Atheism and Ad Absurdum

[essentialsaltes]

My contention is that the enduring morals are based on objective facts.

So.
A. is entirely personal
B. is based on the factual notion "slavery leads to horrible outcomes for individuals and society"

But surely we must weigh that against the positive outcomes for individuals and society. The efflorescence of the Golden Age of Greece.

How we weigh these pluses and minuses is not an objective matter.

I think more salient is: what are morals based on?

Certainly ideas (something I'd class morals among) are probably better when based on facts, than when they aren't. But that doesn't somehow make them facts themselves.[/QUOTE]

 

[durangodawood]

But surely we must weigh that against the positive outcomes for individuals and society. The efflorescence of the Golden Age of Greece.

How we weigh these pluses and minuses is not an objective matter.

Certainly ideas (something I'd class morals among) are probably better when based on facts, than when they aren't. But that doesn't somehow make them facts themselves.

Of course individual moral statement arent facts, the way they are typically expressed.

But thats usually not the way the question here is framed. Usually people say "morality is objective/subjective". In terms of morality, which includes the whole system of how humans acquire morals, its very fair to ask whether morals are based on objective facts of human satisfaction and social survival.

 

[Ken-1122]

I asked what you meant by a moral code. Like a written list somewhere? You didnt answer.

My bad; I misunderstood you. For me, my moral code is my subjective view of right vs wrong that is applied on a case by case basis. It isn’t something written down anywhere, it’s based strictly on my opinion.

My sense is our moral code is a set of rules for correct behavior that weve adopted as a collective,

Who is this we that you are referring to, that was a part of this adoption process? Nobody came to me and asked for my input; did they ask you?

 

[Ken-1122]

My contention is that the enduring morals are based on objective facts. So.
B. is based on the factual notion "slavery leads to horrible outcomes for individuals and society"

I disagree. There were many societies that were built on slavery that were very successful and when slavery ended, those societies fell apart and haven't recovered even to this day.
IOW you can't claim "slavery leads to horrible outcomes for individuals and societies" as an objective fact, when there were many societies where this was not the case

 

[durangodawood]

I disagree. There were many societies that were built on slavery that were very successful and when slavery ended, those societies fell apart and haven't recovered even to this day.
IOW you can't claim "slavery leads to horrible outcomes for individuals and societies" as an objective fact, when there were many societies where this was not the case

I dont claim that the conditions for successful societies are universal across all time. If I gave that impression, I erred.

 

[durangodawood]

My bad; I misunderstood you. For me, my moral code is my subjective view of right vs wrong that is applied on a case by case basis. It isn’t something written down anywhere, it’s based strictly on my opinion.

Who is this we that you are referring to, that was a part of this adoption process? Nobody came to me and asked for my input; did they ask you?

So do you think its just a weird coincidence that pretty much everybody thinks its wrong to murder their neighbor?

 

[Ken-1122]

I dont claim that the conditions for successful societies are universal across all time. If I gave that impression, I erred.

No, that isn't the impression you gave, you gave the impression that slavery can be objectively proven to be harmful to individuals and societies; I was pointing out that this is not the case.

 

[Ken-1122]

So do you think its just a weird coincidence that pretty much everybody thinks its wrong to murder their neighbor?

Just because you can point to a moral issue that any reasonable person will agree on, does not make morality objective. Can you objectively demonstrate why murder is wrong?

 

[durangodawood]

Just because you can point to a moral issue that any reasonable person will agree on, does not make morality objective. Can you objectively demonstrate why murder is wrong?

Yeah, actually near consensus on a matter does indicate its based on more that pure subjectivity. In the case of murder with the tribe, its probably baked into us biologically at some level. But I'm not going to make a research project out of it. Need to head out for some essentials.....

 

[Ken-1122]

Yeah, actually near consensus on a matter does indicate its based on more that pure subjectivity.

I disagree. Objective is based on measurable facts; that which is objective can be demonstrated. Subjective is based on interpretations, opinions, and beliefs. the fact that everybody in a society may share the same beliefs concerning a specific issue does not make it objective.
Subjective vs Objective - Difference and Comparison | Diffen

 

[Mitty]

That's actually quite different. Joseph Smith himself claimed the visions, but it wasn't just Moses himself that claimed the Mount Sinai Event. The entire nation of Israel saw the same supernatural things before Moses disappeared up on the mountain, and every group of Jews has that as part of their historical narrative. Many witnesses vs one witness.

But what is objective about the ten commandments anyway, given that they didn't apply until Moses carved them in stone and claimed that a talking bush did it? Afterall it wasn't morally wrong for Abraham to kill his son as a blood sacrifice or commit adultery, or for Cain(an) to kill his brother Abel or for Noah's father to kill a boy who injured him (Gen 4:23-24).

 

[durangodawood]

I disagree. Objective is based on measurable facts; that which is objective can be demonstrated. Subjective is based on interpretations, opinions, and beliefs. the fact that everybody in a society may share the same beliefs concerning a specific issue does not make it objective.

If the belief crosses culture and endures that means it probably is based on objective reality.

"Based on". How many time do I have to say it?

 

[Ken-1122]

If the belief crosses culture and endures that means it probably is based on objective reality.

"Based on". How many time do I have to say it?

You can say it as many times as you wish it will still be subjective. Remember the definitions I provided? It doesn’t matter if everybody on earth agrees “X” is wrong, unless you can demonstrate “X” as wrong, it is subjective not objectively wrong.

Can 1+1=3 be demonstrated as wrong? Yes! According to the rules of Math, 1+1 will always equal 2; thus 1+1=3 is objectively wrong.

Can murder be demonstrated as illegal? Yes! As long as there is a book of law that says it is illegal to murder somebody, murder is objectively illegal.

Can murder be demonstrated as morally wrong? Unless you can find a book of morality that says murder is wrong, it is not objective, but subjectively wrong

 

[durangodawood]

You can say it as many times as you wish it will still be subjective. Remember the definitions I provided? It doesn’t matter if everybody on earth agrees “X” is wrong, unless you can demonstrate “X” as wrong, it is subjective not objectively wrong.

Can 1+1=3 be demonstrated as wrong? Yes! According to the rules of Math, 1+1 will always equal 2; thus 1+1=3 is objectively wrong.

Can murder be demonstrated as illegal? Yes! As long as there is a book of law that says it is illegal to murder somebody, murder is objectively illegal.

Can murder be demonstrated as morally wrong? Unless you can find a book of morality that says murder is wrong, it is not objective, but subjectively wrong

Murder can be demonstrated as objectively bad for individuals and society. Our morality about murder derives from that objective fact, in both culture and probably in our biology as well.

 

[Ken-1122]

Murder can be demonstrated as objectively bad for individuals and society. Our morality about murder derives from that objective fact, in both culture and probably in our biology as well.

Perhaps you can demonstrate how murder is objectively bad for individuals and society, because a quick look through history and you will see there were plenty of times when murder was considered good for society and individuals. Lots of slaves were murdered during slavery, Jews were murdered in Nazi Germany, etc.

 

[stevevw]

The question is whether moral rules are a system of facts (objective) or a system of opinions (subjective).

A) Tofu is nasty.
B) Slavery is wrong.
C) Seven is odd.

Is statement B more like A (an opinion) or C (a fact)?

I think the idea that seven is odd is also subjective. How do we know seven could be normal and not odd. No one has got to know what seven is really like.

 

[stevevw]

Perhaps you can demonstrate how murder is objectively bad for individuals and society, because a quick look through history and you will see there were plenty of times when murder was considered good for society and individuals. Lots of slaves were murdered during slavery, Jews were murdered in Nazi Germany, etc.

Or even examples of when many thought killing ISIS was good as it meant that we stopped them from indiscriminately killing people. Or when the coalition of the willing attacked Suddam Hussain and Iraq. This was an agreed action by nations under the UN so to their way of thinking it must have been good. People agree when child killers are executed as well.

So according to some these reasons for killing are regarded as good for society as it stops bad people from killing innocents and sends a message about a greater good that it is wrong to kill innocents and there will be consequences. But even so, this still doesn't really mean that killing is objectively good. Not only can the morality of killing according to a worldview be relative but the idea of wellbeing can also be relative.

 

[durangodawood]

Perhaps you can demonstrate how murder is objectively bad for individuals and society, because a quick look through history and you will see there were plenty of times when murder was considered good for society and individuals. Lots of slaves were murdered during slavery, Jews were murdered in Nazi Germany, etc.

The long form of the common moral is: its bad to murder people in your tribe. I apologize for using the short form, as I agree that murdering the "other" was long considered acceptable if they were, or could be sold as, a threat.

I do think the moral rule has been slowly extending to a more universal prohibition. The deep national shame in Germany re the holocaust is one indication.

 

[Ken-1122]

The long form of the common moral is: its bad to murder people in your tribe. I apologize for using the short form, as I agree that murdering the "other" was long considered acceptable if they were, or could be sold as, a threat.

If you are gonna say murder is wrong; except under extenuating circumstances.... how can you call that objective?

 

[durangodawood]

If you are gonna say murder is wrong; except under extenuating circumstances.... how can you call that objective?

Attacking other threatening tribes? I dont see how thats purely a matter of subjective personal preference like chocolate/vanilla or country/rap.