Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 12:32 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 06:32 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  "Without God, there is no evil or good. Just blind pitiless indifference"

Richard Dawkins

Not so subtle reference to Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 12:34 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 08:13 AM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Would anyone disagree that showing and receiving love is objectively good?

How in the fuck do you propose that love is not subjective?

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:25 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:15 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Reread post #46 and #49.

So what?
Per the definition, if something is objectively true, it will be true regardless of opinion. If a knife was created with a purpose to cut. That purpose is objectively and factually true regardless of your opinion. Thus, it is objectively true that a good knife is one that is sharp and strong so that it can cut well. It would be a fact that the sharper and stronger a knife is, the better the quality of that knife would be. If you found an incredibly strong and sharp knife that could cut through anything, you would be objectively wrong if you say it is a bad knife because you think a good knife should be able to cook your breakfast too. Cooking breakfast is not the created purpose of the knife so you would be wrong.

If everyone on the earth believed the earth was flat, does that mean the earth is flat? No, because it is a fact the the earth not flat, everyone on the earth would be objectively wrong despite the popular opinion.

Premise 1 is implying that if God exists and created mankind for an intended purpose, anything that is good or bad is determined based on whatever that purpose is. If it fulfills the purpose, it would be objectively good like a sharp strong knife. If you disagreed, now you are saying the knife is bad because it can't cook your breakfast. Thus you would be objectively wrong despite your opinion.

The created purpose is the standard at which objective morality is identified and the standard at which we can determine if something is good or bad. How can we objectively say which way is North? Because we use a standard to identify north (magnetic poles, North star, the sun, gps, ect...). But what if you are floating aimlessly in the vacuum of space? Which way is north then? Without a standard, we rely on an individual's subjective opinion.

So...without God, what is the standard for morality? The best answer I have heard is "The popular opinion for the greater good". Which is completely fine if it worked for thousands of years. But let's call it like it is...a morality based on popular "opinion". It's subjective. Like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner that will result in the greater good.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 12:59 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  So...without God, what is the standard for morality?

There is none. I already told you there are those of us who are amoral. You know that annual ethics training you receive, that is the standard. Ethics good, morality inconsequential.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:10 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Per the definition, if something is objectively true, it will be true regardless of opinion. If a knife was created with a purpose to cut. That purpose is objectively and factually true regardless of your opinion.

"If a knife was created with a purpose to cut" means that the purpose for the knife is subjective. It is factually true that the creator of the knife had that purpose in mind given the premise but that does not make the purpose of the knife objective, it remains the subjective purpose as imposed by the knife's maker. If the knife was created with a purpose of being a paperweight or with the purpose of being a doorstop or... we might question the sanity of the creator given the knife's design and some proposed purposes but no purpose is objective even if the knife is better suited to some purposes than 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
22-03-2016, 01:17 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Those posts don't answer the question. You are contradicting yourself if you claim that if a creator defined the purpose for his creation, that it makes that purpose objective. That purpose, by definition, objective .

I took the liberty of making a few corrections to make it more accurate. If you are saying that if you did not agree with the created purpose of a creation, you are saying a good knife is one that cooks breakfast.



(22-03-2016 12:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  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.

I am not trying to prove or disprove the existence or God or objective morality. I am only trying to explain why you cannot have objective morality without an objective standard (created purpose) to determine what is good or bad in an objective way. Heck, if you would like, you can use this argument to prove that God doesn't exist by having a theist prove that objective morality exist. The arguement can go both ways.


(22-03-2016 12:29 PM)unfogged Wrote:  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.

No, it would prove that if a painbot thought his inventor was an ass hole, it still does not change the fact that the greater a painbot suffers, the better the quality of that painbot is. No psychopath wants to buy a painbot who felt only joy and pleasure.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:19 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:59 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  So...without God, what is the standard for morality?

There is none. I already told you there are those of us who are amoral. You know that annual ethics training you receive, that is the standard. Ethics good, morality inconsequential.
I agree and that is the point I am making.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:22 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:10 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Per the definition, if something is objectively true, it will be true regardless of opinion. If a knife was created with a purpose to cut. That purpose is objectively and factually true regardless of your opinion.

"If a knife was created with a purpose to cut" means that the purpose for the knife is subjective. It is factually true that the creator of the knife had that purpose in mind given the premise but that does not make the purpose of the knife objective, it remains the subjective purpose as imposed by the knife's maker. If the knife was created with a purpose of being a paperweight or with the purpose of being a doorstop or... we might question the sanity of the creator given the knife's design and some proposed purposes but no purpose is objective even if the knife is better suited to some purposes than others.
But if you take a knife and use it to drive nails, now you have given it the purpose of a hammer...not a knife, and a very terrible one at that.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 01:24 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:25 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  So what?
Per the definition, if something is objectively true, it will be true regardless of opinion. If a knife was created with a purpose to cut. That purpose is objectively and factually true regardless of your opinion. Thus, it is objectively true that a good knife is one that is sharp and strong so that it can cut well. It would be a fact that the sharper and stronger a knife is, the better the quality of that knife would be. If you found an incredibly strong and sharp knife that could cut through anything, you would be objectively wrong if you say it is a bad knife because you think a good knife should be able to cook your breakfast too. Cooking breakfast is not the created purpose of the knife so you would be wrong.

If everyone on the earth believed the earth was flat, does that mean the earth is flat? No, because it is a fact the the earth not flat, everyone on the earth would be objectively wrong despite the popular opinion.

Premise 1 is implying that if God exists and created mankind for an intended purpose, anything that is good or bad is determined based on whatever that purpose is. If it fulfills the purpose, it would be objectively good like a sharp strong knife. If you disagreed, now you are saying the knife is bad because it can't cook your breakfast. Thus you would be objectively wrong despite your opinion.

The created purpose is the standard at which objective morality is identified and the standard at which we can determine if something is good or bad. How can we objectively say which way is North? Because we use a standard to identify north (magnetic poles, North star, the sun, gps, ect...). But what if you are floating aimlessly in the vacuum of space? Which way is north then? Without a standard, we rely on an individual's subjective opinion.

So...without God, what is the standard for morality? The best answer I have heard is "The popular opinion for the greater good". Which is completely fine if it worked for thousands of years. But let's call it like it is...a morality based on popular "opinion". It's subjective. Like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner that will result in the greater good.

Some knives are created for "show", for art, for adornment only, to signify rank and status. I carried one in military high school. Facepalm Weeping

We know for a fact morality/moral standards/cultural norms evolved as cultures evolved, to promote survival of the group, (Anthropology 101). It's not "popular opinion". In some cases it can be very "unpopular". Humans have evolved to the point they get that in some circumstances promoting what is unpopular, in the end, promotes group survival.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
22-03-2016, 01:29 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 01:24 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 12:53 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Per the definition, if something is objectively true, it will be true regardless of opinion. If a knife was created with a purpose to cut. That purpose is objectively and factually true regardless of your opinion. Thus, it is objectively true that a good knife is one that is sharp and strong so that it can cut well. It would be a fact that the sharper and stronger a knife is, the better the quality of that knife would be. If you found an incredibly strong and sharp knife that could cut through anything, you would be objectively wrong if you say it is a bad knife because you think a good knife should be able to cook your breakfast too. Cooking breakfast is not the created purpose of the knife so you would be wrong.

If everyone on the earth believed the earth was flat, does that mean the earth is flat? No, because it is a fact the the earth not flat, everyone on the earth would be objectively wrong despite the popular opinion.

Premise 1 is implying that if God exists and created mankind for an intended purpose, anything that is good or bad is determined based on whatever that purpose is. If it fulfills the purpose, it would be objectively good like a sharp strong knife. If you disagreed, now you are saying the knife is bad because it can't cook your breakfast. Thus you would be objectively wrong despite your opinion.

The created purpose is the standard at which objective morality is identified and the standard at which we can determine if something is good or bad. How can we objectively say which way is North? Because we use a standard to identify north (magnetic poles, North star, the sun, gps, ect...). But what if you are floating aimlessly in the vacuum of space? Which way is north then? Without a standard, we rely on an individual's subjective opinion.

So...without God, what is the standard for morality? The best answer I have heard is "The popular opinion for the greater good". Which is completely fine if it worked for thousands of years. But let's call it like it is...a morality based on popular "opinion". It's subjective. Like two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner that will result in the greater good.

Some knives are created for "show", for art, for adornment only, to signify rank and status. I carried one in military high school. Facepalm Weeping

We know for a fact morality/moral standards/cultural norms evolved as cultures evolved, to promote survival of the group, (Anthropology 101). It's not "popular opinion". In some cases it can be very "unpopular". Humans have evolved to the point they get that in some circumstances promoting what is unpopular, in the end, promotes group survival.
I smell what you are stepping in. I agree. However, if the prupose of a knife is to look pretty, the sharpness is not the standard. It's prettiness is the standard because that is the created purpose. Thus, pretty and expensive is good and ugly and cheap is bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: