Guest shiloh357 Posted August 15, 2017 Share Posted August 15, 2017 8 minutes ago, Bonky said: Ok but that's where I get lost, what is the utility in declaring an objective morality if it can't be clearly understood? It can be clearly understood. I don't see where it is an issue of not being understood. The problem is not that people don't understand it. They simply don't want to accept it. Quote If you mean outside the human experience [my right to say you were wrong] I would tend to agree with you. Evidently it turns out I don't need to do that. No, I mean inside the human experience. If objective morality doesn't exist, then you have no moral right to exact any justice against me for anything I have done to you that you feel is wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted August 16, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 16, 2017 16 hours ago, shiloh357 said: No, I mean inside the human experience. If objective morality doesn't exist, then you have no moral right to exact any justice against me for anything I have done to you that you feel is wrong. If by morality we are talking about the well being or treatment of humans then we can make informed truth claims about whether an action is moral or immoral. We are not only social creatures but we're rather intelligent [in comparison to other creatures on Earth] I think it's only natural that we would develop a system of justice and moral fabric. We even see in other creatures that they seem to show empathy and concern for their peers. If you had a choice of living on two islands, one filled with murderers and thieves that celebrate mayhem and one that is inhabited by people that value safety, health and freedom which one would you want to live in? As you list the reasons why you'd rather live in the latter island those reasons are brought to you by...logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 1 minute ago, Bonky said: If by morality we are talking about the well being or treatment of humans then we can make informed truth claims about whether an action is moral or immoral. And the objective standard of those claims would based on what? Quote We are not only social creatures but we're rather intelligent [in comparison to other creatures on Earth] I think it's only natural that we would develop a system of justice and moral fabric. Our own legal system is rooted in a basic recognition of an objective standard for right and wrong. Quote We even see in other creatures that they seem to show empathy and concern for their peers. If you had a choice of living on two islands, one filled with murderers and thieves that celebrate mayhem and one that is inhabited by people that value safety, health and freedom which one would you want to live in? As you list the reasons why you'd rather live in the latter island those reasons are brought to you by...logic. That is based on innate self-preservation not logic. People are known to do some pretty illogical/irrational things to prolong life or to stay alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steward George Posted August 16, 2017 Group: Steward Followers: 110 Topic Count: 10,465 Topics Per Day: 1.26 Content Count: 27,772 Content Per Day: 3.33 Reputation: 15,459 Days Won: 129 Joined: 06/30/2001 Status: Online Birthday: 09/21/1971 Steward Share Posted August 16, 2017 On 8/11/2017 at 8:57 PM, Kevinb said: New to thinking about this subject I'll confess. Is morality not learnt from the bible if you're a Christian ? Or does everyone think it's hard wired? Or both? If both what's learnt and what's hardwired? When you were young -- do you remember how your conscience worked? Isn't that a God-given morality code ... over time though, this very innocent morality code can become corrupted. I believe it's both in answer to your question. First it's hard-wired ... but over time it can become lost ... and secondly, you can learn a deeper understanding of true holiness as you get closer to a Holy God. However, in getting closer to a Holy God ... you'll realize how wretched we truly are ... and yet loved .. thus can love others despite all their flaws. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted August 16, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 16, 2017 2 hours ago, shiloh357 said: And the objective standard of those claims would based on what? Actions that improve or sustain human flourishing. Two people can take a knife and cut another person. One is trying to murder and one is removing a tumor. It's not like we can't figure out which action is "good" and which one is "bad". If you think there is some golden objective "standard" that is on you. I'm saying we can certainly navigate towards "human flourishing" and also navigate away from that based on our actions. Just like we know the difference between poison and food. 2 hours ago, shiloh357 said: Our own legal system is rooted in a basic recognition of an objective standard for right and wrong. Is this the legal system that allowed for slaves or the one after? 2 hours ago, shiloh357 said: That is based on innate self-preservation not logic. People are known to do some pretty illogical/irrational things to prolong life or to stay alive. It seems odd that you're pointing to a very logical decision and stating "sometimes we do crazy things". It's not crazy to want to flourish and be free to live in harmony with the rest of your species. If that's crazy to you then we live in two different worlds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 16, 2017 Share Posted August 16, 2017 15 minutes ago, Bonky said: Actions that improve or sustain human flourishing. Two people can take a knife and cut another person. One is trying to murder and one is removing a tumor. It's not like we can't figure out which action is "good" and which one is "bad". Based on what standard? Quote If you think there is some golden objective "standard" that is on you. There has to be a standard to measure "good" and "bad." It isn't subjective. Quote I'm saying we can certainly navigate towards "human flourishing" and also navigate away from that based on our actions. Just like we know the difference between poison and food. Again, that is not about right and wrong, but about self preservation. Quote Is this the legal system that allowed for slaves or the one after? What difference does it make? Why is slavery any more right or wrong than eating a bag of peanuts? Quote It seems odd that you're pointing to a very logical decision and stating "sometimes we do crazy things". It's not crazy to want to flourish and be free to live in harmony with the rest of your species. If that's crazy to you then we live in two different worlds. I didn't say "crazy things." Don't put words in my mouth. I said that people, when they feel they need to preserve their life, do illogical or irrational things in order to either prolong their lives or remain alive (not including wanting to live in harmony with other people.) My desire to live around peaceful people instead of murderers is less of a moral statement about the wrongness of murder than it is about self preservation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted August 16, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 16, 2017 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: There has to be a standard to measure "good" and "bad." It isn't subjective. Given the context of our discussion, walking up to a stranger and shooting them in the head is not going to help them flourish, that's not subjective at all. No personal preference or opinion will change that. 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: Again, that is not about right and wrong, but about self preservation. I think "human flourishing" has to do with how humans treat each other. I'm not just talking about self preservation. Today a woman has the right to vote, that wasn't always the case as an example. 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: What difference does it make? Why is slavery any more right or wrong than eating a bag of peanuts? Some of these counter questions you are giving me tell me that either you're purposely being obtuse or you're just sticking to an apologetic script. I clearly stated not just here but in a previous discussion how we can tell one is "wrong" and one is "Ok". 1 hour ago, shiloh357 said: My desire to live around peaceful people instead of murderers is less of a moral statement about the wrongness of murder than it is about self preservation. Is that really all it is? You mean if we take away the murder part, you don't mind living in a society where your stuff can be taken or you can be enslaved with no recourse? With regard to your objective standard, where did this standard come about? What was used as a metric to slide actions toward "good" or "bad"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 15 hours ago, Bonky said: Given the context of our discussion, walking up to a stranger and shooting them in the head is not going to help them flourish, that's not subjective at all. No personal preference or opinion will change that. I think "human flourishing" has to do with how humans treat each other. I'm not just talking about self preservation. Today a woman has the right to vote, that wasn't always the case as an example. Whether someone flourishes or not is not an adequate basis for determining right from wrong. People flourish committing all kinds of crimes. If the standard for determining morality is based on whether or not an action causes someone to flourish or not, a coherent system of justice would be impossible to maintain. Quote Some of these counter questions you are giving me tell me that either you're purposely being obtuse or you're just sticking to an apologetic script. No, I am simply appealing to logic. Why is slavery wrong? And who has the right to say it is wrong? Quote I clearly stated not just here but in a previous discussion how we can tell one is "wrong" and one is "Ok". Yes, I believe you cited that morality derives from societal consensus, which is a rather flawed argument. Quote Is that really all it is? You mean if we take away the murder part, you don't mind living in a society where your stuff can be taken or you can be enslaved with no recourse? Still missing the point. Nothing you presented in that analogy has anything to do with determining right from wrong. Quote With regard to your objective standard, where did this standard come about? What was used as a metric to slide actions toward "good" or "bad"? All objective morality stems from a God who is a God of perfect justice and a perfect moral standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonky Posted August 17, 2017 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 6 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 738 Content Per Day: 0.20 Reputation: 346 Days Won: 0 Joined: 05/28/2014 Status: Offline Share Posted August 17, 2017 4 hours ago, shiloh357 said: Yes, I believe you cited that morality derives from societal consensus, which is a rather flawed argument. Negative, I never suggested morality comes from consensus. 4 hours ago, shiloh357 said: Still missing the point. Nothing you presented in that analogy has anything to do with determining right from wrong. I'm showcasing the tangible logical sense in promoting morality that focuses on human freedom and flourishing. 4 hours ago, shiloh357 said: All objective morality stems from a God who is a God of perfect justice and a perfect moral standard. Islamists are right behind you on that. I'll side with secular morality that is founded on values such as human freedom, safety and empathy [the things we think of when we talk about 'morality'] then some mysterious God claim that's completely unsubstantiated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shiloh357 Posted August 17, 2017 Share Posted August 17, 2017 15 minutes ago, Bonky said: Negative, I never suggested morality comes from consensus. Actually, you have made that case in the pasts, that what is wrong or right is the result of societal or cultural consensus. You have used that argument more than once. Quote I'm showcasing the tangible logical sense in promoting morality that focuses on human freedom and flourishing. That is not what morality focuses on, though. Sometimes doing the moral or the right thing is done even to one's own detriment. Quote Islamists are right behind you on that. No, they are not. You clearly don't understand them. Quote I'll side with secular morality that is founded on values such as human freedom, safety and empathy [the things we think of when we talk about 'morality'] then some mysterious God claim that's completely unsubstantiated. First of all there is no human morality that you can claim is based on those things, as human morality, like everything else about human nature, is fickle. And the "God claim" you mock is quite substantiated and atheists have to borrow from the Bible to even have something to say about what is right or wrong. If there is no God, then there is no morality debate, as humans on their own have no morality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts