Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[variant]

Not everybody, otherwise suicide would not be a problem.

That's why it's qualified "tend". I could give you the exact numbers or there about, and we can deal in statistics and objective facts about precisely what I am saying but this is more casual than that. The vast majority of humanity values their own life. It's not really arguable, it is an objective fact.

You even already agree. Otherwise suicide wouldn't be a "problem".

That could hardly be considered a fact. But even if it were, life isn’t considered a moral issue unless someone judges the life as good or bad; simply living is not a moral issue.

When I say people value their life I mean people take actions to value their life, and the lives of others, give up resources and make decisions based upon this value judgement. They must choose to do so based upon what they think is right to do. So, yes, it is a moral issue.

Defining morality this way if you are wondering:
A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Actions (values) have nothing to do with morality unless someone judges them as right or wrong. It is the judgment where morality comes into play, not what you value. Judgments are subjective, not objective thus no such a thing as objective moral values

Right or wrong are just words we use to designate value. When people take actions to uphold what they value they are making moral decisions and thus moral judgements. It is in my opinion the only way they do so.

Bare in mind that convincing others to do what is right or wrong for whatever reason counts as an action.

Moral philosophy, what we are doing here, is when we analyze what they are doing with words like right and wrong, values, judgments, and principles.

If I believed killing random people would promote a cohesive society, that would be a moral position available to me.
BTW correct/incorrect is not used concerning moral issues and there is a reason for that.

No, the position is not available because when you put your moral theory into action it fails spectacularly.

Sure you can believe whatever you like, it just doesn't matter.

I consider the possibility that we can test moral positions as to how they actually uphold the value judgements made by the people who hold them. In this sense I can definitely call some moral prescriptions incorrect if they have a goal in mind.

Any principle that we can observe as a reasoning for action in reality that can also be observed can be judged correct or incorrect.

 

[Ken-1122]

That's why it's qualified. The vast majority of humanity values their own life. It's not really arguable, it is an objective fact.
You even already agree. Otherwise suicide wouldn't be a "problem".

Yes! The vast majority of people value their own lives; but that is not a moral issue. I asked for an example of one that pertains to morality

When I say people value their life I mean people take actions to value their life, and the lives of others, give up resources and make decisions based upon this value judgement. They must choose to do so based upon what they think is right to do. So, yes, it is a moral issue.

True! But the resources they give up, the decisions they make based on value judgments, what they choose to do based on what they think is the right thing to do will vary from person to person. If it were objective, it would be consistent. Thus what you call moral values are subjective not objective.

Right or wrong are just words we use to designate value. When people take actions to uphold what they value they are making moral decisions and thus moral judgements. It is in my opinion the only way they do so.

I chose to buy a Chevy over a Ford because I value Chevy’s more; that action had nothing to do with morality.

No, the position is not available because when you put your moral theory into action it fails spectacularly.

Says who? Who decides the criteria I use when deciding success or failure of my moral theories?

Sure you can believe whatever you like, it just doesn't matter.

Actually you’ve got that backwards; you can believe whatever you like, it doesn’t matter to me, because moral theories are subjective not objective.

 

[variant]

Yes! The vast majority of people value their own lives; but that is not a moral issue. I asked for an example of one that pertains to morality

Well good, then we can agree that it is a fact.

That particular value leads to a good percentage of moral judgements. It's a foundational common ground we rely upon to build societies, for eons...

But you don't think that has to do with morality???

True! But the resources they give up, the decisions they make based on value judgments, what they choose to do based on what they think is the right thing to do will vary from person to person. If it were objective, it would be consistent. Thus what you call moral values are subjective not objective.

Deciding what is right to do is just another way of saying what ones values are and in what order.

The objective part is what makes us have different values, how our actions actually relate to our values, how we do and can relate to one another, what actions are possible, what resources are available and everything else that is going on that has to do with facts rather than what we ultimately decide to do with them.

I chose to buy a Chevy over a Ford because I value Chevy’s more; that action had nothing to do with morality.

I'd have to know more about why you value Chevy's more to really know.

Says who? Who decides the criteria I use when deciding success or failure of my moral theories?

Well again, if you decide you've succeeded when you have objectively failed by your own standards you are just deluded.

I set out to do X and I will take action Y to try to accomplish it, it can't be said to be a success if Z happens instead.

If I keep doing that and insisting that X leads to Y we call that being delusional.

Actually you’ve got that backwards; you can believe whatever you like, it doesn’t matter to me, because moral theories are subjective not objective.

Moral theory has objective consequences when put into action. The idea that you would deny such an idea is beyond silly.

Nothing can stay purely subjective when acted upon.

 

[Ken-1122]

Defining morality this way if you are wondering:
A particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society.

Moral systems differ from person to person; if you disagree, provide a moral system that everybody agrees to.

Bare in mind that convincing others to do what is right or wrong for whatever reason counts as an action.

Yes but it is not a moral objective action. If you disagree, prove it to be the right thing to do.

I consider the possibility that we can test moral positions as to how they actually uphold the value judgements made by the people who hold them. In this sense I can definitely call some moral prescriptions incorrect if they have a goal in mind.

Any principle that we can observe as a reasoning for action in reality that can also be observed can be judged correct or incorrect.

You can make a case for correct or incorrect, but if the person is what you might consider “unreasonable” perhaps a sociopath, perhaps he is just crazy, or evil; he will disagree with you and you have no way of proving your views trumps his. That’s why you don’t use correct/incorrect when determining morality.

 

[variant]

Moral systems differ from person to person; if you disagree, provide a moral system that everybody agrees to.

I don't disagree.

Yes but it is not a moral objective action. If you disagree, prove it to be the right thing to do.

I am saying that actions make morality objective in practice not that they don't depend on our subjective reasoning or values.

You can make a case for correct or incorrect, but if the person is what you might consider “unreasonable” perhaps a sociopath, perhaps he is just crazy, or evil; he will disagree with you and you have no way of proving your views trumps his. That’s why you don’t use correct/incorrect when determining morality.

Why would I ever neglect to use the word "correct" because the person I might be arguing with is divorced from reality? Why would I do so in any context?

Demonstrating that a persons values conflict with their actions and thus their actions are incorrect even from their perspective seems like a great way of demonstrating that my views trump theirs.

They might be crazy? Really?

On that note though I am going to go get some sleep.

 

[Ken-1122]

Well good, then we can agree that it is a fact.

That particular value leads to a good percentage of moral judgements. It's a foundational common ground we rely upon to build societies, for eons...

But you don't think that has to do with morality???

It is an example of subjective morality because the common ground is not based on facts; but beliefs and opinions.

Deciding what is right to do is just another way of saying what ones values are and in what order.
The objective part is what makes us have different values,

Remember; that which is objective is based on FACTS. If there are no facts involved, it isn’t objective. If facts are involved, the values would be the same.

how our actions actually relate to our values, how we do and can relate to one another, what actions are possible, what resources are available and everything else that is going on that has to do with facts rather than what we ultimately decide to do with them.

Resources available, actions possible, those are just limitations. What is ultimately decided is not based on facts, but what you subjectively value.

I'd have to know more about why you value Chevy's more to really know.

Because what I value is based on my subjective opinion; not objective facts.

Well again, if you decide you've succeeded when you have objectively failed by your own standards you are just deluded.

I set out to do X and I will take action Y to try to accomplish it, it can't be said to be a success if Z happens instead.

If I keep doing that and insisting that X leads to Y we call that being delusional.

It all depends on what “Y” and “Z” are. If “Y” is the best outcome and “Z” is the worse outcome, we will call each other delusional if we disagree on what is the best possible outcome.

Moral theory has objective consequences when put into action. The idea that you would deny such an idea is beyond silly.

I never said moral actions will not lead to objective consequences, I said morality is not objective. Abortion is a moral issue that leads to objective consequences. But that does not make abortion an objective moral issue.

Nothing can stay purely subjective when acted upon.

Morality is not an action, it’s the judgment of an action

 

[Kylie]

Was in a friend's wedding not too long ago and got into an argument with one of our other friends concerning slavery in the Bible. Not sure what he was ultimately trying to point out (maybe trying to get the moral high ground as an Atheist), but the debate transitioned to how he could objectively prove that slavery is wrong. He kept referring to "human wellness" as a moral principle that could be proven objectively. I asked him if the move to improve human evolution by removing the "inferior" peoples would be justified as morally right (even though there existed those that believed that). His response was "that's ridiculous because no one would believe that and neither would you." Okay, so I brought up the cultures/nations that believe that slavery is a justifiable and morally acceptable part of life (Not too many left). Again, his response: "Freedom is an aspect of human wellness. If they are not free then they are not well." This finally led to how he could objectively define a value term such as "wellness", which he replied "anything good for humans to live well. Anyone who believes that wellness involves extreme harm for some future goal is just insane." Any thoughts?

If someone was trying to get him to prove that slavery was wrong, then I would assume that this someone did not share the view. So, I would like to enslave the person who challenged the notion that slavery is wrong. I will take good care of this person, giving them three slices of bread a day, as well as clean drinking water.

 

[Moral Orel]

No, it can simply be evaluated to be incorrect since it is not objectively true in any sense. It can be true with the qualifiers I put on it. There is no such thing as an iced cream that is the most delicious, it's a category error.

Saying that it's incorrect implies that there is a correct answer to the question of what the most delicious ice cream flavor is. I agree it's a category error, that's why correct/incorrect don't apply at all.

Well true.

What those differences are is trivial is the point. In an inter-subjective landscape of morality, how much people care about, and thus have to react to, the outcomes of your choices makes a big difference.

I don't think the value judgements are particularly comparable on this point. My language might be getting sloppy there to imply that one has more consequence than the other. What it has is more consequences that matter to others, and thus you have to deal with a lot more real world push back from actors in society.

Actions that will cause others to take action in response are the ones that become a larger problem for you in a social setting.

While you can make the next point, that, people could get very obsessively interested in your iced cream choices. I am saying that is less likely because society at large doesn't need to care about such things and thus are unlikely to do so. They run afoul of fewer values of others and thus fewer actions are required from others.

Why should I care if you like chocolate iced cream?

Caring has a cost associated with it.

The difference in consequences is more about how strongly they're felt. How strongly someone feels about murder or my ice cream choices aren't a matter of objectivity, but subjectivity. If you did care very strongly that I love chocolate ice cream, you wouldn't be wrong or right to do so. If you cared more that I ate some chocolate ice cream than you cared that I murdered a person to get it, you wouldn't be wrong or right either.

Of course people are less likely to care about my ice cream choices, it isn't a common thing for people to care about, but the amount of people who care, and how strongly they feel about it doesn't have a bearing on whether or not they're right or wrong to feel the way they do.

I think that the process of valuing things is quite objective because I think it has to do with what one does rather than what one thinks. We can't remove our morality in theory from our morality in action, so we can't remove the real world, and real world consequences, observations, and experiences from our morality.

If we do we can just be deluded as to what we actually value, and what our morality really is, which means it can't be purely based upon us, our subjective views/opinions and the like.

I disagree on how you've been talking about value. It's a verb, sure. But I value ice cream, and the fact that I value it drives me to act. The act isn't the valuing. To value something is to have a feeling for something, nothing more. How strong that feeling is affects what behavior might result from it.

 

[BigV]

Force, coercion and violence against your enemies has not typically been deemed as immoral.

Even a coercion against friends is not immoral if it benefits you and your people.

Like what USA did to Ukraine in attempting to force their president to publicly announce an investigation into the Bidens.

I think the US used Ukraine for a geopolitical goal, which benefits the US but hurts the Ukrainians living in the Ukraine.

Btw, do you notice how the EU market is closed to the Ukrainians who have signed the association agreement with them? And the US, who hates when foreign players meddle in the US elections had no qualms meddling into the internal dealings inside Ukraine. Whoever orchestrated the Maidan revolution had to understand that revolution almost inevitably brings about a civil war afterwards.

If there were a revolution in the US, and Trump were forcefully removed from power, here too there would, very likely, been a civil war because Trump, whether you like him or not, has many supporters.

Btw, I do follow the latest developments on the Maidan. Apparently, there is a scandal now, because the heavenly 100, supposedly killed by the police during the protests, turned out to be a fake news. As at least some of those counted died far from Kiev City, some died from being drunks, some in auto accidents, others in a fights far from Kiev. And, as usual, not a peep about this in the Western press. But the West was very much interested in Kiev in late 2013 and 2014.

Russia ARE the enemy of the free world democracies.
They interfere in elections, they invade the Crimea, they are not friendly and they need to be opposed on these measures.
A challenge however, would be to look at their point of view. How does the world include them and make them better off? In order for the world to try to help Russia, we first need Russia to stop being so aggressive.

I think you are a victim of the media. Tell me, what has the USSR done since 1985 (Gorbachev) and what has Russia done since 1991 (Yeltsin) and then from 2000 (Putin) up until 2007 that would warrant Western hostility towards them?

Secondly, please remember my point about Russia voluntarily giving up control of the Eastern Europe and giving up it's territory that was theirs for centuries prior. And Crimea was not invaded in the same sense as the US invasion of Iraq and Libya and Syria. But, as the narrative goes, American bombs bring democracy, so anything America does goes.

Lastly, you are mistaken when you say "in order for the world to try to help Russia.." There is no "world". There is/are superpower(s) and everyone else. Where was the 'world' when the US decided, unilaterally, to bomb Iraq in 2003 even as the UN (the world?) did not agree with it?

As we speak, the US is in Syria without a lawful authorization to be there. No international authority and not even the US Congress has explicitly authorized the presence of the US troops in Syria.

Funny thing is, I believe the US uses terrorists and terrorism to further geopolitical goals. This is the open secret. The US used terrorists in Afghanistan during the 1980s to fight the Soviet Union. And, I believe, the US uses terrorists in the Middle East to help advance US control.

My eyes were opened to this back in 2009 when I read this article:

Breaking News, Analysis, Politics, Blogs, News Photos, Video, Tech Reviews - TIME.com

Now, what happened later? ISIS happened. So those oil contracts that were signed with non-Western companies became worthless. ISIS took control of the oil and was making millions of dollars per day, surrounded by the US allies in the Middle East and without even a hint of sanctions.

Is that moral? Well, if it benefits the US, why not?

 

[durangodawood]

....The difference in consequences is more about how strongly they're felt. How strongly someone feels about murder or my ice cream choices aren't a matter of objectivity, but subjectivity. If you did care very strongly that I love chocolate ice cream, you wouldn't be wrong or right to do so. If you cared more that I ate some chocolate ice cream than you cared that I murdered a person to get it, you wouldn't be wrong or right either.....

There is no choice to value the consequences of murder. People naturally want to live. Its baked into us. Also they naturally value material personal security generally, and so dont like living in a murdery environment. This is an objective fact of the human species as a population. Its an objectively demonstrable value-axiom that humans have around which moral rules are developed.

For chocolate/vanilla ice cream, I think most of our values around that choice are entirely subjective, and so we never develop a moral system that informs that choice.

I will say that vegans are making a moral case for avoiding ice cream altogether. But at least for now the question of animal-personhood is pure personal opinion, and so they have an uphill battle. By contrast, we dont need to convince people its better to live where people dont murder their neighbors.

 

[Moral Orel]

There is no choice to value the consequences of murder. People naturally want to live. Its baked into us. Also they naturally value material personal security generally, and so dont like living in a murdery environment. This is an objective fact of the human species as a population. Its an objectively demonstrable value-axiom that humans have around which moral rules are developed.

It isn't a choice to value chocolate ice cream either. If you taste it, and you enjoy it, then you value it. People naturally enjoy sweets, and they naturally enjoy the flavor of cocoa. These are objective facts of the human species as a population. You haven't shown anything unique about how humans value life vs how humans value good flavors. The only difference is how strongly you feel about murder vs chocolate ice cream. Probably a larger percentage of humans hate murder than love chocolate ice cream, but it's still the majority of humans that enjoy chocolate ice cream over those that don't.

For chocolate/vanilla ice cream, I think most of our values around that choice are entirely subjective, and so we never develop a moral system that informs that choice.

Except you do. If you want chocolate ice cream, you should earn money so that you can purchase it. That's a moral, and designing choices around values like that is exactly what you do when you decide how to act around your value for life.

 

[durangodawood]

It isn't a choice to value chocolate ice cream either. If you taste it, and you enjoy it, then you value it. People naturally enjoy sweets, and they naturally enjoy the flavor of cocoa. These are objective facts of the human species as a population. You haven't shown anything unique about how humans value life vs how humans value good flavors. The only difference is how strongly you feel about murder vs chocolate ice cream. Probably a larger percentage of humans hate murder than love chocolate ice cream, but it's still the majority of humans that enjoy chocolate ice cream over those that don't.

Yes, there's degrees of value. Is it enough to birth a common moral system, or not? With flavor choices, I'd say no. In the human hierarchy of values, ice cream flavor is pretty low across the board. With neighbor murder, obviously yes, its enough for us to have developed strong prohibitions across all times and cultures..

 

[ll_retro.duck_ll]

What does the title of the thread have to do with your first post in this thread. I don't get the connection?

It's back early in the posts. He relied on the possibility that we felt the same way towards a supposed immoral action. To call such an immoral action (I don't know, let's say genocide) moral is 'absurd' (he used something synonymous). When I have had conversations with Atheists asking them about their views on morality, I come across a few now and then who say there is an objective morality that centers around "human well-being." When I ask how they determine that, the question they pose is usually rhetorical: You wouldn't believe that killing and torturing babies is okay, right? I'll play devil's advocate and say "yeah, sure, it's morally acceptable. The following reply is usually, "that's ridiculous, you're insane." There was an atheist youtube channel that had a call in concerning this same debate. I don;t remember where it was, but the speaker was using the same argument to denounce what's generally considered evil or maniacal by the world

 

[ll_retro.duck_ll]

Sure. Going with the majority "just because" is bandwagonning. But thats been the condition of Christians through most of Western history.

True, unfortunately

 

[Ken-1122]

I don't disagree.

So how can you call something objective and based on facts if it varies from person to person?

I am saying that actions make morality objective in practice not that they don't depend on our subjective reasoning or values.

Objective actions are the end result of subjective reasoning and values (morality)

Why would I ever neglect to use the word "correct" because the person I might be arguing with is divorced from reality? Why would I do so in any context?

Because you have no way of proving he is wrong, and you are right, due to that fact that there is no agreement on what is wrong or right.

Demonstrating that a persons values conflict with their actions and thus their actions are incorrect even from their perspective seems like a great way of demonstrating that my views trump theirs.

I’m talking about a person whose values conflict with your values, and their end goals conflict with your end goals. How do you prove your values and goals are correct and his are incorrect?

 

[stevil]

Even a coercion against friends is not immoral if it benefits you and your people.

Morality is the eye of the beholder.
I would not deem it moral to coerce a friend or ally.

I think the US used Ukraine for a geopolitical goal, which benefits the US but hurts the Ukrainians living in the Ukraine.

Coercing Ukraine to get Trump re-elected benefits Trump and perhaps the Republican party, but does not benefit USA. USA is better off having a fair election regardless of the result.

Btw, do you notice how the EU market is closed to the Ukrainians who have signed the association agreement with them? And the US, who hates when foreign players meddle in the US elections had no qualms meddling into the internal dealings inside Ukraine. Whoever orchestrated the Maidan revolution had to understand that revolution almost inevitably brings about a civil war afterwards.

I don't know anything about the Maiden revolution.

If there were a revolution in the US, and Trump were forcefully removed from power, here too there would, very likely, been a civil war because Trump, whether you like him or not, has many supporters.

Yes, probably.

I think you are a victim of the media. Tell me, what has the USSR done since 1985 (Gorbachev) and what has Russia done since 1991 (Yeltsin) and then from 2000 (Putin) up until 2007 that would warrant Western hostility towards them?

I don't live in Russia, and I don't work in government, so my sources are the media.
I've already mentioned Crimea and aggressive interference in other countries elections.

And Crimea was not invaded in the same sense as the US invasion of Iraq and Libya and Syria. But, as the narrative goes, American bombs bring democracy, so anything America does goes.

Although I don't agree with USA attacking Iraq, as I understand it Iraq isn't claimed as USA territory.
Russia claim the Crimea to now be Russian property.

Lastly, you are mistaken when you say "in order for the world to try to help Russia.." There is no "world". There is/are superpower(s) and everyone else.

There are world alliances.
Most western nations align and give their support to USA.

Is that moral? Well, if it benefits the US, why not?

I disagree with USA on many things, but we were talking about Russia.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes, there's degrees of value. Is it enough to birth a common moral system, or not? With flavor choices, I'd say no. In the human hierarchy of values, ice cream flavor is pretty low across the board. With neighbor murder, obviously yes, its enough for us to have developed strong prohibitions across all times and cultures..

We're not discussing the origin story of morality, we're discussing what morality is. And the nature of it is subjective like like ice cream choice.

 

[durangodawood]

We're not discussing the origin story of morality, we're discussing what morality is. And the nature of it is subjective like like ice cream choice.

I've claimed here over and over that the enduring human morals are derived from the objective facts of human living. And thats what I've been defending this whole time. No one until now has said I was discussing the wrong topic.

 

[Moral Orel]

I've claimed here over and over that the enduring human morals are derived from the objective facts of human living. And thats what I've been defending this whole time. No one until now has said I was discussing the wrong topic.

If nothing you've said thus far was intended to speak to the nature of morality as being either objective or subjective, then okay. All you wanted us to notice was the fact that we base our morals on things we like, and some things are liked by a lot of people so those things make for common morals? That's not as relevant to the OP; I assumed we were more on topic than that. I stand by my original assessment that your claim, while true, holds no significance. So what if we base morals on things we like and dislike? The nature of morality is still subjective because the values we have are subjective.

 

[variant]

It is an example of subjective morality because the common ground is not based on facts; but beliefs and opinions.

That particular fact is that people tend to have that particular value, making it an objective fact.

Remember; that which is objective is based on FACTS. If there are no facts involved, it isn’t objective. If facts are involved, the values would be the same.

Actions are facts. Morality comes from our interpretation of the world around us and who we are as a person. I don't think reality or facts can be divorced from morality, instead I think morality is steeped in them.

Resources available, actions possible, those are just limitations. What is ultimately decided is not based on facts, but what you subjectively value.

No, your values are a way that you deal with reality as it exists. They can not depend only on you but rather on you and that reality as it exists and as you interact with it.

It all depends on what “Y” and “Z” are. If “Y” is the best outcome and “Z” is the worse outcome, we will call each other delusional if we disagree on what is the best possible outcome.

We would be delusional if we assert that Z is Y or that Y comes from X.

I never said moral actions will not lead to objective consequences, I said morality is not objective. Abortion is a moral issue that leads to objective consequences. But that does not make abortion an objective moral issue.

The consequences of abortion make that part of our moral judgement objective.

Morality is not an action, it’s the judgment of an action

No just no. Actions are what we ultimately do with our moral judgement so they are the product of it, and thus a part of it.