The Moral Argument

[Sapiens]

For convenience, shall we refer to this as your 3rd definition?

That was the definition I put in the OP though.

 

[bhsmte]

#725, Once: ""I will ask again, does anyone believe that there are universal moral standards that transcend culture and time?"

#765, Davian "What is your testable criteria for a "universal moral standard"?"

#775, Once: "Is that a no then?"

#840, Davian: "A no to what? I asked, what is your testable criteria for a "universal moral standard"?"

#1028, Once: "I asked if anyone felt there was a universal moral standard. You didn't ask what a testable criteria for a universal moral standard would be."

Par for the course.

 

[Davian]

It didn't matter,

Now you admit I did ask, but it didn't matter?

I simply asked if anyone believe that there are universal moral standards that transcend culture and time. I am not asking for a definition of what that means or by what means we might test them.

Tell me, how do we know if there are any, if we lack testable criteria by which they can be determined?

 

[Sapiens]

Again, stop making up positions for me.
For further references, here is a summary of my relevant positions on the subject (based on your definition of "objective"):
1. In my opinion, raping little children for fun is wrong.
2. As you have pointed out numerous times in one single post, this is universally agreed upon in the human perspective.
3. I agree that there are countless "objective" (=by your definition: non-human) views on the subject of *raping little children for fun*. (So, by your definition, I am a moral objectivist.).
4. Frankly, I don´t care whether dogs, aliens, the tooth fairy, Satan or Gods (all of which would have an objective view on the matter, by your definition) might think raping little kids for fun is good.
5. IOW: the mere fact that a perspective is "objective" (non-human) adds the option of diverting "objective" opinions on the matter, while the human perspective is universally agreeing.
6. Thus, introducing "objective" (non-human) perspectives actually creates the very problem that didn´t exist without them. I´m not sure why you are so eager to look for a non-human perspective that might contradict that which is agreed upon in the human perspective.

If you want to engage me on my views, read these points carefully and refer to them.

I don't know what Anonymous said about objectivity but what I say is that the definition isn't just "non-human", it's about getting the proper reference. Someone who has a complete and accurate perspective of reality. For morality, this requires a sentient person who has perfect knowledge of right and wrong.

 

[quatona]

I don't know what Anonymous said about objectivity but what I say is that the definition isn't just "non-human", it's about getting the proper reference. Someone who has a complete and accurate perspective of reality. For morality, this requires a sentient person who has perfect knowledge of right and wrong.

That´s ok. When I address Jeremy´s line of reasoning I am using his definition, when I address your line of reasoning I will be using yours, of course.
In any case, I am missing a substantiation of premises 1 and 2.

 

[Sapiens]

No.

A means of independently evaluating something, in a manner that should result in consistent conclusions.

Does the Earth rotate and orbit the Sun? How do we objectively test that?

Somewhat unreliable. Personal experience tells us that the Earth hangs in space while the cosmos rotates around it.

Rotating Stars

• Davian
• May 26, 2014

Australian Astronomical Observatory

Forgive me all for the lagging. BTW, I might have missed a response you have me in that ocean of comments. I'm going to reanswer and clarify some of the first posts since some vital questions were asked and I feel you don't all seem satisfied with the answers furnished. Although, I have added essential infos in my OP. I'm afraid it won't change much your position but there some things I can improve my statements. Also, since we're all so keen on honesty and proper source referencing here, assume I am taking infos from the sources I've cited in the OP. Otherwise it's from my own reasonings.

To clarify, I should've said "your consciousness" as my answer. For instance, how can we prove a human life has value? I don't know but I believe it. How can I be sure any of my intuitions, including my senses and reason, are reliable? I seem to assume it. It's just so.

 

[Davian]

...
To clarify, I should've said "your consciousness" as my answer.

Define what you mean by consciousness.

For instance, how can we prove a human life has value?

I have no idea what this might have to do with consciousness. As for human life having value, it has the value we (as a person/family/society/population) puts on it.

I don't know but I believe it.

Indeed. Same for the adults in a pack of wolves that put value on the pups, and feed and protect them rather than eating them.

How can I be sure any of my intuitions, including my senses and reason, are reliable? I seem to assume it.

I don't. I know that my senses can easily be deceived, despite being consistent enough to drive a car, or (for others) fly a plane, or perform surgery.

We need other methodologies for exploring reality, if we wish for greater levels of accuracy.

It's just so.

There are evolutionary explanations for this, such as the behaviour evolving with us as part of being a social animal. The critters that placed more value on their young faired better than those that didn't; we are their descendants. The others went extinct.

This does nothing for your OP.

 

[Sapiens]

1. Why? Can you flesh out that connection please.

2. Can you prove this?

Please demonstrate premise 1.

That's an argument from ignorance.

Please try to support your own claims / premises with actual positive evidence FOR your claims / premises.

Explain how objective morality can only exist when a God also exists.



But isn't that exactly the case?

Human morality seems pretty much connected to human existance...

No humans = no human morality.


Why?


Why is that a problem?

This smells like emotional pleading.


Why?

Why can't it just be subjective - ie, in the minds of humans and in the context of a human society?

Why must it be objective?


Yes, you have claimed that multiple times now.


You failed to show that there is anything there to explain in the first place...

All you seem to have is an emotional plea for being "special" on a cosmic scale.


A conclusion in an argument is only as good as its premises.

If a premise cannot be demonstrated or supported, it is rather worthless / meaningless.

So....

We have premise 1, which seems to be nothing but an emotional plea to feel special combined with a seemingly random claim to pull your god in there as well (feels like an assumed conclusion).

Then we have premise 2, which you yourself say that it cannot be demonstrated or supported.

From the looks of it, your conclusion isn't very meaningfull.

The reason why I mentioned human value wasn't an appeal to emotions; it was me being consistent with what I'm saying. If a human doesn't have a special value, then how can anything wrong or good be done to one of them? In a universe without God, morality is neutral and nonexistant. If you do believe humans have an intrinsic value and that right and wrong exist, then you'll have a dilemma here. So, yes, it is a big problem. If they do exist, then what best explains there existence?...

If human value is just sujbective, only developped through evolution because it permits us to get along well and survive, then it is not real and doesn't mean anything. It's that simple.

Suppose I grant everything you've said here. That the cornerstone theories of biology and cosmology - predicated on decades of critically robust data from dozens of lines of convergent fields of study - are somehow 'speculative'. Your assertion that atheism and naturalism are equivalent to nihilism. Your implicit assertion that Yahweh somehow imparts 'meaning' onto human life by means of... what exactly? Magic? Who cares. I grant it.

All of it. Granted. Now, are you any closer to demonstrating the veracity of your own moral philosophy? Are you any closer apprehending, understanding and gleaning the existence of any 'objective moral values'?

No. All you have is a convoluted argument from consequence fallacy. You've said effectively nothing.

And again, that is granting your naked assertions.

You have not explained or demonstrated anything. You have simply declared it so.

As I said, the "morality" that I defined in my post, and that you pulled from the Oxford dictionary, does not exist in the absence of humans. It evolved along with us, and will disappear with our eventual extinction.

I want to know what you mean by "morality", outside of those definitions.

What about morality for the survival of society and the common good? Again, this presupposes that humans have an intrinsic value attached to them. What does it matter , objectively speaking, that we survive or not, or that the greater good should matter more than the individual egoistic and sometimes psychopathic good? Where do you ground that intrinsic human value in reality? Because this is what this argument is about. Not how we acquire knowledge of the good or bad but where it is rooted in reality; why it exists. What gives a human value without God? That is the problem.

So it seems to me that, in order to be coherent, you should either believe right and wrong exist and that humans have a value and that God must exist along with them; or that right and wrong don't exist and humans don't have value and God doesn't exist either. The second option really seems to suck to me. Does that make it not true, no, I didn't say that. But it certainly contradicts my experience of life and reality. Why should I believe that then?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

The reason why I mentioned human value wasn't an appeal to emotions; it was me being consistent with what I'm saying. If a human doesn't have a special value, then how can anything wrong or good be done to one of them? In a universe without God, morality is neutral and nonexistant. If you do believe humans have an intrinsic value and that right and wrong exist, then you'll have a dilemma here. So, yes, it is a big problem. If they do exist, then what best explains there existence?...

If human value is just sujbective, only developped through evolution because it permits us to get along well and survive, then it is not real and doesn't mean anything. It's that simple.







What about morality for the survival of society and the common good? Again, this presupposes that humans have an intrinsic value attached to them. What does it matter , objectively speaking, that we survive or not, or that the greater good should matter more than the individual egoistic and sometimes psychopathic good? Where do you ground that intrinsic human value in reality? Because this is what this argument is about. Not how we acquire knowledge of the good or bad but where it is rooted in reality; why it exists. What gives a human value without God? That is the problem.

So it seems to me that, in order to be coherent, you should either believe right and wrong exist and that humans have a value and that God must exist along with them; or that right and wrong don't exist and humans don't have value and God doesn't exist either. The second option really seems to suck to me. Does that make it not true, no, I didn't say that. But it certainly contradicts my experience of life and reality. Why should I believe that then?

We don't have any intrinsic value and that is proven when acts of nature dismember innocent children while at the same time leaving a rapist unscathed.

Morality is our own invention. If you want to say it is God's, then you have no real basis for being against rape, slavery, or genocide.

 

[Sapiens]

We don't have any intrinsic value and that is proven when acts of nature dismember innocent children while at the same time leaving a rapist unscathed.

Morality is our own invention. If you want to say it is God's, then you have no real basis for being against rape, slavery, or genocide.

Yes, I can see why you chose that name now... I'm sorry about that.

At least, you seem to agree with my last statement, in a way.

Rape, slavery, genocide? Despite what you say about human value, you seem to believe that it is bad nonetheless. I feel you're now blaming God for all this. Indeed, that sounds like the problem of evil. That would make an excellent topic for another thread in the apologetics section; in fact, I think there is one already.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Yes, I can see why you chose that name now... I'm sorry about that.

At least, you seem to agree with my last statement, in a way.

Rape, slavery, genocide? Despite what you say about human value, you seem to believe that it is bad nonetheless. I feel you're now blaming God for all this. Indeed, that sounds like the problem of evil. That would make an excellent topic for another thread in the apologetics section; in fact, I think there is one already.

Thank you for the attacks on my character. Try researching what nihilism is. No wait, who am I kidding, you won't.

I am a nihilist with regards to logical axioms being true in any absolute sense. I never said that I don't hold life valuable or that I have no morals. I said that there is no intrinsic value placed upon life because there isn't. That's why guns work. The bullets don't curve around humans out of respect of our intrinsic value. They simply cut and slice through flesh as though it's paper.

I don't automatically blame God for atrocities committed by men, but when he specifically orders genocide or condones rape and slavery, then yes, blame is sensible.

 

[quatona]

If human value is just sujbective, only developped through evolution because it permits us to get along well and survive, then it is not real and doesn't mean anything. It's that simple.

Where I come from it´s not that simple.
In your opinion, what would render a value "real"?
In your opinion, what is required for a value to "mean something"?
How did you establish those criteria?

 

[quatona]

Rape, slavery, genocide?

We can evaluate those from an entirely human perspective.

Despite what you say about human value, you seem to believe that it is bad nonetheless.

He believes it, you believe it, I believe it.
Don´t know about you, but even if it turned out that from a divine perspective these actions are good and right, I´d still believe them to be bad and wrong.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Thank you for the attacks on my character. Try researching what nihilism is. No wait, who am I kidding, you won't.

I am a nihilist with regards to logical axioms being true in any absolute sense. I never said that I don't hold life valuable or that I have no morals. I said that there is no intrinsic value placed upon life because there isn't. That's why guns work. The bullets don't curve around humans out of respect of our intrinsic value. They simply cut and slice through flesh as though it's paper.

I don't automatically blame God for atrocities committed by men, but when he specifically orders genocide or condones rape and slavery, then yes, blame is sensible.

Do you think that the slaughter of chickens is genocide? Do you think that breeding horses is rape? Are work horses considered slaves?

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Do you think that the slaughter of chickens is genocide? Do you think that breeding horses is rape? Are work horses considered slaves?

Are you saying that because God is a different or higher species, he may slaughter us for his own amusement?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you saying that because God is a different or higher species, he may slaughter us for his own amusement?

Could you answer my question rather than trying to determine what my thoughts about it are?

 

[Hieronymus]

Do you think that the slaughter of chickens is genocide? Do you think that breeding horses is rape? Are work horses considered slaves?

By certain treehuggers, yes...

 

[Oncedeceived]

By certain treehuggers, yes...

Tree huggers aside.

 

[Nihilist Virus]

Could you answer my question rather than trying to determine what my thoughts about it are?

Do you think that the slaughter of chickens is genocide?

No, we do not want them to be extinct. We are not attempting genocide on them.

Do you think that breeding horses is rape?

Artificial insemination of horses is rape. Allowing horses to breed naturally may or may not result in the male raping the female. I don't know the mechanics of horse sex.


Are work horses considered slaves?

They work for no pay, so what do you think?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Do you think that the slaughter of chickens is genocide?

No, we do not want them to be extinct. We are not attempting genocide on them.

Good point. Do you think it is murder?

Do you think that breeding horses is rape?

Artificial insemination of horses is rape. Allowing horses to breed naturally may or may not result in the male raping the female. I don't know the mechanics of horse sex.

Fair enough. Do you think it is immoral to artificially inseminate horses?

Are work horses considered slaves?

They work for no pay, so what do you think?

Ok, so do you think it is immoral to make horses slaves?