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

[Leonard James]

You have always maintained the same thing Leonard, you have always maintained that morality DOES mean more than just disapproval and at the same time you have also always maintained a theory of morality that despite your protestations doesn't allow it to be anything other than just disapproval.

That is a lie! I have never maintained it is just a matter of disapproval. I have said quite categorically that it is wrong TTACTDFF. You continue to ignore the fact that I have also said that is my opinion, since there is no objective morality to refer to.

In this way you have illustrated my point beautifully by showing that while you recognise that morality has to be more than saying 'I don't like that' you weren't able to articulate anything that made sense of it being so. Thank you.

Smug, but as usual untrue.

Did you read my post before replying Leonard? I said "you have always maintained that morality DOES mean more than just disapproval"...you even quote me saying this....have a look! That's why your post illustrates my point so well. You, like most people recognise morality does involve more than disaproval ....it's just that you also support an account of morality that can't allow it to mean anything more than this. While the other atheists have tiptoed round this you, while being honest but also clearly not quite following the implications of your moral theory have demonstrated exactly the point I have been arguing for.

I give up! We clearly have different understandings of the English language, so our communication is impaired. 

[Dryghtons Toe]

I give up! We clearly have different understandings of the English language, so our communication is impaired.

Seems so if you are quoting me saying you feel morality is more than disapproval but then say exactly the opposite. I think the point of disagreement is that you seem to think that saying ‘its my opinion that its wrong’ gets you out of the contradiction, while what I am asking is ‘what does ‘wrong’ mean when you say ‘it my opinion that its wrong’. If morality is derived from nothing other than our personal responses then there simply isn’t anything else the term ‘wrong’ can possibly mean other than just disapproval no matter how much you would like there to be…..thats’ what I mean when I say your theory doesn’t have the resources for anything else.

[Leonard James]

I give up! We clearly have different understandings of the English language, so our communication is impaired.

Seems so if you are quoting me saying you feel morality is more than disapproval but then say exactly the opposite. I think the point of disagreement is that you seem to think that saying ‘its my opinion that its wrong’ gets you out of the contradiction, while what I am asking is ‘what does ‘wrong’ mean when you say ‘it my opinion that its wrong’. If morality is derived from nothing other than our personal responses then there simply isn’t anything else the term ‘wrong’ can possibly mean other than just disapproval no matter how much you would like there to be…..thats’ what I mean when I say your theory doesn’t have the resources for anything else.

The reason is quite simple. There is no such thing as right or wrong. They are just words we have invented to cover behaviour in our social system. Outside our brains, there is no such thing as morality.

[Dryghtons Toe]

I give up! We clearly have different understandings of the English language, so our communication is impaired.

Seems so if you are quoting me saying you feel morality is more than disapproval but then say exactly the opposite. I think the point of disagreement is that you seem to think that saying ‘its my opinion that its wrong’ gets you out of the contradiction, while what I am asking is ‘what does ‘wrong’ mean when you say ‘it my opinion that its wrong’. If morality is derived from nothing other than our personal responses then there simply isn’t anything else the term ‘wrong’ can possibly mean other than just disapproval no matter how much you would like there to be…..thats’ what I mean when I say your theory doesn’t have the resources for anything else.

The reason is quite simple. There is no such thing as right or wrong. They are just words we have invented to cover behaviour in our social system. Outside our brains, there is no such thing as morality.

Yes thats exactly what I understand you as believing. And as there is no such thing as right or wrong in your view then it follows logically that you saying 'bullying a child is wrong' cannot possible mean anything else than that you disapprove of it...as no other sense of wrong, as you put it, exists ..and yet you are getting very upset above to insist that you DO want to mean more than just this. That Leonard is the contradiction.

[BeRational]

I give up! We clearly have different understandings of the English language, so our communication is impaired.

Seems so if you are quoting me saying you feel morality is more than disapproval but then say exactly the opposite. I think the point of disagreement is that you seem to think that saying ‘its my opinion that its wrong’ gets you out of the contradiction, while what I am asking is ‘what does ‘wrong’ mean when you say ‘it my opinion that its wrong’. If morality is derived from nothing other than our personal responses then there simply isn’t anything else the term ‘wrong’ can possibly mean other than just disapproval no matter how much you would like there to be…..thats’ what I mean when I say your theory doesn’t have the resources for anything else.

The reason is quite simple. There is no such thing as right or wrong. They are just words we have invented to cover behaviour in our social system. Outside our brains, there is no such thing as morality.

Yes thats exactly what I understand you as believing. And as there is no such thing as right or wrong in your view then it follows logically that you saying 'bullying a child is wrong' cannot possible mean anything else than that you disapprove of it...as no other sense of wrong, as you put it, exists ..and yet you are getting very upset above to insist that you DO want to mean more than just this. That Leonard is the contradiction.

Can you demonstrate that it does mean more?

[Leonard James]

I give up! We clearly have different understandings of the English language, so our communication is impaired.

Seems so if you are quoting me saying you feel morality is more than disapproval but then say exactly the opposite. I think the point of disagreement is that you seem to think that saying ‘its my opinion that its wrong’ gets you out of the contradiction, while what I am asking is ‘what does ‘wrong’ mean when you say ‘it my opinion that its wrong’. If morality is derived from nothing other than our personal responses then there simply isn’t anything else the term ‘wrong’ can possibly mean other than just disapproval no matter how much you would like there to be…..thats’ what I mean when I say your theory doesn’t have the resources for anything else.

The reason is quite simple. There is no such thing as right or wrong. They are just words we have invented to cover behaviour in our social system. Outside our brains, there is no such thing as morality.

Yes thats exactly what I understand you as believing. And as there is no such thing as right or wrong in your view then it follows logically that you saying 'bullying a child is wrong' cannot possible mean anything else than that you disapprove of it...as no other sense of wrong, as you put it, exists ..and yet you are getting very upset above to insist that you DO want to mean more than just this. That Leonard is the contradiction.

Listen carefully.

Wrong, to me, means something much stronger than disapproval.

Is that clear?

[Alien]

Alan

I noticed you mentioned 'obligation' earlier, and I recall you mentioning this before.

It seems to me that I can reason my way to an opinion that TCTDJFF is always wrong, and many here have already pointed out some of the implications that support this opinion: such as why bother educating our children if it was the case that a passing sociopath torture them to death etc etc etc. I'd imagine that the consensus of opinion would agree with me, to the extent that such conduct would be illegal.

OK so far.

It seems to me then that there are various compelling reasons for me to hold the opinion that TACTDJFF is always wrong

OK so far.

to the extent that I am obligated to behave in accordance with my opinion - would you agree?

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. What would it not mean to not be obligated to behave in accordance with your own opinion.

This opinion thing is surely a red herring. You have said that you have come to the opinion that TACTDJFF is always wrong. On what basis though. How would you argue against a sociopath who said it is morally OK?

[Alien]

So to 'demonstrating moral facts'.

Yes in a number of posts I have made it clear that the method we go about discovering OM will depend on the account we give of it. As a theist I have given an account of OM rooted in God and I outline this in reply 196. As this account derives its understanding of OM from the flourishing of conscious beings, defined in relation to God’s purpose then we discover moral truth by improving our understanding of our flourishing. This is partly something we do through reason and observation in relation to the physical and psychological facts that allows people to live rich fulfilling lives and the virtues of character necessary to enable these, and partly by deepening our experience of God to gain an insight into his character and purposes. This, like all fields of human discovery will of course be gradual and prone to error and revision in our understanding.

So it seems to me that you 'determine moral facts' by judging an actions to see if it delivers 'flourishing of conscious beings'.

I'm still not seeing the leap to objective?

So why is "flourishing of conscious beings" good? Are you a vegetarian?

[Alien]

You have just argued that your opinion (what you think is wrong) is dependent on your opinion. Is that mean to contribute to the discussion?

It refutes you:-

That is the sort of point I am trying to make on objective morality. If someone agrees with me that an act, any act, is morally wrong and that this does not depend on how many people believe it to be so, they are logically bound to believe in the existence of objective morality.

No, it doesn't. Saying your opinion is dependent on your opinion is just plain nonsense.

[Alien]

Even if every living person agreed that something is wrong/right, it is only their individual personal opinions. It does NOT mean that there is an objective moral code floating about somewhere beyond our ken

Agreed. Who is arguing for that? I'm not.

[Alien]

Even if every living person agreed that something is wrong/right, it is only their individual personal opinions. It does NOT mean that there is an objective moral code floating about somewhere beyond our ken

No one thinks that objective morality is dependent on people's opinions. This has been clarifies many times by both Alan and by me.

Frustrating, isn't it?

[Leonard James]

Even if every living person agreed that something is wrong/right, it is only their individual personal opinions. It does NOT mean that there is an objective moral code floating about somewhere beyond our ken

Agreed. Who is arguing for that? I'm not.

Then I have misunderstood you. My apologies.

[Alien]

Why on earth is objectivity even in the frame.  Some things - Alien's famous example is one, are abhorrent to the vast majority of us but that is because we all have feelings and loved ones we have a need to protect - it isn't because there is some great entity somewhere that lays down the rules!

All this monotonous 'moral realist' talk is complete bollocks!  It's simply a desperate way to try to bring a god into the question!  If a god existed, the last thing he/she/it would be bothered about would be whether gays living together had signed a piece of paper and called themselves married or not!

Woosh! A blast of clean, fresh air!

Incorrect. jjohnjil is speaking about feelings, i.e. a feeling of abhorrence. I'm talking about whether something is morally right or wrong.

[Dryghtons Toe]

‘there is no such thing as right or wrong’

I just remembered the last time I heard someone say that Leonard – it was Lord Voldermort In the first Harry Potter book – ‘There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to wield it!”

Fabulous!

[Leonard James]

Why on earth is objectivity even in the frame.  Some things - Alien's famous example is one, are abhorrent to the vast majority of us but that is because we all have feelings and loved ones we have a need to protect - it isn't because there is some great entity somewhere that lays down the rules!

All this monotonous 'moral realist' talk is complete bollocks!  It's simply a desperate way to try to bring a god into the question!  If a god existed, the last thing he/she/it would be bothered about would be whether gays living together had signed a piece of paper and called themselves married or not!

Woosh! A blast of clean, fresh air!

Incorrect. jjohnjil is speaking about feelings, i.e. a feeling of abhorrence. I'm talking about whether something is morally right or wrong.

Well, morally right or wrong would need there to be some sort of objective code written up somewhere. As there is no such thing, it is down to our opinion.

[BeRational]

Even if every living person agreed that something is wrong/right, it is only their individual personal opinions. It does NOT mean that there is an objective moral code floating about somewhere beyond our ken

No one thinks that objective morality is dependent on people's opinions. This has been clarifies many times by both Alan and by me.

Frustrating, isn't it?

What is frustrating is that a method for determining an objective moral value has never been presented.

You simply assert it.

Is same sex marriage objectively morally right?

Please show the method by which you determine this.

[Leonard James]

‘there is no such thing as right or wrong’

I just remembered the last time I heard someone say that Leonard – it was Lord Voldermort In the first Harry Potter book – ‘There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to wield it!”

Fabulous!

Precisely. Humans have invented morality to prevent the powerful preying on the weak.

[Dryghtons Toe]

‘there is no such thing as right or wrong’

I just remembered the last time I heard someone say that Leonard – it was Lord Voldermort In the first Harry Potter book – ‘There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to wield it!”

Fabulous!

Precisely. Humans have invented morality to prevent the powerful preying on the weak.

Shhh! Don;t tell the powerful or we're all screwed!

[Leonard James]

‘there is no such thing as right or wrong’

I just remembered the last time I heard someone say that Leonard – it was Lord Voldermort In the first Harry Potter book – ‘There is no good or evil, there is only power and those too weak to wield it!”

Fabulous!

Precisely. Humans have invented morality to prevent the powerful preying on the weak.

Shhh! Don;t tell the powerful or we're all screwed!

They all know it, but like eels they discover the chinks and slither through. It's a never-ending war.

[Andy]

Actually, you kinda do. It doesn't have to be in any order, but if one attribute of god can be found to be logically wanting, then it isn't god that is the grounder of morality. Solely on that, that doesn't mean there isn't an entity that grounds morality, only it's not the god you originally thought.

Regardless, I wouldn't want you or expect you to do it on this forum either!

That’s going to be true of anything we argue about on here about God though isn’t it? It’s just saying our idea of God has to be consistent – well sure but if we just said that about every topic we’d never discuss anything else….besides which there is a tonne of theology done on this. Still we seem to agree that that’s were the discussion should be not here so I’ll move on.

The problem is that even if I came to agree with you that morality has a grounder, that wouldn't lead me to conclude that it was some god. You have to make that leap as the argument alone can't conclude it.

Except now you've agreed that there is a problem with this, which you solve with god, but atheist realists still flounder with it. Well, they do if they hold to OM.

You’d expect me to be happy to endorse that God provides the best explanation on a thread where I’m supporting the moral argument for God right? I do think there are different moves a non-theistic realist can make though and I would probably argue for realism even if I wasn’t a theist – but obviously this would be constructed quite differently from the way I have done it here. I’m not going to do the atheists job for them though and there are some very well-known and capable atheist moral-realists who have made this case.

You're not supporting a moral argument for god. You're supporting an argument for moral realism. I really don't see what you are hoping to achieve by doing this, and I'd say the same thing to any atheist arguing the same. Moral realism doesn't deal with the core value/s of what moral judgements are based on -  being as you state in your case the flourishing of humanity. If morality is objective, then to value human flourishing would have objective worth. You say that comes from god, where the atheist moral realists I've come across blankly ignore it, stick to moral realism and state that our moral judgements based on the value of human flourishing/well being are at the mercy of the reality we inhabit and not culture.

But that is where this discussion should be at - the objectivity of valuing human flourishing, and not this incessant arguing for moral realism. I would like to see it explained as to why we should value human flourishing - I want to see that is/ought bridge gapped, but if all you can do is invoke a god to do that, then the discussion moves to that god.

Alan doesn't formulate the argument how you have above. He pretty much goes with how WLC formulates it:

1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.
2. Objective morality does exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.

So with premise 2 here, invoking god as the grounder of morality to show that OM exists is to have a circular argument. As you probably know, that doesn't make it invalid, it's just that we learn nothing new and the whole argument is a waste of everyone's time.

Well God as the grounder of morality is part of premise 1. If Alan agrees with me that there are completely independent reasons for thinking OM exists as I do then the argument even formulised like Craig does above does not have to be circular, as premise 2 is held for reasons entirely independent of God. It depends on whether you take premise 2 of needing to be an entirely self-contained account of OM or simply being that we have reason to believe it is objective. If it’s that former then it would be circular but then you also wouldn’t need premise 1 so the fact that it’s there implies that it isn’t. alan has argued for his premise 2 without any reference to God based on our moral intuitions about TACTDJFF so the second interpretation would seem right. Either way this is Alan’s version not mine so there is a limit to how far I want to spend my time on an exegesis of other peoples arguments.

But you don't think there are "completely independent reasons" for thinking OM exists, because when we get down to the actual foundation of it, you invoke god. Moral realism doesn't show that morality is objective, but that your actions/judgements should be dictated by reality depending on what it is you value. If you really thought that all morality was was the way in which it is practiced (as I have said a couple of times now, this is you confusing the map for the place), then using god as the grounder of what you should morally value would be meaningless. That's you being contradictory.

[Andy]

So to 'demonstrating moral facts'.

Yes in a number of posts I have made it clear that the method we go about discovering OM will depend on the account we give of it. As a theist I have given an account of OM rooted in God and I outline this in reply 196. As this account derives its understanding of OM from the flourishing of conscious beings, defined in relation to God’s purpose then we discover moral truth by improving our understanding of our flourishing. This is partly something we do through reason and observation in relation to the physical and psychological facts that allows people to live rich fulfilling lives and the virtues of character necessary to enable these, and partly by deepening our experience of God to gain an insight into his character and purposes. This, like all fields of human discovery will of course be gradual and prone to error and revision in our understanding.

So it seems to me that you 'determine moral facts' by judging an actions to see if it delivers 'flourishing of conscious beings'.

I'm still not seeing the leap to objective?

So why is "flourishing of conscious beings" good? Are you a vegetarian?

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

[Outrider]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

[Andy]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

Yes, that's where this could lead, and staying relative to this thread, morality still wouldn't be independent of opinion.

However, I'm confident that it'll be seen as part of god's nature rather than god's opinion, but that brings up a whole host of problems itself.

[Alien]

So to 'demonstrating moral facts'.

Yes in a number of posts I have made it clear that the method we go about discovering OM will depend on the account we give of it. As a theist I have given an account of OM rooted in God and I outline this in reply 196. As this account derives its understanding of OM from the flourishing of conscious beings, defined in relation to God’s purpose then we discover moral truth by improving our understanding of our flourishing. This is partly something we do through reason and observation in relation to the physical and psychological facts that allows people to live rich fulfilling lives and the virtues of character necessary to enable these, and partly by deepening our experience of God to gain an insight into his character and purposes. This, like all fields of human discovery will of course be gradual and prone to error and revision in our understanding.

So it seems to me that you 'determine moral facts' by judging an actions to see if it delivers 'flourishing of conscious beings'.

I'm still not seeing the leap to objective?

So why is "flourishing of conscious beings" good? Are you a vegetarian?

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

I've not read through all of DT's posts since I have not been around so much as usual, so I will leave him to come back to you on that. I would sort of agree with you, but would rather put it that we should be able to determine that it is good without invoking God rather than to show that it is good. There are things I know / have determined to be true, but I am unable to show this to you. Examples include there being a set of earphones on my desk, me having no shoes on, my having gone for a walk with my wife, son and daughter-in-law last night. I don't need to be able to show anyone else that those are true before I am able to believe them myself.

That might be what you meant in the first place though, perhaps.

[Alien]

Yes, why is it good? DT said it's because it's rooted in god - defined in relation to god's purpose, but you should be able to show that it's good without invoking god because you try and use the existence of OM to conclude god, not the other way around.

More to the point, if it's dependent upon a god it's not objective, it's a subjective morality: if the god changes, the morality which is subject to that god also changes.

O.

What if God doesn't change?