If when we die....

[Dave Ellis]

A most thorough, heartfelt, and respectable response. I sincerely thank you for sharing that with me and all the others.

No problems

 

[keith99]

For the record: I am not saying this.
While abstract general prescriptions (like e.g. "avoid harming others unnecessarily") may be pretty much agreed on instinctively by almost everyone, it gets increasingly complicated the more we are to decide how such general prescriptions are carried out in a given situation or in detail.

As for your basic question ("Why even consinder anything but the immediate satisfaction of your momentary desires when you believe your existence is finite?"):
Personally, I consider this existence the pool we all are swimming in. I don´t like to swim in pee. Therefore I am not going to pee in the pool I´m swimming in.

Or going back to his earlier posts of eat, drink and be merry....

But if I drink too much I wake up with a hangover. If I eat too mcuh I end up fatter. Other types of merry making have similar costs.

If I kick my dog when he is bothersome instead of showing kindness I end up with a danger to myself instead of the dog I have that will defend me with his dying breath.

I will enjoy my wine, beer and spirits, but in moderation so I can savor them and wake at least well enough to enjoy them again tommorrow. I will show at least enough moderation in food to enjoy most of it and not rob myself of years of life. And I will treat my dog well because he deserves it and if I did otherwise I'd have trouble looking in a mirror.

 

[quatona]

Or going back to his earlier posts of eat, drink and be merry....

But if I drink too much I wake up with a hangover. If I eat too mcuh I end up fatter. Other types of merry making have similar costs.

If I kick my dog when he is bothersome instead of showing kindness I end up with a danger to myself instead of the dog I have that will defend me with his dying breath.

I will enjoy my wine, beer and spirits, but in moderation so I can savor them and wake at least well enough to enjoy them again tommorrow. I will show at least enough moderation in food to enjoy most of it and not rob myself of years of life. And I will treat my dog well because he deserves it and if I did otherwise I'd have trouble looking in a mirror.

Yes, it´s not like we are in Heaven where "eating, drinking and being merry" come with no undesirable consequences, is it?

 

[KCfromNC]

My point exactly. You and every other person who wants to be a law unto themselves need only deny the existence of objective moral standards and values and then plug into the equation whatever agrees with your heart's desire. This becomes your morality, this becomes your value.

There's no wanting involved. The idea of objective moral standards is laughable enough to reject on its own merits. There's no reason to believe it and history shows us that human morality is anything but consistent and objective.

So I'm left with sorting out morality on my own, just like everyone else. You can hide behind the claim that you're following an objective moral standard when you pick and choose what you think are right and wrong but you're not fooling anyone. At least people who admit that they've decided on their morals have the courage to be honest about it.

I can see that you're uncomfortable with the idea of people thinking for themselves, but do you have any logical reason to think this isn't how people form ideas about morality?

You are taking the place of God, which you reject as existing, and make yourself to be god.

How can I not believe in gods and at the same time believe I am one? That makes no sense - you need to give this a bit more thought before sharing it with others.

 

[KCfromNC]

But we can agree that life, specifically, human life is exceedingly precious and should not be violated. Upon this we can build.

Yep, we can build a shared subjective moral code.

 

[KCfromNC]

Hopefully I can make it a bit more clearer by saying this: If a theist for example, seeks to do away with the objective moral standards and values which they affirm as being prescribed by God, and plug in his or her own values and morals (whatever they might be), he is acting in willfull contradiction to the prescribed objective moral standard. In other words, the objective moral standard still makes a claim upon the person, they just refuse to adhere to it.

More likely, they'll claim their subjective interpretation of the alleged objective moral code is correct and other interpretations are wrong.

On the other hand: when one who does not believe in God denies the existence of objective moral standards and plugs in his or her own values and standards, they are acting in accordance with their view of life.

Which in effect looks very similar to the theist case. Maybe if you had evidence of these objective moral codes that people were obviously willfully violating it would be easier to see the difference, but right now I'm not.

 

[Elioenai26]

More likely, they'll claim their subjective interpretation of the alleged objective moral code is correct and other interpretations are wrong.



Which in effect looks very similar to the theist case. Maybe if you had evidence of these objective moral codes that people were obviously willfully violating it would be easier to see the difference, but right now I'm not.

So you do not believe in the existence of any objective moral standards. Is that what you are saying?

 

[Dave Ellis]

So you do not believe in the existence of any objective moral standards. Is that what you are saying?

That would make sense... there's nothing to show that morality is objective in any way.

 

[Elioenai26]

That would make sense... there's nothing to show that morality is objective in any way.

And the majority of the world's population if asked about their view on child abuse, or rape or, genocide, or murder would say:

 

[Redac]

And the majority of the world's population if asked about their view on child abuse, or rape or, genocide, or murder would say:

Bad. So what?

 

[Gadarene]

And the majority of the world's population if asked about their view on child abuse, or rape or, genocide, or murder would say:

The majority? What about people who disagree?

 

[Dave Ellis]

And the majority of the world's population if asked about their view on child abuse, or rape or, genocide, or murder would say:

The vast majority would likely say it's bad.... but not everyone.

That is evidence of a commonly held subjective viewpoint. Not an objective one.

 

[Elioenai26]

The majority? What about people who disagree?

What about them?

 

[Elioenai26]

The vast majority would likely say it's bad.... but not everyone.

That is evidence of a commonly held subjective viewpoint. Not an objective one.

I guess one could ask: why these specific "acts" are commonly held as being reprehensible on an undeniably consistent basis, and not others?

 

[Gadarene]

What about them?

They would disagree.

Where is the objectivity here?

 

[Elioenai26]

They would disagree.

Where is the objectivity here?

An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.

 

[Dave Ellis]

I guess one could ask: why these specific "acts" are commonly held as being reprehensible on an undeniably consistent basis, and not others?

That's irrelevant to the point. The point is there's no reason to assume the morals have an objective basis.

 

[Gadarene]

An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.

I know.

Even so, what does pointing to the majority have to do with an objective moral value? How is it that they are right?

 

[Redac]

An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.

So how do you know that the majority morality is the actual objective one?

 

[Dave Ellis]

An objective moral value is a value or standard that is binding upon all people, in all places, at all times. It is binding which means that it is a prescription. Because some ( a very miniscule minority ) do not adhere to it or agree with it, does not mean that it is not binding. Just because some people like raping others and thereby go against the law does not mean that that somehow makes the law nonapplicable to them. You are suggesting the necessity of adherence as an indispensable prerequiste for objectivity. This is not the case. It remains objective whehter all agree, whether all disagree, or whether some agree.

I agree with your definition of an objective moral value.

Now please show evidence that such a standard exists, explain where it came from, and why we are all bound by it.

Just because many people share common values does not make those values objective in any way. You must be able to distinguish an objective moral, from a subjective moral that many people happen to agree on to be able to prove your point.... and show evidence to confirm your statement.