Morality: Do you agree

[Eli G]

I don't need to explain my hopes to you, and you don't have to agree with me. We see the reality with diferent eyes, and that's it.

Have a good one.

 

[vulcanlogician]

Not believing in objective morality (see my previous post for definition), doesn't mean morality is 'just an opinion' or that you have to be a moral relativist.
I can certainly be "outraged" of something I consider to be immoral.

I would call you a moral objectivist, actually. The matter of which basis for ethics is a fuzzy and difficult one, but you seem to have resolved an answer. Now... that doesn't mean you think your basis is necessarily correct (or couldn't be improved upon). But the moment you decide that harm and suffering are bad, you can make independently true statements about ethics from then on. Sounds like an objective enterprise to me.

It works the same way with geometry. Once you establish a few things (like the shortest distance between two points is a straight line) you can make objective statements about Euclidean space. Are there other kinds of space... non-euclidean space, for instance? Yes. But that doesn't impact the truth or falsity (or objectivity) about what we can say about Euclidean space with certain axioms.

We can even have an objective debate about "your" basis for ethics. Philosophers have been doing it for centuries. We have recorded arguments that suffering ought to be considered the sole moral ill dating back over 2,200 years ago. Just because a determination can be argued against or disagreed with, that doesn't necessarily make it subjective. Ethicists try to make rational objective arguments for which monistic idea best serves as a foundation for morality. I bet you used logic and reasoning to determine that suffering and harm are bad. You didn't just pick it on a whim. I bet you asked yourself, "what is the best foundation for morality that I cn employ in my life that will result in me actually doing good for others if I follow it?" If you did... there's nothing subjective about that.

You do have a point about the "right" of a person to be outraged in moral matters. People get outraged by matters of opinion all the time. So being a moral relativist doesn't preclude one from moral outrage. (I might have been a little sloppy with my statements there.) But still, if one is a moral relativist, they ought to be careful about saying there is something wrong with x or y action. That is something they fundamentally disagree with.

 

[vulcanlogician]

There is a difference between descriptive laws (like the laws of nature, logic) and prescriptive laws (like moral laws or legal laws). The latter is what you ought to do. Those can not be mind independent.

Thomas Scanlon has done some serious work on this problem. I could post 1 or 2 relevant lectures of his if you'd like.

You're asking all the right questions, man.

 

[AdamjEdgar]

When you don't get a coherent description you cannot take that description to court.

A smart detective would say, I'm wasting my time here, no one has a clue.

i think i will leave the valuation of that statement to the critics. Those of us who use logic and rational thought will find it absurd when hundreds of independent witnesses are making the same general claim to the occurrence of a significant event!

To further support my own claim to the contrary:
Pontius Pilate
Herod the Great
All of the Apostles - we know 100% that all of the apostles really did exist, this is not falsifiable
The writings of the Bible - dead sea scrolls (1900+ years old), Isaiah Scroll (100 B.C) Codex Sinaiticus (1900+ years old),

Black Obelisk (king Jehu bowing before Assyrian King Shalmenasser III)
Ancient biblical kings of the Bible that we now have uncovered are real base on evidence outside of the Bible (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus etc)
Merneptah Stele - an ancient Egyptian stone referencing the Israelites
Kurkh monoliths - contains a reference to king Ahab of the Bible
Nimrud Tablet - contains the first known reference outside of the bible to Judah
Azekah inscription - a very famous one because this is an external artifact containing writings about the Assyrian campaign of Sennacherib against King Hezekiah of Judah.
Nabonidus chronicle - another very famous artifact that supports the biblical account of the conquest of Babylon by King Cyrus of Persia.


Individuals can call the bible a fabrication all they like, the reality is, real evidence...you know the sort of stuff that scientists use, real evidence denies any possibility that the bible is a fairy tale! Given that historically it is so accurate, i would argue there is a very strong probability that its philosophy is credible enough to believe in God. Atheism does not have a similar foundation upon which to base its beliefs (or lack thereof)

 

[AppieB]

I would call you a moral objectivist, actually. The matter of which basis for ethics is a fuzzy and difficult one, but you seem to have resolved an answer. Now... that doesn't mean you think your basis is necessarily correct (or couldn't be improved upon). But the moment you decide that harm and suffering are bad, you can make independently true statements about ethics from then on. Sounds like an objective enterprise to me.

Yes, the assessments are an "objective enterprise". The caring about well being (foundation) is not.

It works the same way with geometry. Once you establish a few things (like the shortest distance between two points is a straight line) you can make objective statements about Euclidean space. Are there other kinds of space... non-euclidean space, for instance? Yes. But that doesn't impact the truth or falsity (or objectivity) about what we can say about Euclidean space with certain axioms.

Sure, but here we are talking about what is, not what you ought to do. The analogy fails because morality is not what just is, but also what you ought to do (depending your goal)

We can even have an objective debate about "your" basis for ethics. Philosophers have been doing it for centuries. We have recorded arguments that suffering ought to be considered the sole moral ill dating back over 2,200 years ago. Just because a determination can be argued against or disagreed with, that doesn't necessarily make it subjective. Ethicists try to make rational objective arguments for which monistic idea best serves as a foundation for morality. I bet you used logic and reasoning to determine that suffering and harm are bad. You didn't just pick it on a whim. I bet you asked yourself, "what is the best foundation for morality that I cn employ in my life that will result in me actually doing good for others if I follow it?" If you did... there's nothing subjective about that.

Yes, 'we' have been doing it for centuries, but we never found the solution to get an ought from an is. I believe that's one of the 'holy grails' of Philosophy.

You do have a point about the "right" of a person to be outraged in moral matters. People get outraged by matters of opinion all the time. So being a moral relativist doesn't preclude one from moral outrage. (I might have been a little sloppy with my statements there.) But still, if one is a moral relativist, they ought to be careful about saying there is something wrong with x or y action. That is something they fundamentally disagree with.

True, for a moral relativist it's 'difficult' to be outraged of something outside their time and/or culture. And some won't because they think it's not up to them do condemn immoral behaviour.

 

[AppieB]

Thomas Scanlon has done some serious work on this problem. I could post 1 or 2 relevant lectures of his if you'd like.

You're asking all the right questions, man.

I always welcome new knowledge.

 

[sun rise]

I remember when I was a child. We could take a nap without bolting the door. We could also be on the street until any time, because the dangers were minimal.

Some people don't remember those times... or never knew them. That is why they do not realize the reality of the times and the moral decline that has occurred lately.

Has the invention of atheistic morality become something really beneficial for humanity?

What I've seen is the immorality of so-called believers who profess what they do not practice.

 

[ChristineM]

Pontius Pilate

Yes, he is known to have existed without the bible

Herod the Great

Ditto

All of the Apostles - we know 100% that all of the apostles really did exist, this is not falsifiable

Evidence please, as far as i am aware there is no such evidence.

That given by Tacitus is considered a forgery added much later.

The gospels attributed to Matthew and John were originally anonymous and only assigned some 200+ years after events

The writings of the Bible - dead sea scrolls (1900+ years old), Isaiah Scroll (100 B.C) Codex Sinaiticus (1900+ years old),

And?

real evidence denies any possibility that the bible is a fairy tale!

Again, evidence please. I have studied the period and come to a completely different view.
My view on Jesus.

Atheism does not have a similar foundation upon which to base its beliefs (or lack thereof)

Atheism does not have any belief but rather disbelief or lack of belief

Atheism: disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

Anything else you add is down to your own misunderstanding

 

[Trailblazer]

From the definition of the words "moral" and "immoral".

Moral = that which increases well-being / decreases suffering
immoral = that which does the opposite
amoral = that which does neither.

It's not hard.
From there, moral reasoning can be done in pretty objective fashion.
Meaning that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions.
No god required. In fact..... "divine command theory" isn't morality at all. It's just mere obedience to perceived authority.

I am not sure where you got your definition of moral.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=moral+means

But even with your definition, that which increases well-being / decreases suffering is highly subjective since it is not the same for everyone. It is different for different people. What increases my well-being would probably decrease your well-being and vice versa.

How it affects the well-being and suffering of sentient creatures.

Morality has nothing to do with suffering or lack thereof. A moral act can and often does increase suffering because it involves sacrifice of what one desires. An immoral act such as adultery can and often does increase well-being while one is engaged in the behavior, but it causes suffering to the spouse who is cheated on.

If you are going to disagree that morality pertains to well-being of sentient creatures, then I don't know what you are referring to when you use the term.

Please refer to the definition above.

 

[Trailblazer]

Well-being and suffering and how they are affected by the act in question.

See my previous post.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Was watching a debate between a Muslim and an atheist. And the Muslim make the argument that people that believe in subjective morality have no foundation for making moral judgements and are therefore not valid. Whereas people with a foundation in objective morality, meaning God as the moral judge are because this gives them a foundation for their morality.

Do you agree with this, that without God there is no moral foundation for judging right from wrong? And therefore people not believing in objective morality is not allowed or invalid when judging others?

You (and those you watched debating) are missing a key point. If there is a God, you still need some way of knowing that what you are TOLD this God says and wants is ACTUALLY what this God says and wants. And you only have another human telling you so.

Without knowing that, it probably more likely that the "objective morality" is what some human says it is -- his subjective opinion.

Morality is what you know to be right by simply considering other people are much like you -- what hurts you probably hurts them, and what helps you probably helps them, and learning to understand when others are happy or unhappy. And that latter is really a basic capacity of human nature.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Men won't solve human problems.

Why not? Seems to me that solving human problems is a very human thing to do.
Almost everything we do centers around it. And then there are companies and cults that exploit this and trick you into thinking you are solving a problem. Meanwhile you are giving them your money and / or your soul (and I mean that metaphorically obviously).

No matter how many good intentions exist ... Not the knowledge, not the power, not the support, they are uncapable on fighting the other side: the dark side of humanity, and a long etc.

Me and the group. It is what it is.

We are also always going to have tribalism build in. We naturally tend to think in groups of people.

On top of that, science is just a means to achieve things that can help us, but it doesn't belong to atheists. Don't talk like believers are enemies of science ...

Be real.

A decent amount of believers kind of are, actually. Several of them on these forums also.
Evolution deniers being an obvious one. Flood believers, flat earth believers, etc.

 

[Trailblazer]

So if god decides that genocide is moral, then it is.
If god decides that infanticide is moral, then it is.
If god decides homophobia is moral, then it is.
If god decides that slavery is moral, then it is.

I call that moral bankruptcy.

But God did not decide those things.

I don't "decide" what is and isn't moral. Instead, I conclude it in the most objective manner possible with as a foundation well-being (good) and suffering (bad) of sentient creatures

It's not hard.

I also find that a lot of times, my conclusions are diametrically opposed to the morals of "gods".

As I said two posts above well-being and suffering are not a good benchmark for deciding what is moral.
I explained why in #149 Trailblazer, 11 minutes ago.

"might makes right".

That's that moral bankrupcy I was referring to.

Might does not make right because it is not God's omnipotence that makes His laws right, it is His omniscience.

 

[Polymath257]

i think i will leave the valuation of that statement to the critics. Those of us who use logic and rational thought will find it absurd when hundreds of independent witnesses are making the same general claim to the occurrence of a significant event!

Well, that depend on whether they were at the event or not, right?

To further support my own claim to the contrary:
Pontius Pilate
Herod the Great

Yes, known historical figures appear in the Bible. That does not make the Bible historical. A comic book can correctly mention a president, but not be accurate in other ways.

All of the Apostles - we know 100% that all of the apostles really did exist, this is not falsifiable

Not quite true. We have writings from well after the events that mention them, but they were not writings by those apostles, nor are they writings from eyewitnesses to them. There are a variety of stories told about them, some fantastic, other mundane.

Some may have been historical personsages, but whose legends grew over time.

The writings of the Bible - dead sea scrolls (1900+ years old), Isaiah Scroll (100 B.C) Codex Sinaiticus (1900+ years old),

Except, of course, that what was in the Dead Sea Scrolls didn't limit itself to what we know from the Bible. Their 'sacred texts' had some overlap, but was far from being identical. Also, that certain writings spread quickly does NOT make them accurate, only popular.

Black Obelisk (king Jehu bowing before Assyrian King Shalmenasser III)
Ancient biblical kings of the Bible that we now have uncovered are real base on evidence outside of the Bible (Nebuchadnezzar, Cyrus etc)

Yes, once again mentioning historical people does not make the whole text historical.

Merneptah Stele - an ancient Egyptian stone referencing the Israelites

More accurately, the Ibiru, who were mountain people. This does establish a group of people at that time, but does not say anything about their beliefs or social structure. More can be found from archeology. But that doesn't fit the Biblical narrative as well.

Kurkh monoliths - contains a reference to king Ahab of the Bible
Nimrud Tablet - contains the first known reference outside of the bible to Judah

Yes, by the time of the Monarchy, the Bible is much more reliable as history. before that, it is not. And, in fact, it widely disagrees with what we know of the archeology and history.

Azekah inscription - a very famous one because this is an external artifact containing writings about the Assyrian campaign of Sennacherib against King Hezekiah of Judah.
Nabonidus chronicle - another very famous artifact that supports the biblical account of the conquest of Babylon by King Cyrus of Persia.

And we know of Cyrus from other accounts. Again, mentioning historical figures does not make a document historical.

Individuals can call the bible a fabrication all they like, the reality is, real evidence...you know the sort of stuff that scientists use, real evidence denies any possibility that the bible is a fairy tale!

More accurately, the Bible is a mixture of fairy tale, propaganda, morality sayings, etc. it is very inaccurate until about the time of the Monarchy, gives a very biased account from that to the New Testament, and seems to be mostly legend after that.

Given that historically it is so accurate, i would argue there is a very strong probability that its philosophy is credible enough to believe in God. Atheism does not have a similar foundation upon which to base its beliefs (or lack thereof)

And I would disagree. It is not more accurate than, say, Livy's history of Rome, but there are many aspects of both that should be discounted. And the philosophy of both is, at best, beside the point of the history.

Atheism is simply the statement that the claimed proofs that God(s) exist(s) are fallacious and don't prove their claim. I see no evidence from the Bible that it is anything other than a collection of texts written by and for humans to prop up a theocracy and complain about it when history doesn't go the way they want.

 

[Polymath257]

I don't need to explain my hopes to you, and you don't have to agree with me. We see the reality with diferent eyes, and that's it.

Have a good one.

So you think that 'seeing it with different eyes' means there is no objective reality?

 

[vulcanlogician]

Sure, but here we are talking about what is, not what you ought to do. The analogy fails because morality is not what just is, but also what you ought to do (depending your goal)

There are many strategies to deal with the Hume problem. My favorite approach is to discover an axiomatic foundation for good and bad. Then you have a basis for objective ethics. It's up to each person themselves to determine whether they "ought" to do the good thing or the bad thing. So, as long as we are talking about good and bad, we are being descriptive and my example is apt. Of course there are many objections to this approach. I don't mean you should just accept my answer based on what I've said here. I'm just giving you the basic gist. G.E. Moore also has a compelling solution to the is/ought problem.

I have an ongoing discussion with Brian, Ella, and others in the philosophy subforum in this thread. If you are as obsessed with objective ethics as we are, feel free to join us. I have written several essay-length answers to the questions your asking to Ella over the past two weeks, so I hope you'll forgive me for not wanting to repeat myself.

I always welcome new knowledge.

Here are two lectures from Scanlon. The first one is where he deals with normative truth. The second is more of a general overview of Scanlon's thinking about ethics. (I suggest watching it if it turns out you like the guy.)

 

[Heyo]

It offends other people.

Thanks, I knew someone would have a subjective moral objection to it.

 

[Heyo]

The point remains...atheists cannot deny they know of God.

Au contraire. Even theists don't know what a god is.

I will challenge anyone to go throughout their local community and run a survey...even in non Christian countries...by far the majority of individuals know exactly how to define God.

They don't. They may have the illusion they do but no two will have the same definition.

 

[Heyo]

Once again, I am in favor of longer life. I would not want to live forever, though.

Also, living longer is in the realm of possibility, living forever is only possible with magic.

 

[Heyo]

Knowledge do not make people happier.

That is true. Ignorance is bliss. You can see it every day how people happily post bull**** on the internet and get angry when we try to disturb their ignorance.