Objective morality is independent of opinion....or is it?

[BeRational]

Exactly the same method i have used.....use reason and observation to make a case for what we should do in order to promote human flourishing. Usually this will be less direct and require us to think about the virtues we require to flourish and what the implications of these are for the situation, but it will still come down to the facts we are considering. Sure its my opinion, everything i believe is my opinion by default, but my opinion is about facts which are true or false, whether or not its easy to get at them and the method is the right one for doing that. Anyone can use it and if I've made a mistake they can point it out.

If you were expecting that moral truth was something that we could just read off or prove then you haven't understood what it means to claim morality is objective because I've been very clear we can't do that, nor do we need to in order to progress towards discovering moral truth.

You are wrong.

Unless and until you can provide a method to determine objective moral truths, you are like everyone else simply stating your subjective opinion.

[Andy]

Why should humans flourish? Why is that objectively morally correct?

[jjohnjil]

I think you have misunderstood my case for objective morality. I have not claimed that morality is based on Gods commands he has just arbitrarily decided. God’s purposes are teleological facts embodied in the universe whether we recognise them or not. What does or does not cause us to flourish as conscious beings is down to facts about us and these facts are embodied in the way the universe is including our own physiological, psychological and spiritual natures, not a matter of anyone’s whim from moment to moment.

The reason we think morality is objective is quite independent of belief in God, based on the character of our moral belief – and the fact that these arguments are accepted as correct by so many atheists demonstrates this. Whether or not atheists can then make a convincing case for morality being objective that does not involve God is the question we are then left with. Either way the alternative cases made for understanding morality based on relative truth or personal non-cognitive responses don’t work as we have seen. If you like you can follow atheists like Alex Rosenburg and embrace nihilism but just don’t pretend a non-realist theory of ethics can explain our morality as it exists in human society. For those of us who accept the reality of our moral experience and who also, like you it seems, find atheist arguments for OM unconvincing, then we have a reason to believe in God.

I think you have misunderstood me, DT, there are NO atheist arguments for OM, simply because we see no need for morality to be objective and no evidence for it.

Over the last billion years or so, millions of species have come and gone, for all sorts of reasons.  Evolution means that only those who have adapted to their environment and helped each other have survived.  We have developed a very good sense of looking after our offspring, just as many other species have and that is why they and we have survived up till now.  If we hadn't developed that skill, trait, whatever you call it, we would not be here to discuss this.  This then is the way an atheist sees morality.

It follows then that atheists do not try to explain why OM exists, we just don't believe it does.  You, on the other hand, see OM as part of God's work, which although understandable from a theist POV, makes no sense to an atheist, as we don't see any need or evidence for OM or God!

You keep quoting atheists who believe in OM but I could quote you ten times as many who do not believe in OM so please don't try to dig up the few who you think must believe in God because I can tell you now, they don't!

I think you are making a case for certain moral behaviours to be universally accepted as good or bad.  I agree, but that does not make them Objective.

Alien came out with a weird idea that certain behaviour could be OM even if no one believed it!  That means it could be OM to torture a child to death just for fun - how would we know?  Just because none of us believe that to be so, in his view, that doesn't matter.

If you say that's ridiculous because we all know TTACTDJFF is terribly wrong, you are again basing that on our subjective opinions.  This is why OM itself is a ridiculous concept!

 

[Leonard James]

If by contrast it’s rightness means nothing more than I disapprove of it, then to be consistent we have to also accept that if someone else thinks bully gay kids to the point of suicide is ok, then it is ok for them (as there’s nothing beyond that to appeal to). You however have just expressly denied that this is the case.

That is why we make laws ... simply because there is no other way to control our actions. Anybody that considers antisocial actions OK must be controlled and punished for the general good and protection of humanity.

The general good of humanity is, however, nothing more than a goal we aim at for natural, selfish, evolutionary reasons. I suppose that was one of the reasons gods were invented, as an imagined, stronger incentive for people to behave themselves. 

[floo]

If by contrast it’s rightness means nothing more than I disapprove of it, then to be consistent we have to also accept that if someone else thinks bully gay kids to the point of suicide is ok, then it is ok for them (as there’s nothing beyond that to appeal to). You however have just expressly denied that this is the case.

That is why we make laws ... simply because there is no other way to control our actions. Anybody that considers antisocial actions OK must be controlled and punished for the general good and protection of humanity.

The general good of humanity is, however, nothing more than a goal we aim at for natural, selfish, evolutionary reasons. I suppose that was one of the reasons gods were invented, as an imagined, stronger incentive for people to behave themselves. 

The Biblical deity was probably created by its authors to be so unpleasant on the basis of, 'my god is bigger than your god'!

[Leonard James]

The Biblical deity was probably created by its authors to be so unpleasant on the basis of, 'my god is bigger than your god'!

The way it was exported and forced down the throats of other unsuspecting nations shows that fairly clearly, Roses.

[floo]

The Biblical deity was probably created by its authors to be so unpleasant on the basis of, 'my god is bigger than your god'!

The way it was exported and forced down the throats of other unsuspecting nations shows that fairly clearly, Roses.

When I was a child some missionaries came to our Pentecostal church to give a talk about their work converting the 'heathen' in Africa. They regarded them as lesser mortals and bandied about the 'N' word throughout their talk! They seemed proud of threatening those poor people with burning in hell for all eternity if they didn't submit to their abusive nonsense!

[Nearly Sane]

The Biblical deity was probably created by its authors to be so unpleasant on the basis of, 'my god is bigger than your god'!

The way it was exported and forced down the throats of other unsuspecting nations shows that fairly clearly, Roses.

When I was a child some missionaries coming to our Pentecostal church to give a talk about their work converting the 'heathen' in Africa. They regarded them as lesser mortals and bandied about the 'N' word throughout their talk! They seemed proud of threatening those poor people with burning in hell for all eternity if they didn't submit to their abusive nonsense!

Thiung is that is more a factor of the overall culture at the time and part of the change in attitudes has been brought about by members of those churches. The drivers to colonialism while having religion in the mix are more about conquering. Religion allowed it a patina of respectability.

[floo]

The Biblical deity was probably created by its authors to be so unpleasant on the basis of, 'my god is bigger than your god'!

The way it was exported and forced down the throats of other unsuspecting nations shows that fairly clearly, Roses.

When I was a child some missionaries coming to our Pentecostal church to give a talk about their work converting the 'heathen' in Africa. They regarded them as lesser mortals and bandied about the 'N' word throughout their talk! They seemed proud of threatening those poor people with burning in hell for all eternity if they didn't submit to their abusive nonsense!

Thiung is that is more a factor of the overall culture at the time and part of the change in attitudes has been brought about by members of those churches. The drivers to colonialism while having religion in the mix are more about conquering. Religion allowed it a patina of respectability.

What respectability?

[Nearly Sane]

The Biblical deity was probably created by its authors to be so unpleasant on the basis of, 'my god is bigger than your god'!

The way it was exported and forced down the throats of other unsuspecting nations shows that fairly clearly, Roses.

When I was a child some missionaries coming to our Pentecostal church to give a talk about their work converting the 'heathen' in Africa. They regarded them as lesser mortals and bandied about the 'N' word throughout their talk! They seemed proud of threatening those poor people with burning in hell for all eternity if they didn't submit to their abusive nonsense!

Thiung is that is more a factor of the overall culture at the time and part of the change in attitudes has been brought about by members of those churches. The drivers to colonialism while having religion in the mix are more about conquering. Religion allowed it a patina of respectability.

What respectability?

The idea that it was done for the greater good and not just for greed.

[floo]

The Biblical deity was probably created by its authors to be so unpleasant on the basis of, 'my god is bigger than your god'!

The way it was exported and forced down the throats of other unsuspecting nations shows that fairly clearly, Roses.

When I was a child some missionaries coming to our Pentecostal church to give a talk about their work converting the 'heathen' in Africa. They regarded them as lesser mortals and bandied about the 'N' word throughout their talk! They seemed proud of threatening those poor people with burning in hell for all eternity if they didn't submit to their abusive nonsense!

Thiung is that is more a factor of the overall culture at the time and part of the change in attitudes has been brought about by members of those churches. The drivers to colonialism while having religion in the mix are more about conquering. Religion allowed it a patina of respectability.

What respectability?

The idea that it was done for the greater good and not just for greed.

If that was the case, their idea of the greater good was laughable!

[Nearly Sane]

The idea that it was done for the greater good and not just for greed.

If that was the case, their idea of the greater good was laughable!
[/quote]Possibly, though that would be your opinion. If you thought Christianity was the right thing to promulgate, just as for example yu think your view on abortion is, then you do it.

The point that seems to currently some 3.5 km above your head is that religion in and of itself is not the driver for colonialism. it is simply used to justify it

[Dryghtons Toe]

You are wrong.

Unless and until you can provide a method to determine objective moral truths, you are like everyone else simply stating your subjective opinion.

I am stating my subjective opinion. But I hold that opinion because I think it is also true. I have a subjective opinion about other things too that I think are true- for example that Jesus didn't do many of the things attributed to him. This is also a factual question and although I can't prove it I can provide reasons for thinking it. Moral truth is a bit like this too. We can make progress towards it but we can't read it off.  But to say that something is only true unless you can read it off is just daft, it confusing truth with verification which is a basic error.

[Dryghtons Toe]

I think you have misunderstood me, DT, there are NO atheist arguments for OM, simply because we see no need for morality to be objective and no evidence for it.

No I understand that's what you are claiming but its totally incorrect. There are lots of atheist philosophers who have argued for OM. You may disagree with them but that's no the same think as saying their are no arguments for it.

Over the last billion years or so, millions of species have come and gone, for all sorts of reasons.  Evolution means that only those who have adapted to their environment and helped each other have survived.  We have developed a very good sense of looking after our offspring, just as many other species have and that is why they and we have survived up till now.  If we hadn't developed that skill, trait, whatever you call it, we would not be here to discuss this.  This then is the way an atheist sees morality.

You've just described evolution - so what? An anti-realist would say evolution is the process through which morality is invented, the realist would say its the process through which morality is discovered. The account you give is entirely neutral unless you bring your anti-realist baggage to it. If for example objective morality is about our flourishing, then things that lead to our survival and looking after our off spring etc would be key elements of that. You are smuggling in your conclusions in your premise.

It follows then that atheists do not try to explain why OM exists, we just don't believe it does.  You, on the other hand, see OM as part of God's work, which although understandable from a theist POV, makes no sense to an atheist, as we don't see any need or evidence for OM or God!

Then you agree with premise 2 of the moral argument for God! - many atheists disagree with you but that's fine I'm sure Alan will be pleased. I'm less sure of premise 2 than premise 1 but still happy God is the best explanation for OM and my account is indeed rooted in God.

You keep quoting atheists who believe in OM but I could quote you ten times as many who do not believe in OM so please don't try to dig up the few who you think must believe in God because I can tell you now, they don't!

Well I'm talking about atheist philosophers with specialise in moral philosophy not random anybodies who aren't in this area. You only have to look at Sam Harris book on ethics to see why an assumed expertise in philosophy from those who have no such expertise just leads to bad philosophy. But I'm quite sure you are right about the numbers, I'm just not sure where this gets you. Lots of informed atheist philosopher, whether a minority of overall atheists or otherwise, accept OM for reasons about morality without belief in God. This makes your argument false and the numbers are neither here nor there. Whatismore, it doesn't mean you can just ignore the criticisms of antirealist models of morality. Even if you were where right about there being no OM our morality still implicitly assumes it - you have to at least face up to the consequences of your atheism - atheists like Rosenburg do this and embrace nihilism....trouble is with lots of your fellow atheists here is they can't defend their irrealist model of morality but they also want to hold on to the idea that we can do away with any concept of OM and think that this doesn't change fundamentally the implications for our moral practice. Its one thing to say our sense of moral truth is an illusion created by evolution, its quite another to think we can realise this and still go on thinking about morality In the same way or expecting it to have the same hold over people once they have recognised this.

I think you are making a case for certain moral behaviours to be universally accepted as good or bad.  I agree, but that does not make them Objective.

That's not what atheist moral realists believe by OM at all. They believe like I do that moral statements are true or false independent of opinion.

Alien came out with a weird idea that certain behaviour could be OM even if no one believed it!  That means it could be OM to torture a child to death just for fun - how would we know?  Just because none of us believe that to be so, in his view, that doesn't matter.

He was making the point that its not dependent on anyone's opinion. As long as we can understand the concept of what it means to be a human child and what it means to torture for fun then we can understand that this is wrong. If there is no one to understand this then it simply means there's no one to understand it, not that it wouldn't be true if human children were still around.

If you say that's ridiculous because we all know TTACTDJFF is terribly wrong, you are again basing that on our subjective opinions.  This is why OM itself is a ridiculous concept!

The argument, as Alan has clarified, isn't that TACTDJFF is wrong because we think it is, but rather that if we think it is wrong for everyone, anywhere, whatever their opinions or response are to TACTDJFF then you can't also maintain that morality is dependent on subjective factors if you want to be consistent in your beliefs.

[Dryghtons Toe]

That is why we make laws ... simply because there is no other way to control our actions. Anybody that considers antisocial actions OK must be controlled and punished for the general good and protection of humanity.

The general good of humanity is, however, nothing more than a goal we aim at for natural, selfish, evolutionary reasons. I suppose that was one of the reasons gods were invented, as an imagined, stronger incentive for people to behave themselves. 

Now that's an evasion Leonard not an answer to the question asked... don't go doing a Jakswan on me! There are evil people and we do need law to control them, but good people are good despite of law not because of it - indeed good people sometimes have to behave contra to bad law if they want to be good.

Homosexuality is a good example here - there are societies even now where you can be killed for being gay. I could imagine bullying someone to suicide for being gay in such a society wouldn't meet any condemnation from the likes of IS at all or from their law keepers. Do you think that if they bullied someone to death for being gay that it would be ok?  I mean their opinion says its ok, their personal feelings do and their laws do too...You might disapprove of it but before you said it was always wrong and that by saying it was wrong you meant something more than just that you disapprove of it. Are you going back on that now?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You are wrong.

Unless and until you can provide a method to determine objective moral truths, you are like everyone else simply stating your subjective opinion.

I am stating my subjective opinion. But I hold that opinion because I think it is also true.

And so, of course, do they DT, Good to see you in action again.
They want it to be an opinion AND right and wrong.
Moral realists are committed beyond opinion to these being truths.
Moral non realists have no basis for such a commitment.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Hi Vlad, totally agree and good to see you here too..you've been missing all the fun. You might enjoy jjohnjil throwing the term evolution around shamanicly above as if it somehow meant he didn't have to make an arguement or if you really want a laugh scroll back through the last couple of pages...Jakswan hilariously declared himself as winning the arguement then soon found he couldn't answer a single point made against him and flailed around desperately trying to change the subject. Enjoy 

[Leonard James]

Now that's an evasion Leonard not an answer to the question asked... don't go doing a Jakswan on me!

Then I didn't understand the question. I never evade questions, and always give my answer, even though you think otherwise.

There are evil people and we do need law to control them, but good people are good despite of law not because of it - indeed good people sometimes have to behave contra to bad law if they want to be good.

You are omitting a whole swathe of people who would like to behave badly but don't BECAUSE OF the law.

Homosexuality is a good example here - there are societies even now where you can be killed for being gay. I could imagine bullying someone to suicide for being gay in such a society wouldn't meet any condemnation from the likes of IS at all or from their law keepers. Do you think that if they bullied someone to death for being gay that it would be ok?

Why do you keep repeating the same question to me, when I have already answered that it is never ok.

I mean their opinion says its ok, their personal feelings do and their laws do too...You might disapprove of it but before you said it was always wrong and that by saying it was wrong you meant something more than just that you disapprove of it.

Another repeat! I don't just disapprove of it, I consider it wrong. That is my personal opinion, and it won't change no matter how many people disagree with me.

Are you going back on that now?

If you translate any of my posts as going back on my opinion on this subject, then either you haven't understood me or I haven't expressed myself well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Hi Vlad, totally agree and good to see you here too..you've been missing all the fun. You might enjoy jjohnjil throwing the term evolution around shamanicly above as if it somehow meant he didn't have to make an arguement or if you really want a laugh scroll back through the last couple of pages...Jakswan hilariously declared himself as winning the arguement then soon found he couldn't answer a single point made against him and flailed around desperately trying to change the subject. Enjoy 

I have been considering the ''I like Marmite'' business as a 'true for you'' statement.
Is it both ''true for you'' and a true statement rather than a mere opinion.
In other words, would it be neurologically confirmable that some are wired up to like Marmite?

But of course we recognise that the same might also be true of Not liking marmite but give equal honour to both. This is not true of morality where we say either people who are different cannot perceive or  act in opposition to the truth of the matter.

You cannot both give equal honour to an opposing moral stance and be right or wrong yourself.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Now that's an evasion Leonard not an answer to the question asked... don't go doing a Jakswan on me!

Then I didn't understand the question. I never evade questions, and always give my answer, even though you think otherwise.

There are evil people and we do need law to control them, but good people are good despite of law not because of it - indeed good people sometimes have to behave contra to bad law if they want to be good.

You are omitting a whole swathe of people who would like to behave badly but don't BECAUSE OF the law.

Homosexuality is a good example here - there are societies even now where you can be killed for being gay. I could imagine bullying someone to suicide for being gay in such a society wouldn't meet any condemnation from the likes of IS at all or from their law keepers. Do you think that if they bullied someone to death for being gay that it would be ok?

Why do you keep repeating the same question to me, when I have already answered that it is never ok.

I mean their opinion says its ok, their personal feelings do and their laws do too...You might disapprove of it but before you said it was always wrong and that by saying it was wrong you meant something more than just that you disapprove of it.

Another repeat! I don't just disapprove of it, I consider it wrong. That is my personal opinion, and it won't change no matter how many people disagree with me.

Are you going back on that now?

If you translate any of my posts as going back on my opinion on this subject, then either you haven't understood me or I haven't expressed myself well.

I'm not ignoring the law importance Leonard I just don't think its relevant to what we awe discussing one way or the other.

The reason I've asked you the same question is because you seem to be missing the contradiction in wha you are saying. The situation we are discussing is that someone is bully a gay child to the point of suicide and that the person doing it thinks its ok (he may hate people and think its a good thing)

You said (1) that what makes something right are our opinions about it or personal responses to it

And (2) that bullying the child is always wrong no matter what the person doing it thinks about it.

(1) and (2) are contradictions because if (1) is correct and if the person doing it thinks its right, then it IS right for him as it's his opinion that makes it right. You might disprove of what he is doing but you can't say he is wrong as he has met the only criteria you have that makes an action right..namely his personal opinions about it. All you have left is personal disapproval.

[Dryghtons Toe]

Hi Vlad, totally agree and good to see you here too..you've been missing all the fun. You might enjoy jjohnjil throwing the term evolution around shamanicly above as if it somehow meant he didn't have to make an arguement or if you really want a laugh scroll back through the last couple of pages...Jakswan hilariously declared himself as winning the arguement then soon found he couldn't answer a single point made against him and flailed around desperately trying to change the subject. Enjoy 

I have been considering the ''I like Marmite'' business as a 'true for you'' statement.
Is it both ''true for you'' and a true statement rather than a mere opinion.
In other words, would it be neurologically confirmable that some are wired up to like Marmite?

But of course we recognise that the same might also be true of Not liking marmite but give equal honour to both. This is not true of morality where we say either people who are different cannot perceive or  act in opposition to the truth of the matter.

You cannot both give equal honour to an opposing moral stance and be right or wrong yourself.

Yes the idea that introducing some kind of thin true for you notion of truth for morality can get us anywhere close to the form of truth implicit in our sense of morality is a none starter. The anti realists here seem to be running out of steam which we can see in jjohnjils attempts now to give up any discussion about morality at all and just have a generic conversation about God...a retreat if Ever there was one. Leonard is doing a great job of illustrating exactly the kind of assumptions of truth we do make all the time in moral judgements without realising that if his views about morality being dependent on our individual tastes was right, he just can't consistently make.

[jjohnjil]

'We can see in jjohnjils attempts now to give up any discussion about morality at all and just have a generic conversation about God...a retreat if Ever there was one.'

You, DT, are a joke!  Your whole argument is based on God existing and crediting him with OM!  If this isn't your stance, what is?

[Leonard James]

I'm not ignoring the law importance Leonard I just don't think its relevant to what we awe discussing one way or the other.

The reason I've asked you the same question is because you seem to be missing the contradiction in wha you are saying. The situation we are discussing is that someone is bully a gay child to the point of suicide and that the person doing it thinks its ok (he may hate people and think its a good thing)

You said (1) that what makes something right are our opinions about it or personal responses to it

Right in the oinion of the person concerned.

And (2) that bullying the child is always wrong no matter what the person doing it thinks about it.

Yes, that is my opinion.

(1) and (2) are contradictions because if (1) is correct and if the person doing it thinks its right, then it IS right for him as it's his opinion that makes it right. You might disprove of what he is doing but you can't say he is wrong as he has met the only criteria you have that makes an action right..namely his personal opinions about it. All you have left is personal disapproval.

Which in no way alters the fact that the right and the wrong are personal opinions. That is why I keep mentioning the law. People who think that it is right to do things like TACTDFF have to be controlled for obvious reasons.

Once again I must tell you that right and wrong are just human concepts, and do not exist outside the human mind. The universe, nature and everything non-human are entirely indifferent to our "right and wrong".

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I'm not ignoring the law importance Leonard I just don't think its relevant to what we awe discussing one way or the other.

The reason I've asked you the same question is because you seem to be missing the contradiction in wha you are saying. The situation we are discussing is that someone is bully a gay child to the point of suicide and that the person doing it thinks its ok (he may hate people and think its a good thing)

You said (1) that what makes something right are our opinions about it or personal responses to it

Right in the oinion of the person concerned.

And (2) that bullying the child is always wrong no matter what the person doing it thinks about it.

Yes, that is my opinion.

(1) and (2) are contradictions because if (1) is correct and if the person doing it thinks its right, then it IS right for him as it's his opinion that makes it right. You might disprove of what he is doing but you can't say he is wrong as he has met the only criteria you have that makes an action right..namely his personal opinions about it. All you have left is personal disapproval.

Which in no way alters the fact that the right and the wrong are personal opinions. That is why I keep mentioning the law. People who think that it is right to do things like TACTDFF have to be controlled for obvious reasons.

Once again I must tell you that right and wrong are just human concepts, and do not exist outside the human mind. The universe, nature and everything non-human are entirely indifferent to our "right and wrong".

Yes Len but there are different sets of laws which govern differing levels of complexity.

[Leonard James]

Yes Len but there are different sets of laws which govern differing levels of complexity.

Yes, depending on which country you are in. You then make a personal choice as to whether or not you are going to abide by them, and accept the consequences if you don't.