Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[BigV]

Everybody doesn't agree on which actions constitutes "human wellness" let alone if it is good, second; morality isn't determined by human wellness.

You are right. And the goal (i.e human wellness) is subjective in itself. However, once we have that goal in mind, we can hash out the details in an objective way. Of course, we may not always agree but this is no different from the religious people who claim to have an objective morality but basing it on a book ordering genocide and requiring death penalty for petty things like working on a Saturday.

As Richard Dawkins said, he prefers a morality based on intelligent design. And I agree with him.

Again, summary, the goal, human wellness, is subjective. But once we agree on that goal, our next steps will be more objective.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, I can be terse and get to to the point quickly. Up to you on how you take what I write.

Interesting. I generally take initial responsibility for people's reaction to my posts. (See 2nd paragraph in my signature)
Terse version: balderdash. Take responsibility for your writing and if you are not conveying your thoughts, aims and emotions accurately, correct it.

Do you believe secular morality can be objective?

I haven't decided yet. I probably never will.

• I don't consider it a pressing issue. Why? Since I do not think religious laws and guidance actually come from a God, religious morality is just a form of secular morality.
• It is a complex question and I doubt there is sufficient data to reach a firm conclusion.

That's the reason, as I understand it, Matt Dillahunty makes it a point, that first of all, we need to agree that human wellness, and we are talking about all humans, is our goal.

I am more, or at least equally, concerned about the biosphere.

Therefore, extreme harm to a mass murderer can be justified on the basis of preventing extreme harm to innocent people.

The amount of harm applied should be sufficient for meeting the objective and should not exceed that level. Capital punishment does exceed it.

 

[BigV]

Interesting. I generally take initial responsibility for people's reaction to my posts. (See 2nd paragraph in my signature)

Well, this is not pertaining to this thread, but if you do take responsibility for people's reactions to your posts, then you are probably setting yourself up for failure.

If anyone is looking to be offended or to feel hurt, they generally will find a reason to feel those feelings.
Good luck apologizing for the rest of your life.

 

[Ophiolite]

Well, this is not pertaining to this thread, but if you do take responsibility for people's reactions to your posts, then you are probably setting yourself up for failure.

If anyone is looking to be offended or to feel hurt, they generally will find a reason to feel those feelings.
Good luck apologizing for the rest of your life.

Did you miss my use of the qualifier "initially"? I initially take responsibility for people's reactions to my posts. If, after offering clarification, reflecting on the poster's viewpoint and studying some of their posting history, I decide that they are delusional, driving an agenda, seriously ill-informed, or just hornery I transfer responsibility to them.

 

[Ken-1122]

You are right. And the goal (i.e human wellness) is subjective in itself. However, once we have that goal in mind, we can hash out the details in an objective way. Of course, we may not always agree but this is no different from the religious people who claim to have an objective morality but basing it on a book ordering genocide and requiring death penalty for petty things like working on a Saturday.

As Richard Dawkins said, he prefers a morality based on intelligent design. And I agree with him.

Again, summary, the goal, human wellness, is subjective. But once we agree on that goal, our next steps will be more objective.

We've agreed on the goals, we just call them "laws" not morality. Unlike morality, laws are objective.

 

[Hans Blaster]

When I was in Grad school I was introduced to utility theory. That uses am measurement of 'happiness' using something called utils. An individual decides which of 2 or more choices is better and by how much. Then it can be determined what balance of stuff is the best for that individual. This was originated to cover risk, which is better a sure thing that yields 10% or a risky investment that would on average yield 20% but could lose money. One person will accept more risk than another. The more utils one has the better they like it. One could say teh more well they are (especially by teh vague definition of the OP).

But the math involved showed that utils are an individual measure. It has been shown that you cannot just add them up and have a measure of overall wellness or happiness by adding up teh individual utils.

That gets to the root of such vague measures. Someone has to decide what is the proper measure of wellness, there is no objective measure over a group. In the real world when times get bad many will choose eating over freedom, and if times are bad enough I might agree with them.

This sounds disturbingly close to notions of microeconomics with its rational actors seeking to maximize "utility" (and using partial derivatives to make it seem rigorous). That turned me off economics as a serious subject for a long time. My recovery from that experience has been slow.

 

[BigV]

Did you miss my use of the qualifier "initially"?

No, I didn't miss it. Thanks for the exchange.

 

[durangodawood]

No, bandwagon is me [dis]proving there's a God because a majority of people believe or say there's a God.... unless that's what you're saying

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

 

[variant]

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.

You don't have to prove it objectively but rather using reason.

Would you like to be forced to be a slave to someone else?

If not why? And if we try to take the pro-slavery argument, on what basis should we justify slavery?

The arguments against slavery are not different between religious people and atheists. Nor are the arguments against anything else you mentioned different.

The difference between atheists and theists is that theists believe there is a God and have framed their moral arguments to incorporate that idea.

So you won't see arguments saying slavery is right or wrong from an atheist because they say a God has said so, but in the past we HAVE seen arguments from religious folks that have justified slavery exactly that way.

What do we both think today? We think those people were wrong, and I think it is a misconception that people can easily speak for the divine.

 

[Strathos]

Would you like to be forced to be a slave to someone else?

People into certain sexual fetishes might say yes...

 

[variant]

People into certain sexual fetishes might say yes...

Do you suppose that is what I am talking about?

Do you think it's valuable to wonder whether, if I enslave a few thousand people to do my forced labor and be exploited for my whims, that some small percentage might secretly like it because it turns them on?

 

[Tanj]

@Strathos and @Ken-1122

After some deliberation I have decided it's morally ok for a closed loop puppy flensing ring.

 

[Strathos]

@Strathos and @Ken-1122

After some deliberation I have decided it's morally ok for a closed loop puppy flensing ring.

You don't think the animals should have any rights?

 

[Tanj]

You don't think the animals should have any rights?

It was indeed a fascinating conversation I had with myself. In the end, I decided no. There was a surprising amount of moral tension within my system with the alternate answer.

 

[durangodawood]

It was indeed a fascinating conversation I had with myself. In the end, I decided no. There was a surprising amount of moral tension within my system with the alternate answer.

For example?

 

[Tanj]

For example?

Well, as a hedonist, I can't deny an activity that results in no actual pain for humans regardless of my knee jerk response to it.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, as a hedonist, I can't deny an activity that results in no actual pain for humans regardless of my knee jerk response to it.

Yes. I can see how a moral system that only values humans might cause tension when contemplating animal torture.

 

[Ken-1122]

@Strathos and @Ken-1122

After some deliberation I have decided it's morally ok for a closed loop puppy flensing ring.

But this is a subjective moral view; not an objective one do you agree?

 

[Tanj]

But this is a subjective moral view; not an objective one do you agree?

Don't be ridiculous. It's me. Of course it's objective, I am after all, the sole arbiter of all things good.

j/k.

All morals are subjective, there's no such thing as "objective morals".

Yes. I can see how a moral system that only values humans might cause tension when contemplating animal torture.

Indeed.

 

[durangodawood]

...All morals are subjective, there's no such thing as "objective morals".....

Depends what you mean.

For instance, in an anthropological sense, its an objective fact that human societies have moral codes. And whats spelled out in those codes is an objective fact too.

But youre probably thinking of something else. If so, precisely what?