Morality? Right or wrong?

[viole]

And also if the existence of absolute morality is a good argument for the existence of a God.

Maybe not. Since I can imagine absolute things, like the laws of logic, without the necessity of a God. So, if there exist at least one absolute thing that does not necessitate the existence of God, the argument will not obtain.

If on the other hand, absolute morality would entail the existence of God, then you will have to provide evidence of the former. Otherwise, the argument would be as strong as saying: the existence of kryptonite might be a good argument for the existence of Superman.

Ciao

- viole

 

[McBell]

But his argument, at least to me seems sound,

I am not even sure the argument is valid, let alone sound.

 

[Polymath257]

In that case, you would say that morality is subjective?

I'm closer to saying that morality is biological, in part. The fact that we are a social species of great ape determines what sorts of social rules (morality) are beneficial to our survival and well-being.

I do think there is a great deal that is NOT determined biologically. But I do think there is a common core of values that stems from our biology.

 

[Nimos]

Polymath's response was a good one but I will also point out that the whole point of a majority vote is to rule out bias.

What if 9 out of 10 people believed that they can survive jumping off a 20 meter high building and one say that they won't, does that mean that they are right?

 

[Nimos]

I am not even sure the argument is valid, let alone sound.

So where would you suggest that objective morality comes from then?

 

[Polymath257]

What if 9 out of 10 people believed that they can survive jumping off a 20 meter high building and one say that they won't, does that mean that they are right?

That is a question that can be answered objectively: do a few experiments to determine that survivability. That is not a *moral* question.

The moral question is whether jumping off a building contributes to human well-being. Clearly, it does not.

 

[McBell]

So where would you suggest that objective morality comes from then?

The same place as all the proposed gods.

 

[McBell]

That is a question that can be answered objectively: do a few experiments to determine that survivability. That is not a *moral* question.

The moral question is whether jumping off a building contributes to human well-being. Clearly, it does not.

It has been shown not only objectively, but also empirically, that the Earth is round (well oval) yet there are still those who believe the Earth to be flat.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Found this short video and would like to hear to what degree people find this argument to be true or false?

Try to explain why you hold one position over the other... or why you find the argument compelling or weak.

I find the argument compelling. I don’t believe there is a perfect argument for or against the existence of God. However the paradigm that God provides a source of objective morals is both easy to comprehend and provides a pragmatic framework for expression of faith. Its value for me is less about ideological purity and more about what works in real life and what doesn’t.

 

[joe1776]

What if 9 out of 10 people believed that they can survive jumping off a 20 meter high building and one say that they won't, does that mean that they are right?

That's a false analogy. It deals with the reasoning mind which makes lots of mistakes. Conscience is intuition.

 

[joe1776]

It has been shown not only objectively, but also empirically, that the Earth is round (well oval) yet there are still those who believe the Earth to be flat.

They're wrong. How are you defining subjective?

 

[Polymath257]

It has been shown not only objectively, but also empirically, that the Earth is round (well oval) yet there are still those who believe the Earth to be flat.

Yes. I'm not sure why this is relevant.

 

[McBell]

They're wrong. How are you defining subjective?

nouns and pronouns used for the subject of a sentence

 

[SalixIncendium]

Morality is the set of rules concerning how sentient beings interact. So it *has* to be concerned with the views of sentient beings.

Here's a question:

if there was a sentient species of cat, do you think they would have the same morality as humans?

How about a sentient species of spider?

A sentient species of octopus?

I do not. I think morality is dependent on the biology of the species involved.

If? None of these are sentient?

 

[joe1776]

I find the argument compelling. I don’t believe there is a perfect argument for or against the existence of God. However the paradigm that God provides a source of objective morals is both easy to comprehend and provides a pragmatic framework for expression of faith. Its value for me is less about ideological purity and more about what works in real life and what doesn’t.

You seem to be saying that you like the argument because it confirms your bias.

 

[Nimos]

That is a question that can be answered objectively: do a few experiments to determine that survivability. That is not a *moral* question.

The moral question is whether jumping off a building contributes to human well-being. Clearly, it does not.

Yeah you are correct in that, but my example related to that of morality.

I linked a video about objectivity and subjectivity in the first post, which will explain the difference.

Objective morality is not something you test for, it either is or it isn't.

 

[McBell]

Yes. I'm not sure why this is relevant.

I am still caught up in the throwing out random declarations part of this thread.

 

[Polymath257]

If? None of these are sentient?

OK, capable of making moral judgements.

My point is that a species of spider that can make moral judgements would likely have a very different set of moral values than humans do.

 

[Nimos]

I find the argument compelling. I don’t believe there is a perfect argument for or against the existence of God. However the paradigm that God provides a source of objective morals is both easy to comprehend and provides a pragmatic framework for expression of faith. Its value for me is less about ideological purity and more about what works in real life and what doesn’t.

I would agree with that assessment, at least until someone can give a better explanation of where objective morality should come from, if not from some higher being.

 

[Polymath257]

Yeah you are correct in that, but my example related to that of morality.

I linked a video about objectivity and subjectivity in the first post, which will explain the difference.

Objective morality is not something you test for, it either is or it isn't.

OK, that makes no sense to me. We test objective things all the time: that is the whole basis of science, after all. It is repeated testing that *determines* that something is objective, I think.