My 'Truth' or 'YOUR 'truth'?

[Shaker]

I find many Christians to actually be quite admirable, even if their beliefs don't stack up.

My thoughts entirely.

See: Tutu, Desmond.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I find many Christians to actually be quite admirable,

Thank you very much.....you're too kind.

[Rhiannon]

I don't admire liars, whatever their beliefs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I don't admire liars, whatever their beliefs.

I bet you don't want to reference that either.

[BeRational]

I bet you don't want to reference that either.

Do you have this method yet, or are you still avoiding that question?

[Stranger]

We must search for candidates for the moral standard. Atheistic routes out of the cul de sac of moral relativism will include love, Genetic programming, altruism etc. Theistic routes will consider God and there is no reason why we can't consider all of them.

But can't you see that there is nothing objective about such a search? If we pick something to be the basis of a moral code then we can, in principle, apply that objectively, but the choice itself cannot be objectively justified.

You can't make a measurement, perform an experiment, or go through some logical steps that will tell you that murder is wrong and caring for people is right. Those are subjective choices we make together, based on our human nature (empathy, wanting to be safe ourselves, and so on).

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But can't you see that there is nothing objective about such a search? If we pick something to be the basis of a moral code then we can, in principle, apply that objectively, but the choice itself cannot be objectively justified.

You can't make a measurement, perform an experiment, or go through some logical steps that will tell you that murder is wrong and caring for people is right. Those are subjective choices we make together, based on our human nature (empathy, wanting to be safe ourselves, and so on).

You are trying to shoehorn morality into a materialist framework and with all due respect giving up early in the process.Rather than concluding a failure of explanatory powers in materialism you resort to a formulation which actually excludes morality.

There are however materialists who do propose an objective morality and I believe they are further on having not given up. We process morality as humans I agree but morality is out there rather than just a matter of liking.

[Shaker]

Where is it out there and what methodology are you using to test this bald assertion?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Where is it out there and what methodology are you using to test this bald assertion?

In genetic programming,in society and in God in all sorts of ways atheistic and theistic moral realists spell out to you day after day.

There is very little methodology shown by those promoting moral relativism and the language you guys put up.........it,s messy........its zeitgeist...........its choice are .....
Relatively unproductive and make you look as though you want a shroud of mystery.

If you want determinism and materialism you can't also have a messy mystery.

Epic fail but stick around since this is a National convention of Turd polishers.

You say it's moral relativism. You have therefore a burden of proof.since it's a positive assertion.

[wigginhall]

But can't you see that there is nothing objective about such a search? If we pick something to be the basis of a moral code then we can, in principle, apply that objectively, but the choice itself cannot be objectively justified.

You can't make a measurement, perform an experiment, or go through some logical steps that will tell you that murder is wrong and caring for people is right. Those are subjective choices we make together, based on our human nature (empathy, wanting to be safe ourselves, and so on).

Good summary.  Objective morality strikes me as an oxymoron, rather like an objective aesthetics.   How can you get outside human beings in order to construct a morality? 

Most of the arguments for objective morality that I've seen rest on pure assertion.   

[Shaker]

In genetic programming

Which varies, and therefore isn't objective.

in society

See above.

and in God

Don't believe there's any such thing.

Try again.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Good summary.  Objective morality strikes me as an oxymoron, rather like an objective aesthetics.   How can you get outside human beings in order to construct a morality? 

Most of the arguments for objective morality that I've seen rest on pure assertion.

...combined with an appeal to consequences and lashings of wishful thinking.

[Stranger]

We process morality as humans I agree but morality is out there rather than just a matter of liking.

Out where, exactly? If morality is objective then there must be a purely objective way to arrive at it. Nothing you've mentioned to date is objective, so what do you propose?

[Stranger]

If you want determinism and materialism you can't also have a messy mystery.

Nonsense. Determinism and "materialism" don't preclude complex and messy and there are some things we don't understand and are therefore mysteries to us.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Good summary.  Objective morality strikes me as an oxymoron,

There are atheists who think it's more like a tautology Wiggs.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiggs,

...combined with an appeal to consequences and lashings of wishful thinking.

Surrender accepted.

[Gordon]

There are atheists who think it's more like a tautology Wiggs.

Who are you thinking of?

[Sassy]

Funny innit how those who would assert objective morality seem to have carved out just that one area of human experience for this special claim, but not others. They don't for example also claim that a sunset is objectively beautiful rather than something we intuit and, if pressed, could speak to as its beauty being our subjective response.

Just pretending that people behave as if their morality was objectively true - surely no-one sane would do that would they, as only a cursory look at the remarkable changing attitudes to gay rights in the last few decades would tell you - is the least of their problems. Even if you could eventually find someone who behaved as if his morality was objectively true, you'd still have all your work ahead of you to build a bridge from that behaviour to his morality actually being true.

Mind you, if ever someone could manage an argument for that it'd be fun watching him build a moraloscope or some such so he could go looking for where this morality might exist outside of human experience. Tinfoil hats on boys!

Name them bring evidence otherwise be quiet.

[Shaker]

Vlad asserts objective morality. Key word there is asserts.

Obviously you haven't been keeping up with the discussion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

What's disappointing for me here is how entirely vapid the argument from the proponent(s) for objective morality turn out to be. In fact it's worse - just assertion, appeals to consequence, wishful thinking, bluff and bluster. I'd be interested to have a conversation with someone who thought it to be a credible position and who could muster an argument to support him, but - as so often here - we're straight back to "not even wrong" territory.

As I understand it William Lane Craig is the poster boy for those who propose objective morality, but his effort on this matter is desperately poor too. If that's the best that's on the table, then so be it - we can point and pass by without troubling with it any further. If though there is someone out there who could either mount or at least point to an argument worthy of the name then we'd have something to talk about.

I'm not holding out much hope for it mind you, but hey - you never know...

[bluehillside Retd.]

Sassy,

Name them bring evidence otherwise be quiet.

Name who? Someone who asserts objective morality? Try reading the last few posts!

[Sebastian Toe]

Ignorance may be bliss and even though it has been shown that the killing of a few babies which would be few at the time of the flooding

Where has it been shown that there would be a 'few babies' at the time of the 'flooding'?

[Sebastian Toe]

The humans killed their own like yourself they brought their own death sentences upon them.
Just as the people who murdered their children sacrificing them to gods were themselves and off-spring killed to put an end to such evil and allow people to learn to live the right way.

Was that evil ended for good or just temporarily?

Did people learn to live the right way afterwards and have they all continued to do so?

[wigginhall]

Are there not philosophers who defend objective morality, non-theistically?   Well, the old 'uns were mostly theists, anyway, e.g. Plato.   

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiggs,

Are there not philosophers who defend objective morality, non-theistically?   Well, the old 'uns were mostly theists, anyway, e.g. Plato.   

Good point. Not that I know of, but I'd be interested to hear of any - as I'd suggest should be those who would point to objectively morality as evidence for "God" without falling into circular reasoning.