Moral absolutes
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-03-2016, 04:38 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 03:39 PM)The Organic Chemist Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 02:57 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  I would first like to say that i am in no way trying to prove are argue the existance of God. But rather the existance of "objective morality". So how can we define something as "objectively" good or bad? I would argue that it depends entirely on its created purpose. Let's take a knife for example. The created purpose of a knife is to cut. Thus, it is objectively true that a good knife is one that is sharp and strong so that it cuts well. However, a bad knife is one that is dull and breaks easily.

Now we have to ask, What is required for an object to be created with an intended purpose? I would say that a being with some level of intelligence is required. It is a fact that there is no object with a created purpose that has ever existed that did not have a being with some level of intelligence to bestow a purpose onto that creation.

Noticed that I emphasize the word created purpose. Because even an object that was created by nature by natural means can be given a purpose by a being with some level of intelligence. Let's use a rock as an example. A rock was created by nature with no created purpose. So what is a good rock? Some may say the rock is good because it is colorful and sparkling, some may say it is good because it is smooth and round, others could say it is a bad rock because it is not flat. Because the rock has no purpose, what defines a good rock is subjective.

Moving on. Just because a rock was never created with a purpose, a being with intelligence can give the rock a purpose. Let's say I put the rock on a stack of paper and called it a paperweight. Now, it's purpose is to hold down paper. Thus, a good paperweight is one that can keep the wind from blowing the paper around and a bad paperweight cannot. The only problem is that the purpose is subjective. Someone else may say that the rock is not a paperweight but rather an arrowhead and a terrible arrowhead at that because it is smooth, and much too heavy.

So now on to the issue at hand. If people are created by nature by natural means, we are no different than the rock. So what defines a good person? However, being creatures with some level of intelligence, we can bestow a purpose onto ourselves. But like the rock, whatever purpose we bestow on ourselves is subjective. So whatever we determine to be a good/bad person or good/bad morals depends on that purpose we gave ourselves.

Your rock analogy is excellent to illustrate how religions work. One sect says the rock was made for a paperweight, another says it was made to put on a stick for a spear. However, there is no reason to suspect that the rock was created or shaped with anything in mind. You are simply assuming that there had to be a reason. Even more pointed, religion tells the rocks that the universe in it's entirety was created with the rock in mind without any support. It is utter nonsense.

Getting to the moral part, if you start with well-being, explaining morality is not too difficult and it requires no supernatural influence.
I am not going to argue with your statement. I agree with it. I never said it had to be a specific god (like the God of Abraham ). Any god or gods....heck even a intellectually superior alien race.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 04:40 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 03:47 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 03:42 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok...I see where the confusion is. I modified my previous post to say that I am not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God but rather prove or disprove the existence of objective morality. In this case, prove that objective morality does not exist.

If there is no objective morality then there is no "created purpose" that morality is being measured against. Does that not mean that either there is no creator or that it had no purpose in creating?
Yes, however, in order for mankind to have a created purpose would require mankind to have a creator with some level of intelligence to bestow a purpose onto mankind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 04:43 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 04:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 04:31 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Eh...it's just my two cents. Had nothing to do with Nihilism. I am just saying that if you do not believe a god exists, you cannot believe that objective morality exists.

What if I do believe that God exists and my subjective morality is objective. I mean I AM the shit and whatnot.
The only way for that to happen is if you were never created and you have no equal or authority above you. In this case, whatever purpose you create for yourself would be objective by default.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 04:48 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 03:42 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok...I see where the confusion is. I modified my previous post to say that I am not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God but rather prove or disprove the existence of objective morality. In this case, prove that objective morality does not exist.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.

"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
21-03-2016, 04:49 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 04:48 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 03:42 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  Ok...I see where the confusion is. I modified my previous post to say that I am not trying to prove or disprove the existence of God but rather prove or disprove the existence of objective morality. In this case, prove that objective morality does not exist.

That's not how this works. That's not how any of this works.
Really? How so? The reason why I modified it was because I wanted to better communicate what my thoughts were. I was not trying to change my position. Rather rephrase my post to make my position better understood.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 05:02 PM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2016 05:10 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 04:43 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 04:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  What if I do believe that God exists and my subjective morality is objective. I mean I AM the shit and whatnot.
The only way for that to happen is if you were never created and you have no equal or authority above you. In this case, whatever purpose you create for yourself would be objective by default.

No authority above, plenty equal. Thumbsup




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 05:09 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 04:43 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 04:35 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  What if I do believe that God exists and my subjective morality is objective. I mean I AM the shit and whatnot.
The only way for that to happen is if you were never created and you have no equal or authority above you. In this case, whatever purpose you create for yourself would be objective by default.

I disagree. I think there is no reason why if a god or authority above existed; it decided to create its objective moral positions based directly on Girlys subjective ones.

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 05:18 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 05:09 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 04:43 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  The only way for that to happen is if you were never created and you have no equal or authority above you. In this case, whatever purpose you create for yourself would be objective by default.

I disagree. I think there is no reason why if a god or authority above existed; it decided to create its objective moral positions based directly on Girlys subjective ones.

Girly is the prophet of the B-b. All hail the Slack.

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2016, 05:33 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 05:02 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(21-03-2016 04:43 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  The only way for that to happen is if you were never created and you have no equal or authority above you. In this case, whatever purpose you create for yourself would be objective by default.

No authority above, plenty equal. Thumbsup
This is where my painbot analogy comes into play. Let's say I created an android with artificial intelligence and this android was so advanced that it could have feeling, emotions, hopes, dreams, ambitions, independent thought, ect... But I created this android for the sole purpose of inflicting pain and suffering onto it and so named my invention the "painbot".Since it's created purpose is to suffer, it's pain and suffering would be objectively good and it's pleasure and joy would be objectively bad. Thus, the definition of a good quality painbot would be one that suffers greatly and a poor quality painbot is one that doesn't.

Now....you are probably asking, "That's terrible! Where the heck is he going with this?" I don't blame you but bear with me. If the inventor had an equal who thought it was wrong to build painbots, all that would do is make the motive or intention for building a painbot "subjective". It still does not change the fact that a good quality painbot is one that suffers. It would be like saying a can opener is bad because it cannot drive nails. What if the inventor was a psychopath serial killer? What if the motive for the the creation of painbots was so that he inflict his sick and twisted desires onto a machine and spare a human life? What if he made hundreds of these painbots and literally hundreds of human lives were saved as a result? You see, now the motive is subjective because some people would say it is good and others would say it is wrong.

So how can the motive become objectively wrong? That would require an authority that is greater than the inventor to say so. Let's say there was a law that prohibited the creation of painbots and this authority was supreme without equal. All this will do is make the creation of painbots objectively wrong. However, it still does not change the created purpose of the painbot. Thus, a good painbot is defined as one that suffers greatly and a bad painbot is one who does not.

In conclusion, the only possible way for both the purpose and motive for the creation of a painbot to be objectively good is that the creator has no equal to make his motive subjectively wrong...nor a superior to make his motive objectively wrong.

Well...I got to get the kiddos ready for bed so it may be a while before I respond. Btw...I am in no way suggesting anyone to create a painbot.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes jason_delisle's post
21-03-2016, 05:47 PM
RE: Moral absolutes
(21-03-2016 05:33 PM)jason_delisle Wrote:  So how can the motive become objectively wrong? That would require an authority that is greater than the inventor to say so. Let's say there was a law that prohibited the creation of painbots and this authority was supreme without equal. All this will do is make the creation of painbots objectively wrong. However, it still does not change the created purpose of the painbot. Thus, a good painbot is defined as one that suffers greatly and a bad painbot is one who does not.

No, it would not be objectively wrong. It would be wrong according to the subjective opinion of this hypothetical supreme authority. It would still be right according to the subjective opinion of the inventor and wrong according to the subjective opinion of the painbot.

To be objectively wrong it would have to be wrong from all perspectives under all conditions. The fact that an authority can enforce their own subjective opinion does not make that opinion 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
[+] 1 user Likes unfogged's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: