The Grey Labyrinth is a collection of puzzles, riddles, mind games, paradoxes and other intellectually challenging diversions. Related topics: puzzle games, logic puzzles, lateral thinking puzzles, philosophy, mind benders, brain teasers, word problems, conundrums, 3d puzzles, spatial reasoning, intelligence tests, mathematical diversions, paradoxes, physics problems, reasoning, math, science.

Legal | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | Nerdware

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Ask about Atheism
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 23, 24, 25 Next

The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Science, Art, and Culture

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:32 am Post subject: 641

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I wrote:

Chuck wrote:

It seems like a god would give us one more subjective opinion.

Not an Ultimate Being from which we all come. In polytheism, yes. But an Utimate Being, a single foundation from which our consciences came, would render us obliged to follow it, regardless of our opinions.

Why would I be obliged to follow it? This seems like a subjective belief.

I don't think it's a subjective belief that people feel obliged to follow their consciences, that is, their sense of right and wrong. It's quite observable. People are always saying this is right and that is wrong. Their obligation to that sense is quite obvious, even if expressed in forced compliance.

If my creator always agrees with my conscience then why do I need to even consider what he wants? He'll be fine with everything I want.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

All of morality is just what people think.

By what possible means can you know this?

I've never seen morals for sale on store shelves, growing on trees, or lying in the street. Show me one that's not the product of human thought and I'll change my mind.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I wrote:

If you have more than one foundation, you wouldn't be bound by either one. When you don't like one, you switch to the other.

Then I don't see how there can by any foundation at all.

The only way that seems possible is the existence of God as defined above. Maybe it doesn't make sense to you, in which case we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Ok, I'm fine by my own standards and immoral by yours because I don't obey your god. If your god exists am I objectively immoral or am I fine because we're agreeing to disagree?

Deception
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:54 am Post subject: 642

BraveHat wrote:

I don't know, but that sounds kind of oxymoronic. Doesn't the word "should" imply " rightness" to begin with?

I'm asking if it is possible to consciously believe that action X is morally wrong, yet also do action X feeling it is the right thing to do.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:53 am Post subject: 643

Chuck wrote:

If my creator always agrees with my conscience then why do I need to even consider what he wants? He'll be fine with everything I want.

Firstly, I'm not suggesting one way or another that you should or shouldn't consider what your creator wants. That's a completely different discussion. Secondly, are you suggesting there's never any conflict between what you want and what your conscience suggests you should do? There is with me. Particularly in the morning, when I would much rather keep sleeping than deal with the myriad of headaches awaiting me at work. But my conscience says I should go to work.

Chuck wrote:

I've never seen morals for sale on store shelves, growing on trees, or lying in the street. Show me one that's not the product of human thought and I'll change my mind.

We know human thought relates to it. We don't know if it's entirely created by human thought, that's just an assumption. If we were able to know it's entirely created by human thought for certain, I wouldn't be considering the possibility of God's existence in the first place.

Chuck wrote:

Ok, I'm fine by my own standards and immoral by yours because I don't obey your god. If your god exists am I objectively immoral or am I fine because we're agreeing to disagree?

huh?? I'm not even asserting that God even exists. I'm just interested in the question. I have no idea how moral or immoral you are, but you seem like a nice chap.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Last edited by BraveHat on Wed May 09, 2012 5:03 am; edited 1 time in total

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:58 am Post subject: 644

Deception wrote:

I'm asking if it is possible to consciously believe that action X is morally wrong, yet also do action X feeling it is the right thing to do

I really don't know. Can you give an example of what you mean? A situation? If I consciously believe X is morally wrong, I don't see why I would I feel like it's the right thing to do, that just seems to contradict itself. I think an example situation would make your meaning clearer.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:45 am Post subject: 645

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

If my creator always agrees with my conscience then why do I need to even consider what he wants? He'll be fine with everything I want.

If something I'm thinking of doing seems wrong then I wouldn't do it unless not doing it seemed worse. If a god created my conscience then I must make the morally correct choice because he's the real source of the decision.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I've never seen morals for sale on store shelves, growing on trees, or lying in the street. Show me one that's not the product of human thought and I'll change my mind.

Tossing in a god just adds someone else's thoughts. They're still just thoughts. There's nothing else there.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Ok, I'm fine by my own standards and immoral by yours because I don't obey your god. If your god exists am I objectively immoral or am I fine because we're agreeing to disagree?

huh?? I'm not even asserting that God even exists. I'm just interested in the question. I have no idea how moral or immoral you are, but you seem like a nice chap.

I thought the whole discussion was about a god dictating morality and whether or not that makes it objective morality.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 11:59 am Post subject: 646

Chuck wrote:

Well, slow down. We haven't yet considered in depth the implications of the God I described. The existence of such a God implies an innate individual conscience for each person from birth. That would mean, then, a sense of right and wrong independent of the things in the world an individual is taught are right or wrong from the outside. Not always opposed, but not always consistent either. Our attempts to satisfy that sense could still be subject to error, since there are still extra-conscientious drives for believing certain things and teaching certain beliefs: wish-fulfillment, consolation needs, power-hunger, etc. So if something seemed wrong, it could be from our innate conscience, but it could also be something that we were erroneously taught was wrong or that we have an extra-conscientious need to believe is wrong. Since our innate conscience and extra-conscientious beliefs would be subtly intertwined, we would need a technique for separating one from the other.

Chuck wrote:

I wrote:

Tossing in a god just adds someone else's thoughts. They're still just thoughts. There's nothing else there

You're essentially saying there's nothing there but what we can observe, which is an obvious fallacy. It would be like looking at our known universe and saying that's all there is.
To toss in a god is to toss in a supernatural explanation. If objective morality exists, but no natural explanation justifies it, then only a supernatural explanation could justify it.

Chuck wrote:

I wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Ok, I'm fine by my own standards and immoral by yours because I don't obey your god. If your god exists am I objectively immoral or am I fine because we're agreeing to disagree?

huh?? I'm not even asserting that God even exists. I'm just interested in the question. I have no idea how moral or immoral you are, but you seem like a nice chap.

I thought the whole discussion was about a god dictating morality and whether or not that makes it objective morality.

Ok, I misunderstood you. You were referring to my hypothetical god's standards, and I thought you were referring to my actual standards. To answer the question, I don't personally think that objective morality or immorality would be properties of people, but properties of actions. And I claim no expertise on what actions would be objectively moral or immoral if that God exists. So, I don't know Revenge most foul!

_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:13 pm Post subject: 647

Deception wrote:

1) Yes to the first question, though remember that morals change as experiences and environments change and thus the objective law can change (yes, I am saying that an objective component can indeed change, just like we can correctly objectively say "the carpet is blue" and then dye it red and say "the carpet is red"). This happens when the treatment of Jews conflicts with many other moral values which are objective in so many country systems that is overwhelms internationally and becomes against the international law.

Fair enough.

Deception wrote:

2) If Hitler had brainwashed people into agreeing with him, then their subjectivity would be compromised and it would be essentially a dictatorship. Also you are describing a whole new world which will likely have different moral values out of necessity. For instance in a world where there are an infinite amount of people and the only way to live is to eat people, then it becomes morally correct to eat people, wouldn't you agree?

I would say that it wouldn't be necessarily immoral. One doesn't normally consider eating to be a moral action, regardless of what it is you're eating. Maybe if you're eating someone's leftovers that they don't want, specifically to keep them from spoiling....

What I'm really interested in is the other end of your scale of objectivity with regards to morality. On the completely nonobjective end of the scale you have law enacted by a single moral opinion forced upon the electorate. But what does the other end of the scale look like? What sort of ideal electorate would vote for law that was completely 100% objective? Surely, no election is achieved without influence on the electorate from those agents wanting them to vote one way or the other, and so no election is manipulation-free. Is a law only objective to the degree that voters were not manipulated into voting for it? Is there such a thing as uncompromised subjectivity?

Deception wrote:

3) When I say mutated moral values I simply mean altered through experience. People can betray moral values, objective and subjective alike; though when a mother drowns her child, if she thinks that is is the right thing to do, then her morals have changed through experience to allow that. It is only intrinsic of birth, however it is not an essential value of all humans. People will always be born with P, but remember that P is just the beginning of a moral code one develops over ones' life. And the contents of that code can change based on subjective experience.

I guess it's a matter of semantics, but it's difficult to see how "protecting the young" could change into it's exact opposite. It's seems more likely that it's just discarded or over-ridden. i.e. she started off with "protect the young" but then something convinced her it was not a worthy value, OR she still believed it, but some other drive like desperation or despair overwhelmed her willingness to stick to her beliefs.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Last edited by BraveHat on Wed May 09, 2012 1:28 pm; edited 1 time in total

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:25 pm Post subject: 648

Chuck wrote:

Craig's argument doesn't stop at showing there's some intelligent designer. He goes on, and on and on, to make a case for Christianity.

That's not true at all. The moral argument he uses stops at showing the existence of God. It's summed up as followed:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

The case for Christianity is made with other arguments. One would expect that, since that is, after all, his job as a Christian apologist.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 1:55 pm Post subject: 649

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

If I do something that I don't know is wrong due to error, because I was misinformed, or because biological needs overwhelmed my decision-making processes then I haven't decided to do something wrong. A bad result of my action doesn't make the decision bad.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I wrote:

Tossing in a god just adds someone else's thoughts. They're still just thoughts. There's nothing else there

If there is something else out there and I don't know about it then I can't take it into consideration when making a decision, so it doesn't exist for purposes of deciding right from wrong. If there's a god out there playing games with our minds then our decisions aren't really ours anyway. All I see are people making claims about right and wrong that appear to be their own opinions. If their claims aren't really their own then discussing morality seems pointless.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Ok, I'm fine by my own standards and immoral by yours because I don't obey your god. If your god exists am I objectively immoral or am I fine because we're agreeing to disagree?

huh?? I'm not even asserting that God even exists. I'm just interested in the question. I have no idea how moral or immoral you are, but you seem like a nice chap.

I thought the whole discussion was about a god dictating morality and whether or not that makes it objective morality.

If a god thinks an action is immoral but doesn't inform me through my conscience or by putting me into an environment in which I'd lean it then I, performing the action, am not the one responsible for the evil. At worst I'd be in error since I would not have decided to do something immoral.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:24 pm Post subject: 650

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Craig's argument doesn't stop at showing there's some intelligent designer. He goes on, and on and on, to make a case for Christianity.

But if 1 is true then to know that 2 is true you have to assume 3 which is what is to be proven. If there is no god then labeling moral values and duties as objective is being done in error. If you can label some moral value as objective before proving that a god exists then 1 is wrong.

I see the idea, though. People feel strongly enough about some moral values and duties to call them objectively true. Craig can get emotional support for 2 without having to assume 3.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 2:32 pm Post subject: 651

Chuck wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If objective immorality exists, and you unknowingly do something objectively immoral, the action is still objectively immoral. I'm not clear on your point.

Chuck wrote:

I'm saying it's possible their claims aren't entirely their own in origin. It's quite observable that some values are taught by others, for one. If a parent hammers the idea that not finishing all the food on your plate is immoral into their kid's head, and that kid grows up claiming that not finishing all the food on his plate would be immoral, it's obviously not entirely his own opinion, but one influenced by others. They can still change the opinion, based on other influences, but that doesn't mean either one is entirely their own in origin.
The point of my discussing this is not to come up with a way to make moral decisions. I'm just interested in the implications of believing in objective moral values and duties, and whether or not that necessitates a belief in God. Lots of people seem to believe in objectively right and wrong things, and don't believe in the supernatural, so I'm exploring how justified one can be in that position.

Chuck wrote:

I agree, but that's neither here nor there. It doesn't do anything towards supporting or denying the existence of the god I'm postulating.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:30 pm Post subject: 652

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I'm not sure what you're trying to say. If objective immorality exists, and you unknowingly do something objectively immoral, the action is still objectively immoral. I'm not clear on your point.

I don't see how I can be said to have done something immoral if I had no way of knowing that anyone considered the action to be immoral. If God thinks it's immoral to watch Jay Leno on Wednesdays but hasn't told anyone, does it make me an immoral person if I do watch Jay Leno on a Wednesday? Even thought I performed that act, my decision to do so was not immoral, in my opinion.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

If someone says he believes that a specific rock weighs more than a pound I can verify that his belief is true by weighing the rock. If he says he believes that a tree is more than twenty feet tall I can measure the height of the tree. If he says he believes that there's a hole in his back yard I can go look at at his yard. But if he says it's immoral to eat meat on a Friday, how can I verify that this is true? He has nothing to show me. It appears to be his just his opinion. Am I immoral if I don't believe every claim everyone makes on the topic?

Is there any practical different between having an objective moral code that no one can know is objectively correct and not having an objective moral code at all?

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I agree, but that's neither here nor there. It doesn't do anything towards supporting or denying the existence of the god I'm postulating.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:38 pm Post subject: 653

Chuck wrote:

Craig's Moral Argument wrote:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

But if 1 is true then to know that 2 is true you have to assume 3 which is what is to be proven.

Yes, 2 and 3 together are just the contrapositive of 1. So, 3 can only be proven to someone who believes 2 and then becomes convinced of 1. Some of Craig's opponents, like Sam Harris, believe that 2 is true, without assuming 3. If Craig proves 1 to them, they will have to either reject 2 or accept 3. Other opponents, though they don't claim that 2 is true, nevertheless talk as if there was an objective moral standard. To expect others to conform to a moral standard implies a belief in some objectivity to it. The argument also becomes useful against those opponents.

Chuck wrote:

If you can label some moral value as objective before proving that a god exists then 1 is wrong.

Right. The thrust of the debates is in arguing for the truth of 1. If successfully done, the opponent must either reject 2 or accept 3.

Chuck wrote:

I see the idea, though. People feel strongly enough about some moral values and duties to call them objectively true. Craig can get emotional support for 2 without having to assume 3.

I think there is a misconception about Craig's use of argumentation. I don't think he's trying to gain support for his faith with it. From what I've read, I don't think he believes that faith is founded on argumentation at all, but on the subjective experience of the witness of the Holy Spirit (which is not intersubjectively verifiable). The value of apologetic arguments, rather, is actually in showing that faith, though not founded on reason, is an internally consistent belief system. Apologetic arguments defend faith, without justifying it. In debates, the goal is to disarm attacks by exposing the inconsistencies of the premises on which the opponents base their attacks. So I don't think the motivations for supporting the idea of objective morality are relevant to Craig's argument. Rather what's of concern is that IF someone supports objective morality, is that support consistent with atheism?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 3:53 pm Post subject: 654

I don't believe objective morality is possible even with a god, so 2 isn't true and 1 is irrelevant.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:00 pm Post subject: 655

He need not worry that his faith is inconsistent. The theory that everything we see is as it is because an all powerful intelligence whose reasoning is beyond human understanding wants it that way is consistent with everything we observe or ever could observe.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:23 pm Post subject: 656

Chuck wrote:

If we're talking about objectivity, our opinions wouldn't be relevant to the question of whether it is moral or not. Consider the idea of objective morality as analogous to health. If no one ever told you that smoking cigarettes was unhealthy, so you just kept smoking, you'd still be doing something unhealthy regardless of whether it wasn't unhealthy in your opinion or not.

Another point is that we haven't even discussed what objective moral values would be. For example, if doing what you believe is right is itself an objective moral value, then no matter what the thing is, your behavior would be objectively moral in that respect. All I'm doing is talking about a possible basis of objective morality, not what the actual morals would be.

Chuck wrote:

As I mentioned earlier, if such a God exists, we would need a technique for differentiating between our conscientious values and extra-conscientious values. If we were sufficiently adept at that technique, we could ask him why it's immoral, and if his explanation didn't resonate with our consciences, then there probably wouldn't be a way to verify it. So what?

Chuck wrote:

Am I immoral if I don't believe every claim everyone makes on the topic?

Nothing suggests that you would be. For one, my personal opinion is that only actions would be moral or immoral. But more importantly, I already discussed that not every moral claim is necessarily a conscientious value, so the odds are extremely high that it is not immoral to disbelieve every single moral claim.

Chuck wrote:

Is there any practical different between having an objective moral code that no one can know is objectively correct and not having an objective moral code at all?

No practical difference that I can see. But there's a HUGE practical difference between having an objective moral code that people can know and not having an objective moral code at all. In the first case, it's something you have the possibility of learning. In the second, there's nothing to learn.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 4:36 pm Post subject: 657

Chuck wrote:

I don't believe objective morality is possible even with a god

Why not? I know you don't believe objective morality is true, but why not possible? To me, all things are possible until some factual restriction shows that they aren't. What factual restriction makes objective morality impossible?

Chuck wrote:

He need not worry that his faith is inconsistent. The theory that everything we see is as it is because an all powerful intelligence whose reasoning is beyond human understanding wants it that way is consistent with everything we observe or ever could observe.

Oh, I'm sure he's the last person to worry that his faith is inconsistent. But it's his job to refute arguments to the contrary. And those arguments don't take issue with the general theory you quoted above, but with the specific seemingly contradictory beliefs within the faith. Such as conflict between the idea of a loving God and instances of God's wrath, etc.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 5:51 pm Post subject: 658

I'd been ignoring this thread -- I didn't realize you were talking about something interesting again.

BraveHat wrote:

If this argument held water, then there wouldn't be different religions, only the one based on the "objective moral values and duties." Of course, the zealots believe that there is only one religion, and those others are false, but there's no point in discussing it with them, either.

However, I'll concede that there is a core of beliefs that are pretty much common to all non-psychotic religions (and even most of the psychotic ones): Don't kill others of "us" without a good reason (where "us" represents all creatures, all humans, or a smaller group, depending on the religion). Don't steal. Etc.

This set of ethics seems to be fundamentally ingrained in the ethics of sane people. Even if they don't always adhere to them, sane people do understand that they should. While we haven't yet shown it, I'm willing to agree for the moment that the belief is inherent to humans, not learned. (So I'm conceding #2 for the moment, more or less.) Does this, then, imply the existence of (one of the many forms of) God?

We do know that there are people who do not have this inborn ethical system. We call them psychopaths and we declare them to be insane. Their existence does not immediately disqualify the logic above -- they might, after all, be the result of meddling by God's enemy. (Every religion has one.)

What if we found, hidden away in the South American rain forest, an entire tribe of people without this inborn ethical system, AND the tribe itself has no social pressure for its members to learn such a system? Would that be a counter-example to the logic above? Possibly.

How many of you are now saying to yourselves that such a society could not exist? Their lack of caring and compassion would mean that they would kill themselves off in a generation or two. They could not possibly survive as a group without creating these fundamental ethics, at the very least as applied to the other members of their own tribe.

If we were to go back 100,000 years and create a dozen of societies like this, then check 1000 years later, the ones that did not create those fundamental ethics would be gone, and the ones that did create them would have grown and spread. Survival of the fittest works on a societal level as well as an individual one. If individuals form a society that is untenable, then their descendants don't last to perpetuate it: they change or they die out.

So we've demonstrated that the most basic ethical system is a requirement for a society to continue. Therefore, no societies exist without it. There was no God involved, just math.

This hasn't show, however, that the ethics are fundamental to humans, only that they are fundamental to human societies. However, you don't have to step too far back in the evolutionary chain to reach animals in which their "society" is based on their genetics, and little or none of it is learned. However, the argument above works for any creature which can be said to have a society at all. So the built-in ethical core was required before there were even humans to have it.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:22 pm Post subject: 659

Well said. It seems, then, that the existence of the God I described is not the only possible foundation for objective moral values and duties. There is also the many many years of adaptive societal survival mechanisms which can account for any perceived objectivity of moral values. _________________ "I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:26 pm Post subject: 660

Zag wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

It isn't clear to me why the argument presented would imply a false religion cannot exist, or why only a zealot would say that given many contradictory religions, at most one of them is true.

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: 661

BraveHat wrote:

It seems, then, that the existence of the God I described is not the only possible foundation for objective moral values and duties. There is also the many many years of adaptive societal survival mechanisms which can account for any perceived objectivity of moral values.

I lost you there. Is "perceived objectivity" the same as objectivity?

BraveHat wrote:

Objective moral values and duties: Moral values and duties that are valid and binding, regardless of what people think of them.

I can imagine objective moral values existing without anyone knowing them.

A tendency to behave, or believe it's "right" to behave, a certain way, whether or not conducive to survival of oneself or one's group, and whether resulting from evolution, design, malfunction, whatever ... I can understand the view that such tendencies or beliefs are mistaken for "objective moral values" ... but are these what you mean to be included under the definition of "objective moral values" when you ask if they exist?

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 8:15 pm Post subject: 662

extro wrote:

I wrote:

I lost you there. Is "perceived objectivity" the same as objectivity?

Yeah, I'm not sure why I wrote 'perceived'. Maybe part of me is reluctant to think that the evolution of values and the societal pressure it creates is sufficient to actually bind individuals to them in any objective sense.

extro wrote:

A tendency to behave, or believe it's "right" to behave, a certain way, whether or not conducive to survival of oneself or one's group, and whether resulting from evolution, design, malfunction, whatever ... I can understand the view that such tendencies or beliefs are mistaken for "objective moral values" ... but are these what you mean to be included under the definition of "objective moral values" when you ask if they exist?

I think the definition means that the values are not entirely dependent on whether people believe them or not. There is some necessity for every person to adhere to them whether they like it or not, or whether they believe they should or not. It seems like evolutionary pressure would be one natural force giving rise to that necessity.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:26 pm Post subject: 663

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

In morality the results aren't the most important consideration. It's the intent that matters. If I destroy someone's property by accident or mistake that it's not immoral. If I try to destroy someone's property and fail then it is immoral. In the smoking example all that matters is the result.

BraveHat wrote:

Another point is that we haven't even discussed what objective moral values would be. For example, if doing what you believe is right is itself an objective moral value, then no matter what the thing is, your behavior would be objectively moral in that respect. All I'm doing is talking about a possible basis of objective morality, not what the actual morals would be.

If I think it's right to do only what I think is right, that's just another subjective opinion. I can't show anyone that it's in any sense objectively true.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

If a god or anyone else convinced me that he was right then we'd just have a shared opinion. If we didn't agree then we wouldn't share that opinion. I don't see how that has anything to do with objective morality. It's just the opinions of a thinking beings.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Am I immoral if I don't believe every claim everyone makes on the topic?

I don't see how an action alone could be called immoral. It matters why it was performed.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Is there any practical different between having an objective moral code that no one can know is objectively correct and not having an objective moral code at all?

I don't see how we could know that a moral code was objective. If someone tells me there's a tree in his yard he can show it to me. If he tells me that some moral value is objectively moral, how can I know that this is true?

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Wed May 09, 2012 10:44 pm Post subject: 664

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't believe objective morality is possible even with a god

It would have to be true even if no thinking being agreed that it was true, but there's nothing there except belief. It wouldn't exist at all if no one believed it.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

He can also declare whatever magic he needs at any time and say he's deduced it.

Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 1:58 am Post subject: 665

extropalopakettle wrote:

It isn't clear to me why the argument presented would imply a false religion cannot exist, or why only a zealot would say that given many contradictory religions, at most one of them is true.

The argument presented does not imply those things. The initial premise of a single objective morality implies it. If the morality is objective, fundamental to humanity, and put there by a deity in the first place, then the religions would not contradict so much.

Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:07 am Post subject: 666

Chuck wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

But he's not talking about doing something accidentally. If you intentionally destroyed someone's property, but didn't know that was wrong, was that immoral? Of course, it begs the question, 'how did you possibly not know?" but that question is a lot less applicable to eating pork, failing to observe the sabbath, or participating in (consensual adult) gay sex. A lot of people would consider those actions immoral, but I don't see any reason that someone would "know' that they are without being taught it.

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how an action alone could be called immoral. It matters why it was performed.

What's your stance on Gay Marriage?

In any case, I'm prepared to go on record saying that torturing children is always immoral, and I don't give a damn why it was performed.

Deception
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 3:14 am Post subject: 667

But Zag, if the children weren't tortured, then all of Africa would be destroyed.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:46 am Post subject: 668

Zag wrote:

Chuck wrote:

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

If a god thought it was immoral to eat salami on Easter but didn't tell anyone, I would not consider eating salami on Easter to be immoral.

Zag wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how an action alone could be called immoral. It matters why it was performed.

What's your stance on Gay Marriage?

In any case, I'm prepared to go on record saying that torturing children is always immoral, and I don't give a damn why it was performed.

I think the government should stay out of the marriage definition game. I see no reason for the government to be involved in absolutely everything everyone does.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 2:40 pm Post subject: 669

I have a question. Should the scientific community thank William Lane Craig for his reductio ad absurdum proof that something can begin to exist without a cause?

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 5:57 pm Post subject: 670

Zag wrote:

extropalopakettle wrote:

It isn't clear to me why the argument presented would imply a false religion cannot exist, or why only a zealot would say that given many contradictory religions, at most one of them is true.

I see at least three sources of moral values:

1) Objective moral values that somehow are real independent of mankind's knowledge of / belief in them, not in any way "put there" within men, by either a deity or biological (as opposed to cultural) evolution, but discoverable by men.

2) Objective moral values that are put there ... "written in their hearts" by a deity, or a product of biological evolution ... present in all men (pathological cases aside).

3) Subjective moral values invented by men and taught to others (either deliberate invention, or via cultural evolution).

I don't see existence of the first as any more evident than existence of a deity. Even assuming the first, I don't see it as logically implying a deity. The only argument for the implication would seem to be the usual argument from ignorance (i.e., origin is unexplainable, therefore God).

The second and third I can see coexisting, and the third could account for differences between religions.

Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 7:20 pm Post subject: 671

I'm convinced: The differences of the many religions does not necessarily counter-indicate that a portion of the moral values is divinely-inspired. I agree with the rest of your most recent post, as well. Last edited by Zag on Fri May 11, 2012 12:49 am; edited 1 time in total

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:07 pm Post subject: 672

Chuck wrote:

I happen to agree that intention plays a big part in morality, and perhaps that's a clue to the kind of thing any possible objective moral might be about. But intentionality is not an independent variable in the definition I gave. The definition merely says that an objective moral would be valid and binding independantly of what people believe. Doing a thing unintentionally is very different than doing a thing intentionally whilst believing there's nothing wrong with it. If we took lying, for instance, as a possible candidate for something objectively immoral, would it be possible to accidentally lie? Not really, because the word itself suggests intentionality behind it. It's clearly possible, however to deliberately lie whilst believing there's nothing wrong with it. In other words, your objection only holds water if the actions being called objectively moral or immoral don't, by definition, already imply intentionality.

Chuck wrote:

If I think it's right to do only what I think is right, that's just another subjective opinion. I can't show anyone that it's in any sense objectively true.

Correct, you can't show anyone that what you think is right, is objectively right, and no one is saying that you could.

Chuck wrote:

Is the notion that gravity pulls downward toward the center of the earth just the shared opinion of thinking beings?

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how an action alone could be called immoral. It matters why it was performed.

I imagine it would depend on the standard imposed. For example, Sam Harris offers a secular basis for objective morality by imposing the standard of "the flourishing of every conscious creature". So any action that helps to bring about that standard is moral and every action that hinders the bringing about of that standard is immoral. It's not yet clear what kind of standard would be intrinsically imposed by the existence of an Ultimate Being from whom we all come and from whose nature our consciences arise.

Chuck wrote:

Well, a clue would be whether it seems to be valid and binding independent of your beliefs.

Chuck wrote:

It would have to be true even if no thinking being agreed that it was true, but there's nothing there except belief. It wouldn't exist at all if no one believed it.

The idea that there's nothing there but belief is merely an assumption. There's nothing to suggest that the source of moral values can't be intrinsic to thinking beings, and thus grounds for objectivity.

Chuck wrote:

He can also declare whatever magic he needs at any time and say he's deduced it.

How?
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Last edited by BraveHat on Fri May 11, 2012 1:32 am; edited 4 times in total

extropalopakettle
No offense, but....

Posted: Thu May 10, 2012 10:38 pm Post subject: 673

Zag wrote:

The differences of the many religions does not necessarily indicate that a portion of the moral values is divinely-inspired.

Or that it isn't divinely inspired. (unless that was a typo - I'm fairly sure you were already convinced that differences in religions doesn't indicate divinity)

Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot

Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 12:49 am Post subject: 674

Yes, just a typo. Fixed, now.

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 1:51 am Post subject: 675

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Ok, the action must be intentional, and even then if I've been misinformed, such as shredding the wrong documents believing that their owner wanted them shredded, it counts as an accident. I'd have to be intentionally destroying the documents while believing their owner doesn't want them shredded. I could be unaware that destroying someone else's property is considered to be immoral.

I already think it's wrong to destroy someone else's property, but I recognize that that's my opinion. How about if other people think it's wrong to eat meat on a Friday? I don't think that's immoral so I wouldn't consider it wrong if I ate meat on a Friday. Given that I think they're wrong about the morality of my choice of food, am I in any position to judge someone who shreds someone else's documents as having performed an immoral act, even if he knew that I thought it was wrong? If I do something that I know is considered to be immoral according to someone else, can I then reasonably claim that someone else has performed in immoral act if he doesn't agree that it's immoral? That seems to be inconsistent reasoning.

If eating meat on Friday is objectively immoral, is it wrong to eat meat on a Friday even if no one knows it's immoral? If it's not necessary that anyone know about it then anything at all might be immoral. If everyone thinks some act is immoral, it might not be immoral at all. How would we know? An objective moral code might as well not exist if no one knows what's in it.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

If I think it's right to do only what I think is right, that's just another subjective opinion. I can't show anyone that it's in any sense objectively true.

Correct, you can't show anyone that what you think is right, is objectively right, and no one is saying that you could.

Chuck wrote:

Is the notion that gravity pulls downward toward the center of the earth just the shared opinion of thinking beings?

Someone could demonstrate the effects of gravity to me. I could test it for myself. If eating meat on a Friday is objectively immoral, how would this be demonstrated to me?

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

I don't see how an action alone could be called immoral. It matters why it was performed.

I imagine it would depend on the standard imposed. For example, Sam Harris offers a secular basis for objective morality by imposing the standard of "the flourishing of every conscious creature". So any action that helps to bring about that standard is moral and every action that hinders the bringing about of that standard is immoral. It's not yet clear what kind of standard would be intrinsically imposed by an Ultimate Being from whom we all come and from whose nature our consciences arise.

Isn't Sam Harris's basis for objective morality just his opinion? Can it be demonstrated to me that it actually is objectively true?

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

Well, a clue would be whether it seems to be valid and binding independent of your beliefs.

All I know about morality are my beliefs. I don't see anything else.

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

It would have to be true even if no thinking being agreed that it was true, but there's nothing there except belief. It wouldn't exist at all if no one believed it.

Even if such an intrinsic source of morals exists, isn't it just opinion that it should be used as grounds for objective morality? What if someone else prefers different grounds? Who's qualified to say who's right?

BraveHat wrote:

Chuck wrote:

He can also declare whatever magic he needs at any time and say he's deduced it.

How?

If it's pointed out to him that, since time had a beginning, nothing can be infinitely old so God also began to exist, he makes up a magical kingdom call Outside of Time where things don't need causes and declares God to there. He doesn't show us this place. He deduces that it exists. He can deduce anything he needs to keep God alive.

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:12 pm Post subject: 676

Chuck wrote:

What's independent of your belief is the objectivity of the value itself, not the assessment of whether or not your action applies to it. If the value is "don't spite others", then yes, of course your belief about whether someone is being spited or not determines if your action applies, and consequently the rightness or wrongness of your action, but it does not determine the rightness or wrongness of "don't spite others" as a value. The rightness or wrongness of "don't spite others", if objective, would have an effect on you regardless of what you think of it. The irrelevant beliefs are beliefs about the value itself, not beliefs about circumstances which indicate whether or not such a value applies in the first place.

Chuck wrote:

I already think it's wrong to destroy someone else's property, but I recognize that that's my opinion.

But you already implied that destroying someone else's property by accident is not immoral. If you're saying that intentionally destroying someone's property against their will is immoral, then there's nothing to suggest that this is just an opinion. The intentional destruction of someone else's property against their will could very well have undetected effects on you and/or them regardless of what either of your opinions were on it.

Chuck wrote:

How about if other people think it's wrong to eat meat on a Friday? I don't think that's immoral so I wouldn't consider it wrong if I ate meat on a Friday.

If eating meat on Friday were somehow objectively wrong (though I don't personally see how it could be), then it simply wouldn't matter whether or not you considered it to be wrong. It would still have an effect on you, whether you related the effect to it or some other cause. And it wouldn't matter what other people think, either. The same would apply to them.

Chuck wrote:

Given that I think they're wrong about the morality of my choice of food, am I in any position to judge someone who shreds someone else's documents as having performed an immoral act, even if he knew that I thought it was wrong?.

If you somehow knew it was objectively wrong, and that's a big IF, then yes, you would be in such a position.

Chuck wrote:

If I do something that I know is considered to be immoral according to someone else, can I then reasonably claim that someone else has performed in immoral act if he doesn't agree that it's immoral? That seems to be inconsistent reasoning.

It's only inconsistent if you were using a subjective scale. If you were using the same objective scale to measure their actions and yours, there is no inconsistency of reasoning.

Chuck wrote:

If eating meat on Friday is objectively immoral, is it wrong to eat meat on a Friday even if no one knows it's immoral? If it's not necessary that anyone know about it then anything at all might be immoral. If everyone thinks some act is immoral, it might not be immoral at all. How would we know? An objective moral code might as well not exist if no one knows what's in it.

I've been trying to parse your objection in a way that's challenging, and it seems like it's something like this:

If it's possible for everyone to not believe that an objective moral value is moral, then in what sense does the objective moral value exist?

If no one on earth believed in gravity, that would not change gravity's operation. But if an objective moral value existed, and no one believed it was a moral value, how exactly would it operate in any significant way?

Suppose honesty were an objective moral value. Definitionally, it means that being honest is valid and binding independent of whether or not anyone believes it. But valid and binding how? Well, what if it were true that the more someone tells the truth, the more able they are to achieve their ends, and the more someone lies, the less able they are to achieve their ends? In that sense their hope for achieving ends would be bound by honesty, regardless if they believed it or not. We could live in a world where no one believed this, and that wouldn't make it any less true. And it wouldn't effect their actions any less.

Chuck wrote:

Someone could demonstrate the effects of gravity to me. I could test it for myself. If eating meat on a Friday is objectively immoral, how would this be demonstrated to me?

Knowing or not knowing objective truth is completely irrelevant to whether it's actually true or not. The notion that gravity is pulling you toward the earth is true regardless of whether or not it can be demonstrated to you. Likewise, if eating meat on a Friday were somehow objectively immoral, it would be so regardless of whether or not it could be demonstrated to you. We aren't discussing proof of objective morality, we're discussing what the nature of it would have to be, were it to exist.

Chuck wrote:

Isn't Sam Harris's basis for objective morality just his opinion?

Possibly, but not conclusively

Chuck wrote:

Can it be demonstrated to me that it actually is objectively true?

Maybe not, but so what?

Chuck wrote:

All I know about morality are my beliefs. I don't see anything else.

What about effects that your actions produce on your life and the lives of others? How does your belief of whether they are moral or not make one bit of difference on their effects?

Chuck wrote:

Even if such an intrinsic source of morals exists, isn't it just opinion that it should be used as grounds for objective morality?

"should be", possibly. "Can be", no. Objective morality has a definition, and it's not merely an opinion if something actually fits the definition.

Chuck wrote:

What if someone else prefers different grounds? Who's qualified to say who's right?

The definition is.

Chuck wrote:

I wrote:

Chuck wrote:

He can also declare whatever magic he needs at any time and say he's deduced it.

How?

1. The idea that God exists outside of Time is hardly made up. It's a very common theological idea. Craig isn't just making up his own theology willy nilliy in order to answer questions.
2. His argument is that if time is caused, it would have to be caused by something outside of time, since nothing can cause itself. That's where the necessity of a universal cause existing outside of time comes from. There's nothing made up about it.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

BraveHat
Last of the Daedalians

Posted: Fri May 11, 2012 6:37 pm Post subject: 677

Chuck wrote:

I think the government should stay out of the marriage definition game. I see no reason for the government to be involved in absolutely everything everyone does.

I know this is off topic, but I agree. I don't even think the term "marriage" should carry any legal significance. If society needs to support a couple with the benefits and obligations of marriage, then the government should just support civil unions. A couple getting married would not be required to have a civil union, though they would have that option and a couple wanting a civil union would not be required to get married though they would have that option. The two processes could obviously be done simultaneously, as they are now, but it would be optional. So many needless political issues could be avoided.
_________________
"I am declaring it a terrible tragedy for me to die. You may disagree..." --Antrax

Chuck
Daedalian Member

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 1:37 am Post subject: 678

Ok, so there's an objective moral code. How do I know what actions are allowed or forbidden by it? It's not a solid object that I can look at. People might compile lists of values and duties, and declare them to be objective morality, but they might not agree with each other. What makes it objectively true? How is an objective moral code that no one knows about any different from none at all? It does't matter whether William Lane Craig borrows magic from others or makes it up. He doesn't show that any of it is true. I can do it too. The Big Bang happened outside of time so it didn't need a cause any more than a god does. The universe is magically suitable for life just like his god is magically intelligent. There, I've deduced that no god is needed giving as much evidence as he does.

jadesmar
Bad Puppy

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 4:32 am Post subject: 679

Why is a higher power required for an objective morality? Is a morality based on empathy automatically a subjective morality? Is empathy a learned behaviour? If so, why is it evident in animals?

Zag
Unintentionally offensive old coot

Posted: Sat May 12, 2012 4:47 pm Post subject: 680

jadesmar wrote:

Why is a higher power required for an objective morality?

I demonstrated above that it is not.

jadesmar wrote:

Is a morality based on empathy automatically a subjective morality?

Not if empathy is wired into the human psyche.

jadesmar wrote:

Is empathy a learned behaviour?
If so, why is it evident in animals?

The fact that there are people without empathy (psychopaths and severe autistics) suggests that it is not, at least not completely. I'm willing, however, to consider people without empathy to be broken (or insane) and agree that it is wired in.

Display posts from previous: by

	The Grey Labyrinth Forum Index -> Science, Art, and Culture	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 16, 17, 18 ... 23, 24, 25 Next
Page 17 of 25

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

Site Design by Wx3