The problem of Objective Morality. and why even biblical speaking it is subjective

[stevevw]

The point, which you continually fail to understand, it that you can show scientifically the harm that an action brings about, but you can't show that "harm" equates to "wrong" in all moral systems. And you can't show that one moral system is the "objective" moral system. Once again, the dictionary definition of "morality" says nothing about which system to use.

I wanted to include what Sam Harris has said on the subject as well as he not only makes a good case for objective morality but he has offered a $20,000 prize to anyone who can refute what he has said with an independent judge. So far no one has won with plenty taking up the challenge. His argument is fairly similar to the ones I previously posted.

For showing how morality can be objectively proven by how we can scientifically reason that it is based on the wellbeing of conscious humans.

Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks? Why don't we feel compassion for rocks? It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. Now, the crucial thing to notice here is that this is a factual claim: This is something that we could be right or wrong about. And if we have misconstrued the relationship between biological complexity and the possibilities of experience well then, we could be wrong about the inner lives of insects.

And there's no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I've ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes.

Now, to speak about the conditions of well-being in this life, for human beings, we know that there is a continuum of such facts. We know that it's possible to live in a failed state, where everything that can go wrong does go wrong -- where mothers cannot feed their children, where strangers cannot find the basis for peaceful collaboration, where people are murdered indiscriminately. And we know that it's possible to move along this continuum towards something quite a bit more idyllic, to a place where a conference like this is even conceivable.

And we know -- we know -- that there are right and wrong answers to how to move in this space. Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea? Probably not. Would it be a good idea for everyone to believe in the evil eye, so that when bad things happened to them they immediately blame their neighbours? Probably not. There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish, whether or not we understand these truths. And morality relates to these truths.

So, in talking about values we are talking about facts. Now, of course our situation in the world can be understood at many levels -- from the level of the genome on up to the level of economic systems and political arrangements. But if we're going to talk about human well-being we are, of necessity, talking about the human brain. Because we know that our experience of the world and of ourselves within it is realized in the brain --

So the contributions of culture -- if culture changes us, as indeed it does, it changes us by changing our brains. And so therefore whatever cultural variation there is in how human beings flourish can, at least in principle, be understood in the context of a maturing science of the mind -- neuroscience, psychology, etc.
Science can answer moral questions

Mr Harris talks about how Muslim women are made to cover their faces with a viel as one moral position about women and covering their bodies up because it is to stop men lusting after them. He also talks about how an oppiste ideal in the west about women with little clothing is another way women are percieved. Though these positions are different and are seen as subjective views of the same things he mentions why can't we ask if either these positions are best morals for bringing our children up. That there may be a better position along the scale of what is best that can be determined.

I mean, is this the optimal environment in which to raise our children? Probably not. OK, so perhaps there's some place on the spectrum between these two extremes that represents a place of better balance. (Applause) Perhaps there are many such places --
Science can answer moral questions

The fact that two subjectivists will argue through reason about who is most right about their morals shows that there is a moral objective position that can be possibly found otherwise there is no point in them debating. All that they would be doing is talking about different views and could not come to any decision about who was right. But arguing about who is right is acknowledging that someone can be right more than the other.
He goes on to say that why do we change the way we think when talking about moral facts as opposed to scientific facts when there is no reason.

So, this, I think, is what the world needs now. It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals, and even for whole cultures, to care about the wrong things, which is to say that it's possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality.

It seems to me, therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers.
Science can answer moral questions

 

[ToddNotTodd]

I wanted to include what Sam Harris has said on the subject as well as he not only makes a good case for objective morality but he has offered a $20,000 prize to anyone who can refute what he has said with an independent judge. So far no one has won with plenty taking up the challenge. His argument is fairly similar to the ones I previously posted.

For showing how morality can be objectively proven by how we can scientifically reason that it is based on the wellbeing of conscious humans.

Why is it that we don't have ethical obligations toward rocks? Why don't we feel compassion for rocks? It's because we don't think rocks can suffer. And if we're more concerned about our fellow primates than we are about insects, as indeed we are, it's because we think they're exposed to a greater range of potential happiness and suffering. Now, the crucial thing to notice here is that this is a factual claim: This is something that we could be right or wrong about. And if we have misconstrued the relationship between biological complexity and the possibilities of experience well then, we could be wrong about the inner lives of insects.

And there's no notion, no version of human morality and human values that I've ever come across that is not at some point reducible to a concern about conscious experience and its possible changes.

Now, to speak about the conditions of well-being in this life, for human beings, we know that there is a continuum of such facts. We know that it's possible to live in a failed state, where everything that can go wrong does go wrong -- where mothers cannot feed their children, where strangers cannot find the basis for peaceful collaboration, where people are murdered indiscriminately. And we know that it's possible to move along this continuum towards something quite a bit more idyllic, to a place where a conference like this is even conceivable.

And we know -- we know -- that there are right and wrong answers to how to move in this space. Would adding cholera to the water be a good idea? Probably not. Would it be a good idea for everyone to believe in the evil eye, so that when bad things happened to them they immediately blame their neighbours? Probably not. There are truths to be known about how human communities flourish, whether or not we understand these truths. And morality relates to these truths.

So, in talking about values we are talking about facts. Now, of course our situation in the world can be understood at many levels -- from the level of the genome on up to the level of economic systems and political arrangements. But if we're going to talk about human well-being we are, of necessity, talking about the human brain. Because we know that our experience of the world and of ourselves within it is realized in the brain --

So the contributions of culture -- if culture changes us, as indeed it does, it changes us by changing our brains. And so therefore whatever cultural variation there is in how human beings flourish can, at least in principle, be understood in the context of a maturing science of the mind -- neuroscience, psychology, etc.
Science can answer moral questions

Mr Harris talks about how Muslim women are made to cover their faces with a viel as one moral position about women and covering their bodies up because it is to stop men lusting after them. He also talks about how an oppiste ideal in the west about women with little clothing is another way women are percieved. Though these positions are different and are seen as subjective views of the same things he mentions why can't we ask if either these positions are best morals for bringing our children up. That there may be a better position along the scale of what is best that can be determined.

I mean, is this the optimal environment in which to raise our children? Probably not. OK, so perhaps there's some place on the spectrum between these two extremes that represents a place of better balance. (Applause) Perhaps there are many such places --
Science can answer moral questions

The fact that two subjectivists will argue through reason about who is most right about their morals shows that there is a moral objective position that can be possibly found otherwise there is no point in them debating. All that they would be doing is talking about different views and could not come to any decision about who was right. But arguing about who is right is acknowledging that someone can be right more than the other.
He goes on to say that why do we change the way we think when talking about moral facts as opposed to scientific facts when there is no reason.

So, this, I think, is what the world needs now. It needs people like ourselves to admit that there are right and wrong answers to questions of human flourishing, and morality relates to that domain of facts. It is possible for individuals, and even for whole cultures, to care about the wrong things, which is to say that it's possible for them to have beliefs and desires that reliably lead to needless human suffering. Just admitting this will transform our discourse about morality.

It seems to me, therefore, patently obvious that we can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes. We simply must converge on the answers we give to the most important questions in human life. And to do that, we have to admit that these questions have answers.
Science can answer moral questions

So I guess you're never going to actually address what I've written.

And as such I should, as well as everyone else who reads our discussion should, ignore what you've written.

I've given you every opportunity to refute what I'm saying, but you just continually quote someone that doesn't know the difference between objective and subjective.

It would be like you giving a detailed argument for your god's existence, and my replying that someone has proven that the Christian god doesn't exist because bowling balls aren't square.

So, are you ever going to show that one system of morality is objective and all the others are subjective?

 

[stevevw]

You haven't. And your extremely long post in no way addresses my previous post:

Yeah sorry I had to post a long one as it seemed that you and others were not reading the links so I had to post the main points from them and it would have done an injustice to not cover it all to get the total understanding. But I think saying that I have not addressed you points is a bit extreme. Anyway see what you think and let me know. I think I have addressed them directly. But it is really the same answer just written in a more direct way. Maybe it is my grammar.

The point, which you continually fail to understand, it that you can show scientifically the harm that an action brings about, but you can't show that "harm" equates to "wrong" in all moral systems.

If it is scientifically proven to be a moral fact, that certain types of harm are no good for human wwellbeing how is this not applied to all systems. Any moral system that does not comply with these moral facts about human wellbeing are than ruled out. Anything less than that moral fact is inferior because it has already been scientifically shown that that moral fact is the best for human wellbeing.

Going back to the water boiling example which showed that only heat was the best way to boil water then any other method ie using ice, staring at it and any other method that does not use heat is wrong as a scientific fact that cannot be disputed. There may be different opinions on how that heat is used ie by fire, stove or microwave but they all agree with the fact that heat is the only way. That is exactly how the moral facts are proven.

And you can't show that one moral system is the "objective" moral system. Once again, the dictionary definition of "morality" says nothing about which system to use.

The dictionary iss not going to comment on which moral system to use and this does not mean we cannot determine which to use. That is illogicla reasoning. For the same reasons the scientifically derived moral facts about what is best for conscious human wellbeing is determined is the same logic that makes it objective. It stands to reason,its stands against peoples personal opinions.

Anything less will cause humans to not flourish and be damaged and even not survive. The fact is if an individual or society steals, rapes and murders they will damage themselves and threaten their survival. If they treat others kindly, and look after each other they will have more chance of flourishing. These are undisputed facts and the moral acts that cause the hurt, and damage are the ones we can say are wrong. The ones that support human wellbeing are the ones we can say are objectively morally good. We can determine the obvious ones like dont rape or abuse children ect but that does not mean we can also determine the minor ones.

It is just a case of using the best scientific methods available to determine the extent of harm to human wellbeing and this will improve as time goes by. What it does mean is that there is a possible best moral position to be dicovered and just because we do not know it does not mean it is not there to be determined.

Please actually read and understand what I've written above. And when you respond to this, please prove that whatever system of morality that you espouse, the one that you use to define "morality" is actually objective, and all other systems of morality (such as "what is good is what benefits me personally") are not.

I think that has already been done that over and over again and above once again. If you would have read the articles you could have been disputing the details of if and we could then have reffined the debate based on this. The objective moral system is that there are certain moral acts that cause hurt and damage to conscious humans.

These acts have been recognised all over the world and everyone has the same rules and laws to uphold them. They speak for themselves becuase if you do not uphold them then as an individual and society you will suffer and risk survival. That cannot be more clear and cannot be dispouted. It is not hard to come up with a list of moral acts that will definely contribute to human suffering and one that supports human wellbeing. Anything less is wrong as far as being morally good.

The short answer is that you can't, because it's not possible to do so. Systems of morality are all subjective. You may be filled with incredulity at a phrase like "rape is good", but under the moral system "what is good is what benefits me personally", it would be true if it meets the criteria of "benefit" under the system. You have to attempt to show the system isn't objective.

No rape is bad and it can be scientifcally shown to be bad. It affects human wellbeing and any scoeity that tries to live with a moral belief that rape is good will be badly affected.the humans will be badly affected. Apart from the obvious that the women resists which shows its wrong, the women cries and screams, is brusied, may bleed, and be damaged physically because the act uses physical force. Then there are the emotional and psychological damage which can last for years and will effect others around them and the society they live in.

Done enough times then the society will be gravely effected and this flow on effect will cause other problems which also damage a society. This can accumulate and threaten its survival. These are sciebtific facts that come from psychology, and thee medical fields and now there is genetic evidence of the damage or causes of the damage. These are undisputed facts from what the act of rape can do. That is why most countries have laws against it. It does not mean that someone can have the personal view that rape is OK. But we can easily prove their view is wrong.

Once again, the definition of "morality" is:
"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."

The dictionary meaning is not relevant when it comes to detrmining if a moral act is good or bad.[/quote][/quote]

 

[stevevw]

So, how do you show that the system "what is good is what benefits me personally" isn't an objective moral system?

That is the definition of subjective morality. We are talking about objective morality. Besides the dictionary meaning you had is either wrong or from a particular version because the definition of morality does not talk about what benefits individuals as that would be a contradiction determining what is right or wrong. It would make what is right come down to personal pleasure or selfish motives and that would skew the true meaning. From online dictionaries the main definition is

a doctrine or system of moral conduct
Definition of MORALITY

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
morality | Definition of morality in English by Oxford Dictionaries

It just says the destinction between what is right or wrong, good or bad. Then we have to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad. The question is how do we determine this. When two subjectivists are arguing about morals how do you think they determine who is most correct on morals. What measure do they use. I suggest they naturally begin to use things like what effects and damage the moral acts have on the individual or community. This is exactly how the articles I have linked do it because this is a natural common sense way to determine what is right and wrong.

Once again here is the logic of the argument that cannot be disputed. Show me a society that can function without using these moral objective principle and I will show you a society in turmoil. Notice the first and last sentence, we could not live together if we didn't use these moral norms and any society not following these sets of moral norms could not survive. So in the end it is a matter of life or death. If it says they could not live without these moral objectives and not survive this means that we have to use these moral objective norms despite personal opinion if we want to live and function together.

The reality is that there is a core set of moral norms that almost all humans accept. We couldn’t live together otherwise. For humans to live together in peace and prosper, we need to follow norms such as do not kill, do not steal, do not inflict pain gratuitously, tell the truth, keep your commitments, reciprocate acts of kindness, and so forth. The number of core norms is small, but they govern most of the transactions we have with other humans. This is why we see these norms in all functioning human societies, past and present. Any community in which these norms were lacking could not survive for long.

These shared norms also reflect the functions of morality as applied to the human condition. Earlier I observed that morality has certain functions; that is, it serves human interests and needs by creating stability, providing security, ameliorating harmful conditions, fostering trust, and facilitating cooperation in achieving shared and complementary goals. One can quibble about my wording, but that morality has something like these functions is beyond dispute.

Given that humans are vulnerable to harm, that we depend upon the honesty and cooperation of others, and that we are animals with certain physical and social needs, the norms of the common morality are indispensable.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God[/quote][/quote]

 

[stevevw]

So I guess you're never going to actually address what I've written.

And as such I should, as well as everyone else who reads our discussion should, ignore what you've written.

I've given you every opportunity to refute what I'm saying, but you just continually quote someone that doesn't know the difference between objective and subjective.

It would be like you giving a detailed argument for your god's existence, and my replying that someone has proven that the Christian god doesn't exist because bowling balls aren't square.

So, are you ever going to show that one system of morality is objective and all the others are subjective?

Sorry that reply about Sam Harris was one I had already done which I did not want to include in my previous one as it deserved seperate mention. So what about his challene. If you have a good enough rebuttal of his article that will prove what he has said as wrong about objective morality you will be entitled to $20k. No one has been able to win it as yet. I have posted an answer to you last post as well.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Every society polices morality to individuals and the ones that use God's moral laws are the most successful. History has confirmed this to be true.


But actually we don't die. We will live forever either under His mercy and forgiveness or under His eternal judgement. So your excuse for not following God's moral law fails.


How are they different, I thought you said God does not even have a moral law. What literary differences?

Morality by its very name is for entities that die.

Do you think God's Morality - that includes not wearing mixed woolens, for example - is universal? Does the world consider wearing polyester and cotton blends a life or death situation?

However, I know of certain ethnic people for which it is a matter of Life or death - specifically because of the chemical reaction that occurs between the skin and fabric of these people.

Moreover, for entities that die commands like the Leviticus laws are ridiculous. That is categorically because mortals, with respect to life, are abysmally myopic. It is near impossible for a mortal entity to see the urgency in following a commandment like the Leviticus laws because humans cannot see past their own decisions in an immediate setting. We think we are precient, but we change our own moral code for fleeting times of extremity (i.e. TEOTWAWKI.)

The difference between God's morality, and humanist morality is that God's morality is not morality at all. It is not subjected to change based on circumstances, paradigms, or temporal location. It is the truth.

That is why morality can never be objective no matter how people qualify it. I can invent my own morality, and when you or anyone else tells me that I am wrong for what I choose to do based on what I think is necessary to survive - you are telling me you are a better judge than me.

Are we seriously arguing which human is better just because of a consensus, or on sensation and pathos?


You cannot tell adults what to do, or how to think. You cannot say "civilization" is absolutely one way, while at the same time abandoning those same foundations. It is asinine to even notion the possibility of an objective morality when morality, it were, changes every generation.

Every generation.

God doesn't change. And, we DO die, in fact, the whole point of Christianity is that you are ALREADY dead. You are keeping a rotting, decaying meat suit up by feeding it, washing it and entertaining it. That is it. Even our spirits are dead; we have an on loan spirit from God, but He didnt lie when He said Adam would die. You need Christ to live. You need to live in order to be separate from morality. Otherwise, you are just another dead person with a code on how to prolong your meat suit for as long as possible before it completely decomposes.

 

[Ken-1122]

a doctrine or system of moral conduct
Definition of MORALITY

Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour.
morality | Definition of morality in English by Oxford Dictionaries

It just says the destinction between what is right or wrong, good or bad. Then we have to determine what is right or wrong, good or bad. The question is how do we determine this. When two subjectivists are arguing about morals how do you think they determine who is most correct on morals. What measure do they use.

Everybody will have a different way to determine who is most correct, and which measure they use..

I suggest they naturally begin to use things like what effects and damage the moral acts have on the individual or community. This is exactly how the articles I have linked do it because this is a natural common sense way to determine what is right and wrong.

I disagree! People will disagree on what effect a cause will have; be it negative or positive. Example; consider the morality issue of Birth control

There is plenty of data that shows after birth control became available to all in the USA, the out of wedlock birth rate skyrocketed. There is also plenty of data that shows children do much better in society when they are raised by both a father and mother, and a disproportionate number of men raised by single mothers do not complete high school and end up in prison. Now many will look at that data alone and proclaim birth control is immoral because an increase in single motherhood harms the population.

There is also plenty of data that shows before birth control became available in the USA, Shot gun weddings were common, and a lot of children were being born that weren’t wanted. Now others will look at this data and proclaim birth control as moral because shot gun weddings were bad, and every child born deserves to be wanted.

The reality is, birth control availability has had both positive effects and negative effects, and people will disagree on if it has caused more harm than good or visa versa. With most causes, both positive and negative, effects result and there is often a disagreement on if said cause is a greater good or greater bad. This is because when people look at moral issues, they look at it through a subjective lens, not an objective one.

 

[Ed1wolf]

The fact that you would attempt to justify such evil makes my case. Most Christians know this is wrong, and are unwilling to try to justify it like you; that’s why they are reluctant to take the Bible literally; which is the point I was making.

How do you know this is evil? What is evil? How do you determine what evil is?

 

[Ed1wolf]

Why would you bring up the fact that he was able to replace his murdered children by having more children? Do you think this justifies their murder? Many people have been turned off by Christianity because of this story, and stories like this in the thousands of years since also.

They were not murdered, it was capital punishment from God for their sin. Murder is when an innocent person or a guilty person is killed by an unauthorized power. The Supreme Judge of the Universe has the authority to mete out capital punishment for sin, humans don't unless that sin is also a capital crime. Private citizens cannot kill anyone except in self defense.

ken: To witness the plagues was enough to convert any Egyptian who wanted to convert; murdering children was not necessary.

Not necessarily some of the Egyptian priests argued that they were natural events. See above, the children were not murdered.

ken: And I find your idea that murdering these children before the age of accountability as a good thing to prevent them from going to Hell an evil mindset that can only be compared to ISIS.

And to think you believe morality is OBJECTIVE???

The children were not murdered, see above. Yes, morality is objective, even Justice. Justice MUST be served because the moral law objectively exists. If it didn't, then justice would not matter it would just be a matter of opinion.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

If it is scientifically proven to be a moral fact, that certain types of harm are no good for human well being how is this not applied to all systems. Any moral system that does not comply with these moral facts about human well being are than ruled out.

Here's the crux of your error. The definition of morality, once again, is:

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."

It is not:

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct that takes into consideration the well being of all persons."

So your declaration that any system that does not comply with taking the well being of all persons into account is invalid is an arbitrary and subjective one, again because you're introducing something into the definition that just isn't there. There are plenty of valid moral systems that don't take into account the well being of all persons, or don't value all person equally.

Now, I'm sure that Sam Harris tries to get around this by stating something like "Any moral system that doesn't take into account the well being of all persons isn't included in the definition of "morality" that I'm using. But again, that's an arbitrary and subjective distinction that he's introduced, not representative of the actual definition of morality. It would be similar to me saying "Any definition of the Christian god that doesn't involve the necessity of square bowling balls isn't included in my definition", and then proceeding to "prove" that the Christian god doesn't exist.

I think what's really tripping you up is that for any given system of morality, you can argue that there's objective ways to tell right and wrong. And I wouldn't argue against that. But where you're going astray is trying to apply that to systems themselves, which you just can't do without being subjective. You can't show that the moral system "good acts are ones that benefit me personally" ought not be the system that defines the word morality while the system "good acts bring about the well being of all persons" ought to be, without introducing subjectivity.

You may say, "But if everyone adopted a system like 'good acts are ones that benefit me personally' society might collapse because it's purely selfish".

My answer to that is "So what?". There's nothing in the definition of "morality" that suggests that it's goal is to perpetually maintain society either. It would be another arbitrary and subjective addition to the definition to "morality" that just isn't there.

There's nothing that says you can't be incredulous about moral systems that leave a bad taste in your mouth. But it's another thing altogether to try and equate that incredulity with objectivity...

 

[Ken-1122]

They were not murdered, it was capital punishment from God for their sin. Murder is when an innocent person or a guilty person is killed by an unauthorized power. The Supreme Judge of the Universe has the authority to mete out capital punishment for sin, humans don't unless that sin is also a capital crime. Private citizens cannot kill anyone except in self defense.

You are looking at this from the position that God exist and has the authority to decide who lives and who dies.
I look at this from the position that God does not exist, but if he did, what he did is immoral, because if morality is objective as you say, the laws of morality must apply to God’s actions just as they apply to yours and mine.

How do you know this is evil? What is evil? How do you determine what evil is?

Consider a hypothetical for a moment. Suppose God proclaimed rape as good. Would you assume you cannot trust your own perception of right vs wrong, and still follow God’s word and become a rapist? Or would you proclaim God is wrong, because you know rape is wrong.

If you become a rapist, I must then ask; if you can’t trust yourself when determining if rape is good or bad, how can you trust yourself concerning whether or not God is good or bad?

If you proclaim God as wrong because you know rape is wrong, whatever it is that caused you to acknowledge rape as wrong; independent of whatever God says, is the same thing that allows me to determine what is evil; independent of whatever God says.

 

[stevevw]

i
sorry double post

 

[stevevw]

Here's the crux of your error. The definition of morality, once again, is:

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct, especially one held by a specified person or society."

It is not:

"a particular system of values and principles of conduct that takes into consideration the well being of all persons."

So your declaration that any system that does not comply with taking the well being of all persons into account is invalid is an arbitrary and subjective one, again because you're introducing something into the definition that just isn't there.

Nor will the definition have any of the other measures of morality such as if it benefits me. The dictionary meaning does not go into what the values and principles are. It cannot address the detail of what morality represents as that is not its place. But if you go into a philosophical or ethical sit you will get further details.

The problem is actions affect others and we know scientifically what those effects are and how they are not good for individuals and communities so that will prove the action as objectively wrong. So even if someone has a moral belief that rape is good we can prove with science that it is not good for humans and that proves that the person's moral belief is wrong even if they think they are right because we know that hurting others is always wrong. So that counts that moral position out as being good. It does not count it out as being a valid view of morality but it counts it out as being good, in other words it is objectively wrong.

When you apply this approach to other moral actions where people think they are right we can also show that they are wrong scientifically.Just like we can show that only heat will make water boil scientifically despite a person saying and believing that staring at it can make it boil.

There are plenty of valid moral systems that don't take into account the well being of all persons, or don't value all person equally.

Such as.

Now, I'm sure that Sam Harris tries to get around this by stating something like "Any moral system that doesn't take into account the well being of all persons isn't included in the definition of "morality" that I'm using. But again, that's an arbitrary and subjective distinction that he's introduced, not representative of the actual definition of morality. It would be similar to me saying "Any definition of the Christian god that doesn't involve the necessity of square bowling balls isn't included in my definition", and then proceeding to "prove" that the Christian god doesn't exist.

No, it is different because he supports his claim with scientific reasoning and logic. Just like the pot of water can only boil with the heat he can show how certain moral actions that affect other peoples well-being by scientifically proving that the act does lead to a bad effect for the other person. That negates the persons claim that their moral view is right or good and proves it as objectively bad.

I think what's really tripping you up is that for any given system of morality, you can argue that there are objective ways to tell right and wrong. And I wouldn't argue against that. But where you're going astray is trying to apply that to systems themselves, which you just can't do without being subjective. You can't show that the moral system "good acts are ones that benefit me personally" ought not to be the system that defines the word morality while the system "good acts bring about the well being of all persons" ought to be, without introducing subjectivity.

They can be shown to be wrong if they affect the well-being of others. How is that not a bad thing? If you affect someone's well-being do you think that is good or bad? If bad does that not prove that the person's idea that morality is about what benefits me is wrong. Remember moral actions involve other conscious humans so if you act affects their well being then this makes that moral act wrong because it is a basic truism that effecting another person negatively is wrong. You cannot rationalize that as being good. So the person can have the moral belief but it cannot be justified or rationalized as being good.

But tell me if you think Sam Harris is wrong then why has he offered a large sum of money from someone to prove him wrong and no one has. If you think he is wrong then send in your rebuttal to prove it. That's why he has done this because there are many who claim objective morality is wrong but none have proven this.

You may say, "But if everyone adopted a system like 'good acts are ones that benefit me personally' society might collapse because it's purely selfish".

My answer to that is "So what?". There's nothing in the definition of "morality" that suggests that its goal is to perpetually maintain society either. It would be another arbitrary and subjective addition to the definition of "morality" that just isn't there.

So why do all societies have laws underpinned by morals that support a cooperative, peaceful place where everyone treats each other properly. Does not evolution say that our morals were evolved to help people get along with each other so that it gave us a better chance to survive? That getting alone with each other includes the proper treatment of others and thinking of others.

I think this idea about pushing subjective moral views as vital to make it safer for all is being too politically correct and accommodating ideas that can undermine our societies stability. People go overboard trying to protect moral positions that we all know are just not good for us. That is what Mr Harris was saying, why can't we say that this moral position is not good and this one is better. He even says that taking this position of pushing any moral view goes is actually dangerous for our society and survival and he is not coming from a religious standpoint.

There's nothing that says you can't be incredulous about moral systems that leave a bad taste in your mouth. But it's another thing altogether to try and equate that incredulity with objectivity...

Obviously if the moral act leave s a bad taste you must be referring to something pretty bad. So because moral acts involve other people you can prove that the bad taste act is objectively wrong. Back to the pot of water only boiling with heat. You can be the person who believes that the water will boil better by using ice just like the person who believes that their moral act was good but it can be scientifically shown that this is not true. Just like ice can be scientifically shown to not heat water a persons moral act can be scientifically shown to effect another persons well-being.

So with a bad taste act that effects others well-being, we can show scientifically through behavior science, psychology, physically,genetics and neurologically that the act has caused an effect on the person's well-being. I mean the obvious acts like rape, child abuse and murder where the evidence is there to be seen don't really need any further evidence. We have a history of evidence about what other peoples actions do to people and societies which are used in courts or for medical plans/reports that are scientifically supported. So if the courts can say that this persons action was wrong because of the damage it caused how is it different.

And the more we improve our ability to discover what the effects are such as through better tech and new discoveries the more we will be able to show that more and more actions affect another persons well-being. That will begin to scoop up more and more people who think their moral actions are OK and prove they are are objectively wrong because they effect another person. This stands to scientific reason and therefore trumps any personal view about a moral act being good in the person opinion.

 

[stevevw]

Everybody will have a different way to determine who is most correct, and which measure they use..

Yes I agree, but that does not prevent us from determining which systems supports good or bad things and finding the psoition that is best.

I disagree! People will disagree on what effect a cause will have; be it negative or positive. Example; consider the morality issue of Birth control

Some things will be harder to determine than others. The main ones that all societies use are obvious ie dont steal, kill, rape, abuse children, be kind to others, respect others ect. Most other moral situations stem from these main morals. Birth control is really part of sex and relationships so you would have to investigate the reasons why people use birth control and the associted effects. For example it makes it easy for underage sex so there may be some problems asocited with that ect. But the important point is to recognise that it is possible to determine the answer as to whether it is good or bad. The optimal answe may not be available now but there maybe good nformation that can tell us whether there are enough bad effects now to decide it effects human wellbeing. The thing is there is an answer that can be found which can determine things so it is important to look and not assume that it is OK to just take peoples words and not try.

There is plenty of data that shows after birth control became available to all in the USA, the out of wedlock birth rate skyrocketed. There is also plenty of data that shows children do much better in society when they are raised by both a father and mother, and a disproportionate number of men raised by single mothers do not complete high school and end up in prison. Now many will look at that data alone and proclaim birth control is immoral because an increase in single motherhood harms the population.

There is also plenty of data that shows before birth control became available in the USA, Shot gun weddings were common, and a lot of children were being born that weren’t wanted. Now others will look at this data and proclaim birth control as moral because shot gun weddings were bad, and every child born deserves to be wanted.

Like I said birth control is a symptom of a bigger moral that also needs to be considered and the entire information taken into account. But you also have to remeber there may be acceptable situations that are not really the best that are supported becuase it is the least bad to stop other problems. That does not mean that the least bad is good. It becomes a compromise. I Never said it would be easy to determine some things and this is where we have to do a lot of research. But once again the important thing is there is a best option that can be found.

The reality is, birth control availability has had both positive effects and negative effects, and people will disagree on if it has caused more harm than good or visa versa. With most causes, both positive and negative, effects result and there is often a disagreement on if said cause is a greater good or greater bad. This is because when people look at moral issues, they look at it through a subjective lens, not an objective one.

Just becuase it may be harder to determine and there are more complicated factors involved does not mean we just assume it is becuase of subjective morality. Like I said the important thing is there can be a best situation that applies if not now then it will come. It may be that we can find it with better technology or more information. But becuase these things do have an effect that effect can be determined.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Consider a hypothetical for a moment. Suppose God proclaimed rape as good. Would you assume you cannot trust your own perception of right vs wrong, and still follow God’s word and become a rapist? Or would you proclaim God is wrong, because you know rape is wrong.

If you become a rapist, I must then ask; if you can’t trust yourself when determining if rape is good or bad, how can you trust yourself concerning whether or not God is good or bad?

If you proclaim God as wrong because you know rape is wrong, whatever it is that caused you to acknowledge rape as wrong; independent of whatever God says, is the same thing that allows me to determine what is evil; independent of whatever God says.

This is not hypothetical; unfortunately this is reality. The scores of denominations eviscerate the splendor out of the Word of God - changing (through time and circumstance) what should be followed, and what shouldn't. It is something that tremendously upsets me because not only does it cause disunity in something whose purpose is unity, but it also sets people up to be used as agents, and it creates stumbling blocks for human entities that would (otherwise) be genuinely interested in the Most High God.

If any of you are truly genuine and interested in the Most High or Christianity in general (or any philosophy/religion) - then go learn it yourself from an open mind. You are a human; you have the unique spark of the Living God even if you don't believe it. You are capable of finding the Most High God if you are genuinely seeking - even if He fails to meet you expectations. I wasn't a Christian until I graduated from university and finished my thesis.

 

[Ken-1122]

Yes I agree, but that does not prevent us from determining which systems supports good or bad things and finding the psoition that is best.

We have always done that. And it results in disagreements in which position works best.

Some things will be harder to determine than others. The main ones that all societies use are obvious ie dont steal, kill, rape, abuse children, be kind to others, respect others ect. Most other moral situations stem from these main morals.

Oh so now we’ve 6 main moral issues that all others stem from? Like Primary colors that all other colors stem from? But wait; how can stealing be a primary moral? Doesn’t stealing stem from cheating? Doesn’t rape stem from sex? Doesn’t abuse stem from violence? Absolutely ridicules!

Morality is not like colors where you can mix yellow and blue to get green; morality are issues that stand on their own.

Birth control is really part of sex and relationships so you would have to investigate the reasons why people use birth control and the associted effects. For example it makes it easy for underage sex so there may be some problems asocited with that ect.

Okay so you investigate why women use birth control, and you come up with a variety of reasons; some you approve of, and others you might disapprove of. Now what?

But the important point is to recognise that it is possible to determine the answer as to whether it is good or bad. The optimal answe may not be available now but there maybe good nformation that can tell us whether there are enough bad effects now to decide it effects human wellbeing.

No, because there is not a single reason birth control is used; there are any reasons; some good for society, some bad; and we don’t agree on which are good or bad.

The thing is there is an answer that can be found which can determine things so it is important to look and not assume that it is OK to just take peoples words and not try.

Since we don’t agree on an answer, who decides?

Just becuase it may be harder to determine and there are more complicated factors involved does not mean we just assume it is becuase of subjective morality.

But it is because morality is subjective. Everybody judges this moral issue based on their personal beliefs, perceptions, and extenuating circumstances associated with the action. IOW everybody judges this issue looking through a subjective lens; not an objective lens.

 

[Ken-1122]

This is not hypothetical; unfortunately this is reality. The scores of denominations eviscerate the splendor out of the Word of God - changing (through time and circumstance) what should be followed, and what shouldn't. It is something that tremendously upsets me because not only does it cause disunity in something whose purpose is unity, but it also sets people up to be used as agents, and it creates stumbling blocks for human entities that would (otherwise) be genuinely interested in the Most High God.

If any of you are truly genuine and interested in the Most High or Christianity in general (or any philosophy/religion) - then go learn it yourself from an open mind. You are a human; you have the unique spark of the Living God even if you don't believe it. You are capable of finding the Most High God if you are genuinely seeking - even if He fails to meet you expectations. I wasn't a Christian until I graduated from university and finished my thesis.

I was just dispelling his claim that mankind is not qualified to determine right from wrong. The hypothetical I presented was to show that when pressed, I've noticed most theists would end up choosing their morals over their God’s morals if it really came down to it. I suspect he would as well.

 

[stevevw]

We have always done that. And it results in disagreements in which position works best.

But disagreement does not mean there is no best. The fact that we argue about what is best would imply that there is a best to argue about. Otherwise why even argue, people would just concede that they dont know and stop at that. Or it would be a never ending circular argument of views trumping each other. If there is no measure it would come down to whoever can make the case for their personal view and not whether it was actually good or bad.

That means someone with a bit of know how about how to sell something or had some power and influence could make something that is less good in most peoples eyes sound good. That is what is happening now and why we end up with supporting ideas that end up being wrong for our best interests.

Oh so now we’ve 6 main moral issues that all others stem from? Like Primary colors that all other colors stem from? But wait; how can stealing be a primary moral? Doesn’t stealing stem from cheating? Doesn’t rape stem from sex? Doesn’t abuse stem from violence? Absolutely ridicules!

I never said there was just six but there would be a small number. If you look at the 10 commandments or the 7 deadly sins they are a set amount of main wrongs which all other morals stem from. Cheating only covers a certain wrong whereas stealing covers many wrongs associated with taking what is not yours like cheating, taking the companies time at work, fraud etc. There may be another main cause for rape. I am just saying that there are more obvious wrongs like killing, stealing and rape that we can recognize immediately as wrong.

Morality is not like colors where you can mix yellow and blue to get green; morality are issues that stand on their own.

You are right which just supports the fact that wrong moral acts stand out and cannot be denied or justified as being OK. They can be shown to be objectively wrong.

Okay so you investigate why women use birth control, and you come up with a variety of reasons; some you approve of, and others you might disapprove of. Now what?

That mixture of reasons may stem back to a reason. I cannot comment on exactly what as I have not done that investigating. Birth control is not an optimal act to do. During the 60s to 80s and even into the 90s there were medical complications with some of the contraception methods. We dont know what the current method (pill) will do to women yet. But the pill was made as the result of other reasons such as sexual freedom and not wanting to end up pregnant as a result. Maybe we have to look at that. This is where I believe Gods morals come into it and there are different standards than what secular society have. So we would have to look at these differences. That would involve a bigger debate.

No, because there is not a single reason birth control is used; there are any reasons; some good for society, some bad; and we don’t agree on which are good or bad.

Once again that does not mean there is not a reason that we can identify. Also under objective morality the greater moral wrong trumps. Morality does not work in isolation so when we act we may be faced with another moral that needs to be considered ie killing in self defence. We can say killing is morally wrong but there may be a equal or greater moral of saving your others from a killing and therefore killing in self defence is justified. So though some may believe some things are good with birth control there maybe a greater wrong that does not justify that good.

Since we don’t agree on an answer, who decides?

Thats where we would have to find the actual reason why we use birth control and determine if that is justified and whether it supports human wellbeing. BUt as I said just becuase we may not be able to agree does not mean there is a objective right that can be found. It may take more investigating or discovery to find it. But becuase it is based on scientific reasoning and logic it will stand up regardless of our personal views and disageements.

But it is because morality is subjective. Everybody judges this moral issue based on their personal beliefs, perceptions, and extenuating circumstances associated with the action. IOW everybody judges this issue looking through a subjective lens; not an objective lens.

I am not denying that there are subjective views. I am saying that this does not deny that there may be an objective moral position we can take. Becuase we can do this with the more obvious ones shows that it is possible, we may just have to do more investigation and assessing to determine the same with more complicated situations.

The point is there is a scale of what is bad, not so bad, good and very good which some call the moral landscape. In that scale we can assess things up or down as to being better or worse for supporting human wellbeing. That means there can be better positions found and just because we have not found them does not mean they are not there. The fact there is a scale that measures things is the impostant thing as it implies that there is a best to be found. When two people debate about what is best with their morals they are implying that there is a best even if they may disagree in the end doe snot mean that there is no best. It is because they bother arguing about what is best is the reason there is a best otherwise they may as well not bother becuasewithout a best the argument is futile.

 

[Ed1wolf]

No; Japan never built ships that size without steel reinforcements. The largest ship was the Schooner of 1909 and it had steel reinforcements, yet was still too big to float. Even today we don’t have the ability to build such a ship. That’s why when various people built replicas of Noah’s ark, they either built it with steel reinforcements or put it on a barge.

That boat don
Life-sized Noah's Ark replica to dock in San Diego

Sorry, actually I meant the Chinese treasure ships:
A Chinese treasure ship (Chinese: 寶船/宝船; pinyin: bǎochuán) was a type of large wooden ship in the fleet of admiral Zheng He, who led seven voyages during the early 15th-century Ming dynasty.

The size and dimensions of the treasures are heavily debated. According to British scientist, historian and sinologist Joseph Needham, the purported dimensions of the largest of these ships were 137 m (450 ft) by 55 m (180 ft),[1] which would make them at least twice as long as the largest European ships at the end of the sixteenth century. These dimensions have been challenged on engineering grounds and on the reliability of their sources; some have claimed they could not have been more than 61–76 m (200–250 feet) or that they could only have been used on special occasions in the relative safety of the lower Yangtze River. However, in 1962 a large rudder was unearthed in the Treasure Ship Yard in Nanjing with dimensions corresponding with a 600-ft long ship.[2]

ken: 2 million years ago? Where did you get those numbers? Most Bible scholars conclude the Earth is only 6000 years old! These calculations are taken from references in the Bible.
How Old Is the Earth?

No, there is evidence both within the bible and from God's other book Nature, that the earth is older than 6000 years. The term translated Day in Hebrew can also mean literally, an indefinite but finite period.

ken: Ahh! So when the bible claims something that doesn’t make sense, you just call it magic; huh? Got it!

No, miracles are very different from magic, magic is deception, miracles are not. Also, since all of the water used for the flood was fresh, most of the flood waters would be either fresh or just mildly brackish. And after the flood receded, the salt water would be restored over time as the salt washed into the sea from rivers and streams.

ken: God’s other book nature? Nature isn’t a book, nature is a reference to the physical world. According to the physical world, you can’t have an evening or morning without the Sun

The bible teaches that we can learn about God from Nature, ie His Creation, so it is His other "book" metaphorically speaking and it helps us to interpret it correctly.

ken: By the 4th day, plants and trees were already there. If there was so much dust and debris surrounding the Earth that the Sun was not visible, the trees and plants would have died. If you want to believe that stuff, go ahead, but most people can see how ridicules this is and acknowledge it is unbelievable.

No, prior to day one the atmosphere was opaque, then on day 1 it becomes translucent so that daylight became visible but no heavenly bodies, so that on day 3 enough light was coming thru to allow photosynthetic cyanobacteria and primitive plant life to survive so God created them at this point. But you have to remember there is no Hebrew words for such things so the writer used ordinary plant terms. Then Day four the atmosphere becomes transparent and so the sum moon and stars become clearly visible. And scientists have confirmed that this is the stages of the atmosphere confirmed by cosmologists. This is quite amazing.

 

[Ken-1122]

But disagreement does not mean there is no best. The fact that we argue about what is best would imply that there is a best to argue about. Otherwise why even argue, people would just concede that they dont know and stop at that. Or it would be a never ending circular argument of views trumping each other.

The disagreement is due to no agreed upon measure to determine what constitutes best.

If there is no measure it would come down to whoever can make the case for their personal view and not whether it was actually good or bad.
That means someone with a bit of know how about how to sell something or had some power and influence could make something that is less good in most peoples eyes sound good. That is what is happening now and why we end up with supporting ideas that end up being wrong for our best interests.

Yes! That’s what happens in the real world, where morality is subjective.

I never said there was just six but there would be a small number. If you look at the 10 commandments or the 7 deadly sins they are a set amount of main wrongs which all other morals stem from. Cheating only covers a certain wrong whereas stealing covers many wrongs associated with taking what is not yours like cheating, taking the companies time at work, fraud etc

The 10 commandments, and seven deadly sins are religious claims and rules for those of those religions. Again; there are no primary moral actions that all other moral actions are based on; if you disagree, you need to provide evidence to support your case.

There may be another main cause for rape. I am just saying that there are more obvious wrongs like killing, stealing and rape that we can recognize immediately as wrong.

But depending on the situation, exceptions can be made for these actions making them right. By definition; if these actions were objectively wrong, exceptions could not be made.

You are right which just supports the fact that wrong moral acts stand out and cannot be denied or justified as being OK. They can be shown to be objectively wrong.

But that’s the problem with your claim; depending on the situation, they CAN be denied or justified.

That mixture of reasons may stem back to a reason. I cannot comment on exactly what as I have not done that investigating.

If you did do such investigating, you would see there are many reasons various people use birth control; not just a single reason.

Birth control is not an optimal act to do. During the 60s to 80s and even into the 90s there were medical complications with some of the contraception methods. We dont know what the current method (pill) will do to women yet. But the pill was made as the result of other reasons such as sexual freedom and not wanting to end up pregnant as a result. Maybe we have to look at that.

We have looked at that, and not everybody agrees on if it is good for society or bad.

This is where I believe Gods morals come into it and there are different standards than what secular society have. So we would have to look at these differences. That would involve a bigger debate.

Whose God? Your God??? You guys can’t even agree on what God wants or says (thus the many denominations) how do you expect us to trust what you say he would say about birth control; something that isn't even addressed in your Bible? No thank-you.

Once again that does not mean there is not a reason that we can identify. Also under objective morality the greater moral wrong trumps. Morality does not work in isolation so when we act we may be faced with another moral that needs to be considered ie killing in self defence. We can say killing is morally wrong but there may be a equal or greater moral of saving your others from a killing and therefore killing in self defence is justified. So though some may believe some things are good with birth control there maybe a greater wrong that does not justify that good.

You’ve contradicted yourself. If killing is objectively wrong, that would mean even under extenuating circumstances like self defense does not make it right. You’ve just made a case for subjective morality.

Thats where we would have to find the actual reason why we use birth control and determine if that is justified and whether it supports human wellbeing.

We already know why people use it and we don’t agree on if it supports human wellbeing.

BUt as I said just becuase we may not be able to agree does not mean there is a objective right that can be found.

Yes it does! If it were objective, it the answer would be obvious.

I am not denying that there are subjective views. I am saying that this does not deny that there may be an objective moral position we can take. Becuase we can do this with the more obvious ones shows that it is possible, we may just have to do more investigation and assessing to determine the same with more complicated situations.

The point is there is a scale of what is bad, not so bad, good and very good which some call the moral landscape. In that scale we can assess things up or down as to being better or worse for supporting human wellbeing. That means there can be better positions found and just because we have not found them does not mean they are not there. The fact there is a scale that measures things is the impostant thing as it implies that there is a best to be found.

Then present this scale; because I’m convinced it doesn’t exist.[/quote][/QUOTE]