Objective Morality ...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-02-2014, 04:52 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(15-02-2014 04:29 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(15-02-2014 02:28 AM)tmason Wrote:  I believe there is a powerful case to be made for objective morality on purely secular grounds.

If your inability to imagine how to describe Red to a blind person is any indication, this ought to be a riot.

I'll let fmudd discuss that with you.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 05:07 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 10:37 PM)fmudd Wrote:  I am defining "GOOD" as, at a base level, letting us live longer, reproduce more, and reduce harm/increase pleasure.

Thus, anything "BAD" would be the opposite of that.

So on that account rape that leads to childbirth is good and its prevention is bad.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 05:16 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(15-02-2014 05:07 AM)Chippy Wrote:  
(13-02-2014 10:37 PM)fmudd Wrote:  I am defining "GOOD" as, at a base level, letting us live longer, reproduce more, and reduce harm/increase pleasure.

Thus, anything "BAD" would be the opposite of that.

So on that account rape that leads to childbirth is good and its prevention is bad.

I'll write a longer response on this but the short answer is that you have to account for all of what I am saying and for all parties; we do this all of the time.

Yes, rape is (1) pleasurable to the rapist and (2) leads to the propagation of the species HOWEVER it does not reduce harm for the victim or increase their pleasure.

So that would be a bad example and invalid.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 05:36 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(15-02-2014 05:16 AM)tmason Wrote:  So that would be a bad example and invalid.

No it isn't because there is a net gain of another human:
* the pleasure of the rapist offsets the pain of the rape victim
* the reproduction of at least one new human offsets and exceeds the burden and pain of childbirth in the victim

Reproduction is the summum bonum in your system of value so as long as the rape yields a viable infant it was right and good according to your account of value and morality.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 06:04 AM (This post was last modified: 15-02-2014 06:10 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Objective Morality ...
(13-02-2014 10:22 PM)fmudd Wrote:  I wanted to respond to the question of objective morality separate from my Christian Friend (she just refuses to get her account and wants to use mine, whatever). I might just get my *own* own account.

Anyway, I am going to defend objective morality strictly from a secular point of view; if you want to ask questions on God/religious morality she'll respond to you from the other posts.

Simply put; objective morality exists because because all living creatures wish to reduce harm as much as possible for as long as possible.

Let's take a simple example; lighting a fire inside of a forest. When this is done; EVERY living creature tries to either (a) get away from the fire and/or (b) mitigate the harm of the fire and it's ensuing effects.

No living creature that I am aware of goes towards the fire to wilfully incinerate itself.

Now, building off of this and talking about human beings; we all engage in activities that either (A) reduce harm and/or (B) enhance pleasure for ourselves and other people (our species). Even people who inflict physical pain on themselves and others operate off of trying to reduce physiological pain for themselves or others.

So, if we can all agree that in any observed ecosystem of living beings that when "pain" or "death" is introduced that said living creatures run away from that introduction and that all living creatures perform activities which in part reduces said chance of "pain" or "death" can we not say that objectively this "pain" and "death" is bad?

And, if we agree to that premise, isn't that in and of itself a basic definition of objective morality?

So your "friend" is gone now ?
There are all kinds of mental illnesses where people attempt to harm themselves. "Morality" exists NOWHERE except inside your brain structures, and is partially innate, (genetic) and partially learned. The gods have absolutely NOTHING to do with any of it. Moral systems are vastly different in different cultures. Some cultures sacrifice PEOPLE to the gods to obtain their favor. Your ignorant bullshit is getting tiresome, FuckingStuckintheMud. The next thing you'll be trying to tell us, that if there IS "objective" morality, it somehow points to (just) your deity. Hahaha. Where does your "objective" morality *exist* anyway ? Prove they (human morality systems), "exist" ANYWHERE other than in human brain structures.

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
15-02-2014, 09:24 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
If there were a god, and he commanded the laws of morality, wouldn't morality then still be subjective, since it would be his opinion as to what constitutes morality?

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
[+] 1 user Likes WillHopp's post
15-02-2014, 09:38 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(15-02-2014 09:24 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  If there were a god, and he commanded the laws of morality, wouldn't morality then still be subjective, since it would be his opinion as to what constitutes morality?

Yes it would be. A morality based on god's nature would still be subjective, as it can change with god's nature. This is Craig's tired old Divine Command Theory that he's been prattling on about for decades. If objective moral standards do exist, then gods are subject to them as well; and can be found wanting.


Now if Chippy starts flip shit and eviscerate this fresh meat, this will be fun to watch. Angel


Hypothetical: Want to declare god's nature never changes? Do you have evidence for that? Because if you're arguing for the Abrahamic god, then I can quote verses at you all day that shows that his nature has changed.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
So basically I answered the question, "Can there be objective morality?" The answer is, whether you're a deist, theist or atheist, no.

Next topic please.

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
15-02-2014, 11:11 AM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(15-02-2014 09:42 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  So basically I answered the question, "Can there be objective morality?" The answer is, whether you're a deist, theist or atheist, no.

Next topic please.

Nope, I think a non-interventionist deity would represent something objective... because it wouldn't change.

Problem is, we have no way of knowing what this objective axiology / framework would look like because the deity has no way of telling us (without intervening and thus becoming a the-ity).

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-02-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Objective Morality ...
(15-02-2014 09:24 AM)WillHopp Wrote:  If there were a god, and he commanded the laws of morality, wouldn't morality then still be subjective, since it would be his opinion as to what constitutes morality?

Not arguing from a religious standpoint; not sure why you want to bring religion in again.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: