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

[Doug Shaver]

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?

In those respects, I am aware of no difference at all between your presupposition and mine.

[Tassman]

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.

You seem shocked at the notion. Of course there are many similarities between Homo sapiens and Chimpanzees. We have evolved as a closely related social species. The difference is that, due to our superior intelligence, we are better able than chimpanzees to extrapolate our pack/tribal values and apply them to the species as a whole. Consequently, we have been able to create more enlightened communities than that of our simian cousins.

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.

Of course we can. Morals are derivatives of self-preservation and procreation in every instance and are a consequence of natural selection. They are naturally built into us, because those morals were beneficial to the breeding and survival of our species as social animals.

That there are right ethical answers that are non-subjective and exist even when our sin and selfishness blind us to moral good.

There is no ultimate, eternally objective morality as evidenced by the variety of moral values prescribed by those advocating absolute, eternal morality. And despite repeated requests in many threads for you to provide examples of your alleged absolute, eternal morality you have never done any better than make vague reference to the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule is actually based upon naturally evolved reciprocity and it's common to most cultures. It long predates YOUR particular religion and is a natural consequence of the evolved need for social cohesion common the ALL social animals.

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.

Bald assertions, unsupported by substantiated evidence.

[seer]

In those respects, I am aware of no difference at all between your presupposition and mine.

That is evident Doug, if my presupposition is true then God is in the picture. Who is able to enforce His moral law, and will do so in His time when He removes those who refuse to follow said law from civil society. If your presupposition is correct, basically nothing happens, either now or in the future. Second, religious beliefs (for good or ill) have always had a more profound effect on mankind than philosophical beliefs. I can personally point to dozens and dozens of changed lives, changed for the better, because of faith.

[seer]

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.

rwatts, you are not making sense now. People who accept subjective morality don't agree with themselves, so what is your point?

Of course we have inherent value, accident or not.

Really, how is that possible in a godless universe? How does the evolutionary processes create inherent value?

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?

Yes it is an assertion based on worldviews. And yes, our worse moral sense is tied into something eternal and permanent - we call that HELL.

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.

If you are correct there is no ultimate justice, a Stalin or Mao slaughter millions then die of old age. Slaughtering millions is not objectively wrong, just a matter of preference. So the communists followers of both men think it was a good thing to murder the opposition, you may think it is a bad thing - but that opinion is no more correct or valid than theirs.

[seer]

Bald assertions, unsupported by substantiated evidence.

Tass, can you offer a non-arbitrary definition of evidence?

[shunyadragon]

rwatts, you are not making sense now. People who accept subjective morality don't agree with themselves, so what is your point?

Does not make sense.

Really, how is that possible in a godless universe? How does the evolutionary processes create inherent value?

evolutionary processes do not create meaning. Human nature evolved as an opportunistic intelligent omnivore with strong need for cooperative social structure of families and communities. The nature of being an intelligent human imparts a diverse meanings based on the diverse cultures, religions, and the need for a sense of community. Atheists, agnostics, deists, theists of every variety naturally have a very human sense of meaning.

Yes it is an assertion based on worldviews. And yes, our worse moral sense is tied into something eternal and permanent - we call that HELL.

You may call it HELL, but more likely this is described as the punishment for the worse moral sense. To some HELL is living in the drought zone and brush fires of California.

If you are correct there is no ultimate justice, a Stalin or Mao slaughter millions then die of old age. Slaughtering millions is not objectively wrong, just a matter of preference. So the communists followers of both men think it was a good thing to murder the opposition, you may think it is a bad thing - but that opinion is no more correct or valid than theirs.

When the Roman Church invoked the Inquisition they considered it good and righteous, and slaughter many in Jerusalem in the Crusades. Human nature is human nature regardless. Objectivity in these cases of 'Wrongful Death,' as with one death or millions is highly motivated by self justification. This is an old highly flawed logical position.

In ALL these cases the 'ultimate justice' is justified by those committing the acts, and apparently without a consistent 'Objective Morality' dictated by a higher power as to what is considered 'Wrongful Death.'.

[rwatts]

rwatts, you are not making sense now. People who accept subjective morality don't agree with themselves, so what is your point?

People with objective morality don't agree with themselves. People with subjective morality do agree with themselves. I can cite cases to demonstrate each situation.

You can hardly point that finger at us, when the same problem haunts your own side of the fence, now can you.

Really, how is that possible in a godless universe? How does the evolutionary processes create inherent value?

Our brains? They evolved. We decide on inherent value. You do, don't you? Or does God make your thoughts for you and so you have no free will?

Besides to take up your imputation that evolution is just accident - it must make each of us entirely unique. Given each uniqueness, we must have inherent value because of it.

Yes it is an assertion based on worldviews. And yes, our worse moral sense is tied into something eternal and permanent - we call that HELL.

So your good side is tied into heaven and your bad side is tied into hell?

Given this, what do you bring to the table that the subjectivist and relativist does not bring. You might assert "God". But that's just an assertion and you cannot demonstrate any better personal behaviour because of it.

If you are correct there is no ultimate justice, a Stalin or Mao slaughter millions then die of old age.

They did.

Slaughtering millions is not objectively wrong, just a matter of preference.

If you decide that God decides to slaughter millions (which has happened before, so it seems), then it is a matter of God's preference isn't it? And didn't that happen at least once in human history, according to the Bible?

So what is your argument now?

So the communists followers of both men think it was a good thing to murder the opposition, you may think it is a bad thing - but that opinion is no more correct or valid than theirs.

Correct.

But most humans agree that what they did was bad. Humans have this thing called "empathy". It tends to guide us a lot in our moral decision making. Hence we can agree on something, that what they did was bad, and strive to do our best to nullify their bad deeds. It does not always work, not by a long shot. But most of us can agree on it.

On the other hand, if God decides that he needed to kill all those Russians and Chinese, then he had the tools to do it - Mao and Stalin. So, if that was God's will, then it was an objectively good thing, right seer? (And, as a "Bible believer", you would believe that God has used various tools to kill humans before.)

Given this, if you decide that certain deaths are a part of God's will or God's plan, then you decide that this is all a good thing, don't you! Whereas I would challenge both you and God, and decide it's a bad thing. So do you see the advantages of subjectivism and relativism? It allows one to think, and to question. Whereas the moment you think an action or an outcome is God's will, then that's it. No more questions. It's good to do, no matter what.

You have no choice in this because the moment you think that anything is God's will, then you think it has to be objectively and morally good. You are unable to think beyond that.

So seer, back to this question again, the one you don't want to face - was it God's will with respect to those chimps? What is so hard about it that you have no idea how to answer?

[rwatts]

Does not make sense.

I agree. I can think of many occasions in which objective moralists disagree amongst themselves.

Apparently this does not even hit seer's radar screen. Perhaps seer is the only "true objective moralist", just like certain Christians see themselves as the only "true Christians".

If you are the only one then there is no one else to disagree with and so it's just you and God, and God always agrees with you. Erm sorry, you always agree with God.

[rwatts]

I can personally point to dozens and dozens of changed lives, changed for the better, because of faith.

True. And it seems that many different gods do this, even various people's false gods. For example, last weekend I listened to an aboriginal talking about how Allah had saved him.

But then I can think of plenty who are seemingly made worse by religious faith. They do bad things seemingly without conscience because their belief in the Bible, that they have an intimate relationship with God, and are guided by his Holy Spirit, leads them to a hubris that's without par. Once that hubris sets in then the bad behaviour begins and it's untouchable, because who is anyone else to dare tell them that they could be wrong. About anything.

[rwatts]

Tass, can you offer a non-arbitrary definition of evidence?

Well yes.

Whatever definition he offers, all he as to do is assert that it is "non-arbitrary", just like you might define some moral action and label it "objective" or "God's will".

[seer]

People with objective morality don't agree with themselves. People with subjective morality do agree with themselves. I can cite cases to demonstrate each situation.

Yes I agree, so what is your point? That doesn't mean that there not objectively correct ethical answers. In my worldview these objective answers can logically exist, i.e. the law of God. In your worldview they can not.

Our brains? They evolved. We decide on inherent value. You do, don't you? Or does God make your thoughts for you and so you have no free will?

Besides to take up your imputation that evolution is just accident - it must make each of us entirely unique. Given each uniqueness, we must have inherent value because of it.

That makes no sense. House flies are entirely unique, how does that create inherent value? And if we decide on "inherent value" then it isn't INHERENT! It is a subjective, since others may decide that we don't have inherent value.

So your good side is tied into heaven and your bad side is tied into hell?

Given this, what do you bring to the table that the subjectivist and relativist does not bring. You might assert "God". But that's just an assertion and you cannot demonstrate any better personal behaviour because of it.

They did.

If you decide that God decides to slaughter millions (which has happened before, so it seems), then it is a matter of God's preference isn't it? And didn't that happen at least once in human history, according to the Bible?

Yes, if God decides to remove wicked peoples then of course it is good and just. There is no justice in your universe. What Stalin did was no more good or evil than what Mother Teresa did. Morality is ultimately meaningless.

Given this, if you decide that certain deaths are a part of God's will or God's plan, then you decide that this is all a good thing, don't you! Whereas I would challenge both you and God, and decide it's a bad thing. So do you see the advantages of subjectivism and relativism? It allows one to think, and to question.

But all your reasoning is meaningless. It doesn't matter what conclusions you come to because the opposite conclusion will always be just as valid and correct as yours. There is, and never could be, any objective rule to decide between the two opinions. And it doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree with you this fact will never change.

[Teallaura]

Who told you people you could keep talking while I wasn't looking?


Okay, seriously, I'm still working on my reply - but I don't have time to read all this, too, so apologies in advance if some of the material is already covered.

[rwatts]

In my worldview ...

And you are a fallible human like the rest of us. Logically, your worldview is wrong. Like you, I simply assert it.

That makes no sense. House flies are entirely unique, how does that create inherent value? And if we decide on "inherent value" then it isn't INHERENT! It is a subjective, since others may decide that we don't have inherent value.

Since when was inherent value only objective value?

Yes, if God decides to remove wicked peoples then of course it is good and just. There is no justice in your universe. What Stalin did was no more good or evil than what Mother Teresa did. Morality is ultimately meaningless.

So, Stalin and Mao were a part of God's will, right seer? You calling them and their actions "bad" is wrong.

But all your reasoning is meaningless. It doesn't matter what conclusions you come to because the opposite conclusion will always be just as valid and correct as yours.

But all your reasoning is meaningless. It doesn't matter what conclusions you come to because the opposite conclusion will always be just as valid and correct as yours - because as objectivists, you will always decide that your opinion about what God's will is, is the opinion that God holds to as well.

You agreed at the start that objectivists disagree among themselves.

There is, and never could be, any objective rule to decide between the two opinions. And it doesn't matter how many people agree or disagree with you this fact will never change.

So when you and another objectivist disagree over whether or not a war is God's will, who/what decides?

[rwatts]

Who told you people you could keep talking while I wasn't looking?

Erm. Sorry. Just got carried away I guess.

Okay, seriously, I'm still working on my reply - but I don't have time to read all this, too, so apologies in advance if some of the material is already covered.

Don't worry. Take your time. I think the thread will amble on for days yet.

[Doug Shaver]

if my presupposition is true then God is in the picture. Who is able to enforce His moral law, and will do so in His time when He removes those who refuse to follow said law from civil society.

You're talking about an unspecified time in the future. I assumed your question was about the present world. In the here and now, I can see no difference between your presupposition and mine when it comes to enforcement or dealing with dissidents.

And by the way, threats are not moral principles. They may be used to enforce moral principles, but they are not themselves moral principles. That includes any threat of divine retribution against those who decline to accept your moral principles.