Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 09:18 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 09:15 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 09:11 AM)cjlr Wrote:  What he is getting at is if there is an objective standard, why is it ignored?
Does ignoring a standard change the fact that a standard exists?

In the irrelevant, technical sense? No. If it is objective, then it exists regardless.

In any practical sense? Yes. What's the meaningful difference between a subjective standard, and an objective standard that not everyone understands/applies/etc?

More to the point, how is it possible to distinguish them?

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
22-03-2016, 09:24 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 07:05 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  Do not kill a healthy newborn baby. Anyone disagree?

I do. It is not a true dictum in every circumstance.

If killing the child saves the lives of dozens of other people, then kill the child.

you'd be able to murder a newborn to save a dozen people? you've got more balls than me. can't say for certain i'd be able to do that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dark Wanderer's post
22-03-2016, 09:32 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 09:18 AM)cjlr Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 09:15 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Does ignoring a standard change the fact that a standard exists?

In the irrelevant, technical sense? No. If it is objective, then it exists regardless.

In any practical sense? Yes. What's the meaningful difference between a subjective standard, and an objective standard that not everyone understands/applies/etc?

More to the point, how is it possible to distinguish them?
That, I cannot answer. Which is why I stopped trying to prove premise 2 to be true.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 09:36 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 07:05 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I will attempt to give you my answer to the delemma but i must first make myself clear on one thing. According to the moral argument, the premises are:

1. If God does not exist, objective (or absolute ) morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exist.
3. Thus, God exists.

In my opinion, I believe that the first premise is true and I hope a gave an adequate job explaining why.

I do not see how a god's existence affects the question of the existence of objective morality at all. You already said you agreed that morality imposed by a supreme creator can be subjective from that entity's perspective. Anything that is objective can't be subjective from any perspective. You can say that god's morality is enforced, commanded, demanded, expected, etc and you can use it as a baseline for evaluating actions but it is still a subjective standard.

Quote:However I don't think the second premise is so easy to prove and I am not going to attempt it at this moment.

I see no reason to accept the second premise as true so I agree it would be difficult to prove.

Quote:If the first premise is true, it would give an atheist 2 options:

1. Believe that God does not exist. Thus, objective morality cannot exist.
2. Believe that objective morality can exist without God.

Now...this is just my thoughts and it goes back to created purpose. Let's look at the knife and rock examples that I provided earlier.

The "created purpose" of any created object is subjectively defined by the creator. Objectiveness does not enter into it.

Quote:Here is why i cant accept option 2 for premise two. If God does not exist, we are technically no different from a rock being that we were the product of nature by natural means with no created prupose. All religion (and everyone else) has a different opinion on what the purpose of this rock is. Christians may say the rock is a paperweight. Muslims may call it an arrowhead. Buddhist may call it a hammer. An atheist may say it is a brick to build a house. Either way you look at the rock, it is subjective standard.

However, hypothetically if God does exist, one of these religions (or none of them) are right. In this case, we are not like rock. We are like a knife. We were created by an intelligent being for an intended purpose.

Imbued by the subjective whim of the creator. Other subjective interpretations maybe judged "bad" by the creator but that judgement is no less subjective.

Quote:So what ever goes against our created purpose is objectively wrong. It would be like saying a can opener is wrong because it should drive nails or make coffee.

No. It would be subjectively wrong according to the intent of the creator. If I need to drive a nail and the only tool I have is a can opener I may decide it is a good tool for the job. Whoever made the can opener might flinch but unless they have authority to punish me for what they consider to be a misuse of their creation it doesn't matter much. If they do have that power then I need to take that into consideration but it still does not make it objective, just demanded.

Quote:How does all this apply to the delemma? Well....hypothetically, if God does exist. He was never created for a purpose. He has no equal and no authority above him. Since he has some level of intelligence, he can give a purpose onto himself. But whatever purpose he gives himself would be objectively good by default.

No, it would be subjective by his standards and requiring his creations to agree or face retribution doesn't change that.

Quote:This would make God "the supreme good" because he would be the sole standard of goodness.

It would make him the sole standard of behavior. "Good" would still be a subjective conclusion.

Quote:Thus whatever purpose that He bestows onto is creation is objectively good by default. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad.

In his subjective opinion.

Quote:Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

Let's not get off on a tangent of how you could possibly know what the reasons behind this creator's commands are. None of it affects the bottom line that these are still subjective dictates and not objective ones. If they were actually objective then the creator would not be giving the purposes to his creation, he'd just be passing along what had to be. You are dangling from the horns of Euthyphro.

Quote:In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

The can opener driving the nail is good if I need the nail driven. Fuck the guy who made the can opener not liking that.

(22-03-2016 08:13 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Would anyone disagree that showing and receiving love is objectively good?

Yes. The morality of any action depends on the specific situation and the intended result. I'd agree that showing and receiving love is usually good but I would not rule out there being cases where it was not the optimal course of action.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
22-03-2016, 09:53 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 09:24 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  I do. It is not a true dictum in every circumstance.

If killing the child saves the lives of dozens of other people, then kill the child.

you'd be able to murder a newborn to save a dozen people? you've got more balls than me. can't say for certain i'd be able to do that.

There have been many documented cases where women (usually in hiding) with groups of people, fearing capture have smothered their own infants -- to keep them quiet.

In many ways they made huge sacrifice where they placed the needs of the group and themselves to potentially survive, ahead of their own biology and innate desire to protect their offspring.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Momsurroundedbyboys's post
22-03-2016, 10:18 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 09:36 AM)unfogged Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 07:05 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I will attempt to give you my answer to the delemma but i must first make myself clear on one thing. According to the moral argument, the premises are:

1. If God does not exist, objective (or absolute ) morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exist.
3. Thus, God exists.

In my opinion, I believe that the first premise is true and I hope a gave an adequate job explaining why.

I do not see how a god's existence affects the question of the existence of objective morality at all. You already said you agreed that morality imposed by a supreme creator can be subjective from that entity's perspective. Anything that is objective can't be subjective from any perspective. You can say that god's morality is enforced, commanded, demanded, expected, etc and you can use it as a baseline for evaluating actions but it is still a subjective standard.

Quote:However I don't think the second premise is so easy to prove and I am not going to attempt it at this moment.

I see no reason to accept the second premise as true so I agree it would be difficult to prove.

Quote:If the first premise is true, it would give an atheist 2 options:

1. Believe that God does not exist. Thus, objective morality cannot exist.
2. Believe that objective morality can exist without God.

Now...this is just my thoughts and it goes back to created purpose. Let's look at the knife and rock examples that I provided earlier.

The "created purpose" of any created object is subjectively defined by the creator. Objectiveness does not enter into it.

Quote:Here is why i cant accept option 2 for premise two. If God does not exist, we are technically no different from a rock being that we were the product of nature by natural means with no created prupose. All religion (and everyone else) has a different opinion on what the purpose of this rock is. Christians may say the rock is a paperweight. Muslims may call it an arrowhead. Buddhist may call it a hammer. An atheist may say it is a brick to build a house. Either way you look at the rock, it is subjective standard.

However, hypothetically if God does exist, one of these religions (or none of them) are right. In this case, we are not like rock. We are like a knife. We were created by an intelligent being for an intended purpose.

Imbued by the subjective whim of the creator. Other subjective interpretations maybe judged "bad" by the creator but that judgement is no less subjective.

Quote:So what ever goes against our created purpose is objectively wrong. It would be like saying a can opener is wrong because it should drive nails or make coffee.

No. It would be subjectively wrong according to the intent of the creator. If I need to drive a nail and the only tool I have is a can opener I may decide it is a good tool for the job. Whoever made the can opener might flinch but unless they have authority to punish me for what they consider to be a misuse of their creation it doesn't matter much. If they do have that power then I need to take that into consideration but it still does not make it objective, just demanded.

Quote:How does all this apply to the delemma? Well....hypothetically, if God does exist. He was never created for a purpose. He has no equal and no authority above him. Since he has some level of intelligence, he can give a purpose onto himself. But whatever purpose he gives himself would be objectively good by default.

No, it would be subjective by his standards and requiring his creations to agree or face retribution doesn't change that.

Quote:This would make God "the supreme good" because he would be the sole standard of goodness.

It would make him the sole standard of behavior. "Good" would still be a subjective conclusion.

Quote:Thus whatever purpose that He bestows onto is creation is objectively good by default. God, as creator, is the determiner of all purposes of His creation and anything that stands in the way of that purpose is bad.

In his subjective opinion.

Quote:Rape is evil because that is not what sex is made to be. Murder is evil because it is not the purpose of humans to arbitrarily decide when people should die. (Note that this does not necessarily vilify all human-caused deaths, such as capital punishment or war. If God has stated guidelines for these actions, then it is no longer arbitrary human will being carried out.)

Let's not get off on a tangent of how you could possibly know what the reasons behind this creator's commands are. None of it affects the bottom line that these are still subjective dictates and not objective ones. If they were actually objective then the creator would not be giving the purposes to his creation, he'd just be passing along what had to be. You are dangling from the horns of Euthyphro.

Quote:In conclusion, a thing is good to the degree that it fulfills its purposes. Because God is the creator of all things, according to His own good nature, He is therefore both the standard and declarer of goodness.

(22-03-2016 08:13 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Would anyone disagree that showing and receiving love is objectively good?

Yes. The morality of any action depends on the specific situation and the intended result. I'd agree that showing and receiving love is usually good but I would not rule out there being cases where it was not the optimal course of action.

You have made a lot of good points. I will digress for now. Not out of defeat but rather because the only answers I have to those questions are based on biblical scripture and want to keep this a philosophical discussion and not a theological discussion. I appreciate your response.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 11:40 AM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 08:01 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 07:34 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  No, its false.

If god exists, then you still have subjective morals, all his morals are subjective from his view.
To confirm my claim please ask Satan, he will give you different morals from his view.
Please reread my post regarding the painbot example. If a painbot were to say to its creator, "you are unfair! It is wrong for you to make us suffer!", it still would not change the fact that the purpose for their existence was to suffer. The painbot would be objectively wrong because the fact still remains. Their purpose for their existence was to suffer. Thus, the definition of a good painbot remains as one who suffers greatly. This example is an analogy to describe the relationship of a God and His creation. God is the creator and we are the painbots. (Ironic that I am comparing God to a psychopath inventor..but eh)

You are still utterly wrong. It doesnt matter if god created anything in this universe, including painbots, or if hes allmighty or not.
If he exists, "he" is an entity. Thus, per definition his view is subjective. Wasnt it established some posts ago that "objective" equals "under any condition" and "to everybody"? If some moral is objective, then god is subject to that, per definition. If some moral is "his" moral, its subjective, per defintion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 12:15 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 11:40 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 08:01 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Please reread my post regarding the painbot example. If a painbot were to say to its creator, "you are unfair! It is wrong for you to make us suffer!", it still would not change the fact that the purpose for their existence was to suffer. The painbot would be objectively wrong because the fact still remains. Their purpose for their existence was to suffer. Thus, the definition of a good painbot remains as one who suffers greatly. This example is an analogy to describe the relationship of a God and His creation. God is the creator and we are the painbots. (Ironic that I am comparing God to a psychopath inventor..but eh)

You are still utterly wrong. It doesnt matter if god created anything in this universe, including painbots, or if hes allmighty or not.
If he exists, "he" is an entity. Thus, per definition his view is subjective. Wasnt it established some posts ago that "objective" equals "under any condition" and "to everybody"? If some moral is objective, then god is subject to that, per definition. If some moral is "his" moral, its subjective, per defintion.
Reread post #46 and #49.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 12:25 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:15 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 11:40 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  You are still utterly wrong. It doesnt matter if god created anything in this universe, including painbots, or if hes allmighty or not.
If he exists, "he" is an entity. Thus, per definition his view is subjective. Wasnt it established some posts ago that "objective" equals "under any condition" and "to everybody"? If some moral is objective, then god is subject to that, per definition. If some moral is "his" moral, its subjective, per defintion.
Reread post #46 and #49.

So what?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 12:29 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:15 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 11:40 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  You are still utterly wrong. It doesnt matter if god created anything in this universe, including painbots, or if hes allmighty or not.
If he exists, "he" is an entity. Thus, per definition his view is subjective. Wasnt it established some posts ago that "objective" equals "under any condition" and "to everybody"? If some moral is objective, then god is subject to that, per definition. If some moral is "his" moral, its subjective, per defintion.
Reread post #46 and #49.

Those posts don't answer the question. You are contradicting yourself if you claim that a creator defined the purpose for his creation and that it makes that purpose objective. It is, by definition, subjective.

You said "Objective information or analysis is fact-based, measurable and observable". If there is an objective morality then there must be actions that can be demonstrated to be immoral under any and all conceivable circumstances through the investigation of observable, measurable facts.

Even if you could prove that there was a god and that he had laid down certain ground rules and that he always got pissed off when they were broken you wouldn't have objective morality. You would have proven that there is an entity capable of enforcing its own subjective morality on others.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: