Objective Morality ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-02-2014, 11:48 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:41 PM)nach_in Wrote:  I don't know, you're the one who wants to prove something immaterial as morality is objective. If someone lead you to believe that arguing the objective truth of abstract concepts in an atheist forum would be as simple as some wordplay, I'm sorry to inform you that you've been mislead.

I quite honestly can't see how it isn't objectively true that a concept as no one murdering someone else = good.

And I am not talking about self-defense cases or if one nation declared war on another, etc.

I am strictly talking about someone waking up in the morning, taking a weapon, and killing someone else.

How can we not say that is objectively bad?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:54 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:43 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  Ok, taking god out of it (I forgot you kept it secular), when did we achieve this objective morality? You said keep it to one species, but we evolved to be Homo sapiens, so when does this type of morality kick in?

I'd argue that we always kept it with us; all species at the bare minimum work to actively promote their survival and reproduction. Anything that goes against BOTH of those principles in terms of the species at a bare minimum could be considered bad.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:57 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:48 PM)fmudd Wrote:  I am strictly talking about someone waking up in the morning, taking a weapon, and killing someone else.

How can we not say that is objectively bad?

What if that someone had absolutely no other means of feeding himself and was on the verge of starving to death? Would that make it a moral choice?

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2014, 11:59 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:46 PM)Anudist Wrote:  Take into account overpopulation and the abysmal state of food distribution and see if more people living longer (or just more people living) still sounds like an objectively good thing. You living a longer life means that someone lives a shorter one, right now.

The abysmal state of food production is something that can be fixed and overpopulation is something that can be considered bad if you also incorporate the concept that taking away someone's free will is bad.

I said earlier that objectively good means living longer AND reproducing successfully AND having the highest possible pleasure AND the lowest possible harm.

Can't we say that, for example, people reproducing NOT of their own free will is a bad thing?

We have to uphold ALL of the principles, in other words.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 12:01 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 11:57 PM)evenheathen Wrote:  What if that someone had absolutely no other means of feeding himself and was on the verge of starving to death? Would that make it a moral choice?

Let's keep the example simple; this person is committing this murder simply because the thought got into their head.

Don't add qualifiers yet; let's strictly talk about an ultra-basic murder where the person killed simply because the thought popped into their mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 12:08 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
I think the problem is you are keeping it to one species to further your agenda, and you can't really define that species since we have evolved from the very species you are excluding. And I don't think all species understand good vs. bad, just instinctual survival, which isn't the same thing.

Is it "right" to eat animals since as humans we don't need to eat them to ensure our survival anymore? Are we getting special "objective morality" dispensation because we are highest on the food chain?

It's late and I need to sleep, but this was my 500th post, so thanks for helping me get there. Smile

Check out my now-defunct atheism blog. It's just a blog, no ads, no revenue, no gods.
----
Atheism promotes critical thinking; theism promotes hypocritical thinking. -- Me
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 12:09 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(14-02-2014 12:08 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  It's late and I need to sleep, but this was my 500th post, so thanks for helping me get there. Smile

Woo hoo!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 12:11 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(14-02-2014 12:01 AM)fmudd Wrote:  Let's keep the example simple; this person is committing this murder simply because the thought got into their head.

Don't add qualifiers yet; let's strictly talk about an ultra-basic murder where the person killed simply because the thought popped into their mind.

This person would be psychopathic then. Morality is a non sequitur at this point. An action requires a reason. The reason people don't go around killing other people is that there is no good reason to do so.

But now I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.

~ Umberto Eco
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 12:13 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(14-02-2014 12:11 AM)evenheathen Wrote:  
(14-02-2014 12:01 AM)fmudd Wrote:  Let's keep the example simple; this person is committing this murder simply because the thought got into their head.

Don't add qualifiers yet; let's strictly talk about an ultra-basic murder where the person killed simply because the thought popped into their mind.

This person would be psychopathic then. Morality is a non sequitur at this point. An action requires a reason. The reason people don't go around killing other people is that there is no good reason to do so.

OK, but then the question becomes why is the murder's act illegal? Why lock him up or treat him for any mental illness?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-02-2014, 12:20 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
Here we go again.

Have you read this? Chippy, myself and others on the exact same subject

(13-02-2014 10:22 PM)fmudd Wrote:  ...
No living creature that I am aware of goes towards the fire to willfully incinerate itself.
...

Please explain why a soldier will throw him/herself onto a grenade to save their comrades.

Cheers.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: