Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
10-12-2014, 02:30 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 02:24 PM)unfogged Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 02:14 PM)tear151 Wrote:  This is more because I'm considering calling into the atheist experience to challenge Matt on his moral objectivism, I want to get my facts straight first in a more "Local" setting first. Just thinking it might be nice for someone to call into that show who knows what they are talking about for a change lol and doing something other than trying to prove god to them.

Here's a post where he outlines his position

Quote:It is trivial to construct a secular moral system beginning with very simple foundational principles (life is generally preferable to death, etc) and evaluate the consequences of actions with respect to those principles.

The particular foundational principles used as the basis are not objective.

^Exactly

You can do as much objective reasoning from subjective premises as you want, if even a single premise is subjective, it taints every conclusion you can get to with it with the same brush of subjectivity.

Say I define goodness of music as complexity, then say my music tastes are objectively good because they hold to being complex, the two problems are

Like I said, any subjectivity in, subjectivity out

and that I have no basis for redefining the terms like that, it's a subtle way of shifting the goal posts. A lot of people say homosexualiy is wrong, but that isn't based on harm, that's based on tribalistic instinct, tradition, and a fear of the unknown, these equally can come into someones subjective ethics system, and you can't tell them they are wrong by any means. They are simply stopping things "Homosexuality" say, because they feel it's in their interest to enforce that particular principle on the world to ease their own discomfort.

I find the egoist model of convincing them holding such views doesnt actually benefit them, i.e that their moral system is based on another more fundamental desire and they can swap it with something healthier than wanting to prevent people from having sex with a member of the same sex.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes tear151's post
10-12-2014, 02:38 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 02:30 PM)tear151 Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 02:24 PM)unfogged Wrote:  Here's a post where he outlines his position


The particular foundational principles used as the basis are not objective.

^Exactly

You can do as much objective reasoning from subjective premises as you want, if even a single premise is subjective, it taints every conclusion you can get to with it with the same brush of subjectivity.

Say I define goodness of music as complexity, then say my music tastes are objectively good because they hold to being complex, the two problems are

Like I said, any subjectivity in, subjectivity out

and that I have no basis for redefining the terms like that, it's a subtle way of shifting the goal posts. A lot of people say homosexualiy is wrong, but that isn't based on harm, that's based on tribalistic instinct, tradition, and a fear of the unknown, these equally can come into someones subjective ethics system, and you can't tell them they are wrong by any means. They are simply stopping things "Homosexuality" say, because they feel it's in their interest to enforce that particular principle on the world to ease their own discomfort.

I find the egoist model of convincing them holding such views doesnt actually benefit them, i.e that their moral system is based on another more fundamental desire and they can swap it with something healthier than wanting to prevent people from having sex with a member of the same sex.

I would say those who view homosexuality as wrong generally do so based on their moral value gauge on purity, tradition, and sense of authority- generally to the way things are or for many, religious law.

That's why I would pull in the moral foundations theory into why people value different concepts and that morality is more than just harm/life staying, but that's 1 aspect of multiple that there could be. It's just generally for almost every moral agent, one of the most important and critical in viewing these concepts overall.

"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
10-12-2014, 02:45 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 02:38 PM)ClydeLee Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 02:30 PM)tear151 Wrote:  ^Exactly

You can do as much objective reasoning from subjective premises as you want, if even a single premise is subjective, it taints every conclusion you can get to with it with the same brush of subjectivity.

Say I define goodness of music as complexity, then say my music tastes are objectively good because they hold to being complex, the two problems are

Like I said, any subjectivity in, subjectivity out

and that I have no basis for redefining the terms like that, it's a subtle way of shifting the goal posts. A lot of people say homosexualiy is wrong, but that isn't based on harm, that's based on tribalistic instinct, tradition, and a fear of the unknown, these equally can come into someones subjective ethics system, and you can't tell them they are wrong by any means. They are simply stopping things "Homosexuality" say, because they feel it's in their interest to enforce that particular principle on the world to ease their own discomfort.

I find the egoist model of convincing them holding such views doesnt actually benefit them, i.e that their moral system is based on another more fundamental desire and they can swap it with something healthier than wanting to prevent people from having sex with a member of the same sex.

I would say those who view homosexuality as wrong generally do so based on their moral value gauge on purity, tradition, and sense of authority- generally to the way things are or for many, religious law.

That's why I would pull in the moral foundations theory into why people value different concepts and that morality is more than just harm/life staying, but that's 1 aspect of multiple that there could be. It's just generally for almost every moral agent, one of the most important and critical in viewing these concepts overall.

Again though, unifying all the moralities as simply being different expressions of self interest makes the whole thing make sense, and gives you a very easy way to get people on your side, it's far more practical to and removes metaphysical concepts from the discussion.

"A witty quote means nothing"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-12-2014, 02:48 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 11:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But even here, the argument is appealing to a supposed external reality, that's binding all those having that argument, that they have obligation to do what is Godly.

What's wrong with writing, "the basis of the argument is that all Christians have the supposed obligation to do what is Godly"?

Quit word salading.

Quote:That the standard of life, how they should live an act, should be directed in the way God desires of them. That no matter on which side the party stands, they are all appealing to some supposed objective reality, in which what is right and what is wrong stem from>

No. The objective reality in this case would consists of the Bible saying, "Christmas trees are evil."

Quit trying to redefine a term.

Quote:From the perspective of believer, the claim would be God desires, or is fine with us having a christmas tree, or that he is not fine with this. Or as far as the tree is concerned none of can determine either way whether good will approve of this, so we're left on out own.

So yeah... the issue is completely subjective. Got ya. Thanks for clearing that up.

Quote:The choice, is not matter, of just deciding if what picture to put over our mantel. At the end of the day it's question of what God desires (godly).

So... without blatant, explicit direction from God... what God desires becomes... ummm... subjective? Right.

Quote:As far as the tree is concerned here may not be an answer, but yet all believers, christian, muslim, jew, hindu or otherwise, believes that God desires Justice, love for our neighbor, to take care of the orphans and widow, the poor, etc...And all believers view this as a duty, even Isis.

ohstfu with this irrelevant nonsense

Quote:Believers of all sorts may create all sorts of self-justifying schemes for deplorable actions, like lawyers looking for loop holes, but the fact they have to justify themselves with something external to them, is the point.

You've officially gone full-retard. Grats.

Quote:Paul observed the gentiles following the moral law, event though they had no book. If morality is subjective that there is no such as a moral law, no such as right or wrong, in any true of meaningful sense, just personal opinion.

I would like to say more, but i've run out of time.

Oh you mean like not murdering, not stealing, not lying, etc? Yeah, that's been a basis of moral norms long before Paul and the Gentiles. Those basic acts of morality allow a society to function in a more efficient manner.

HOWEVER, that does not make those moral norms objective. Just because something is popular doesn't make it universally right for everyone everywhere.

At the same time tribes where killing neighboring tribes for food, other civilizations where instituting harsh penalties for murder. This is morality as a whole... subjective. Those cannibalistic tribes saw it as a perfectly acceptable act to kill their neighbor from the other tribe.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like kingschosen's post
10-12-2014, 03:02 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 11:44 AM)DLJ Wrote:  I would argue, and often do, that a better way of phrasing this position is that morality is ALWAYS subjective yet can be judged as objective ONLY WHEN an axiology is assumed.

^^ This.

The axiom becomes the objective standard. Of course it crumbles the second anyone dissents. Objective morality is impossible.

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
[+] 7 users Like WillHopp's post
10-12-2014, 06:49 PM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 09:38 AM)tear151 Wrote:  Matt dillahunt argued that ethical systems can be objectively better than others.
(10-12-2014 09:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Well, it's been my experience that atheists tend to appeal to an objective morality all the time. They seem unwilling to admit that someone who disagrees with their moral positions, is not wrong in any objective sense.

... because we recognise that morality has an objective component, which is the consequences of actions in reality. However, it doesn't become morality without some subjective "values" component.

A valid moral proposition is in the form:
If you accept <value> then <objective reality> compels you to view <action> as <consequence of action in objective reality on value>.

For example:
If you accept <human suffering is undesirable> then <the permanent physical and mental scarring that results> compels you to view <genital mutilation> as <undesirable>.
Now you can argue the components:
- Is human suffering really undesirable? Is it more or less desirable than life, or some other value?
- Is the consequence of genital mutilation true in objective reality?
If you accept the components of the proposition then a society that participates in genital mutilation is objectively worse than one that does not, and we can measure the effect various decisions made in various societies have on our value propositions to verify whether or not the objective component is true.

Whereas the theist in this case chooses to argue in the form:
God is omni-<value>. Just because <value> is harmed by his actions does not mean he is not omni-<value>.
For example God is omni-<human welfare>. Just because <human welfare> is harmed by his actions does not mean he is not omni-<human welfare>. I mean, who are you to decide what words mean? I mean, he just knows more about <human welfare> than you do. He's just doing it for your own good. I mean, it will turn out ok in the end. No, I mean just because I say god is omni-<human welfare> doesn't mean he needs to be held to some infinite standard of <human welfare> or something. What are you, crazy?

Whereas an honest theist concedes: God is not omni-<human welfare>. To say so given the record of his deeds would be to render the term meaningless. God operates according to his own purpose and that purpose is one we are subject to. We cannot hope for him to act in a way that is against his purpose or his nature just to benefit us. There is no omni- about it when it comes to god doing what pleases us, or what we value.

This is so not a boxing ring thread any more. Is that's objective enough for you?

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 9 users Like Hafnof's post
10-12-2014, 06:54 PM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 04:56 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
There is no way human brain can make an (interpreted) judgment about a (supposedly) "objective" standard. The brain's interpretation MAKES it "subjective.

Google all the videos by Dr. David Pizarro. Here's one.




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
11-12-2014, 07:06 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 01:04 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I am with Bucky, me thinks you are not feeling quite right. You appear to waffle back and forth on what you describe as objective moral code. The problem is that what each believer's view on what their personal god desires is different, of their opinion, and completely subjective. You must be able to see that or be unable to think outside of your own little bubble.

I'll keep it simple. Moral claims by believers of pretty much any type are questions of facts, even if they are wrong. They are questions of facts in the same sense that claims that the moon landing is a hoax is a question of facts.

A subjective moral statement, is a statement of opinion, such I like scrambled eggs better than sunny side up, someone's else opinion is not wrong, anymore so than my opinion is right. I might say that scrambled eggs are better than sunny side up, but I am I'm just making a statement of personal preference.

If I stated that God forbids us from eating scrambled eggs, I am making a truth claim, i'm not stating a personal preference, and the claim becomes a question of facts.

It can be wrong, just like geocentrism can and is wrong. It could be wrong because God doesn't exist, therefore such demands are not possible, it could be wrong because God revealed his intentions in the bible, and the bible doesn't forbid us from eating scrambled eggs, etc...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-12-2014, 07:51 AM (This post was last modified: 11-12-2014 07:57 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(10-12-2014 02:48 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 11:50 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That the standard of life, how they should live an act, should be directed in the way God desires of them. That no matter on which side the party stands, they are all appealing to some supposed objective reality, in which what is right and what is wrong stem from>

No. The objective reality in this case would consists of the Bible saying, "Christmas trees are evil."

Well, that's kind of the point isn't it. The view that man is required to do as God desires, and God's desire for man is found in the bible. Is not a question of opinion. It's not a subjective claim, but rather a question of fact.

The claim is not a statement of personal opinion, but asserting a fact, which may be wrong.

I'll provide a series of quotes for people of various religious backgrounds.

"The arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice." - Rev. King

" Morality and ethical values are not mere decorative frills of personal opinion, not subjective superstructure, but intrinsic laws of the cosmos built into the heart of reality" - Bhikkhu Bodhi, a Buddhist monk and scholar

" In the world of knowledge the idea of good appears last of all, and is seen only with an effort; and, when seen, is also inferred to be the universal author of all things beautiful and right" -Plato

I hope you can see why these are not subjective statements, they are not questions of opinions, but questions of facts. Religious moral statements are appeals to such and such supposed realities. Rather than just asserting an opinion, they are in fact making truth claims.

Quote:You've officially gone full-retard. Grats.

I don't think I took a personal swipe at you, so I'm not sure as to why you decided to sink this low. But I'm guessing it was just a lapse in judgement, a line you can you find yourself easily crossing online, which you likely wouldn't do so in real life. But I'm hoping you refrain from taking it here in the future, rather than having this dissolve into nastiness.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
11-12-2014, 08:32 AM
RE: Open challenge: Prove the existence of objective moral laws in a godless world
(11-12-2014 07:06 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(10-12-2014 01:04 PM)Timber1025 Wrote:  I am with Bucky, me thinks you are not feeling quite right. You appear to waffle back and forth on what you describe as objective moral code. The problem is that what each believer's view on what their personal god desires is different, of their opinion, and completely subjective. You must be able to see that or be unable to think outside of your own little bubble.

I'll keep it simple. Moral claims by believers of pretty much any type are questions of facts, even if they are wrong. They are questions of facts in the same sense that claims that the moon landing is a hoax is a question of facts.

A subjective moral statement, is a statement of opinion, such I like scrambled eggs better than sunny side up, someone's else opinion is not wrong, anymore so than my opinion is right. I might say that scrambled eggs are better than sunny side up, but I am I'm just making a statement of personal preference.

If I stated that God forbids us from eating scrambled eggs, I am making a truth claim, i'm not stating a personal preference, and the claim becomes a question of facts.

It can be wrong, just like geocentrism can and is wrong. It could be wrong because God doesn't exist, therefore such demands are not possible, it could be wrong because God revealed his intentions in the bible, and the bible doesn't forbid us from eating scrambled eggs, etc...

Learn the definitions of the following:
FACT
SUBJECTIVE
OPINION
TRUTH

You are basically talking about - questions about facts which are still wrong - OK? Have fun in your own special bubble!

“Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up, must come down, down, down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.”
— Dan Barker —
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Timber1025's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: