Where does morality come from?

[Ana the Ist]

Because there's no such thing as stealing under subjective morality.

Stealing is a legal term....it has nothing to do with whether or not you think stealing is "good" or "bad".

My point is people do more than just disagree. They act like the other person's moral position is completely wrong.

Sometimes they strongly disagree. I don't see how that suddenly gets transformed into "objectivity" in your mind.

Like they don't have a right to view things that way.

Of course they do lol...why wouldn't they?

You have misunderstood what I am saying. It is not a case of having to agree with the other person and people do more than just disagree.

What more do they do?

Because they have no objective reference point to know their position being right they should not apply their view to the other person or every other person.

I agree....they shouldn't. People aren't always that bright though.

They are actually taking an objective position by applying their position to others.

No....they aren't. They're just applying their subjective position on others....and you're right, they shouldn't.

All they can do is say that the other person takes a different position or view or an unfashionable position, and wish them well.

What's the other option? Continue to disagree with them?

What often happens is people go around saying others are wrong and should not take that moral position.

Right they disagree....sometimes even argue....about moral opinions.

Society, different groups professing a subjective position go around saying people must conform to the moral position they have. It happens all the time.

Right. Generally those people are viewed as annoying, or preachy, or hypocritical, or otherwise generally awful people....but it still happens. People still try to get others to agree with their subjective moral opinions.

As above you are not understanding how lived moral experience really works in society. People have this ideology that morality is subjective and profess there's no true right and wrong and then go around imposing certain rights and wrongs on others everywhere.

What do you mean by "true right and wrong"? Do you mean factually good or bad?

How could I possibly impose my morals on someone? I can argue that they should behave a certain way....but I can't make them.

Look I understand that you believe moral facts exist...but you act just like everyone else who doesn't.

The important thing here is that you cannot demonstrate that a moral fact exists...you cannot prove a moral statement factual...and on top of it all, you can't even explain how you "know" these moral facts. Instead, you claim that you just feel them.

Just stop and look at social media, read the comments columns of any media article especially on contentious issues, check out UNi campuses, and how people are platformed by others imposing their positions. Look at the language used such as in community support work such as a sign posted on a community board saying "No one has the right to sexually abuse children".

Rights are not the same as morals.

That is implying this is objectively wrong and there is no situation where it can be right. Society uses that language all the time.

Actually it's a statement about rights....not a statement about what's morally good.

Regardless, the "way people talk about things" doesn't necessarily reflect reality. 3000 years ago people talked about Zues and Mount Olympus as if you could climb up the mountain and meet him in person. That doesn't make it a reality.

So even if you think people talk about morals as if they're facts...that doesn't make it true.

They're more than guesses.

Do you want me to quote the article?

It is not just about observing good or bad behavior. It is observing how people react which may not be an action per se but an outward cue of what they believe internally. It may be observing language verbally and written. It is especially telling when people contradict themselves as this shows that it is common and easy for people to profess positions that they don't really believe. But it is the fact that the opposing position makes things interesting as this is a reflection of something beyond their control and therefore more telling of something people are ingrained with.

I think you're missing the point....you can only observe what people do.

Once you observe them...you then subjectively assign a moral value on what they did.

You don't actually observe morality.

Why would that be the case? I am not denying subjective morality. I am saying that there are both. What may be commonly agreed can be objective morality. [/QUOTE]

Are you saying that you think some morals are subjective and others are objective?

I don't, you have assumed that.

You're claiming that people are lying about what their morals are. I'm sure you don't think you can read minds....so why make that claim?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not joking.



It's a serious question...



Whenever someone spends multiple paragraphs acting incredulous instead of just answering the question they pretend is easily answered....

The obvious reason is they don't have an answer.

You don't have an answer, do you?



I expected you to link sources that were readable. Again, I can't do anything with a book title.



No? Can you explain what the point was when you said this then?

My point is, there are some actions that a majority of people can readily recognize as egregious, immoral actions that should not be accepted for very long, if at all---something like the Nazi Blitzkrieg ( of Poland) being one of them, for example.



I say that sociopathy is a cluster of personality traits...I give one as an example....

You reply by listing the other characteristics/traits.

It's probably worth pointing out that antisocial personality disorder can refer to a lot of conditions...not just sociopathy or psychopathy.



They can result in certain problematic behaviors....that's not a given though.



If someone is impulsive....and they impulsively decide to engage in some behavior, it's possible that the decision to engage in that behavior is a result of some moral position....it's also possible that it was a result of something else, like drug addiction.

I'm sure there's some point following all this...so why don't you just skip ahead to whatever it is? I don't see what any of this has to do with the topic of subjective/objective morality....and the fact that you haven't explained the connection makes me think that perhaps you're off on some irrelevant tangent.

Sure. The acceptance of ethical codes and conduct, along with the moral agency to act upon that acceptance, is a part of the warp and woof of a Psychologist's job, or that of an F.B.I. agent, or even that of a scientist working in a wide range of dozens of various research and technological fields. The fact that there is a recognition that ethical codes and fitting moral compliance is a must should indicate a basic intuition that ethics and morality isn't a matter of taste nor merely an optional aspect of life.

There. I've cut to the chase.

 

[Ken-1122]

On what basis can you claim they are objectively wrong.

YOU are the one in this conversation claiming there is such a thing as “objectively wrong” remember?

Why should they take what you say as gospel?

That’s what Moral Objectivists do; they expect everyone to just take their word for it. As a moral subjectivist, I use reason and logic to convince them to take my word for it.

It is like telling them that because they like chocolate cake they are wrong.

No, cake flavor is not a moral issue.

All you can do is agree that you both have different tastes. But that says nothing about morality.

Again; what’s stopping me from using reason and logic to convince them I am right and they are wrong?

But you have been saying how pushing morals onto others is an objective position and wrong and that under subjective morality you need to reason out who is right rather than push your morals onto others. IE

Apr 21, 2020#1223 I don’t need objective support, all I need is subjective support I say it's wrong and will provide a convincing argument for why it's wrong. So whose opinion gets enforced??? Wait wait; let me guess…… YOURS! (good luck with that) So why ...

I never said pushing morals onto others was wrong, I said it is not effective. However just because someone knows morality is subjective doesn’t prevent them from doing this. I prefer however to use reason and logic to convince people when they are wrong.

Yes I agree. But what about when Jimmy then pushes his view onto X by condemning their moral position and telling them they are wrong and should be like Jimmy. Happens all the time with those claiming a subjective position.

You are making my point! People who believe morality is subjective behave the same as those who believe it is objective. IOW your argument fails

The difference is you have changed the scenario. Jimmy is not just convinced x is wrong to himself, he is convinced x should not have their moral position at all and should take on theirs by the fact they condemn x and say he is evil and wrong and should not have that moral position at all.

The same for subjective morality! Do you really believe people who believe morality is subjective believe “X” is only wrong for them, but may be okay for somebody else? Are you kidding me??? C’mon! Though morality is subjective, you are still 100% convinced your moral position is the only correct one; not just for you but for everybody. Again; this is not an objective position (objective means you can demonstrate it) it is subjective; because subjective means you only believe it.

Lets keep it real; nobody says “X” is objectively wrong, “Y” is subjectively right, nobody talks that way! People say this is wrong, that is right! The objective/subjective moral argument is only brought up in discussions about right/wrong like this one. So there is no such a thing as acting or behaving as if morality is objective; that is just something I suspect you made up to make a point. And this idea that people who believe morality is subjective behave differently towards moral issues than those who believe morality is objective is wrong as well.

 

[stevevw]

Stealing is a legal term....it has nothing to do with whether or not you think stealing is "good" or "bad".

Of course, stealing is immoral everyone knows that. Why do you think the legal system makes stealing illegal.

Sometimes they strongly disagree. I don't see how that suddenly gets transformed into "objectivity" in your mind.

I am talking more than disagreeing. When people say the other person is wrong for having their moral position they are taking an objective moral position because they are saying I know I am right to the point that it makes the other persons moral position objectively wrong. To avoid this they would have to allow the person to also be right IE OK you see it this way and I see that way we just have different views and no one is wrong. But people do do that. Thus they are always taking objective moral positions.

Of course, they do lol...why wouldn't they?

Because of the person who just told the other person that their moral position is wrong and they should be taking their moral position. They are taking an objective position. Only one can be right under an objective system. They are no longer just thinking their subjective view applies to them but also applies to the other person. In other words, they are saying you don't have a right to have your view, you should be seeing things like me.

What more do they do?

I have already told you this. They go to the point of pushing their moral views on others. They actually tell them they are wrong and should see things their way. If they truly acted like there were only subjective morals they should not do this. They should just disagree and say the way you see things is right to you and the way I see things is right to me and leave it at that.

I agree....they shouldn't. People aren't always that bright though.

It is not a case of brains but more about conscience. People can't help it because they know right and wrong within themselves. That's why we often hear people say that act is evil. Under subjective moral atheism, there is no evil.

No....they aren't. They're just applying their subjective position on others....and you're right, they shouldn't.

And it is not just people doing it to each other but organizations are forcing their moral values on employees, the UN is forcing it on Nations, Governments are forcing their moral values on citizens. But by doing that they are taking an objective moral position. An objective moral position means that there is a single moral position that applies to all and subjective views are disregarded.

This is the lived moral experience as referred to in the logical argument I posted earlier where we can be justified to believe that there are objective morals based on our lived moral experience just as we are justified to believe the physical world is what it is based on our lived moral experience.

What's the other option? Continue to disagree with them?

They can continue to disagree with others so long as they don't force their view onto others if they want to claim subjective morality.

Right they disagree....sometimes even argue....about moral opinions.

Yeah, that's a natural thing for humans to do even if people believe in objective morals.

Right. Generally, those people are viewed as annoying, or preachy, or hypocritical, or otherwise generally awful people....but it still happens. People still try to get others to agree with their subjective moral opinions.

I think that's a simplistic view of things. There are times when people agree and understand forced morals even if they disagree with the loss of freedom or that it is annoying. Entire organizations and governments do it and people accept it. People may only think it is annoying because they perceive a loss of a right and freedom to be able to do whatever they want. But generally, I think most of the time people realize that certain morals are always wrong and should apply to all.

What do you mean by "true right and wrong"? Do you mean factually good or bad?

Ultimately right or wrong. Not just right or wrong according to individual views.

How could I possibly impose my morals on someone? I can argue that they should behave a certain way....but I can't make them.

No, but by imposing your moral position on them and telling them they should act a certain way you are an objective position that you know your view is "morally right that it also applies to others. What objective reference point do you have to even know the other person's moral position is wrong to do that.

Look I understand that you believe moral facts exist...but you act just like everyone else who doesn't.

Yes even if there are objective morals many people will act the same way they do. But for Christians, we follow God's moral laws so we don't act like everyone IE adultery is a sin, sex before marriage is wrong, abortion is wrong. These are acceptable things for a secular society.

 

[stevevw]

YOU are the one in this conversation claiming there is such a thing as “objectively wrong” remember?

Yes but you have just said
Yes you can! There is nothing preventing you from telling someone else their morals are ultimately wrong
So I am asking you on what basis can you say that someone else moral position is ultimately/objectively wrong.

That’s what Moral Objectivists do; they expect everyone to just take their word for it. As a moral subjectivist, I use reason and logic to convince them to take my word for it.

Objective morality is not about convincing someone to take any person word that their personal view is correct. Objective morality is correct independent of people's personal word that their moral view is correct.

No, cake flavor is not a moral issue.

I know that but it can be used to show how subjective morals work. Because there is no objective reference point to determine good and bad under subjective morality they cannot really be about moral values. Like cake, you cannot attach any values about right and wrong to subjective morality because there is no way of determining any moral value independent of people's preferences.

Again; what’s stopping me from using reason and logic to convince them I am right and they are wrong?

Because you have no reference point to show you are really right apart from your personal opinion. Why should someone believe you based on your personal opinion?

I never said pushing morals onto others was wrong, I said it is not effective. However just because someone knows morality is subjective doesn’t prevent them from doing this. I prefer however to use reason and logic to convince people when they are wrong.

As soon as someone pushes their moral position onto others they are taking an objective position by saying I know that my moral position is right for others.

You are making my point! People who believe morality is subjective behave the same as those who believe it is objective. IOW your argument fails

No as I said above as soon as a person pushes their moral view onto others they are taking an objective position. They are saying my moral position applies to others and they can no longer have their subjective moral position. Otherwise, under subjective morality they can only say I cannot really comment on whether your morals are ultimately right or wrong. Mine is right for me and yours are right for you but we cannot push our views onto each other.

The same for subjective morality! Do you really believe people who believe morality is subjective believe “X” is only wrong for them, but may be okay for somebody else? Are you kidding me??? C’mon! Though morality is subjective, you are still 100% convinced your moral position is the only correct one; not just for you but for everybody. Again; this is not an objective position (objective means you can demonstrate it) it is subjective; because subjective means you only believe it.

But people don't just think that. They react and act like their moral position applied to others. As above as soon as you actually push your moral position on others you are taking an objective position.

Lets keep it real; nobody says “X” is objectively wrong, “Y” is subjectively right, nobody talks that way!

Never said they did. I said someone thinks and professes a certain subjective position but then reacts like there are objective morals by pushing their view onto others or by reacting as that wrong applies to all or by contradicting themselves by reacting to a wrong they previously said was not wrong.

People say this is wrong, that is right! The objective/subjective moral argument is only brought up in discussions about right/wrong like this one. So there is no such a thing as acting or behaving as if morality is objective; that is just something I suspect you made up to make a point. And this idea that people who believe morality is subjective behave differently towards moral issues than those who believe morality is objective is wrong as well.

As I said talking is one thing and reacting to real lived situations is another. You can tell when you see how people react and respond to situations that they believe in objective morality. When they say that an act is evil they are acknowledging that certain acts are always evil.

Under an atheist worldview, there is no evil. So they are not only acknowledging that evil exists in the world but there has to be a God of some sort because if there is evil there has to be good in the world. To give that good any relevance and reference point for being ultimately good there has to be a transcendent entity that is used to measure that good as being objectively good.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes but you have just said
Yes you can! There is nothing preventing you from telling someone else their morals are ultimately wrong
So I am asking you on what basis can you say that someone else moral position is ultimately/objectively wrong.

Based on my subjective beliefs, I will use reason and logic to convince them. And BTW I noticed you sorta misrepresented what I said by implying ultimately and objectively means the same in the context of that conversation.

Objective morality is not about convincing someone to take any person word that their personal view is correct. Objective morality is correct independent of people's personal word that their moral view is correct.

That’s what I said! Objective moralists claim they are right and expect people to take their word for it because they can’t objectively demonstrate their claim, subjectivist have to convince people using reason and logic

I know that but it can be used to show how subjective morals work. Because there is no objective reference point to determine good and bad under subjective morality

That’s because when it comes to morality, all reference points concerning good/bad are subjective

Like cake, you cannot attach any values about right and wrong to subjective morality because there is no way of determining any moral value independent of people's preferences.

Do you not see the contradiction in what you just said? People’s values and their preferences are the same.

Because you have no reference point to show you are really right apart from your personal opinion. Why should someone believe you based on your personal opinion?

Because I back up my opinion with reason and logic. Now why should somebody believe you based on your empty claim that your moral opinion is based on an objective truth?

As soon as someone pushes their moral position onto others they are taking an objective position by saying I know that my moral position is right for others.

That is the subjective position

But people don't just think that. They react and act like their moral position applied to others.

People act and react in accordance to what they believe to be true; regardless of whether that belief is based on fact or not. Thus there is no difference between behavior when it comes to objective or subjective positions.

Under an atheist worldview, there is no evil. So they are not only acknowledging that evil exists in the world but there has to be a God of some sort

First of all, atheism is not a world view, and God belief is not required to recognize evil

because if there is evil there has to be good in the world. To give that good any relevance and reference point for being ultimately good there has to be a transcendent entity that is used to measure that good as being objectively good.

Only humans are required to recognize good. But curious about this logic of yours; if good can’t exist without evil, and evil can’t exist without good, does this mean according to your belief there will be evil in Heaven since there will be good there?

 

[Moral Orel]

As soon as someone pushes their moral position onto others they are taking an objective position by saying I know that my moral position is right for others.

Not really. Let's say Moe, Larry, and Curly all agree that stealing is something they don't like, so they also agree not to steal from each other. Shemp likes stealing, and won't agree to not steal, so Moe, Larry, and Curly threaten to beat him to a pulp if he ever steals from anyone. Moe, Larry, and Curly don't have to make any claim to any objective right or wrong to push their feelings onto Shemp. They don't like it, so they take action to prevent it.

Alternatively, they could attempt to reason with Shemp and explain that if folk don't all agree to not steal from each other, then folk are going to steal from him, and he wouldn't like that. Again, no one is appealing to an objective fact of morality in this case to alter someone's behavior, they're simply appealing to Shemp's likes and dislikes.

 

[stevevw]

Based on my subjective beliefs, I will use reason and logic to convince them. And BTW I noticed you sorta misrepresented what I said by implying ultimately and objectively means the same in the context of that conversation.

Ultimately and objectively mean more or less the same thing. Telling someone their morals are ultimately wrong means that after all subjective opinions and everything else that can influence right and wrong it is ultimately wrong.

That’s what I said! Objective moralists claim they are right and expect people to take their word for it because they can’t objectively demonstrate their claim, subjectivist have to convince people using reason and logic

Objective morality has nothing to do with the person. You keep saying they (the person) think they are right. Objective morality is anchored in the object and not the subject (person). It is the objective moral value that is right in itself with no human influence whatsoever.

That’s because when it comes to morality, all reference points concerning good/bad are subjective

From a subjective point of view that's correct. But not for objective moral values, there is only one reference point that will determine if a moral is good or bad.

Do you not see the contradiction in what you just said? People’s values and their preferences are the same.

Values and preferences are completely different. Values reflect a person's sense of right and wrong or what "ought" to be done or not done. The value of something is unchanged by personal preference such as the value of $1 or the value of kindness. Whereas likes are more about feelings which are more about personal feelings. I like chocolate as opposed to vanilla. There is no value in this and likes can change depending on the person and experiences. You may like chocolate at one stage but grow to dislike it. One person may like chocolate but someone else doesn't.

Because I back up my opinion with reason and logic. Now why should somebody believe you based on your empty claim that your moral opinion is based on an objective truth?

How can you support a person like or preference with logic. To use logic you would have to have some independent reason apart from your own view to make it stand. As opposed to supporting an objective moral I could say that everyone knows certain acts are evil and point to examples of how people behave like they believe some acts are always evil. I have already provided examples of this. This evidence is independent of my empty claims.

That is the subjective position

It is only subjective if the person doesn't push their morals onto others. It becomes an objective position when they push that position onto others and say that others should have the same morals as themselves. Therefore others don't have the right to have their own subjective morals.

People act and react in accordance to what they believe to be true; regardless of whether that belief is based on fact or not. Thus there is no difference between behavior when it comes to objective or subjective positions.

Yes, there is. What if someone claims a subjective moral position that abusing children is good in certain situations. But when someone abuses their child in the way they said was good and react like it is wrong they have contradicted their own subjective moral and now takes an objective moral position.

First of all, atheism is not a world view, and God belief is not required to recognize evil

If there is no God then there is no good or evil. Here is a video that will help you see this. The guy speaking at around 13.15 especially explains things very simply and clearly about how we cannot even protest about evil unless there is good which evil departs from and a God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

Only humans are required to recognize good. But curious about this logic of yours; if good can’t exist without evil, and evil can’t exist without good, does this mean according to your belief there will be evil in Heaven since there will be good there?

Humm that I am not sure of and is a different discussion more on theology I think.

 

[stevevw]

Not really. Let's say Moe, Larry, and Curly all agree that stealing is something they don't like, so they also agree not to steal from each other. Shemp likes stealing, and won't agree to not steal, so Moe, Larry, and Curly threaten to beat him to a pulp if he ever steals from anyone. Moe, Larry, and Curly don't have to make any claim to any objective right or wrong to push their feelings onto Shemp. They don't like it, so they take action to prevent it.

Alternatively, they could attempt to reason with Shemp and explain that if folk don't all agree to not steal from each other, then folk are going to steal from him, and he wouldn't like that. Again, no one is appealing to an objective fact of morality in this case to alter someone's behavior, they're simply appealing to Shemp's likes and dislikes.

But none of this really proves that anyone's view about stealing is ultimately right. See you are making a case for that scenario. It is sort of similar to how evolution explains how morals came about. But under this system situations and scenarios change. So there could be a scenario where there is not enough stuff (maybe food) for Moe, Larry, Curly, and Shemp. Now it is a case that stealing is good because whoever has stuff (food) will survive and the others won't.

We saw this a little with the coronavirus where people thought there would not be enough of certain items if there was a shut down so they rushed to buy out all the stuff off the shelves leaving some poor people with nothing. So this system does not have any reference point for what is ultimately good or bad and this is just left up to individual views and situations to determine what is right and wrong.

The point is why is something good or bad. Why is it good for Moe, Larry, Curly, and Shemp not to steal from each other. Saying it keeps the peace only explains how it is good but not why it is good. If Moe, Larry, and Curly were cunning they could talk Shemp into something not so good. Why should Shemp believe them if it is just their combined opinions?

We have seen groups, organizations, and even nations claim an agreed good and that others should go along and it has turned out wrong or bad. To determine if something is ultimately good we need an independent reference point apart from humans to measure things.

 

[Ken-1122]

Ultimately and objectively mean more or less the same thing. Telling someone their morals are ultimately wrong means that after all subjective opinions and everything else that can influence right and wrong it is ultimately wrong.

That is not the way I was using the term, which is why I did not use objective when making my point.

Objective morality has nothing to do with the person. You keep saying they (the person) think they are right. Objective morality is anchored in the object and not the subject (person). It is the objective moral value that is right in itself with no human influence whatsoever.

I am talking about the person making the claim.

How can you support a person like or preference with logic. To use logic you would have to have some independent reason apart from your own view to make it stand.

Why would you assume my logic does not include independent reason beyond my own view?

As opposed to supporting an objective moral I could say that everyone knows certain acts are evil and point to examples of how people behave like they believe some acts are always evil. I have already provided examples of this. This evidence is independent of my empty claims.

When you look at typical issues like abortion, transgender rights, hate speech, etc. it is clear people do not react the same when it comes to moral issues; you keep saying they do but that doesn’t make it true.

It is only subjective if the person doesn't push their morals onto others. It becomes an objective position when they push that position onto others and say that others should have the same morals as themselves. Therefore others don't have the right to have their own subjective morals.

That explains much of our disagreements; you just don't understand subjective morality.

Yes, there is. What if someone claims a subjective moral position that abusing children is good in certain situations. But when someone abuses their child in the way they said was good and react like it is wrong they have contradicted their own subjective moral and now takes an objective moral position.

How about if they don’t react to their children being abused the way you say they would?

If there is no God then there is no good or evil. Here is a video that will help you see this. The guy speaking at around 13.15 especially explains things very simply and clearly about how we cannot even protest about evil unless there is good which evil departs from and a God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

Do me a favor; if you wanna make a point, use your own words rather than providing a video. The last time I took the time to dismantle one of your flawed videos, you ignored my response.

Humm that I am not sure of and is a different discussion more on theology I think.

IOW you can’t have your cake and eat it too; you gotta choose

 

[stevevw]

That is not the way I was using the term, which is why I did not use objective when making my point.

Then how were you using the term

I am talking about the person making the claim.

Then a person's claim can only apply to themself. They can claim whatever they want so long as they don't turn that claim about their moral views into a moral they want to force on others. But claims are only talking they are not really a good way to judge what the person really believes. As we know people say things and don't really mean it. It is their actions or reaction that counts.

Why would you assume my logic does not include independent reason beyond my own view?

Because its your logic.

When you look at typical issues like abortion, transgender rights, hate speech, etc. it is clear people do not react the same when it comes to moral issues; you keep saying they do but that doesn’t make it true.

I don't know. I think everyone thinks hate speech is wrong. Anyone who claims hate speech is good would probably think it was bad if they were the recipient of hate speech. Why would a person like hate speech IE being ridiculed and discriminated against, mocked, and called names? At the very least they would probably tolerate it but they would definitely not think it was morally good. And that is the lived experience as opposed to claiming something which is easy to do as it is only words. But having to put that claim into action is another story.

That explains much of our disagreements; you just don't understand subjective morality.

How does what I just said make you think I don't understand subjective morality.

How about if they don’t react to their children being abused the way you say they would?

So they don't react when their child is being bashed and sexually abused. I would think there may be something wrong with them. Maybe they were abused as a child themselves, or they have a mental illness and are not of the right mind to know good or evil.

Do me a favor; if you wanna make a point, use your own words rather than providing a video. The last time I took the time to dismantle one of your flawed videos, you ignored my response.

OK sorry about that. I hadn't had time to respond as there were many posts to reply to. You said that God belief is not required to recognize evil. I posted the video to explain that good and evil cannot exist without God. Here is what the video was basically saying.

The existence of evil is one of the greatest supports for God. When people raise the problem of evil I always ask them what do they mean by evil. People find it hard to give a definition of evil. But when they think about it evil is when things are not the way they ought to be. They aren't good like they should be and are a departure from good. So evil is a departure from good.

Keep in mind that the objection of evil is based on the existence of evil as a real feature of the world and not just a difference of opinion or a subjective view. It is a matter of dealing with the real problem of evil in the world. What they mean then if someone raises an objection to the problem of evil is there must be a standard of good that is transcendent that is in the world which evil turns out to be a departure from.

C.S.Lewis says I would not have known what crooked was unless I knew what straight was. You don’t know a bad portrait unless you knew what the original was like to compare with. So in order for someone to complain about the problem of evil there must be some transcendent standard of good that it departs from.

That can only be the case if God exists. So a person in any coherent way cannot even raise the problem of evil unless there first is a God that gives a definition of what good is which sets good as something that evil departs from that raises problems for people in the first place.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Not really. Let's say Moe, Larry, and Curly all agree that stealing is something they don't like, so they also agree not to steal from each other. Shemp likes stealing, and won't agree to not steal, so Moe, Larry, and Curly threaten to beat him to a pulp if he ever steals from anyone. Moe, Larry, and Curly don't have to make any claim to any objective right or wrong to push their feelings onto Shemp. They don't like it, so they take action to prevent it.

Alternatively, they could attempt to reason with Shemp and explain that if folk don't all agree to not steal from each other, then folk are going to steal from him, and he wouldn't like that. Again, no one is appealing to an objective fact of morality in this case to alter someone's behavior, they're simply appealing to Shemp's likes and dislikes.

No, I think that if someone steals my t.v. remote it's an objective fact that it's gone. It's also an objective fact that when I can't find it any longer ... I then, and therefore, feel "suffering."

 

[Moral Orel]

But none of this really proves that anyone's view about stealing is ultimately right.

I never said it would. You said that you have to make an objective claim about morality to push it on others, I showed how objectivity doesn't need to be involved at all. That's it.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, I think that if someone steals my t.v. remote it's an objective fact that it's gone. It's also an objective fact that when I can't find it any longer ... I then, and therefore, feel "suffering."

And...?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And...?

And you care that I'm suffering when you steal my t.v. remote, right?

 

[stevevw]

I never said it would. You said that you have to make an objective claim about morality to push it on others, I showed how objectivity doesn't need to be involved at all. That's it.

No, I said that just pushing your views onto others takes an objective position. It seems your scenario is pushing a certain position onto Shemp. Even bashing him to conform. full of moral objective appeals IE why do Moe, Larry, and Curly not like stealing. Is it because it is wrong. If not there is no good reason why Shemp should be forced or talked into going along with Moe, Larry, and Curly. It would be like saying Moe, Larry, and Curly don't like chocolate cake but Shemp does. So they force Shemp to like chocolate cake when he doesn't.

Even trying to convince Shemp seems unreal as you are not equating stealing as a moral anymore but just a like or dislike. So why is disliking stealing ultimately something to dislike. Why is cooperating so that no one steals something that should be ultimately liked if it only comes down to likes or dislikes?

Likes and dislikes have no ultimate reference to say they are the best position to like. It is like convincing Shemp that because Moe, Larry, and Curly like Chocolate cake Shemp should as well when he hates chocolate cake. There is no ultimate reason Shemp should force himself to like chocolate cake.

 

[Hans Blaster]

If there is no God then there is no good or evil. Here is a video that will help you see this. The guy speaking at around 13.15 especially explains things very simply and clearly about how we cannot even protest about evil unless there is good which evil departs from and a God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

When I saw this link, my first thought was of that awful PragerU (sic) video, but it turned out to be worse -- a WLC fan. But that's not why I responded, it was rather because the whole paragraph wouldn't have existed if hadn't misused some words. I'm here to help clear this up...

First, let's start back a few posts

Steve said:

Under an atheist worldview, there is no evil. So they are not only acknowledging that evil exists in the world but there has to be a God of some sort because if there is evil there has to be good in the world. To give that good any relevance and reference point for being ultimately good there has to be a transcendent entity that is used to measure that good as being objectively good.

Now Ken objected (correctly) to the use of the term "atheist worldview" when you should have written "in a universe without a god" or "in a godless universe".

You then replied (repeated quote):

If there is no God then there is no good or evil. Here is a video that will help you see this. The guy speaking at around 13.15 especially explains things very simply and clearly about how we cannot even protest about evil unless there is good which evil departs from and a God.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQ-aqnDHqqA

wherein you go fully into the notion that "atheism = non-existence of god" instead of as a belief position.

So let me help you with a few terms, including ones that might be better for a more precise discussion:

"non-believer": this is a very descriptive and very appropriate if the topic is the personal source of morals. For example, you might ask "If believers get their morals from the scriptures/teachings of their religion, where do non-believers get theirs?" The only difficulty with this term is that in certain contexts (those with a religious in-group, like CF) non-believer can mean those who don't follow the dominant religion or belief (here on CF, that would be all non-christians including jews, muslims, hindus).

"atheist": a general non-believer, non-believer in all religions/gods. Even if you want to define atheist as someone who positively believes that no gods exist (or could exist), it is still only a belief and is does not determine if a god exists or not.

"secular": non-religious, particularly when things, activities, or organizations can be divided by religion. For example religious and secular music, or a bible college versus a secular state university, etc. Most for-profits are secular. This term is some times used by non-religious people to describe themselves, as in "Oh, I'm not religious, I'm secular.", or to disentangle ones jewish identity as a "secular jew" (that is having a jewish ethnic identity, but not practicing judiaism). One very relevant usage for this discussion is "secular morality" as a blanket term for moral systems that are not derived from religious precepts.

There is a term that is often used in the pejorative, but when used properly here can be quite powerful:

"godless" (adj.) I like this term, but only for the question of whether there is a god or not (that is not for beliefs about the question). Thus a "godless universe" is a universe without a god. Likewise, "godless morality" would be morality in a universe without a god (or perhaps morality not generated by a divinity). Unfortunately the most common uses of this word do not fit this limited usage: "godless communism" when it was meant "secular communism" (perhaps additionally with "anti-religious" tacked on), and "godless heathen" when it is meant "non-religious/non-believing fun-lover" .

Now, I can't quite tell if Steve meant "godless universe" or was talking about secular morality in the first posting.

Putting aside the "belief" questions, we get to the possible states of morality, regardless if we recognize them in our beliefs and personal moral codes or not (wait, are you going fully on topic?)

1. "Natural, intrinsic morality": Morality as a feature of the universe itself. Every being must follow it, even gods. (I doubt this is the case as there are clear differences in the basic forms of human and non-human animal moral systems.)

2. "Divinely impose morality": A god gives morality to the conscious beings.

3. "Secular morality": Moral systems not derived from the intrinsic properties of the universe, nor imposed by a god. I should note that a god could create the universe (or not) and leave morality to the various beings to work out themselves.

In a godless universe, only 1 & 3 are possible. In a universe with a god any of them could be true, including combinations of 1&2.

 

[Hans Blaster]

And you care that I'm suffering when you steal my t.v. remote, right?

Probably not, or I wouldn't take it. But, others might sympathize with your suffering and condemn me for taking it.

 

[Speedwell]

No, I said that just pushing your views onto others takes an objective position. It seems your scenario is pushing a certain position onto Shemp. Even bashing him to conform. full of moral objective appeals IE why do Moe, Larry, and Curly not like stealing. Is it because it is wrong. If not there is no good reason why Shemp should be forced or talked into going along with Moe, Larry, and Curly. It would be like saying Moe, Larry, and Curly don't like chocolate cake but Shemp does. So they force Shemp to like chocolate cake when he doesn't.

Certainly they have a good reason. They believe that their little community would become unpleasant if Shemp could appropriate the private property of the others whenever he felt like it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Probably not, or I wouldn't take it. But, others might sympathize with your suffering and condemn me for taking it.