the only species demonstrated to be capable of abstract reasoning - and reason is the basis for morality as I understand it.

 

[oldbadger]

Question: what is morality,....

I think that the very word 'morality' is an impostor.

.........how do we make moral evaluations?

That is a constantly altering hypocrisy, and 'moral evaluations' change with fashions and policies. A typical; example could be homosexual partnerships, and whereas 50 years ago (UK) they would be condemned as immoral, today they are acknowledged as moral.

If the word is dismissed and not used, then truth is a little easier to recognise, I think.

But that's just my mindset about it.

 

[oldbadger]

I don't know that there is a difference as such.

The one thing that IMO makes humanity noticeable is that so far it is the only species demonstrated to be capable of abstract reasoning - and reason is the basis for morality as I understand it.

But I detest the word, consider it to be as posturing as, say, 'spirituality'.

All the species live and survive and develop reasonably. They don't have to perceive in abstract ideas to be reasonable. In fact the only species on Earth which is capable of unreasoning, greedy, careless wickedness is mankind. All the species are true to themselves and their surroundings.

It is much better to describe folks in real terms.

In fact there is no condition, action, mindset, opinion which cannot be better and more accurately described ... than 'moral'.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Craig's definition of "objective" is adequate in this context. For a moral value or duty to be objective, it must be valid and binding on us independent of our opinion about whether or not it is valid and binding on us. I would urge everyone participating in this thread to seriousluy consider following Craig in this -- in order to promote communication.

The definition seems helpful enough in moving us away from subjective opinion. It begs the questions when does opinion cease to be subjective and can be considered objective. What are the criteria for establishing the validity of objective morals? Who gets to decide and on what basis?

 

[Dawnofhope]

And reality is defined by actual reality, not by the ramblings of humans in a book.

Here's a challenge.

Using WLC's moral framework: evaluate terrorist jihadi behaviour and form a judgement. Share with us the reasoning you go through and the argument by which you judge said behaviour moral or immoral.

Now do the same, but use Harris' moral framework instead.

Then state which of both you think is the better argument and explain why.

Both these posts demonstrate a lack of appreciation of what religion, their sacred books and followers bring to the table. Most adherents of religion that would engage in this discussion will readily admit some laws and morals revealed in a bygone era are completely unsuited for modern times. If you want to have a meaningful discussion with theists rather than bash them, at least make an effort to hide your contempt.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Do we all agree that robbing, raping and killing is bad? If we do, can anyone give me a one logical reason to believe why these are bad?

When Nazi Germany swept though Europe invading and conquering countries, was it reasonable for Britain and other allied forces at arise in opposition and in doing so kill Germans?

 

[AmericanMuslim]

Because you wouldn't want those things perpetrated against yourself, AND you can easily see what would be your own distress in such situations mirrored in the countenance of the person you are about to rob/rape/kill.

You must contemplate their distress because you contemplate your own. The moment you display that you think it is okay to rob/rape/kill is the moment you have to accept anyone else's attempts to rob/rape/kill YOU as completely justified. And if you don't think those things perpetrated against yourself can be justified, then you cannot justify your own actions as such against others. It really is that easy.

I understand what you are saying. But question is how would you convince someone in absolute power ( like a King of some country or let's assume President of powerful country)not to rob or rape? This powerful guy does not care about what happens to others, all he cares is how things benefits him. Trump is a classic example of this behavior. Anyways let's see if you have any logical argument to convince this powerful bad guy?

 

[AmericanMuslim]

Honest question: are you trying to be funny?

Pretending to have no discernment and no wisdom?

Claiming to lack those virtues?

Or what?

I am not trying to be funny. Actually the attitude I am mentioning is very common with our politician. Those who rule the countries normally have this attitude. Kings in the past had similar belief system. So going back to my question, how do you convince this powerful bad guy who does not believe in life hereafter and who has total control over the so called worldly justice system.

 

[AmericanMuslim]

When Nazi Germany swept though Europe invading and conquering countries, was it reasonable for Britain and other allied forces at arise in opposition and in doing so kill Germans?

You got it, this is exactly what my question is about. Who determines morality? Germans thought they were right and those fighting against them thought they are right. So both parties were right in their own rational. Who determines what is right and what is wrong?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

I understand what you are saying. But question is how would you convince someone in absolute power ( like a King of some country or let's assume President of powerful country)not to rob or rape? This powerful guy does not care about what happens to others, all he cares is how things benefits him. Trump is a classic example of this behavior. Anyways let's see if you have any logical argument to convince this powerful bad guy?

And that situation HAS come up, hasn't it? In the form of psychopaths or sociopaths, who do not understand what it is we're discussing here. And what do we ultimately do, or try to do with those members of society? For one... try and make sure they don't come to power, and for another, lock them away and try to rehabilitate or treat them if such is possible. They don't get to just run amok and do whatever they want. They get stopped, because cooler heads prevail. The heads that understand the axiomatic nature of "the golden rule's" far more more pragmatic negation: "Do not do unto others that which you do not want done unto yourself."

 

[PruePhillip]

You and others continually refer to the immoral acts by individuals and not the morals and ethics of societies and cultures throughout history with many different religious beliefs, which would be the natural biological evolved morals and ethics which results in the survival of the societies, cultures and humanity, and not individuals.

The morals defined by ancient scripture of the Bible including slavery, tribal wars, and extermination of women and children captives in war.

Still waiting . . . no objective verifiable evidence that morals and ethics do not have a natural biological origin

Certainly there is a natural type of morals.
There has to be - cooperation and fidelity are crucial.
But the bible speaks of TWO natures - the natural and
the spiritual. This is a common theme in the Old
Testament, ie the two brothers symbolizing different
natures.
Jesus stated that the natural morals are not sufficient
for the kingdom of heaven. Example "You have been
told to hate your enemies but I say that you love your
enemies and do good to them that spitefully use you."

 

[Dawnofhope]

You got it, this is exactly what my question is about. Who determines morality? Germans thought they were right and those fighting against them thought they are right. So both parties were right in their own rational. Who determines what is right and what is wrong?

Ok then. Thanks for your positive response. So let’s take a theist position similar to that of Craig but instead of the foundation of objective morality being God’s Revelation through through the Bible we say God’s Revelation through the Quran. God being All-Knowing and Wise He makes His Will manifest through the Prophet and Messenger Muhammad. He provides a book with guidance as to morals and laws. Those morals are objective as God is the ultimate source of knowledge and truth. Are there any problems with that perspective or have we successfully resolved the problem of the foundation or ontology of objective morality? Why didn’t this foundation or the Christian equivalent changed the course of history for the better?

 

[PruePhillip]

You and others continually refer to the immoral acts by individuals and not the morals and ethics of societies and cultures throughout history with many different religious beliefs, which would be the natural biological evolved morals and ethics which results in the survival of the societies, cultures and humanity, and not individuals.

The morals defined by ancient scripture of the Bible including slavery, tribal wars, and extermination of women and children captives in war.

Still waiting . . . no objective verifiable evidence that morals and ethics do not have a natural biological origin

Collective morals.
It's like someone says "I am a moral person - my church gives to the poor."
Interestingly in the bible, particularly the Christian New Testament, this
collective morality accounts for nothing.
The bible is about universalism and individualism. It holds that we stand
before God alone - as a person, and we are accountable for what we
have done, no-one else.

I hold that in society the moral space neither grows nor shrinks. We
are "moral" about no fault divorce, we are "immoral" for half our children
living with divorced or single parents.
We are "moral" for providing foreign aid, we are "immoral" for developing
the technology of warfare for mass extermination of civilian populations.

But, I suspect, in the process of shifting our morality, we lose something
in the process (ie politicized transgender issues for children.)