Is there an absolute morality?

[TLK Valentine]

Well, we’re talking about death by accident, not by judgment.

Then let's not bring "deserves" into it

All those terms can be used to describe objective acts or events that take place.

Describing them subjectively.

When we do that are we not being objective?

Pretty much all the time -- they're subjective terms.

No need to put them in quotes, btw, if you don’t mind.

Actually, there is a need, as I was quoting you.

What happened because of your act was bad even though you didn’t intend to do it. But no, I wouldn’t say you acted immorally, maybe just clumsily.

Then we agree that "accidents" cannot be moral or immoral -- morality requires agency.

 

[Chriliman]

Then let's not bring "deserves" into it

Why? You wouldn’t say someone who died by accident deserved it, so why not think they didn’t deserve it?

Describing them subjectively.

But when I describe something, an objective act is taking place, no? And if I describe it accurately, then it’s objectively correct.

Pretty much all the time -- they're subjective terms.

Wait, can you reword this, hard to parse what you’re saying here.

Then we agree that "accidents" cannot be moral or immoral -- morality requires agency.

You missed it, but I added that I wasn’t sure if being clumsy is bad behavior, or at least undesirable behavior or not. If it’s undesirable behavior, does that make it immoral, at least to a lesser degree? Eh, maybe not worth discussing too much.

 

[Moral Orel]

And yet, there is no obligation for you to design a game where the rules are the same for all players....and in fact, in some cases, no need to.

For example, in the game "Dead By Daylight," four players team up to escape a ruthless serial killer -- the killer operates under very different rules from the other players.

But I digress.

Right, there's no reason I "should" design a fair game, and no reason I "should not" design a fair game. A game with identical rules for all players definitely sets a fair playing field. We can use fair in ways that are not subjective. I'd go so far to say that through statistics and the law of averages, we can determine if players operating at different rules still have a fair playing field as well.

It's not about "should," it's about how and why your arm got broken that morality comes into play.

Morality is all about "should". No mention of "should" or "ought" and you haven't mentioned morality. We can objectively describe how and why an arm got broken without trying to say that "Your arm shouldn't have been broken in that manner for that reason". And if we don't do that, then there's no morality involved.

Not sure where you're going with this... "fair" is a subjective term... as much as "should."

Sometimes we make judgements about things that are objective. "Fair" is as much a subjective term as "healthy". "Should" is as much a subjective term as "tasty". There's a difference.

 

[Moral Orel]

I disagree, not acting is an act in of itself.

That's true, I'll give you that point.

I don't see why the subjective can't be a result of the objective. Thoughts?

I honestly don't know what that means. Grammatically, you're using adjectives without nouns.

I think if we define "stealing" well enough it could be made absolutely wrong if those defined circumstances are fully met. So something like this:

Take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it(or pay it back), while knowing it will cause harm greater than the harm caused if you don't steal(my addition).

You haven't mentioned anything resembling a "should", so you haven't mentioned morality.

In some cases, like stealing the bread to feed your kids, it causes less harm to steal it than it would if you didn't steal it, plus you could always try to pay it back, which then isn't even stealing according to the specific definition above. Though, I realize this can open a can of worms of "Well, what about this scenario!"

In all seriousness, I don't care how despicable and vile a scenario you cook up, you cannot logically justify a "should". My proof doesn't care about the scenario itself. It works because you cannot observe how things "should" be.

That may be part of it, but the definition isn't restricted to that.

It is integral.

Doing the "right" thing means doing what you should do.
Doing the "wrong" thing means doing what you shouldn't do.
Exhibiting good behavior means exhibiting the kind of behavior you should exhibit.
Exhibiting bad behavior means exhibiting the kind of behavior you shouldn't exhibit.
Principles of conduct is all about how you should conduct yourself.

If you take it easy on the "shoulds" and accept that people will and do behave well, regardless if they should or not, then yes, I think so.

To "behave well" is to behave in a manner that you should behave. You cannot escape the should!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Why? You wouldn’t say someone who died by accident deserved it, so why not think they didn’t deserve it?

I wouldn't because I'm being subjective.

Although... ever hear the one about the bomber who forgot to correct for daylight savings time?

Bomb may have exploded in Irish suspect's face because he forgot to change clocks for Daylight Savings Time | National Post

Maybe some accidents are deserved.

But when I describe something, an objective act is taking place, no? And if I describe it accurately, then it’s objectively correct.

No. "deserve" is a subjective judgement.

Wait, can you reword this, hard to parse what you’re saying here.

The terms you're using are subjective descriptions, not objective facts.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Right, there's no reason I "should" design a fair game, and no reason I "should not" design a fair game. A game with identical rules for all players definitely sets a fair playing field.

Not if it's a game like Dead by Daylight, so definitely not.

We can use fair in ways that are not subjective.

I'd have to see that happen before I agree.

I'd go so far to say that through statistics and the law of averages, we can determine if players operating at different rules still have a fair playing field as well.

If "fair" is nothing but a statistical equation... is it?

Morality is all about "should". No mention of "should" or "ought" and you haven't mentioned morality. We can objectively describe how and why an arm got broken without trying to say that "Your arm shouldn't have been broken in that manner for that reason". And if we don't do that, then there's no morality involved.

And who or what determines what "should" or "ought to" happen? Is that source absolute?

Sometimes we make judgements about things that are objective. "Fair" is as much a subjective term as "healthy". "Should" is as much a subjective term as "tasty". There's a difference.

Indeed -- we make subjective judgments regarding objective facts. But facts themselves can't be moral or immoral, because "should" and "ought to" are not factual statements.

 

[Moral Orel]

And who or what determines what "should" or "ought to" happen? Is that source absolute?

Wow, bro... Stop for a minute, reread my posts, and get your bearings. The argument you think I'm planning on making ain't gonna happen. Look at what I've said, and try not to read into it.

 

[o_mlly]

Ah. Poetic license. Like 'The Cruel Sea' perhaps. And you want me to accept that as the basis for determining morality. I might pass. Thanks for telling us where you get your moral philosophy from though. I was hoping to get something vaguely scriptural at the least.

Why would one appeal to scripture in debating an atheist? Even an appeal to your atheist hero Voltaire who believed that the accidental death of the innocent to be evil does not move you. Your problem is you believe you alone are the authority to yourself. As an absolute sovereign of your beliefs you claim autonomy—obeys yourself alone, submit to no argument made by others, and recognize no authority to regulate your beliefs.

There is no point in arguing with you. It's quite like arguing with a morally immature teenager. Things are good to them only if they desire them. Challenged as to whether there is any truth in their value judgments— judgments about things as good or bad, they, like you, find it difficult to defend them by giving reasons calculated to persuade others to agree with them. Of course, in their mind, like yours, all things are subjective because their ultimate argument is, like yours, "Well, because I like to think so."

 

[Chriliman]

I wouldn't because I'm being subjective.

Although... ever hear the one about the bomber who forgot to correct for daylight savings time?

Bomb may have exploded in Irish suspect's face because he forgot to change clocks for Daylight Savings Time | National Post

Maybe some accidents are deserved.



No. "deserve" is a subjective judgement.



The terms you're using are subjective descriptions, not objective facts.

I know they’re not objective facts, but when used to describe an objective situation, like Nancy being the rightful owner of the car, it can lead to an objective fact.

 

[Chriliman]

That's true, I'll give you that point.

I honestly don't know what that means. Grammatically, you're using adjectives without nouns.

You haven't mentioned anything resembling a "should", so you haven't mentioned morality.

In all seriousness, I don't care how despicable and vile a scenario you cook up, you cannot logically justify a "should". My proof doesn't care about the scenario itself. It works because you cannot observe how things "should" be.

It is integral.

Doing the "right" thing means doing what you should do.
Doing the "wrong" thing means doing what you shouldn't do.
Exhibiting good behavior means exhibiting the kind of behavior you should exhibit.
Exhibiting bad behavior means exhibiting the kind of behavior you shouldn't exhibit.
Principles of conduct is all about how you should conduct yourself.

To "behave well" is to behave in a manner that you should behave. You cannot escape the should!

Ok, I think the issue is that a ‘should’ is based on past observed event. You’ve seen what went wrong before so now you should do it differently. It’s kind of like a foretelling of what you will do differently now, based on what happened before. That’s how it can be logically justified.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Wow, bro... Stop for a minute, reread my posts, and get your bearings. The argument you think I'm planning on making ain't gonna happen. Look at what I've said, and try not to read into it.

I'm just hearing a lot of "should"s and "ought to"s without hearing about who's making such determinations.

And since "should" and "ought to" is the basis of morality, it's a pretty crucial question.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know they’re not objective facts, but when used to describe an objective situation, like Nancy being the rightful owner of the car, it can lead to an objective fact.

"Rightful" insofar as she has (legal) rights to it.

But that car was legally mine up until a year ago. I paid for it, I drove it, Nancy never so much as sat in it until I took a year-long business trip to China and figured I shouldn't be making insurance payments on a car I won't be using.

So I signed the title over to Nancy with the agreement that she would give it back when I returned... except now she refuses, claiming the car is "rightfully" hers... and on paper, it is.

Is it really, though?

 

[Chriliman]

"Rightful" insofar as she has (legal) rights to it.

But that car was legally mine up until a year ago. I paid for it, I drove it, Nancy never so much as sat in it until I took a year-long business trip to China and figured I shouldn't be making insurance payments on a car I won't be using.

So I signed the title over to Nancy with the agreement that she would give it back when I returned... except now she refuses, claiming the car is "rightfully" hers... and on paper, it is.

Is it really, though?

I'd say what is right is based on their signed agreement(objective agreement), so in this case, Nancy is (objectively)wrong to refuse to return it. Again, it's all based on the objective facts(assuming they both signed or at least agreed to return the car before hand.) Whether they signed or just agreed in word, Nancy is not keeping her word and that can be objectively observed.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I'd say what is right is based on their signed agreement(objective agreement), so in this case, Nancy is (objectively)wrong to refuse to return it. Again, it's all based on the objective facts(assuming they both signed or at least agreed to return the car before hand.) Whether they signed or just agreed in word, Nancy is not keeping her word and that can be objectively observed.

But does Nancy have to keep her word if it wasn't signed? I say we had an agreement; she says I should've put it in writing.

The only remedy for me is to sue her to get my car back...and the outcome is going to depend on the laws. I sue her in New York, she wins. I sue her in Texas, I win. I sue her in Florida, I might as well flip a coin.

Are objective facts supposed to change over state lines?

 

[Chriliman]

But does Nancy have to keep her word if it wasn't signed? I say we had an agreement; she says I should've put it in writing.

The only remedy for me is to sue her to get my car back...and the outcome is going to depend on the laws. I sue her in New York, she wins. I sue her in Texas, I win. I sue her in Florida, I might as well flip a coin.

Are objective facts supposed to change over state lines?

I know all that can happen, but my point is that her not keeping her word is objectively observable regardless of what happens. That’s why she should keep her word because her statements objectively happened. Will she? Well that’s up to her and how valuable her word is to her, but that doesn’t change the facts of what happened.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I know all that can happen, but my point is that her not keeping her word is objectively observable regardless of what happens. That’s why she should keep her word because her statements objectively happened.

No... whether she does or doesn't keep her word is an objective fact.

Whether she should or shouldn't is situational.

Will she? Well that’s up to her and how valuable her word is to her, but that doesn’t change the facts of what happened.

"Should" isn't an objective fact -- it's a subjective moral judgement based on the situation.

In this specific case, she should keep her word (I certainly think so), but in other situations, keeping her word is something she shouldn't do.

 

[Moral Orel]

Ok, I think the issue is that a ‘should’ is based on past observed event. You’ve seen what went wrong before so now you should do it differently. It’s kind of like a foretelling of what you will do differently now, based on what happened before. That’s how it can be logically justified.

You have not seen that. You've seen what happened, and you need to reason why it shouldn't have gone that way because you can't observe the should.

 

[Moral Orel]

I'm just hearing a lot of "should"s and "ought to"s without hearing about who's making such determinations.

And since "should" and "ought to" is the basis of morality, it's a pretty crucial question.

The mere utterance of the words is enough for you to conclude that someone is making an argument for some kind of morality...

You stated morality enters the situation when we consider the "how" and "why" and I stated it still hasn't entered the situation. I'm explaining how morality still doesn't matter, and you're concluding I'm making an argument for some sort of morality.

We don't need to consider a should, so who cares who wants to make a determination about something we don't need to consider?

 

[TLK Valentine]

The mere utterance of the words is enough for you to conclude that someone is making an argument for some kind of morality...

Wouldn't be much of a thread without that.

You stated morality enters the situation when we consider the "how" and "why" and I stated it still hasn't entered the situation. I'm explaining how morality still doesn't matter, and you're concluding I'm making an argument for some sort of morality.

Then without the situation, there is no moral argument.

We don't need to consider a should, so who cares who wants to make a determination about something we don't need to consider?

No situation = no morality.

 

[Bradskii]

Why would one appeal to scripture in debating an atheist?

One would quote scripture for the same reason one would quote Plato or Voltaire or Hume. What was written is applicable. One finds it valid. One perhaps incorporates it into their world view.

Your latest problem is that you are conflating moral evil, an act intentionally designed to cause harm (which this thread is about) with natural evil - which is a problem for theism. And not applicable here.

And in passing, you make the same mistake that a lot of Christians do when someone like myself suggests that decisions on morality are our own personal responsibility. You seem to automatically assume that my position, for example, would then always align with what I want. What benefits me. That personal responsibility equates to selfishness.

You might want to rethink that.