Objective morality

[simplejeff]

What any arguments , or anything for that matter that people say,  is totally irrelevant in light of what YHWH (GOD) says.  ("what God might think") -  YHWH is not far off,  uninterested in mankind.  No,  HE says clearly what HE THINKS,  in HIS WORD.  That is what is important,   as no one else can give the WORD that leads to or grants eternal life.

[LuftWaffle]

 

Hi Siegi,

To do quotes you need to click the button that looks like this -> ˝ in text box where you type your posts

 

On 1/10/2017 at 1:53 PM, siegi91 said:

Hi Luftwaffe,
Oh Mann, I have no idea how to use the quoting feature on my tablet. I hate Big Bang posts ....:)  let's try, nevertheless.

I never said that unresolved issues are not worth thinking about. I actually believe the contrary. I spend most of my time thinking about unresolved issues. I would be a pretty poor physicist if I did not do that. 

What I had in mind, when I mentioned constructivism, was actually based on mathematical (or logical) constructivism. Take for instance the claim

1) Every even natural number greater than two is the sum of two prime numbers

We have no idea whether this is true or not. All the numbers our computers are crunching seem to confirm the claim. Alas, we do not have access to all possible numbers, which are infinite.

sieglinde

While I'm glad that you're not arguing for Positivism I'm not sure that the mathematical concept of "constructivism" can be applied to ethics. I think pretty much all mathematicians agree that infinity isn't really a thing, it's just a placeholder for the concept of an unending set of numbers. So it's a mathematical impossibility to determine certain outcomes ad infinitum, but why should such a notion be applied to ethics. I don't believe ethics have infinit variables. Some moral dilemmas are complex, but never infinitely complex, so I think there is a best answer to every moral dilemma, albeit sometimes hard to find.

So, I guess I don't see the need to categorize ethics in the same way as certain mathematical concepts. In fact I think doing so probably commits a category error.

Quote

Now, I would like to address your comment that if morality is subjective, then it is not superior than flipping a coin, presumably because of evolution being driven by random mutations (among other non random things). I make the assumption I understood that correctly.

If that is the case, then I am not sure how that can be used to prove objective morality.

The point is that, if our moral sensibilities railing against the idea that "rape is benign" is merely an incidental impulse of our evolution, it's just like saying "fire is cold" rails against our sense of touch and claiming that our sense of touch is just an illusion seems just as silly.

Now if our moral sensibilities are mere incidental traits of our evolution what's wrong with flipping a coin to make moral decisions? What is your principled case for not just flipping coins when making moral decisions?

Quote

We first need to ascertain that there is this real thing and that it is independent from our evolutionary past, and biology.

Any argument for subjective morals will be based on evidence that's less obvious than any argument for objective morals. Think about it.
One can look at the reaction of a four year old child when they are wronged and it's obvious that they perceive a wrong has been committed. Then one can listen to the waffling of an ethics professor claiming that morals are subjective who still expects that his students not murder him and take his belongings.

You have as much a burden of proof to show morals are subjective as I have to show they're objective. In fact most atheists who are subjectivists only became subjectivists after they learnt about the logical consequences of moral objectivism. That is how obviously true objectivism is, and how obscure the notion of subjectivism is.

Can I prove to your satisfaction that morals are objective? Probably not, because I can't show you a moral and weigh it and measure it, which is what you're demanding.

 

Quote

As concerns the cumulative case for God, I think that this would be material for 10 threads. My point was that the claim

1) The existence of  objective morality is evidence of the existence of God  

Leads necessarily to circular reasoning.

For, if the objective character of morality is independent from God, like atheistic moral realists believe, then claim 1) is a non sequitur

If, on the other hand, this objectivity depends on the existence of God or is defined in terms of God's will and nature, and cannot exist without Him, then 1) is circular.

I don't think objective moral values are independent of the character of God, but I don't see how having them grounded in the character of God makes the argument circular.

The moral argument as offered by most apologists is a basic Modus Tollens argument taking the form:

1. If P then Q,

2. Not Q

3. therefore Not P

Here's the argument:

1. If God does not exist then objective morals do not exist.

2. Objective morals do exist

3. Therefore God exists

If the argument were circular as you claim then "God exists"would have been assumed in the premises 1 or 2, but it's not there. So I guess I'm not seeing the circularity.

Quote

Even if we assume that objective morality does, indeed, exist. And this is why I dismiss it. Where it would lead, if it were convincing, is not so relevant to me. I am quite emotionless about the possibile evidence of God's existence. Especially when provided by such  arguments, which do not say anything about what that God might think of people like me

Well, Siegi, if you dont find the argument to be satisfying all your questions, is that the fault of the argument or you wanting more than where the premises and conclusion leads. The argument is a simple piece of evidence intended to reason toward a theistic conclusion based on the existence of right and wrong. Simple as that. If you want to know what God thinks of you, then read the words of Jesus.

I for one, am a huge fan of the moral argument for the existence of God, because those who disagree with it, never really attack the argument itself. You're not alone in wrongly trying to claim that it's circular, or trying to divert away from it by talking about slavery in the Bible, or claiming that it doesn't prove all the tenets of Christianity and so on. The very fact that all these excuses are made instead of actually tacking the premises and the conclusion of the argument is actually something that should show you something.

[Bonky]

21 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

The point is that, if our moral sensibilities railing against the idea that "rape is benign" is merely an incidental impulse of our evolution, it's just like saying "fire is cold" rails against our sense of touch and claiming that our sense of touch is just an illusion seems just as silly.

Now if our moral sensibilities are mere incidental traits of our evolution what's wrong with flipping a coin to make moral decisions? What is your principled case for not just flipping coins when making moral decisions?

Let me see if I'm making sense here.  I've admitted before I'm not educated or moral arguments so I'm probably going to fail.  If we were lions, then rape or killing wouldn't really be immoral because we wouldn't have the capacity to consider our actions and the consequences of those actions.  So that would be kind of analogous to flipping coins.  The issue is we're NOT lions, we have advanced brains/nervous system that allows us to consider our actions and how it impacts us and those around us.   We are social creatures and how we interact with each other goes a long way into stabilizing our communities.  Some where along the line we figured out that we can not only survive but have an enjoyable time doing it.  

[siegi91]

On 10/01/2017 at 0:53 PM, siegi91 said:

 

 

On 12/01/2017 at 8:24 PM, LuftWaffle said:

 

Hi Siegi,

To do quotes you need to click the button that looks like this -> ˝ in text box where you type your posts

 

While I'm glad that you're not arguing for Positivism I'm not sure that the mathematical concept of "constructivism" can be applied to ethics. I think pretty much all mathematicians agree that infinity isn't really a thing, it's just a placeholder for the concept of an unending set of numbers. So it's a mathematical impossibility to determine certain outcomes ad infinitum, but why should such a notion be applied to ethics. I don't believe ethics have infinit variables. Some moral dilemmas are complex, but never infinitely complex, so I think there is a best answer to every moral dilemma, albeit sometimes hard to find.

So, I guess I don't see the need to categorize ethics in the same way as certain mathematical concepts. In fact I think doing so probably commits a category error.

The point is that, if our moral sensibilities railing against the idea that "rape is benign" is merely an incidental impulse of our evolution, it's just like saying "fire is cold" rails against our sense of touch and claiming that our sense of touch is just an illusion seems just as silly.

Now if our moral sensibilities are mere incidental traits of our evolution what's wrong with flipping a coin to make moral decisions? What is your principled case for not just flipping coins when making moral decisions?

Any argument for subjective morals will be based on evidence that's less obvious than any argument for objective morals. Think about it.
One can look at the reaction of a four year old child when they are wronged and it's obvious that they perceive a wrong has been committed. Then one can listen to the waffling of an ethics professor claiming that morals are subjective who still expects that his students not murder him and take his belongings.

You have as much a burden of proof to show morals are subjective as I have to show they're objective. In fact most atheists who are subjectivists only became subjectivists after they learnt about the logical consequences of moral objectivism. That is how obviously true objectivism is, and how obscure the notion of subjectivism is.

Can I prove to your satisfaction that morals are objective? Probably not, because I can't show you a moral and weigh it and measure it, which is what you're demanding.

 

I don't think objective moral values are independent of the character of God, but I don't see how having them grounded in the character of God makes the argument circular.

The moral argument as offered by most apologists is a basic Modus Tollens argument taking the form:

1. If P then Q,

2. Not Q

3. therefore Not P

Here's the argument:

1. If God does not exist then objective morals do not exist.

2. Objective morals do exist

3. Therefore God exists

If the argument were circular as you claim then "God exists"would have been assumed in the premises 1 or 2, but it's not there. So I guess I'm not seeing the circularity.

Well, Siegi, if you dont find the argument to be satisfying all your questions, is that the fault of the argument or you wanting more than where the premises and conclusion leads. The argument is a simple piece of evidence intended to reason toward a theistic conclusion based on the existence of right and wrong. Simple as that. If you want to know what God thinks of you, then read the words of Jesus.

I for one, am a huge fan of the moral argument for the existence of God, because those who disagree with it, never really attack the argument itself. You're not alone in wrongly trying to claim that it's circular, or trying to divert away from it by talking about slavery in the Bible, or claiming that it doesn't prove all the tenets of Christianity and so on. The very fact that all these excuses are made instead of actually tacking the premises and the conclusion of the argument is actually something that should show you something.

Whether the arguments is circular or not, depends on the answer to that the following question:

Can you define the objective character of morality in terms that do not depend on the existence of God?

if not, then I don't see how the argument can rest on its feet.

 

 

[LuftWaffle]

On 1/13/2017 at 6:49 PM, Bonky said:

Let me see if I'm making sense here.  I've admitted before I'm not educated or moral arguments so I'm probably going to fail.  If we were lions, then rape or killing wouldn't really be immoral because we wouldn't have the capacity to consider our actions and the consequences of those actions.  So that would be kind of analogous to flipping coins.  The issue is we're NOT lions, we have advanced brains/nervous system that allows us to consider our actions and how it impacts us and those around us.   We are social creatures and how we interact with each other goes a long way into stabilizing our communities.  Some where along the line we figured out that we can not only survive but have an enjoyable time doing it.  

Hi Bonky,

Saying "We are social creatures" is basically just a statement about the statistically average behavior of human beings, but it says nothing about how humans beings ought to behave. A Sadistic psychopath will state that their own behavior is not statistically average and that they are not social creatures. Morality entails far more than mere descriptions of what sort of behavior one can expect from the average human being, but instead is a set of normative rules about how the world ought to be.

 

[LuftWaffle]

22 hours ago, siegi91 said:

Whether the arguments is circular or not, depends on the answer to that the following question:

Can you define the objective character of morality in terms that do not depend on the existence of God?

if not, then I don't see how the argument can rest on its feet.

My point is that objective morality does depend on God, which is why the existence of objective morality would constitute evidence for there being a God. It seems you have a problem with the fact that the premises of an argument lead to the conclusion, but that's exactly what a valid argument is supposed to do.

[Bonky]

On 1/14/2017 at 2:38 PM, LuftWaffle said:

but it says nothing about how humans beings ought to behave.

I'm not seeing a consistent pattern where religion [or the God it claims] is a catalyst for progress in how we "ought" to behave.  I see a messy evolution of social changes that have led up to where we are today particularly in the Free world.  

[Bonky]

8 hours ago, Yowm said:

I take it that you are referring to the Christian faith? If so, it is  not the Church's role to be a catalyst for 'social progress' but rather a proclaimer to the nations, warning them of impending Judgment of our sin and the Rescue accomplished through His Son's death and resurrection.

No not just the church.  I mean what is the point of having an objective morality defined by a God if it's not disseminated down to humanity clearly.   Why does it seem that we've chiseled away at our views of what a civilized and free society looks like?  

Is there an objective Biblical defense for allowing women to vote?  I don't see that there is.  Is it Biblically wrong to own people as servants and or slaves?  I don't see how that could be objectively defended.  It wasn't until recently that we modified our social contract in the free world to make these modifications. 

 

Edited January 17, 2017 by Bonky

[LuftWaffle]

5 hours ago, Bonky said:

No not just the church.  I mean what is the point of having an objective morality defined by a God if it's not disseminated down to humanity clearly.   Why does it seem that we've chiseled away at our views of what a civilized and free society looks like?  

Is there an objective Biblical defense for allowing women to vote?  I don't see that there is.  Is it Biblically wrong to own people as servants and or slaves?  I don't see how that could be objectively defended.  It wasn't until recently that we modified our social contract in the free world to make these modifications. 

I don't think it's wrong to own people as servants in a contractual sense (which is how the bible defined it), so I'm not sure what your point is with that. In terms of women voting: don't you think the very fact that this is the issue you're raising is pretty telling in and of itself? People instinctively know that murder, rape, theft, adultery, hypocrisy, pride and so on is wrong. Even murderers won't claim that murder is right, instead they'll try to tilt the scale by attempting to justify murder by saying the person had it coming, or that murdering so-and-so was for some greater good. It seems to me then that apart from superficial (in the grand scheme of things) issues like woman's rights and social status, mankind indeed is pretty consistent in its moral sense. What changes are the justifications, not the morals themselves.

Pro-choice advocates believe that murder is wrong, they just don't believe that it's a baby being murdered, or they elevate the autonomy of the woman above the rights of the fetus. Both parties agree that murder is wrong.
Even dictators will not command genocide because they believe subjectively that genocide is a good thing, they believe it's a means to a better end.

Can you look back in history and find a culture that celebrated cowardice? Or didn't mind theft of personal property? That considered murder to be morally benign? I doubt it.

In terms of the finer moral points like equal rights and so on these virtues gradually arose in the Christian West, and basically nowhere else. Now this makes sense: If morality is objective then it is discoverable: progress is possible, just like scientific progress is possible if one believes that there are right and wrong answers in nature, another deliverance of the Christian worldview... You're welcome
 

But if morality evolved as you say, then what becomes of right and wrong? Ask an evolutionary psychologist where anti-social behavior comes from and they'll say it's our evolutionary instincts. Ask the same evolutionary psychologist where our social behavior comes from and they'll also say it's a result of our evolutionary instincts. Should sociopaths be sociopaths because their genes determine their behavior and should the virtuous be virtuous because their genes determine otherwise? Do you have a particular preference?

Edited January 17, 2017 by LuftWaffle

[Bonky]

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

I don't think it's wrong to own people as servants in a contractual sense (which is how the bible defined it), so I'm not sure what your point is with that.

 From Leviticus chapter 25...

“‘Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. 45 You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. 46 You can bequeath them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly."

I don't see anything about a contract.  I also don't see anything in the Bible that states, in general, that anyone needs to sign a "contract".   If anything I see a clear indication that a particular race or nation of people are treated better than others. 

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Even murderers won't claim that murder is right, instead they'll try to tilt the scale by attempting to justify murder by saying the person had it coming, or that murdering so-and-so was for some greater good. It seems to me then that apart from superficial (in the grand scheme of things) issues like woman's rights and social status, mankind indeed is pretty consistent in its moral sense. What changes are the justifications, not the morals themselves.

I don't think women being treated as equals is "superficial".  Is not allowing women to vote on par with murdering someone I would say no but it's still an important issue.  Perhaps your angle in this discussion is more concerned about murder and theft etc.

 

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

Can you look back in history and find a culture that celebrated cowardice? Or didn't mind theft of personal property? That considered murder to be morally benign? I doubt it.

No, but I don't see how this challenges my views. 

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

In terms of the finer moral points like equal rights and so on these virtues gradually arose in the Christian West, and basically nowhere else. Now this makes sense: If morality is objective then it is discoverable: progress is possible, just like scientific progress is possible if one believes that there are right and wrong answers in nature, another deliverance of the Christian worldview... You're welcome

Christian values sure took their time giving us these modern views.   I'm not familiar with your term "Christian West".  I decided to look it up and I came up pretty dry.  It's almost as if you made this up

20 hours ago, LuftWaffle said:

But if morality evolved as you say, then what becomes of right and wrong? Ask an evolutionary psychologist where anti-social behavior comes from and they'll say it's our evolutionary instincts. Ask the same evolutionary psychologist where our social behavior comes from and they'll also say it's a result of our evolutionary instincts. Should sociopaths be sociopaths because their genes determine their behavior and should the virtuous be virtuous because their genes determine otherwise? Do you have a particular preference?

I'm not sure this properly addresses what you're asking but just by coincidence I watched The story of God lastnight with Morgan Freeman.  They were talking about people who were in prison who committed horrible acts with no remorse or sense of wrong doing actually had brain abnormalities.   I think rationality can be a basis for moral structure and nothing more is needed.   Sure dictators can claim they are doing good but let's see their RATIONAL explanation for genocide.  Hitler clearly used heavy propaganda against the Jews to make it seem like they were the scourge of the earth [for the Germans anyway].  

Edited January 18, 2017 by Bonky
clarification