Atheism and nihilism

[2PhiloVoid]

I took notice that you said a few things were good because they fulfilled a need, food being one of them.

Uh, yeah. Do you think food is "good," Nick?

Are you saying that life in and of itself isn't good unless there's meaning and purpose?

I don't know that I'd have an exacting ontological answer to that being that I don't think in a way that specifically harnesses "ethical systems" but rather in existential and rational encounters with social and psychological perplexities (and complexities). So, is life good? I don't know. Is it, Nick? I could say 'yes' in an approach without God, but to do so in my mind wouldn't mean the same thing as I would with an approach which includes the biblical God (or other notions of 'god').

If so, then food and other things that fulfill needs for continued life are only good in that they allow us to find/fulfill some meaning and purpose. Does that sound right?

Kind of. But in saying that 'food' is good, I'd think we'd simply be pointing to a very, very shallow kind of substance in meaning, one that means that food provides 'functional process' to living organisms and is in that sense 'good.' But is there an absolute ontological concept that 'food' alludes to as an entity in the world? Maybe. But then again, it might depend on who we're asking---the lion or the antelope (to put it metaphorically for us in human terms).

Are there perhaps other things to be found in life that are good even if meaning and purpose are absent?

That might depend on a person's sanity level or what their present outlook-on-life might entail as it spins around existentially within his/her own head, Nick. That sounds a little sad to me, but that how I think of it ...

Also, why are meaning and purpose good?

I could answer that, but I readily realize that without a biblical kind of God in the picture, whatever I might deign to proffer would be relative to my own state of mind and existence.

How would you answer these questions you've posed to me?

 

[Ken-1122]

I would have thought under subjective morality that a person would know and understand that their moral view is only a view of themselves.

No, the person believes it should be applied to everyone.

What do you mean demonstrated? You cannot expect something like morality to be demonstrated like in a scientific test.

But everything else that is objective can be demonstrated like in a scientific test. What does that tell you?

So if we were to demonstrate objective morality how do we demonstrate this.

That’s my point; you cannot demonstrate morality.

Absolute morality is different from objective morality. Absolute morality is when the moral value applies regardless of the relative context. It applies more to relative morality which is the opposite. Whereas objective and subjective are associated together. Subjective from the subject (humans) and objective outside the subject. It doesn't have to be a physical source. Like we said math and laws can be objective fact.

So how do you define the difference between that which is objective vs that which is absolute?

Yes and yet it is still an objective fact despite there being no physical thing to pick up and measure.

I disagree. Numbers are representative tokens used to represent things that do exist. Math is the system we use to calculate those representative tokens. Because numbers represent things that do exist, math is calculating things that do exist; things that can be picked up and measured.

Of course, I can. Here is an objective moral fact. Killing a baby for fun is morally wrong.

Prove it.

But if some laws are built on morals and some laws are objective then that follows that some morals are objective.

Laws result when a group of individuals are willing to compromise morals in order to reach an agreement. Laws are objective, morals are not.

I am speaking about how western nations used specific Christian values like don't commit adultery, don't have sex outside marriage, abortion is wrong, same-sex relationships were morally wrong. Though some of the main morals like don't steal or Kill are similar to other religions western societies specifically chose Christian values because they were primarily Christian.

Each of those values you mention have been around before Christianity. How can you call a value that precedes Christianity a christian value?

But it is non-believers who bring up God and try to make Him what they think He is. By doing that they have accepted that there is a God for the sake of the debate.

Using imaginary characters as a hypothetical in order to make a point does not make them real

Otherwise why even bother talking about Him if they believe He is not real.

Because my neighbor believes he is real. What my neighbor believe affects me.

 

[stevevw]

No, they are not saying that. They are saying "these are the moral values our society upholds. If you want to participate in our society these are the moral precepts you must follow." No claim of moral objectivity is being made.

But isn't subjective morality only about 'likes and dislikes' or preferences or just being different from others. It's not something you must do or should do. The moment you impose you're 'like or dislike' onto others is like saying "you must eat chocolate cake", if you want to participate in our society then you have to like chocolate cake".

You are saying that these morals are the 'truth' as to what people should do. They are no longer 'likes and dislikes' but moral 'truths' that everyone should follow whether you have a different 'like or dislike' or not. Your 'likes and dislikes' don't count anymore.

The "God in that Bible" is a mental impression you and other Christians have formed from reading an arbitrary collection of ancient religious texts. There is nothing objective about it.

Jesus was a real man who was a moral teacher and who claimed to be the Son of God. That made Him from God and therefore everything God said was in Jesus. We took Jesus so seriously that He changed the world and millions died or changed their lives because of Him. So we have to deal with those claims as to whether they are the 'truth' or not. That is all objective.

 

[stevevw]

No, the person believes it should be applied to everyone.

Yes I agree but that belief is only their subjective view. It isn't an objective fact that their belief about morality is or should be applied to others apart from them thinking it is so. Everything stops at the person and as soon as it moves beyond the person it then begins to take on a different meaning that is not justified. It's like saying a person's belief that Chocolate Cake is the best should apply to everyone.

The person can believe and think that but it really doesn't apply beyond the person believing it. The person cannot bring in a law that makes everyone like Chocolate cake. Just like they cannot bring in a law to make everyone like certain moral values under subjectivity. If they do they are acting objectively just as religious theocracies have been accused of.

But everything else that is objective can be demonstrated like in a scientific test. What does that tell you?

It tells us that there are other ways to measure objectivity or truth or whether something is real or not. We do it with many other things such as a logical argument that applies deductive reasoning. Sometimes 'truth' and fact are self-supporting. You cannot measure them physically. For example, the syllogism "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man so we can logically and factually conclude that Socrates is mortal ".

These types of arguments are made for morality and God all the time. We could say that if there is no God then there are no moral values at all because moral values need to be grounded in a transcendent being like God. We can then go about making arguments for God or objective morality.

That’s my point; you cannot demonstrate morality.

But if you use that logic and think that only material/physical things can be objective or facts or truth then you discount many things that we all claim are facts and truth. What about maths, where is the physical component to be measured, its just numbers are written on paper. Who says the numbers are real. Arnt, they just number made up to a formula that a human has made. That would be exactly the same as honesty being a formula that adds up when being used in human interactions.

What about
Existential Truth. Science cannot prove that you aren’t merely a brain in a jar being manipulated to think this is all actually happening (think of something like in the movie “The Matrix”.)
Logical Truth: Consider the statement, “Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science? It is actually self-refuting because there is no scientific test you could use to prove that it is true! Science cannot prove logic to be true because it assumes and requires logic in order for it to work.
Experiential Truth: Science cannot prove that your spouse loves you. When asked why so-and-so loves you, you may cite precedent (times when their behavior demonstrates their love for you), but this is a particular type of historical truth. There is no scientific test that can confirm a lifetime of experience of knowing a person.

There’s nothing wrong with the scientific method for testing the kinds of things it was meant to test. However, it would be a mistake to expect it to be able to test everything. It would also be a mistake to think that the only things we can make fact or truth claims are based on science. There are more intellectual tools available to us than just science
Five Things Science Can't Explain

So how do you define the difference between that which is objective vs that which is absolute?

I mentioned it before, absolute means being morally right regardless of the relative situation. It doesn't take context into account. But a moral objective can be applied to each and any situation. There will always be a moral objective in each situation that is outside the human (subject) and they may not be the same for the same moral.

So killing someone when robbing them is objectively wrong. But killing someone to save children that were about to be killed is objectively the right thing to do. Each situation is about killing but there can be different objectives that are morally right in each situation.

I disagree. Numbers are representative tokens used to represent things that do exist. Math is the system we use to calculate those representative tokens. Because numbers represent things that do exist, math is calculating things that do exist; things that can be picked up and measured.

First of all what about the math formula people say are fact for say the Big Bang, Multiverse, Dark matter, or any idea that has not been directly seen but is regarded as a fact. But nevertheless who said that math was the way to measure this. It was humans. It was a formula that humans made up. Or maybe it was something they discovered and if so is a law that is out there to be found.

But this is no different from moral values. IE Honesty is a representative token use to represent things that do exist. In this case, humans interacting. Honesty is based on a value system we use to measure those representative tokens (human debate). Because they represent things that do exist moral values measure things that do exist, things that can be picked up and measured (human i9nteractions and debates).

Prove it.

That's easy. No one can reasonably claim that killing a baby for fun is morally good. Show me a reasonable argument that makes killing a baby for fun good.

Laws result when a group of individuals is willing to compromise morals in order to reach an agreement.

But who says those laws are objectively right. It isn't always an agreement but based on a perceived idea of reality IE people should be able to have abortions because individuals have rights. But that is just human opinion.

Laws are objective, morals are not.

if laws are objective then is any law based on moral values. For example, is the law against stealing based on the moral not to steal.

Each of those values you mention has been around before Christianity. How can you call a value that precedes Christianity a Christian value?

The 10 commandments stem back to early civilization. Adultery and theft are even mentioned in the story of human creation which according to Christianity is the birth of civilization. But that is not the point. Other religions had similar morals from a very early point in time and amazingly around the same period as though they all came to realize this together. So did this stem from one point in the world and quickly spread and reinterpreted. Or does everyone have the law of God in them and these different religions just reinterpreted the same thing?

Using imaginary characters as a hypothetical in order to make a point does not make them real

Yes it does, Or at least in the way that some use God in their arguments. Whether they are using an imaginary God or not they are attributing real scenarios to Him and are making real arguments against Him. So in that sense, it is real in applying moral arguments. Otherwise why even go there in the first place. If its all imaginary then the argument is imaginary.

Because my neighbor believes he is real. What my neighbor believe affects me.

So you are playing imaginary games about a fictitious God with your neighbor because it affects you. How does that help him? That only ridicules him.[/quote][/quote]

 

[Moral Orel]

How would you answer these questions you've posed to me?

You sure you want to ask me that? If I start offering my opinions, we are going to disagree, and this is going to become an argument. It doesn't have to, but we both know it will. I'll go back and address the rest of your post after I hear how you want me to respond.

 

[Moral Orel]

I certainly agree with this, though I'm not sure how it would throw a wrench in your system. If you were arguing that despair is a counterexample to the idea that desire is ordered to fulfillment then this would affect that argument, but it doesn't strike me as having far-reaching implications.

The thing I want to draw out of it is the idea that a despairing, desireless state is a pathological state. The normal human state includes desires, even desires as simple as an appetite for food.

Remember I agreed that it's fine to equivocate healthy and normal so maybe that's implied anyways, but I think healthy is a better word here. I see "normal" as a weaker claim than "healthy" and the case for health is a strong one. Of course a person suffering from depression would be happier if they had desires they could fulfill and everyone wants to be happy, even people suffering from depression.

The claim of equivalence that I made is as follows, "If you tell someone, 'Doing this will make you happier than not doing it,' you are saying, 'You should do this.'" I am happy with the "pursuit" proposition. What's key is that the desires we in fact have propel us to pursuit and action.

I agree that our desires are our motivation to act. They motivate us so strongly, that recently I've started thinking that free will is an illusion, and I've long thought that altruism is a myth. Hopefully those statements just add context and flavor to the conversation and we won't go down another rabbit trail.

I tend to think it does, either short term or long term. I suppose deontology and acting for the common good both raise difficult issues. For example, refusing to lie in any circumstance, and a willingness to die for your country in combat. My initial response would be that in the first example the person places a high value on truth and honesty, and would be unhappy living without integrity. In the second example the happiness of the country is deemed more important than personal happiness. The second case is more difficult, but the desire-fulfillment dynamic still obtains.

A person who refuses to lie can still gain happiness from the satisfaction of sticking to their principles. It doesn't need to be suffering-avoidance. And even a soldier dying for their country has that sense of satisfaction in their last moments. Wait, which side of the argument am I on?

There are two issues here. The first issue is that I do not believe it is ultimately based on "the happiness they derive from disagreeing," even if contrariety can be addictive in its own way. In many such cases you have opposed premises. They are assenting to what they believe to be divine revelation, which for them outweighs scientific evidence.

They second issue is that they may simply not be seeking the truth. People who don't seek the truth don't see the truth, and you can't make them see it because they aren't seeking it, but if they did see it they would believe it. ..Or so I think. Here is an excerpt from this past Sunday's readings, after the apostles ask Jesus why he speaks in parables:

"This is why I speak to them in parables, because
they look but do not see and hear but do not listen or understand.
Isaiah’s prophecy is fulfilled in them, which says:
You shall indeed hear but not understand,
you shall indeed look but never see.
Gross is the heart of this people,
they will hardly hear with their ears,
they have closed their eyes,
lest they see with their eyes
and hear with their ears
and understand with their hearts and be converted,
and I heal them."

Oh no, flat-earthers ain't like YECs. There are purely secularist FEs that cite all sorts of "science". That's funny you cited that passage about Jesus speaking in parables. I actually made a thread a long while back arguing for theistic evolution with the basic principle that Genesis doesn't need to be literal because "Jesus liked speaking in parables, why not God?". But on topic, remember that they have examined the real science, but only they understand the "real" science.

That is, you accept the is-ought dichotomy, you believe there are no universal "oughts," you think emotion is arbitrary and usually enters argument in the form of manipulation, etc. Is that accurate? How would you describe our disagreement?

I can't see a way to work an "ought" into an argument at all. And I wouldn't say that emotions are arbitrary, I'd say they're irrational because they're so immensely fallible.

What we need to talk about is how discursive reasoning and automatic human nature relate. I alluded to it above with the idea of foundational premises, but I think this is one of the central questions. For example, if we fully believe something to be true then we cannot help but believe it. That is basically not a moral or praiseworthy "transition." It's just what happens. Similarly, it is not morally praiseworthy that we desire happiness, nor is it at all volitional. That's just the way we are. It's just a starting point.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I alluded to determinism above too, and I think that ties right back in with this.

 

[stevevw]

No, it's a great metaphor for morality in a nutshell. People change the station because they don't like what they're hearing. Sometimes the radio plays a song I love so I want to hear more; sometimes it plays a song I despise so I either change the station or turn it off. If I don't like it much, but I know there aren't any other radio stations that play the genres of music I like, then I won't bother to change it because I don't expect my efforts to produce the change I want. Sometimes, even if I dislike a song, I don't dislike it enough to care enough to do anything about it.

People attempt to affect change in human behavior because they don't like what they're experiencing. Sometimes people act in ways that I like so I encourage people to act that way more; sometimes people act in ways I don't like so I discourage people from acting that way more, or force people to stop acting in ways I don't like. If I don't like some behavior but I don't believe I can affect any change, then I'll tolerate it because I don't expect my efforts to produce results. Sometimes, even if I dislike some behavior, I don't dislike it enough to care enough to do anything about it.

The amount of effort people put into changing things is proportional to how strongly they feel about that thing. If someone tries to do something I hate, I will attempt to stop them with force. If they do something I find annoying, I'll probably ignore it. When people feel strongly enough about something, they'll think they're correct even when they're not.

But why stop someone with force because they play some music you don't like. That seems disproportionate. But it would not seem disproportionate if we were talking about morality as when someone does something morally wrong it is affecting one's life. They could have had their prized possession stolen, they could have heard that their friend's child was abused, they can want to get up and take action because the local community is being affected by drugs.

But to say that they would do all this because they didn't like the song that was being played seems to draw a longbow and push likes and dislikes into a realm that doesn't belong. Not that I don't agree with you that is how subjective morality should operate as like and dislikes for music. I understand that. All I am saying is that this is not how people behave who profess that there is only subjective morality.

 

[Speedwell]

But isn't subjective morality only about 'likes and dislikes' or preferences or just being different from others. It's not something you must do or should do. The moment you impose you're 'like or dislike' onto others is like saying "you must eat chocolate cake", if you want to participate in our society then you have to like chocolate cake".

No, you don't have to like it, you just have to go along with the idea that the people around you like it and expect not to be contradicted.

You are saying that these morals are the 'truth' as to what people should do. They are no longer 'likes and dislikes' but moral 'truths' that everyone should follow whether you have a different 'like or dislike' or not. Your 'likes and dislikes' don't count anymore.

No I'm just saying "That's how we behave around here and if you want to get along that's how you will behave, too." No claim of moral objectivity is being made.

Jesus was a real man who was a moral teacher and who claimed to be the Son of God. That made Him from God and therefore everything God said was in Jesus. We took Jesus so seriously that He changed the world and millions died or changed their lives because of Him. So we have to deal with those claims as to whether they are the 'truth' or not. That is all objective.

Maybe so; many of us believe it to be true, but that belief is subjective.

 

[stevevw]

No, they are not saying that. They are saying "these are the moral values our society upholds. If you want to participate in our society these are the moral precepts you must follow." No claim of moral objectivity is being made.

Your not understanding what is really being stated here. A simple question can resolve things. On what basis are people saying that everyone has to follow these precepts. Who says that being able to participate in society forms the basis of moral right and wrong under a subjective moral system.

The "God in that Bible" is a mental impression you and other Christians have formed from reading an arbitrary collection of ancient religious texts. There is nothing objective about it.

Jesus Christ was a real moral teacher and there is Biblical and non-Biblical support for this. There is also support that He was executed by Pontius Pilot. There is no record of his wrong for that execution but only that He claimed to be the Son of God. Even non-Biblical support says this.

These are the facts which are agreed upon enough that this started the largest movement the world has ever seen which changed the world to this day. Those core facts are not arbitrary and are the basis for Christianity. You can disagree on the implication of these facts but you cannot deny those facts.

 

[Speedwell]

Your not understanding what is really being stated here. A simple question can resolve things. On what basis are people saying that everyone has to follow these precepts. Who says that being able to participate in society forms the basis of moral right and wrong under a subjective moral system.

Nobody. But a society can impose moral precepts without making a claim of moral objectivity.

Jesus Christ was a real moral teacher and there is Biblical and non-Biblical support for this. There is also support that He was executed by Pontius Pilot. There is no record of his wrong for that execution but only that He claimed to be the Son of God. Even non-Biblical support says this.

These are the facts which are agreed upon enough that this started the largest movement the world has ever seen which changed the world to this day. Those core facts are not arbitrary and are the basis for Christianity. You can disagree on the implication of these facts but you cannot deny those facts.

I can deny that they are facts. That is because there is no objective evidence which supports them. There doesn't need to be any. It is the subjective opinion--the faith of believers--which changes the world.

 

[stevevw]

No, you don't have to like it, you just have to go along with the idea that the people around you like it and expect not to be contradicted.

So what about the 'likes and dislikes of those who don't like or agree what is imposed on them.

No I'm just saying "That's how we behave around here and if you want to get along that's how you will behave, too." No claim of moral objectivity is being made.

Is there any claim about morality being made at all. Or it is just about 'likes and dislikes'.

Maybe so; many of us believe it to be true, but that belief is subjective.

Yes, but it is claimed that what the belief is being directed towards is an objective. The teachings are moral objectives themselves. We don't have to have proof of the moral lawgiver to support objective morals.

 

[stevevw]

Nobody. But a society can impose moral precepts without making a claim of moral objectivity.

On what basis though. Are they claiming that the moral precepts they are imposing are justified as being the right ones? If so what are they using to justify this? You cannot just impose moral precepts just because you are a society. That is what dictators do.

I can deny that they are facts.

You can but it would be like denying that Abraham Lincoln didn't exist. The thing about facts is they stand regardless of personal views. [/quote] That is because there is no objective evidence which supports them.[/quote] Didn't I just list the objective support .

There doesn't need to be any.

What do you mean there doesn't need to be any objective evidence.

It is the subjective opinion--the faith of believers--which changes the world.

So what about the acts of the person who they have faith in. Isn't that objective and doesn't this give a reason for the faith. Their faith is not blind faith based on nothing at all. They have an objective fact from what Jesus said and did.

You could use that logic for every situation where people have done things based on the example of others who have changed the world or situation. Their actions are the objective evidence of that belief. Their belief is based on something tangible that they have seen or read about in history. It is the same for how people behave based on examples of other people in history like Marx or even music legends like the Beatles which has influenced the way people play music.

But here's another way to look at the morals. They can be objective facts based on the way they are used in real-life situations. So we can take the teachings of Jesus say with being honest and show how this is an objective fact when used in interactions with humans by the way they appeal to honesty and make it a fact. You don't have to have physical evidence but can make moral objectives as truth or give it realness in the way it is used where there is no way it can be denied as a fact.

 

[Speedwell]

So what about the 'likes and dislikes of those who don't like or agree what is imposed on them.

What about them? Maybe they just have to suck it up. When I lived in a Muslim country I didn't fast at Ramadan because I'm not a Muslim and didn't agree with the moral precept about fasting. On the other hand, I didn't eat in public, either.

Is there any claim about morality being made at all. Or it is just about 'likes and dislikes'.

That's a good question, which hasn't been addressed. When is a precept a "moral" precept?

Yes, but it is claimed that what the belief is being directed towards is an objective. The teachings are moral objectives themselves. We don't have to have proof of the moral lawgiver to support objective morals.

But you've got to have something.

 

[zippy2006]

Remember I agreed that it's fine to equivocate healthy and normal so maybe that's implied anyways, but I think healthy is a better word here. I see "normal" as a weaker claim than "healthy" and the case for health is a strong one. Of course a person suffering from depression would be happier if they had desires they could fulfill and everyone wants to be happy, even people suffering from depression.

Oh, that's fine with me. I was trying to accommodate you since in this post you seemed to prefer "normal." I also think 'healthy' is more precise.

I agree that our desires are our motivation to act. They motivate us so strongly, that recently I've started thinking that free will is an illusion, and I've long thought that altruism is a myth. Hopefully those statements just add context and flavor to the conversation and we won't go down another rabbit trail.

Ha, well I'll try not to bite. Those are interesting questions. What I will say is that I think we do not have free will to not desire happiness.

A person who refuses to lie can still gain happiness from the satisfaction of sticking to their principles. It doesn't need to be suffering-avoidance. And even a soldier dying for their country has that sense of satisfaction in their last moments. Wait, which side of the argument am I on?

Yes, I agree.

So do you think the question, "Why should I do X?" always has the answer, "Because it will make you happy"?

Oh no, flat-earthers ain't like YECs. There are purely secularist FEs that cite all sorts of "science". That's funny you cited that passage about Jesus speaking in parables. I actually made a thread a long while back arguing for theistic evolution with the basic principle that Genesis doesn't need to be literal because "Jesus liked speaking in parables, why not God?". But on topic, remember that they have examined the real science, but only they understand the "real" science.

Ah, okay, secular flat-earthers. I honestly don't have a lot of experience with them, but I suppose they could be an example of obstinate denial of the truth. I suppose it is possible that there is a looser orderedness of intellect to truth than I proposed. The premise I have a hard time denying is the one that says once you've seen something to be true, you can't unsee it; you believe it. Perhaps some simply have very little interest in seeing truth.

I can't see a way to work an "ought" into an argument at all.

Presumably you could work in hypothetical oughts. "If you value security then you should buy into my no-stealing pact."

And I wouldn't say that emotions are arbitrary, I'd say they're irrational because they're so immensely fallible.

Okay.

I don't disagree with anything you've said here. I alluded to determinism above too, and I think that ties right back in with this.

Then I will offer some syllogisms to slice into our disagreements. All this agreeing is highly unsatisfying. We can poke and prod to see how they stand up. I am going to include some implicit premises that won't be explicitly used in the argument but which I want to make vulnerable. I will try to make it easier by breaking up each three step syllogism. Just note that the identification numbers to the left will always refer to the same proposition (whether it is a conclusion or a premise in the argument). Most of these should be a review of what we have already covered.

P1. Some realities have an intrinsic orderedness about them. [Implicit premise]
P2. If A is intrinsically ordered to B, then A will spontaneously move towards B.
P3. The human intellect is intrinsically ordered to truth. [Unused premise]
P4. The human will is intrinsically ordered to goodness. [Technical phrasing of P5]
P5. Human desire is intrinsically ordered to fulfillment (in happiness).
P6. All healthy members of the species have human desire.
P7. To say that a volitional agent moves toward something is to say that they seek/pursue that thing.
P8. One who seeks/pursues something ought to undertake the means by which it is achieved.

P5. Human desire is intrinsically ordered to fulfillment (in happiness).
P6. All healthy members of the species have human desire.
9. Therefore, all (healthy) human beings desire happiness. [From P5 & P6]

P5. Human desire is intrinsically ordered to fulfillment (in happiness).
P2. If A is intrinsically ordered to B, then A will spontaneously move towards B.
10. Therefore, all humans possessing desire will spontaneously move towards the fulfillment of that desire, namely happiness. [Modus ponens, P5 & P2]

10. All humans possessing desire will spontaneously move towards the fulfillment of that desire, namely happiness. [Proved above]
9. All (healthy) human beings desire happiness. [Proved above]
11. Therefore, all (healthy) human beings will spontaneously move towards happiness. [From 10 & 9]

11. All (healthy) human beings will spontaneously move towards happiness. [Proved above]
P7. To say that a volitional agent moves toward something is to say that they seek/pursue that thing.
12. Therefore, all (healthy) human beings seek/pursue happiness. [From 11 & P7; Cf. Moral Orel's statement, "I will pursue X."]

12. All (healthy) human beings seek/pursue happiness. [Proved above]
P8. One who seeks/pursues something ought to undertake the means by which it is achieved.
13. Therefore all (healthy) human beings ought to undertake the means by which happiness is achieved. Q.E.D.


It's a little sloppy, but I'm hoping our conversation will fill in some of the gaps. Simplified: Because happiness is a universal human pursuit we ought to undertake the means by which happiness is obtained.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes I agree but that belief is only their subjective view. It isn't an objective fact that their belief about morality is or should be applied to others apart from them thinking it is so. Everything stops at the person and as soon as it moves beyond the person it then begins to take on a different meaning that is not justified.

The same for those who believe objective morality. It stops at the person, and because it cannot be demonstrated/proven it cannot be justified.

It tells us that there are other ways to measure objectivity or truth or whether something is real or not. We do it with many other things such as a logical argument that applies deductive reasoning. Sometimes 'truth' and fact are self-supporting. You cannot measure them physically. For example, the syllogism "All men are mortal, Socrates is a man so we can logically and factually conclude that Socrates is mortal ".

A well placed knife or blunt instrument can demonstrate/prove Socrates is mortal. That syllogism is just an empty claim.

These types of arguments are made for morality and God all the time. We could say that if there is no God then there are no moral values at all because moral values need to be grounded in a transcendent being like God.

How is that different than the claim “moral values need to be grounded in a person like Kenny”? How is your claim different than mine?

But if you use that logic and think that only material/physical things can be objective or facts or truth then you discount many things that we all claim are facts and truth.

I did not say only material/physical things can be objective; I said objective things can be demonstrated

I mentioned it before, absolute means being morally right regardless of the relative situation. It doesn't take context into account. But a moral objective can be applied to each and any situation. There will always be a moral objective in each situation that is outside the human (subject) and they may not be the same for the same moral.

So killing someone when robbing them is objectively wrong. But killing someone to save children that were about to be killed is objectively the right thing to do. Each situation is about killing but there can be different objectives that are morally right in each situation.

We seem to disagree on the definition of absolute, and objective. I define objective the same way you define absolute. I define subjective the same way you define objective. I get my definition of the words from websters dictionary; as you can see it disagrees with you. Where did you get your definition of those words?
Definition of OBJECTIVE
Definition of ABSOLUTE

First of all what about the math formula people say are fact for say the Big Bang, Multiverse, Dark matter, or any idea that has not been directly seen but is regarded as a fact.

I don’t make such claims concerning math. Perhaps you can discuss that with someone who does.

But this is no different from moral values. IE Honesty is a representative token use to represent things that do exist.

No, honest is just a claim that is free of deception.

That's easy. No one can reasonably claim that killing a baby for fun is morally good. Show me a reasonable argument that makes killing a baby for fun good.

It doesn’t have to be good, just morally neutral. If I value a baby’s life as equal to a cockroach, I would consider killing a baby as equal to killing a cockroach. How would you objectively prove me wrong?

But who says those laws are objectively right.

I never said laws were objectively right, I said their existence was objective.

if laws are objective then is any law based on moral values. For example, is the law against stealing based on the moral not to steal.

No. Just because an objective law may be based on a moral belief, does not make that moral belief objective.

The 10 commandments stem back to early civilization. Adultery and theft are even mentioned in the story of human creation which according to Christianity is the birth of civilization. But that is not the point. Other religions had similar morals from a very early point in time and amazingly around the same period as though they all came to realize this together. So did this stem from one point in the world and quickly spread and reinterpreted. Or does everyone have the law of God in them and these different religions just reinterpreted the same thing?

It doesn’t matter; the values this nation was built on are no more Christian than they are Hindu, Muslim, Secular, or Zoroastrianism

Yes it does, Or at least in the way that some use God in their arguments. Whether they are using an imaginary God or not they are attributing real scenarios to Him and are making real arguments against Him. So in that sense, it is real in applying moral arguments. Otherwise why even go there in the first place. If its all imaginary then the argument is imaginary.

My neighbor once told me I was cheating God by not paying 10% of my income (tithes) to a church; he even provided scripture to prove his point. I said if God is almighty, he is almighty enough to get things done through that church without my money. I was not making an argument against God, I was using logic (in a way he can relate to) to dispel his belief that I was cheating God.

 

[stevevw]

What about them? Maybe they just have to suck it up.

But I thought there was no ultimate moral right under subjective morality. You speak as though the "likes and dislikes or personal opinions of those who disagree are not allowed to express and live out their 'likes and dislikes'.

Who said that those in power have the key to what is really right and wrong if it is all about subjective views. No view should take centre stage more than another as none of them are more right than another. Just because a few people may get together and decide that it is their views that should dominate doesn't mean their views are the right ones.

When I lived in a Muslim country I didn't fast at Ramadan because I'm not a Muslim and didn't agree with the moral precept about fasting. On the other hand, I didn't eat in public, either.

Yes, that's because Muslim countries have a theocracy. They believe that the laws of Allah are the objectively true ones that everyone should follow. So they are justified in that they claim them to be objective moral laws.

But in a secular society that supports subjective morality, there is no one true objective moral law. Everyone's views are an equal part of that system. No view is more right than another. That's because they have decided that there is no basis for any morals in the first place. They have decided that it is all about 'likes and dislikes or opinions and under that system, you cannot enforce one set of opinions over another.

That's a good question, which hasn't been addressed. When is a precept a "moral" precept?

Its when it is grounded in something besides a human as humans only have the capacity to be subjective and subjective morality cannot be a basis for determining which morals are really right and wrong.

But you've got to have something.

Something like what?.

 

[Speedwell]

But I thought there was no ultimate moral right under subjective morality. You speak as though the "likes and dislikes or personal opinions of those who disagree are not allowed to express and live out their 'likes and dislikes'.

Yes, in certain cases that is true.

Who said that those in power have the key to what is really right and wrong if it is all about subjective views. No view should take centre stage more than another as none of them are more right than another. Just because a few people may get together and decide that it is their views that should dominate doesn't mean their views are the right ones.

We are talking about entire societies here, entire cultures, not just "a few people get together and decide," and that over a long enough period of time that the precepts become internalized. The whole process is not necessarily under the control of individual conscious thought.

Yes, that's because Muslim countries have a theocracy. They believe that the laws of Allah are the objectively true ones that everyone should follow. So they are justified in that they claim them to be objective moral laws.

Yet they have no more justification for claiming their moral laws are objective than you do.

But in a secular society that supports subjective morality, there is no one true objective moral law. Everyone's views are an equal part of that system. No view is more right than another. That's because they have decided that there is no basis for any morals in the first place. They have decided that it is all about 'likes and dislikes or opinions and under that system, you cannot enforce one set of opinions over another.

Why not? It happens all the time. Nobody needs your permission to do it.

Its when it is grounded in something besides a human as humans only have the capacity to be subjective and subjective morality cannot be a basis for determining which morals are really right and wrong.

Yes, subjective morality is not objective. I don't understand why you need to keep repeating that.

Something like what?.

A demonstration that your moral views are objective. And no, "it says so in the Bible" isn't going to cut it. All that amounts to is your subjective opinion of an old book.

 

[Moral Orel]

P1. Some realities have an intrinsic orderedness about them. [Implicit premise]
P2. If A is intrinsically ordered to B, then A will spontaneously move towards B.
P3. The human intellect is intrinsically ordered to truth. [Unused premise]
P4. The human will is intrinsically ordered to goodness. [Technical phrasing of P5]
P5. Human desire is intrinsically ordered to fulfillment (in happiness).
P6. All healthy members of the species have human desire.
P7. To say that a volitional agent moves toward something is to say that they seek/pursue that thing.
P8. One who seeks/pursues something ought to undertake the means by which it is achieved.

For the sake of condensing our discussion further, and because I'm about to make a major concession that might very well make most of the rest of our discussion moot, I'm going to skip the rest of your post and focus on this.

I wanted to say that we are conflating different usages of the word "ought". So I went dictionary diving to make sure I understood even these simple terms extremely well. I looked up "ought" and then words used to define "ought" and then words to define those words, etc.

What I said before is that in the context of morality "ought" means that something is "supposed to happen" and that we are "supposed to be the one to cause it". I've always been okay with using the term in a predictive sense such as, "When I drop this red dye into this glass of water, the water ought to turn red". Because it seems we've taken a lot of free will out of the equation, that seems to be the way we're using "ought".

There doesn't seem to be any false equivalency going on to exchange "will" for "ought". I'll even go further to say that using the word "ought" to mean "obligation" is starting to sound fine as we might say there is a naturally imposed obligation to pursue what we desire because we don't have a choice.

I see a lot of problems arising from this though. Free will, altruism, and accountability are all in trouble. I never really doubted accountability before this, so thanks for that! I wouldn't dare make an appeal to consequences argument that "you must be wrong because what a bummer it would be if you were right", but those consequences could be interesting.

 

[stevevw]

The same for those who believe objective morality. It stops at the person, and because it cannot be demonstrated/proven it cannot be justified.

The difference is for those who claim objective morality they are not basing their morals on their own views or beliefs but on that of God through Jesus. So the basis for their morals is outside themselves.

A well placed knife or blunt instrument can demonstrate/prove Socrates is mortal. That syllogism is just an empty claim.

The syllogism is actually a representative of all Greek men. So you would have to go around and kill every Greek man to ensure that this is the case which would be impossible. But do you under what a syllogism is. That we can make statements of truth and fact based on premises. That we can appeal to truth through logical arguments without having to use the scientific method to establish an objective for philosophical claims.

How is that different than the claim “moral values need to be grounded in a person like Kenny”? How is your claim different than mine?

Becuase Kenny is a transcendent being. Kenny is the subject (humans) where the moral claims are coming from and Kenny can only express what he thinks is right and wrong which cannot be all good and knowing as Kenny is a fallible being who gets it wrong. Not a good basis for measuring morality. Whereas a transcendent being specifically the Christian God is all good and all knowing and infalible. So He will be the ultimate measure of good, never get it worng and know what is best.

I did not say only material/physical things can be objective; I said objective things can be demonstrated

OK sorry I misunderstood you. Demonstrated in what way. Can a logical argument demonstrate a fact or truth about something.

We seem to disagree on the definition of absolute, and objective. I define objective the same way you define absolute. I define subjective the same way you define objective. I get my definition of the words from websters dictionary; as you can see it disagrees with you. Where did you get your definition of those words?
Definition of OBJECTIVE
Definition of ABSOLUTE

There is part of the problem. You are seeking a general definition rather than one specifically that applies to morality. Here is the meaning in moral terms.

If moral values are independent of what people think (objective), it does not follow that they are true regardless of the circumstances (that they are absolute). For example, killing an individual for fun might be objectively wrong, but killing in general is not absolutely wrong.
What is objective morality?.
The reason I think it preferable to talk about objective moral values and duties rather than absolute moral values and duties can best be seen by considering their opposites. The opposite of “objective” is “subjective.” The opposite of “absolute” is “relative.” Now very little reflection is needed to see that “relative” does not mean “subjective.” Just because one’s moral duties are relative to one’s circumstances doesn’t in any way imply that they are subjective, that there is not an objectively right or wrong thing to do in such a situation. So the distinction objective/subjective is not the same as absolute/relative.
“Objective” or “Absolute” Moral Values? | Reasonable Faith

I don’t make such claims concerning math. Perhaps you can discuss that with someone who does.

My point is some maths formulas are accepted as fact despite anyone ever demonstrating what the maths formula claims. IE have you or anyone ever seen dark matter directly.

No, honest is just a claim that is free of deception.

Actually it is more than a claim. It is a fact. Try having this debate without honesty. You have already appealed to it whenever you say to someone you are debating that what they have said is not true. Or if you claim they are misrepresenting your argument. We make honesty real and "truth" by how we use it in real life situations.

If you say it is just a claim then you are saying it has no realness and theerfore I can present lies as my argument and you have no way to dispute this as you discredit the value of honesty. All debates and human interaction would be meaningless and collaspe into chaos.

It doesn’t have to be good, just morally neutral. If I value a baby’s life as equal to a cockroach, I would consider killing a baby as equal to killing a cockroach. How would you objectively prove me wrong?

But thats not our reality. Our reality is a baby is human life which we value. If you want to bring in all sorts of alternative realities and mindsets then we would be in some strange world like in politics. It is the same for mental illness. People with mental illness cannot know right from wrong. That is why we qualify morality as someone having a rational mind and being of sound mind to apply moral values.

I never said laws were objectively right, I said their existence was objective.

So if there is a law that says everyone must follow this law. It is the right way to act and any deviation is considered wrong. There is no room for individual opinions. The only way is the law. How is this subjective. Isnt this what people accuse religion of doing when they have a theocracy based on the objective laws of their God.

No. Just because an objective law may be based on a moral belief, does not make that moral belief objective.

Why not. If the law is objective then how can the moral that it is based on be subjective. Otherwise that would make the law subjective.

It doesn’t matter; the values this nation was built on are no more Christian than they are Hindu, Muslim, Secular, or Zoroastrianism

I think they are more Christian than say Muslim dont you think.

My neighbor once told me I was cheating God by not paying 10% of my income (tithes) to a church; he even provided scripture to prove his point. I said if God is almighty, he is almighty enough to get things done through that church without my money. I was not making an argument against God, I was using logic (in a way he can relate to) to dispel his belief that I was cheating God.

Well if there is no Biblical basis for what he said then he is adding his subjective opinion and therefore there is no justification to call it an objective moral law of God. Religion can also be used as a subjective front for claiming moral objectives. There are many religions and they all cannot be 'truth'.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, in certain cases that is true.

Then I have to persist with asking on what basis do the subjective opinions of some be not counted when there is no independent reference to determine whose opinion is correct.

We are talking about entire societies here, entire cultures, not just "a few people get together and decide," and that over a long enough period of time that the precepts become internalized. The whole process is not necessarily under the control of individual conscious thought.

Internalisation does not make something objectively right. Nor does time. These are fallacies for justifying something as morally right. We have seen entire cultures have abhorrent morals such as with barbaric practices. Or with colonialization and globalization that exploits poor cultures. We have seen United organizations like the Nato and the UN agree on unjust actions like the coalition of the willing and the Iraqi wars.

All claiming they were acting morally while hiding deceitful motives. It doesn't matter whether its a culture, Nations, international organization or whether the same thing has been practiced for long periods. Its all still subjective and relative and created by fallible humans who are influenced by personal gains and power. That is what I am saying nothing can justify imposing a subjective/relative morality on others.

Yet they have no more justification for claiming their moral laws are objective than you do.

It is not as simple as that. The idea of a transcendent entity being the source of morality is a good logical argument that is hard to dispute. If morality needs to be grounded beyond humans and yet remain personal and rational then it follows that it has to be a transcendent rational and personal being like the God of the Bible.

But there can only by one true transcendent being otherwise it negates objective moral truth. Religion can be used subjectively and then justified as objective. That doesn't mean there is no transcendent being who holds objective moral truths. But it is a religious belief in a transcendent being that is the most justified source of objective morality.

Why not? It happens all the time.

Then people are acting hypocritically and that fosters a lack of trust and respect in the authorities that impose those morals.

Nobody needs your permission to do it.

Well in some ways they do need permission and that is why we have elections and anti-discrimination laws and include different views. Some countries more than others.

Australia is very multicultural. But some say to our own detriment as it creates a conflicting situation where minorities can have more influence on things than the majority because they play on the discrimination laws and protest more. Those who yell the most often get more attention. But that is a bad consequence of a subjective system. No one should dominate.

But what happens is that whoever is in power gets to make the rules and not necessarily the majority rule. So the idea that the best and most agreed morals are the ones being used is a false claim. In reality, it is minorities that rule in a subjective pluralist culture, and what is best is often put second.

A demonstration that your moral views are objective. And no, "it says so in the Bible" isn't going to cut it. All that amounts to is your subjective opinion of an old book.

It is more to the argument for objective morality that the Bible. First, there is the argument that objective morality needs to come from a transcendent being. Then there is the argument that everyone intuitively knows that certain morals are always right and wrong regardless of subjective opinions. They act and react that way. So arguments can be made for objective morality.

The Bible is one way to argue for that transcendent being. That can be made through Christ who is the representative of God. Christ is a factual figure in history who was a moral teacher and said that there was no other way to live. So Christ is the Son of God and claiming that His morals are the truth that has to be dealt with. Other arguments for God can be made IE the cosmological, ontological, teleological, contingency and design arguments, etc. So it is a case of a number of supports that bolster each other. Putting this together it builds a case for objective morality and a transcendent being.