A concept of objective morality is not necessarily a good thing. It can be harmful.

[seer]

OK.


I presuppose that is is morally wrong to cause a sentient creature to suffer gratuitously.

Cool, now where do our differing presuppositions lead?

[rwatts]

So what is your point? We can think in moral terms and monkeys can't? How does that change in kind what the chimpanzee did as opposed to what the Europeans did? What is the difference?

There is no difference in the sense that one group was wiped out by another group. There is a difference in the sense that in one case the group which does the wiping out can think in terms of morality. The other group cannot.

And I'm still waiting for a non-subjective definition of good. Without which said definition carries no weight or force.

You won't get one beyond humans deciding morality. And your objective morality carries no weight when I see you doing wrong. I'll wager it carries no weight with others, when they see you doing wrong.

[Carrikature]

I thought I told you people NOT to argue color with him.

It's not as if I forgot.

[Carrikature]

Really Carrikature? Then use the moon, the moon would still exist even if all creatures were born blind and unaware. Happy now?

Yes, the moon is a much better example.

And the apple isn't red until someone sees it?

You're stuck on the observer discussion from another thread. This isn't what I said.

What difference?

You wish me to believe you've forgotten the premise of the nat. sci. thread you started?

[Doug Shaver]

Cool, now where do our differing presuppositions lead?

What are you looking for? Do you want to see a list of all actions I would consider immoral?

[seer]

You wish me to believe you've forgotten the premise of the nat. sci. thread you started?

Of course I remember my OP, that what the Europeans did was a successful evolutionary strategy - and? But I think you are speaking of something else.

[seer]

What are you looking for? Do you want to see a list of all actions I would consider immoral?

No, I'm asking even if we accept your presupposition where does that lead. What does it say about life, human nature, where does it take humanity. In other words even if it is correct how is it enforced, and what difference does it make to those who do not share your assumption?

[seer]

There is no difference in the sense that one group was wiped out by another group. There is a difference in the sense that in one case the group which does the wiping out can think in terms of morality. The other group cannot.

Yes rwatts, but thinking in moral terms did not change the outcome so why is it relevant?

You won't get one beyond humans deciding morality. And your objective morality carries no weight when I see you doing wrong. I'll wager it carries no weight with others, when they see you doing wrong.

Then you have made my point. If there is no objective moral rule or law then no definition of "good" is more correct or valid than an opposite definition of "good." So your claim in the OP fails since there is no non-subjective way to define what "good" is. Saying that objective morality is not necessarily a "good" thing is a meaningless statement in the end.

[rwatts]

Yes rwatts, but thinking in moral terms did not change the outcome so why is it relevant?

Because morals are relevant, no matter what they ultimately are. We make them relevant.

Many of those who did the conquering and killing were objective moralists, right seer? All the bad that is done in or was done in the world, is not done only by relative moralists, now is it.

Then you have made my point. If there is no objective moral rule or law then no definition of "good" is more correct or valid than an opposite definition of "good." So your claim in the OP fails since there is no non-subjective way to define what "good" is. Saying that objective morality is not necessarily a "good" thing is a meaningless statement in the end.

So what does your objective morality bring to the table that relative morality does not already have, seer? Objective moralists can do harm. Objective moralists cannot agree amongst themselves. Objective moralists don't know when they do wrong things, like repeatedly avoid questions. Objective moralists may rape, kill, steal, lust, etc. all the while claiming an objective morality. And so on.

[seer]

Because morals are relevant, no matter what they ultimately are. We make them relevant.

Many of those who did the conquering and killing were objective moralists, right seer? All the bad that is done in or was done in the world, is not done only by relative moralists, now is it.

It doesn't matter what they were rwatts, and all men, "objective moralists" or "relative moralists", can do both good and wicked things. And no, like with the Europeans we can decide to ignore our moral conscience or act on it - so whether we make them relevant or not is also subjective. So it makes no difference in the end - what the Europeans and the chimpanzee did was in kind the same.

So what does your objective morality bring to the table that relative morality does not already have, seer? Objective moralists can do harm. Objective moralists cannot agree amongst themselves. Objective moralists don't know when they do wrong things, like repeatedly avoid questions. Objective moralists may rape, kill, steal, lust, etc. all the while claiming an objective morality. And so on.

That was not my point, my point is that you can not even define "good" in a non-subjective way. And what this "objective moralist" brings to the table is God... That we don't live in an ultimately unjust or amoral universe. That there are right ethical answers that are non-subjective and exist even when our sin and selfishness blind us to moral good.

[rwatts]

It doesn't matter what they were rwatts, and all men, "objective moralists" or "relative moralists", can do both good and wicked things. And no, like with the Europeans we can decide to ignore our moral conscience or act on it - so whether we make them relevant or not is also subjective. So it makes no difference in the end - what the Europeans and the chimpanzee did was in kind the same.

So the title of the OP is correct then!

That was not my point, my point is that you can not even define "good" in a non-subjective way.

Well enough of we subjectivists can agree on morality to pass laws, both international laws and local or national laws.

And what this "objective moralist" brings to the table is God...

Well I can prove you wrong here with as much evidence that you offer to prove yourself right. God does not exist.

What you bring to the table are your own opinions including your own opinions about God. If you could convince me that you are God, and hence that all other disparate opinions about God are wrong, then I might think differently

[seer]

So the title of the OP is correct then!

No it's not - how did you get there?

Well enough of we subjectivists can agree on morality to pass laws, both international laws and local or national laws.

Yes, you can do that.

Well I can prove you wrong here with as much evidence that you offer to prove yourself right. God does not exist.

What you bring to the table are your own opinions including your own opinions about God. If you could convince me that you are God, and hence that all other disparate opinions about God are wrong, then I might think differently

I'm not trying to convince you of anything, just pointing out that our different views lead to very different things and consequences.

[rwatts]

No it's not - how did you get there?

A concept of moral objectivity is not necessarily a good thing. It can do harm. Moral objectivists, like moral subjectivists, can do good and they can do harm. You admitted to it, didn't you?

... just pointing out that our different views lead to very different things and consequences.

Such as? What do you bring to the table that I don't bring to the table?

(If you assert "God", then I will assert "Does not exist". I will then assert "Nature".)

[seer]

A concept of moral objectivity is not necessarily a good thing. It can do harm. Moral objectivists, like moral subjectivists, can do good and they can do harm. You admitted to it, didn't you?

No, I'm not saying that people do wicked things because of their view of morality, they do wicked things because they are wicked.

Such as? What do you bring to the table that I don't bring to the table?

1. Human beings are not biological accidents. We have inherent value.
2. Our best moral sense is not merely a quirk of biology, but actually ties into something eternal and permanent.
3. The universe we live in is not ultimately unjust and amoral.

[rwatts]

No, I'm not saying that people do wicked things because of their view of morality, they do wicked things because they are wicked.

Well we both agree on that.

So now what is your point?

A concept of subjective morality must be good then. Any bad things that are done are done because of human fallibility or wickedness. Subjective morality must be good. And we already know that those who accept objective morality often cannot agree amongst themselves.

1. Human beings are not biological accidents. We have inherent value.

Of course we have inherent value, accident or not.

2. Our best moral sense is not merely a quirk of biology, but actually ties into something eternal and permanent.

Assertion. Our best and worst moral senses tie into our human natures.

Besides, you omitted our worst moral senses. Surely they tie into something eternal and permanent?

3. The universe we live in is not ultimately unjust and amoral.

Assertion. The universe we live in is neither unjust nor amoral nor just nor moral. These are things which we moral agents bring to the universe we live in. As for the universe itself? Well both destruction and construction are seen within it's confines. Assignments of "good" and "bad" are what we bring to the table.

So it looks as if I bring things to the table which you can't bring. Or perhaps I can and do bring exactly what you bring. It's just that you assign them to something you, as a fallible human, assert exists - and that is about all.

At day's end, I'm struggling to find exactly what it is you do bring to the table that I don't bring. So far it's an assertion that God exists, which is easily dealt with by a counter assertion.