Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
22-03-2016, 04:35 PM (This post was last modified: 22-03-2016 04:49 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Moral absolutes
Even if one believed in a god, there is still no "objective morality". In every case, a judgement has to be made, of what a "loving standard" requires. There's no magic rule. Every situation is different. Many religious universities teach ethics classes. It's a non-existent category. Not everyone agrees what a "loving" act is, in any given circumstance. If it exists, the "objective standard" would be possible to call up, and reference for the situation. It's just not there. "Good (loving) intention is not "objective".

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
22-03-2016, 04:37 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 03:23 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok. If I was to try to provide evidence for the existence of objective morality, I would say that acts of love are objectively good.

And your evidence for this is...?

Actually, scratch that. Your definition of "objectively good" is...?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 04:42 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:25 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok. How about being loved by someone...anyone. Or even feeling like you are loved?

You can't see a situation where a desire to be loved causes more harm than good?

You are also running afoul of the idea that humans in general have similar desires and fears. Wanting to be loved may be nearly universal but even if every person agreed that they thought something was a good idea it would not mean that it was objective. You need to get back to being able to observe and measure facts if you want to even begin to approach objective.

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
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
22-03-2016, 04:52 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:02 PM)ScottD Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 02:32 PM)Szuchow Wrote:  How we are determining that something called "objective morality" is a good thing to follow? And how exactly this morality look - is stoning woman moral? What about eating shellfish?
you tell me? where do you get your answer? from others? flawed soul-less people?

Given that there is no evidence for a soul, yes. We figure out the best we can and keep working at improving. That's why things like "don't wear mixed fabrics" and "stone unruly children" have been discarded along the way.

Quote:Society's view on right and wrong tends to change over time, does that mean what use to be wrong is suddenly right because we say so?

It means that our opinion on what is right or wrong has changed as we have consider the questions and evaluated the results of implementing various schools of thought. We learn. We grow.

Quote:
Quote:You also could argue that moon is made of cheese.
not with any weight behind it..
[emphasis mine]

Which is exactly how many of us feel about the proposed arguments for the existence of a god. They are all fallacious.


Quote:
Quote:Also before you claim how god made us it would be nice to present some proof of something called god actually existing.

I said I believe. You want me to prove God exists? Why am I on the hook to prove God's existance? I believe God is evident in everything. No one can prove it. Prove he doesn't exist. You can't

You are on the hook because you are making a claim of existence. We are saying that we don't accept that claim at face value just like we wouldn't accept a claim that leprechauns or fairies exist. There is no need to disprove something for which no good evidence exists. Not believing is the default for any claim; it is the null hypothesis.

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
[+] 3 users Like unfogged's post
22-03-2016, 04:54 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:42 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 04:25 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok. How about being loved by someone...anyone. Or even feeling like you are loved?

You can't see a situation where a desire to be loved causes more harm than good?

You are also running afoul of the idea that humans in general have similar desires and fears. Wanting to be loved may be nearly universal but even if every person agreed that they thought something was a good idea it would not mean that it was objective. You need to get back to being able to observe and measure facts if you want to even begin to approach objective.
I agree. In order for objective morality to exist. It would have to be morally good or bad regardless of opinion. I have no idea how to prove something like that exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like jason_delisle's post
22-03-2016, 04:55 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
The things that most humans (seem to ) need, may be generally true for most.
There are many religious people who chose to give that up. That seems to argue against this. I just don't get what so important about the question of "objectivity". Europeans don't fight about this question. I think it's an outgrowth of American Fundamentalism. It's inane and pointless, (*as if* there's something wrong with that which is subjective>)

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
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
22-03-2016, 05:01 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:54 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I agree. In order for objective morality to exist. It would have to be morally good or bad regardless of opinion. I have no idea how to prove something like that exists.

Which brings us back to the definition you gave of objective requiring facts that can be observed and measured. Lacking those there's no reason to think there is objective morality.

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, 05:04 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 05:01 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 04:54 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I agree. In order for objective morality to exist. It would have to be morally good or bad regardless of opinion. I have no idea how to prove something like that exists.

Which brings us back to the definition you gave of objective requiring facts that can be observed and measured. Lacking those there's no reason to think there is objective morality.
Haha...Ok then....then what the heck are we arguing about? Smile
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
22-03-2016, 05:05 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 04:54 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I agree. In order for objective morality to exist. It would have to be morally good or bad regardless of opinion. I have no idea how to prove something like that exists.

Well, at least you're honest about it. That puts you miles ahead of most of your competition around here.

For the sake of discussion, however, rather than letting it lie there, I will point out that the reason you can't think of a way to prove that it exists is because the concept is not coherent. It is not properly defined in any way that would allow it to be proven.

No one even has any idea what "objective morality" would look like, how it could be distinguished from subjective morality, or what bearing it would have on human moral decisions, if any. It's not actually a coherent, working concept; it's just two impressive-sounding words mashed together. It's a deliberately hazy idea that only works if you don't think about it for more than thirty seconds, like Lovecraft's concept of "Things Man Was Not Meant To Know" or any number of other fictional entities.

This is the same problem that plagues those who would argue for the existence of the soul. Without a coherent definition, any given "argument" is pretty much a non-starter.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
22-03-2016, 05:08 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(22-03-2016 05:04 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(22-03-2016 05:01 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Which brings us back to the definition you gave of objective requiring facts that can be observed and measured. Lacking those there's no reason to think there is objective morality.
Haha...Ok then....then what the heck are we arguing about? Smile

It's a trick to distract you from the cookies.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: