The Moral Argument

[anonymous person]

And this has what to do, with establishing objective moral values?

I see you won't answer the question. Why is that?

 

[quatona]

What grounds objective moral values and duties if God does not exist?

This is the key issue.

No. The key issue is:
What would we - out of the many possible things - accept to be a valid ground for "objective moral values and duties".
Unless we work from agreed upon criteria everyone can claim anything - factual or imagined - to be grounds for "objective moral values and duties" (as long as it fits your definition "independent of the human mind").
You just gave one example of many: "God".

Does anyone who affirms that objective moral values and duties exist have an answer?

I don´t believe in objective moral values and duties, but I could play devil´s advocate if it helps.
Try:
- evolution
- fairies
- aliens
- the movement and position of the planets,
for starters. They all operate independently of the human mind.

 

[quatona]

I see you won't answer the question. Why is that?

A good reason not to answer your questions would be:
We have responded in detail and answered your previous questions, just to learn that you simply ignore the responses and start asking different questions.

 

[anonymous person]

No. The key issue is:
What would we - out of the many possible things - accept to be a valid ground for "objective moral values and duties".
Unless we work from agreed upon criteria everyone can claim anything - factual or imagined - to be grounds for "objective moral values and duties" (as long as it fits your definition "independent of the human mind").
You just gave one example of many: "God".


I don´t believe in objective moral values and duties, but I could play devil´s advocate if it helps.
Try:
- evolution
- fairies
- aliens
- the movement and position of the planets,
for starters. They all operate independently of the human mind.

The question was not addressed to you.

 

[quatona]

And this has what to do, with establishing objective moral values?

Actually, the task of the moral argument is not to establish objective moral values (their existence is its premise) - it´s establishing the existence of a God.
(But ap and others themselves often seem forget at which point in their circular reasoning they currently are. )

 

[bhsmte]

I see you won't answer the question. Why is that?

I dont believe objective moral values exist.

If they did, they could have been instilled in us from an alien force, for all i know.

 

[quatona]

The question was not addressed to you.

There´s no indication that the first part of your post was directed to a particular poster or group of posters.
Even if it had been - this is an open forum.

As for the second part: It was just an offer to you. I think my examples are just as good as any other or "God", seeing that the only criteria is "independent of the human mind", and epistemology isn´t a relevant issue in your opinion.

 

[quatona]

I see you won't answer the question. Why is that?

Hey, you are a funny chap.
I answered it even though I don´t believe in objective moral duties and values. You complained that the question wasn´t directed at me.
bhsmte didn´t answer it with reference to the fact that it wasn´t directed at him (seeing that isn´t a moral objectivist). Here you complain that he did not answer it.

 

[Davian]

What grounds objective moral values and duties if God does not exist?

This is the key issue.

Does anyone who affirms that objective moral values and duties exist have an answer?

If you missed it earlier, again: what objective moral values and duties?

 

[Davian]

Assuming that they were able to determine what others thought with greater accuracy than you have had with your mind-reading hat, I would have to assume that those that [hypothetically] carried out this task would have thought it good. From the perspective I have at this moment, I would say it would be 'bad', in the context of human wellness and empathy.

This is analogous to saying that it is objectively bad.

Not at all. My position is that morals only exist because of people; yours seems to be that morals somehow exist independently of people. How that works, you have yet to explain.

 

[Davian]

I guess you'll have to take it up with him.

In post #557 you said, "Excellent point", and you do not know that that point was?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

What grounds objective moral values and duties if God does not exist?

This is the key issue.

Does anyone who affirms that objective moral values and duties exist have an answer?

You initially defined "objective moral values and duties" as "God-given moral values and duties" (1, 2), making your question "What grounds God-given moral values and duties if God does not exist?" You later defined them as being independent of personal conception and perception, meaning that they must also be independent of (personal) gods like Yahweh.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Ok, for the sake of this discussion, we know that not only men but women, children, fetuses and animals were killed just as in the case of the Old Testament account in discussion but in this you claim it is genocide. The group first attacked and killed the old, young and pregnant of the Jews and would have finished them off if not for the defensive action taken by the Jews by God's command. You call that genocide. You call me immoral for saying that if my people including the old, sick, young and pregnant were being killed that I go and kill their old, sick, young and pregnant. This is very much as much self defense as it was when the US bombed Japan. Can explain why you view one as genocide and not the other?

I didn't ask you whether you would defend yourself. I asked whether, in your view, such actions are "morally commendable" when commanded by your God. Apparently you think they are also justified when done in self-defence. But that's not what my question asks.

 

[Oncedeceived]

I didn't ask you whether you would defend yourself. I asked whether, in your view, such actions are "morally commendable" when commanded by your God. Apparently you think they are also justified when done in self-defence. But that's not what my question asks.

No, you began with the question that was asked of another member that you claimed wouldn't answer. I answered...remember #566. Then you asked me about the genocide, which I responded to and you wouldn't answer my question. Then you didn't have a question at all but called me immoral. You have an agenda and you get somewhat irritated when you can't get to it, at least that is how it seems to me. You want to label me and God as immoral and no matter what I might say you are going to believe that.

Do you believe you have a objective moral standard from which to accuse me of being immoral?

 

[anonymous person]

Objective means independent of human opinion.

That's how the word is used in the argument and that is how I have always used it.

The posts you linked support this.

 

[Davian]

Would you think Bob had done something bad if he deliberately misrepresented well evidenced science to justify his belief that you will burn in hell for eternity if you don't believe what he believes?

Yes, no, I don't understand the question, or I won't answer the question....

Which is it?

Without one of those fancy mind-reading hats, I would not know if the misrepresentation of the science was intentional or not.

 

[anonymous person]

Without one of those fancy mind-reading hats, I would not know if the misrepresentation of the science was intentional or not.

It was intentional. It's a hypothetical question by the way. No need to split hairs over it.

 

[Davian]

Objective means independent of human opinion.

That's how the word is used in the argument and that is how I have always used it.

The posts you linked support this.

Quote button still broken?

I see morality as independent from human opinion, but I do not see it as objective.

Can you list these "objective moral values" that you allude to, and the methodology by which you made this determination?

 

[Davian]

It was intentional. It's a hypothetical question by the way. No need to split hairs over it.

If you knew that your hypothetical was faulty, you should have pointed that out at the time.

Assuming that the misrepresentation was intentional:

Would you think Bob had done something bad if he deliberately misrepresented well evidenced science to justify his belief that you will burn in hell for eternity if you don't believe what he believes?

Yes, no, I don't understand the question, or I won't answer the question....

Which is it?

From what I understand, this is called "lying for Jesus". Intellectual integrity gets kicked to the curb, as Bob uses fraudulent means to promote his beliefs, where I can only assume that he feels that the ends justify the means.

If one holds the presupposition that Bob's "God" exists, his beliefs are true, and that virtually all of mainstream scientific knowledge is somehow - inexplicably - wrong, then one could say that Bob's actions are "good".

How does this get us to "objective moral values"?

 

[anonymous person]

Quote button still broken?

I see morality as independent from human opinion, but I do not see it as objective.

I see this forum as having both atheists and theists posting in its threads, but I do not see it as having both atheists and theists posting in its threads....

Sounds quite silly does it not?

That is analogous to what you just wrote.