Best Video To Send To Non-Believers On Morality

[Gene2memE]

i always just ask...explain why murder, rape and child abuse are wrong WITHOUT morality....

Morality is the conceptual label we give to our evaluation of the character of our actions and the actions of others (and the intent of those actions) as being beneficial or harmful/right or wrong/good or bad.

The only world without morality is one where there are no interactions between self-aware creatures. Any world were self-aware (or even partially self aware) creatures interact and do things has a moral dimension.

Why are murder, rape and child abuse wrong? They cause harm to people. I'm a people. I don't want to be harmed (people generally have an inherent aversion being harmed, it's a function of being alive). So I don't want to be raped, murdered or suffer child abuse. I also don't want to live in a society where rape, murder and child abuse are permitted (as I have sympathy, empathy and understand reciprocity). Thus, these things are harmful/wrong/bad.

Suppose there were two societies. One that permitted murder, rape and child abuse and one that forbid these things and punished people who committed such acts. You get to choose which society to live in. But, you don't know what position you would end up in in either society. Which one would you rather live in?

 

[Ken-1122]

I think we’re close to agreeing. Just one clarifying question: when you say “what the brain is doing is subjective”, you understand/agree that subjective process is happening in objective reality, yes?

I would say everything that actually happens, will happen in an objectively reality; so yes.

 

[DaisyDay]

very sorry believe i misunderstood you or meant to quote another you say morality is NOT subjective correct?

No that is not what I said. I asked the OP why he thinks morality has to be "objective".

 

[Gregory95]

Morality is the conceptual label we give to our evaluation of the character of our actions and the actions of others (and the intent of those actions) as being beneficial or harmful/right or wrong/good or bad.

The only world without morality is one where there are no interactions between self-aware creatures. Any world were self-aware (or even partially self aware) creatures interact and do things has a moral dimension.

Why are murder, rape and child abuse wrong? They cause harm to people. I'm a people. I don't want to be harmed (people generally have an inherent aversion being harmed, it's a function of being alive). So I don't want to be raped, murdered or suffer child abuse. I also don't want to live in a society where rape, murder and child abuse are permitted (as I have sympathy, empathy and understand reciprocity). Thus, these things are harmful/wrong/bad.

Suppose there were two societies. One that permitted murder, rape and child abuse and one that forbid these things and punished people who committed such acts. You get to choose which society to live in. But, you don't know what position you would end up in in either society. Which one would you rather live in?

if morality is subjective truth must be subjective ...so explain the truth behind why ones pain supasses ones desires? "do what thu wilt" are you unfamiliur with those peoples doctrine?

 

[Gregory95]

No that is not what I said. I asked the OP why he thinks morality has to be "objective".

light vs darkness...i dont understand why thats complex...however i do know the Bible states darkness does not comprehend the light...

 

[Gregory95]

harmful/right or wrong/good or bad.

morality
mə-răl′ĭ-tē, mô-
noun
The quality of being in accord with standards of right or good conduct.
A system or collection of ideas of right and wrong conduct.
Virtuous conduct.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

 

[DaisyDay]

light vs darkness...i dont understand why thats complex...however i do know the Bible states darkness does not comprehend the light...

Again, this has nothing to do with what I said.

 

[Gregory95]

Again, this has nothing to do with what I said.

really? DaisyDay said: ↑
why morality has to be "objective".

so then is truth subjective?

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

Morality is the conceptual label we give to our evaluation of the character of our actions and the actions of others (and the intent of those actions) as being beneficial or harmful/right or wrong/good or bad.

The only world without morality is one where there are no interactions between self-aware creatures. Any world were self-aware (or even partially self aware) creatures interact and do things has a moral dimension.

Why are murder, rape and child abuse wrong? They cause harm to people. I'm a people. I don't want to be harmed (people generally have an inherent aversion being harmed, it's a function of being alive). So I don't want to be raped, murdered or suffer child abuse. I also don't want to live in a society where rape, murder and child abuse are permitted (as I have sympathy, empathy and understand reciprocity). Thus, these things are harmful/wrong/bad.

Suppose there were two societies. One that permitted murder, rape and child abuse and one that forbid these things and punished people who committed such acts. You get to choose which society to live in. But, you don't know what position you would end up in in either society. Which one would you rather live in?

In order to believe certain morals are correct then you need to have a reason as to why that’s the case, under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent, it’s impossible. This is because if two societies appose one another morally, they both share in the exact same reason as to why their morals are true/correct. That being solely evolution. If both share the exact same reason as to why their morals are true then you cannot say that the other person’s morals are evil or wrong/incorrect, only different. How in your analogy if a society adopted of genocide a specific race, could you declare it as universally wrong? If your argument is human flourishing you need a reason as to why it's true rather than just assuming it's truth as you did above [Edit: To clarify, you need a reason why causing harm in these specific circumstances are wrong when causing harm in other specific circumstances (Defensive War, punishment for crimes & etc) are considered correct. In your subjective worldview what possibly could the distinctions be drawn from but arbitrary preference?]. If we follow your logic on morality above, rape and abuse should be considered morally correct for masochists.

 

[Gene2memE]

In order to believe certain morals are correct then you need to have a reason as to why that’s the case, under naturalism or materialism, a philosophical perspective that denies the transcendent, it’s impossible. This is because if two societies appose one another morally, they both share in the exact same reason as to why their morals are true/correct.

It's not impossible. Societies can agree on basic moral principles and move from them to derive evaluations of the morality of actions (or even thoughts) from them. X is good/just/right/moral, Y is bad/unfair/wrong/immoral.

Just because individual societies (and individuals) can also disagree on some moral principles, does not preclude them from agreement on the fundamentals. When they do disagree on the fundamentals, that's where conflict arises.

Divine Command theory makes this problem worse, not better. Under Divine Command theory, morals are inherently fixed. These are the moral laws, and they can't change. So, if a God commands atrocities, or genital mutilation, or ownership of people as property, there's no way to challenge such divine laws. And if the set of divine commands of one group of theists contradicts the divine commands of another group of theists, those differences can never be rectified.

Under secular moral frameworks, morals are a work in progress. The more we understand about humans and their interactions, the better we can form and agree to (or disagree to) moral principles, and thus resolve moral quandaries and disagreements. Health and eating good analogues - not everyone agrees on what activities or foods are the beast for our health, but we can fairly easily agree that injecting bleach under our skin, or eating washing pods aren't good for humans.

There's nothing in moral frameworks that that Divine Command theory solves that secular theories of morality don't. And there's plenty of problems that secular theories solve that Divine Command theory can't.

That being solely evolution.

Nope. Multiple, perfectly functional secular moral frameworks were developed way before the Theory of Evolution was a thing.

All you need for a secular moral framwork is to recognise the basic facts that humans are physical beings inhabiting a physical universe, and the physical facts of the universe dictate what is harmful/beneficial to us.

You shouldn't derive moral 'oughts' from the 'is' that is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection. People have tried - it's been a spectacular failure.

If both share the exact same reason as to why their morals are true then you cannot say that the other person’s morals are evil or wrong/incorrect, only different. How in your analogy if a society adopted of genocide a specific race, could you declare it as universally wrong? If your argument is human flourishing you need a reason as to why it's true rather than just assuming it's truth as you did above [Edit: To clarify, you need a reason why causing harm in these specific circumstances are wrong when causing harm in other specific circumstances (Defensive War, punishment for crimes & etc) are considered correct. In your subjective worldview what possibly could the distinctions be drawn from but arbitrary preference?].

You need to understand the link between intersubjectivity and how it relates to the objective/subjective moral dilemma.

Chess is a good example. The rules of chess are arbitrary. They have developed (a lot) through the centuries. There are hundreds of variations.

So, unless two players agree on which rules we're playing to and what the goal is - the principle of common consent - it's not possible to properly evaluate whether a move is good or bad.

It's similar with morality. Humans set moral frameworks between them by agreeing to simple moral principles (life is preferable to death, liberty is preferable to subjugation) based on the facts in reality, and then evaluating them with respect to those 'goals'. That's intersubjectivity.

If we follow your logic on morality above, rape and abuse should be considered morally correct for masochists.

How did you even....??

Even masochists recognise principles of consent, individual liberty, and the difference between harm of self and harm of others. Sheesh, it this really that hard?

A [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] enjoys harm being done to them in a sexual (or other manner). That in no way makes it morally correct for them to harm others (unless that other is consenting as well).

If you mean sadomasochism, then even they can recognise that there is a moral wrong being inflicted. They just don't care. Which is why it's defined as a mental illness. And yes, I can determine that such actions are morally wrong. Through a combination of subjective (personal preferences), intersubjective (social and cultural strictures, religious mores) and even objective (the facts of biological reality, formal laws and other systems) measures.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

It's not impossible. Societies can agree on basic moral principles and move from them to derive evaluations of the morality of actions (or even thoughts) from them. X is good/just/right/moral, Y is bad/unfair/wrong/immoral.

Agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them, they are arbitrary agreements and need a basis. If a society comes together and agrees that torture for x reason is moral, and I disagree, which one would be right and why? Your moral principles are entirely arbitrary, you need a reason as to why hurting people is bad and then a reason as to why it's true. If you have no reason as to why it's true then you literally have no reason to believe it or follow it, let alone legislate it.

Morals being inherently fixed make them capable of being true, that's what a fixed thing is. Truth is universal and exists not based on whether or not you believe it. If morals weren't fixed and they were merely agreements, then why should I be punished for disagreeing with the societies morals?

There's nothing in moral frameworks that that Divine Command theory solves that secular theories of morality don't

One is capable of moral truths as it allows the source of them to be universal and the others source for morality is epistemologically biological and varies from person to person depending upon their perspective.

All you need for a secular moral framwork is to recognise the basic facts that humans are physical beings inhabiting a physical universe, and the physical facts of the universe dictate what is harmful/beneficial to us. You shouldn't derive moral 'oughts' from the 'is' that is the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection

Beneficial =/= morality. It can be beneficial for a nation to go to invade and take their resources for their own. You're still assuming that harmful = bad when you haven't provided a reason for it being true. You keep assuming it without a reason to be the case. If your morality is entirely naturalistic you have no option but to derive moral oughts from your biology, for under naturalism that is the epistemological source of every thing that occurs within a person.

unless two players agree on which rules we're playing to and what the goal is - the principle of common consent - it's not possible to properly evaluate whether a move is good or bad. It's similar with morality. Humans set moral frameworks between them by agreeing to simple moral principles (life is preferable to death, liberty is preferable to subjugation) based on the facts in reality, and then evaluating them with respect to those 'goals'. That's intersubjectivity.

Again I'd hold out that morality is not based upon agreements but on something that will continue to exist regardless of whether we believe in Him or not. Aka, truth. If you are to answer any of my questions I would ask it be these ones because you keep assuming other morals to be true in order to say why other morals are true and this should help point that out.

>life is preferable to death
Why is this true and what makes it a fact in reality?
>liberty is preferable to subjugation
Why is this true and what makes it a fact in reality?

If they're merely agreements which can vary from person to person and if another person disagrees with "Life is preferable to death", which one would be right and why?
Try to do so without assuming human flourishing to be correct, that is unless you provide a reason for it being the case without the answer being entirely arbitrary.

Even masochists recognise principles of consent, individual liberty, and the difference between harm of self and harm of others. Sheesh, it this really that hard?

Again you're assuming the conclusion, that consent is a principle in which somebody is obliged to agree, as if it's a fact. When in reality you need to have a reason as to why that it is a fact, otherwise you have no reason as to why it's true. Which is why a morality not based upon something transcendent is completely incoherent. Epistemology completely destroys (for lack of a better term) 'secular' morality.

Through a combination of subjective (personal preferences), intersubjective (social and cultural strictures, religious mores) and even objective (the facts of biological reality, formal laws and other systems) measures.

What if someone's personal preferences, cultural structures, religious structures and perception of objective facts contradict yours, who's right and why? For all you have written, all you have done is assume one set of morals to be true based upon another set of assumed morals.

Edit: Corrected a word

 

[Gregory95]

Agreements upon behaviour =/= why I should follow them, they are arbitrary agreements and need a basis. If a society comes together and agrees that torture for x reason is moral, and I disagree, which one would be right and why? Your moral principles are entirely arbitrary, you need a reason as to why hurting people is bad and then a reason as to why it's true. If you have no reason as to why it's true then you literally have no reason to believe it or follow it, let alone legislate it.

Morals being inherently fixed make them capable of being true, that's what a fixed thing is. Truth is universal and exists not based on whether or not you believe it. If morals weren't fixed and they were merely agreements, then why should I be punished for disagreeing with the societies morals?



One is capable of moral truths as it allows the source of them to be universal and the others source for morality is epistemologically biological and varies from person to person depending upon their perspective.



Beneficial =/= morality. It can be beneficial for a nation to go to invade and take their resources for their own. You're still assuming that harmful = bad when you haven't provided a reason for it being true. You keep assuming it without a reason to be the case. If your morality is entirely naturalistic you have no option but to derive moral oughts from your biology, for under naturalism that is the epistemological source of every thing that occurs within a person.



Again I'd hold out that morality is not based upon agreements but on something that will continue to exist regardless of whether we believe in Him or not. Aka, truth. If you are to answer any of my questions I would ask it be these ones because you keep assuming other morals to be true in order to say why other morals are true and this should help point that out.

>life is preferable to death
Why is this true and what makes it a fact in reality?
>liberty is preferable to subjugation
Why is this true and what makes it a fact in reality?

If they're merely agreements which can vary from person to person and if another person disagrees with "Life is preferable to death", which one would be right and why?
Try to do so without assuming human flourishing to be correct, that is unless you provide a reason for it being the case without the answer being entirely arbitrary.



Again you're assuming the conclusion, that consent is a principle in which somebody is obliged to agree, as if it's a fact. When in reality you need to have a reason as to why that it is a fact, otherwise you have no reason as to why it's true. Which is why a morality not based upon something transcendent is completely incoherent. Epistemology completely destroys (for lack of a better term) 'secular' morality.



What if someone's personal preferences, cultural structures, religious structures and perception of objective facts contradict yours, who's right and why? For all you have written, all you have done is assume one set of morals to be true based upon another set of assumed morals.

Edit: Corrected a word

well spoken ,agree

 

[DaisyDay]

light vs darkness...i dont understand why thats complex...however i do know the Bible states darkness does not comprehend the light...

While there may be absolute light and absolute darkness (one is as blinding as the other), we don't encounter that in real life. Lightness and darkness is a continuum. Light and dark are not thinking entities, capable of comprehension; they are qualities which are perceived in relation to each other. More light is less dark and more dark is less light.

really? DaisyDay said: ↑
why morality has to be "objective".
so then is truth subjective?

You've skipped over too many steps and simply presumed agreement. For instance, you seem to be equating morality with truth somehow. You haven't made the case that this is so. They may or may not be related but you haven't made the case how or that they are identical.

Then, too, I have the suspicion that you are begging the question when you ask if truth is subjective without having given any definition of terms. If you define "truth" as necessarily being "objective", then the argument is circular.

 

[Gregory95]

While there may be absolute light and absolute darkness (one is as blinding as the other), we don't encounter that in real life. Lightness and darkness is a continuum. Light and dark are not thinking entities, capable of comprehension; they are qualities which are perceived in relation to each other. More light is less dark and more dark is less light.

so Bible is wrong and you are right?

 

[Gregory95]

They may or may not be related but you haven't made the case how or that they are identical.

i dont understand how you dont understand unless you A. dont study the Bible and or B do not believe in the Bible....in which case i will apolagize and reexplain in more secular way

 

[Gregory95]

Then, too, I have the suspicion that you are begging the question when you ask if truth is subjective without having given any definition of terms. If you define "truth" as necessarily being "objective", then the argument is circular.

define truth...here i just didnt think that was complex topic

truth
troo͞th
noun

1. Conformity to fact or actuality.
2. Reality; actuality.
3. The reality of a situation.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, 5th Edition.

 

[Tranquil Bondservant]

While there may be absolute light and absolute darkness (one is as blinding as the other), we don't encounter that in real life. Lightness and darkness is a continuum. Light and dark are not thinking entities, capable of comprehension; they are qualities which are perceived in relation to each other. More light is less dark and more dark is less light.


You've skipped over too many steps and simply presumed agreement. For instance, you seem to be equating morality with truth somehow. You haven't made the case that this is so. They may or may not be related but you haven't made the case how or that they are identical.

Then, too, I have the suspicion that you are begging the question when you ask if truth is subjective without having given any definition of terms. If you define "truth" as necessarily being "objective", then the argument is circular.

Just wanted to point out that there is no such thing as subjective truth. If it's true that subjective truth is correct then truth would no longer be subjective. As the truth would be subjective truth is true. It's completely self defeating and incoherent. We don't get to define truth, a rock doesn't stop existing after you die, nor does the moon stop existing because you don't believe in it. You might disagree on what the moon is but it's still there. It's not question begging to conclude that there is a foundation. If you want some mad question begging then let me point out that without something to say why logic and reason are correct, they rely on themselves to prove themselves, which is inherently circular. So no matter what way you slice it, if the thing that makes logic and reason true/correct is God, then you're left adhering to what He says about truth.

Here's what He says:
Judges 21:25
Proverbs 12:15
Proverbs 14:12
Judges 17:4-6 Was the original judges verse I was thinking of. Here it's held out as being wrong & abhorrent due to a bloke called Micah putting an idol in his house and then inventing his own priesthood.

Edit: Put in an extra scripture reference. God bless

 

[DaisyDay]

i dont understand how you dont understand unless you A. dont study the Bible and or B do not believe in the Bible....in which case i will apolagize and reexplain in more secular way

Yeah, it might help if you spoke to me in a secular way rather than preach at me. Your preaching is more irritating than explicative.

 

[DaisyDay]

Just wanted to point out that there is no such thing as subjective truth.

I'm not convinced. To use Nietzsche's example, to eagles, the truth is to be an eagle is strong and good whereas to be a lamb is to be weak and uneaglic, i.e. bad. To the lamb, the truth is to be a lamb is good and to be a lamb-killing eagle is evil.

If it's true that subjective truth is correct then truth would no longer be subjective. As the truth would be subjective truth is true. It's completely self defeating and incoherent.

Meh, semantics.

We don't get to define truth, a rock doesn't stop existing after you die, nor does the moon stop existing because you don't believe in it.

"Truth" is a word; we do get to define the words we use, particular in an argument where there might be disagreement or ambiguity. One example that is often used - although why, I don't know - is "the sky is blue" is true; but while it might be often true, it is often not true, for example, at night or at dusk.

Is that rock true? Is the moon true? You are very imprecise with your words and imagery. Your particular rock may or may not exist. I do agree, however, that my believe doesn't affect its existence or its non-existence. Do you mean to say that truth is limited to fact?

You might disagree on what the moon is but it's still there. It's not question begging to conclude that there is a foundation.

Eh, what? If your conclusion is based on that there is a foundation, then that is exactly begging the question.

If you want some mad question begging then let me point out that without something to say why logic and reason are correct, they rely on themselves to prove themselves, which is inherently circular.

You can say that logic can prove that something is consistent within logic, that if fits its own definition, but, no, logic does not prove truth. Logic is a method. Reason is also a method and is often faulty.

So no matter what way you slice it, if the thing that makes logic and reason true/correct is God, then you're left adhering to what He says about truth.

That's a pretty big "if" because logic and reason are not necessarily true/correct; go your statement is pointless. And then you have the question, which God?

Here's what He says:
Judges 21:25
Proverbs 12:15
Proverbs 14:12
Judges 17:4-6 Was the original judges verse I was thinking of. Here it's held out as being wrong & abhorrent due to a bloke called Micah putting an idol in his house and then inventing his own priesthood.

Edit: Put in an extra scripture reference. God bless

So, you are equating truth with morality somehow?

 

[DaisyDay]

so Bible is wrong and you are right?

so you have no idea what I actually argued?