Where does morality come from?

[zippy2006]

No, I rejected objective as a meaningful term.

And yet you specifically gave an example of something that cannot be objective? (Namely, "A subject experiencing something"?)

I can't help but agree with @stevevw. You are prone to assertive, insubstantial posts that are inimical to dialogue. The change is unfortunate. In the past I have seen posts of substance from you.

 

[VirOptimus]

And yet you specifically gave an example of something that cannot be objective? (Namely, "A subject experiencing something"?)

I can't help but agree with @stevevw. You are prone to assertive, insubstantial posts that are inimical to dialogue. The change is unfortunate. In the past I have seen posts of substance from you.

Ok.

 

[stevevw]

How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

This is a good article. I have used this one on this thread myself to show non-theistic support for objective morality. But I am not sure why you posted it as though it lends support for there being objective moral values it still more or less supports a naturalistic basis for them.

In fact, it more or less supports what I have been saying that our lived moral experience shows there are epistemic and moral values which are real and truthful in the way we appeal to them and use them whether we support subjective morality or not. Certain values have a worth to them that stands on their own through reason and logic for bringing about good and order.

William Ross had a similar idea in that morals were like math and could be known to us as laws. Just like we recognize 2 balls + 2 balls make 4 balls we can intuitively know what is right and wrong. I tend to agree with this theory. But I think this article goes beyond that and steps into naturalism by equating morals with certain acts that can be measured like human wellbeing.
W. D. Ross - Wikipedia

This article only makes a more elaborate appeal to naturalism such as how evolution caused us to develop certain moral positions that would help society get along so that we could survive IE
Broadly speaking, morality appears to serve these related purposes: it creates stability, provides security, ameliorates harmful conditions, fosters trust, and facilitates cooperation in achieving shared and complementary goals. In other words, morality enables us to live together and, while doing so, to improve the conditions under which we live.
How Morality Has the Objectivity that Matters—Without God | Free Inquiry

But why. Is it so we can survive?. If so that is committing a genetic fallacy in saying that because we can explain how morals came about sociobiologically and are beneficial also explains moral right and wrong. But it doesn't, who said anyone has to create stability, security, ameliorate harmful conditions, facilitate cooperation, or build trust. Where is the obligation to do so grounded? If someone decided not to do these things and were more concerned about themselves who said that is morally wrong.

What this article is talking about in aligning morality conditions we must produce IE stability and security is more like prudential morality. Prudential morality is like instructions you must do to achieve certain outcomes. If you want to be healthy then eat well and do exercise. If you want to produce a bumper crop then till and fertilize the soil. But you don't have to do these things and there is no moral obligation to do so.

There is no grounding as to why they are right and wrong and that we must achieve them. So in that sense, they are still subjective views as to what someone thinks we should achieve.

The article even acknowledges these objections but doesn't really address them adequately. But I thank you for the article as at least you are challenging the argument and not just dismissing it without any support. It does raise some good points.

 

[stevevw]

I have not said that anything is ”subjective”.

The thing I think is unfair is that I do know about philosophy and ethics. I have studied it perhaps not as extensive as you in that I assume you have done a specific course in philosophy but it has been a big part of my studies in social welfare work. I also do extensive reading with these debates as I like to understand things better. I don't just talk off the top of my head but want to give informed responses.

But you make out that I know nothing like some moron which is far from the truth. I think it is unreasonable that you make out I know absolutely nothing when I have articulated some level of understanding.

You say that I want to prop up my beliefs by only supporting certain ideas that will support my beliefs but that is not entirely true. Yes, our personal beliefs and experiences do influence our worldview but my arguments have not been blindly claimed but reasoned. I could say the same for you in that you don't want to engage in debating the content and offer reasoned replies because you are set in your beliefs and dismiss all else.

 

[VirOptimus]

The thing I think is unfair is that I do know about philosophy and ethics. I have studied it perhaps not as extensive as you in that I assume you have done a specific course in philosophy but it has been a big part of my studies in social welfare work. I also do extensive reading with these debates as I like to understand things better. I don't just talk off the top of my head but want to give informed responses.

But you make out that I know nothing like some moron which is far from the truth. I think it is unreasonable that you make out I know absolutely nothing when I have articulated some level of understanding.

You say that I want to prop up my beliefs by only supporting certain ideas that will support my beliefs but that is not entirely true. Yes, our personal beliefs and experiences do influence our worldview but my arguments have not been blindly claimed but reasoned. I could say the same for you in that you don't want to engage in debating the content and offer reasoned replies because you are set in your beliefs and dismiss all else.

Heh, ok.

I can only judge you by the content in your posts and I stand by my assesements.

 

[Speedwell]

This is a good article. I have used this one on this thread myself to show non-theistic support for objective morality. But I am not sure why you posted it as though it lends support for there being objective moral values it still more or less supports a naturalistic basis for them.
In fact, it more or less supports what I have been saying that our lived moral experience shows there are epistemic and moral values which are real and truthful in the way we appeal to them and use them whether we support subjective morality or not. Certain values have a worth to them that stands on their own through reason and logic for bringing about good and order.

Now you are on record as admitting non-theistic objective morality is possible. Your moral argument for God is in the trash where it belongs and can no longer be an embarrassment to faithful Christians.

 

[stevevw]

Now you are on record as admitting non-theistic objective morality is possible. Your moral argument for God is in the trash where it belongs and can no longer be an embarrassment to faithful Christians.

I think you will find that I said non-objective morality is possible according to atheists. I said that to show even atheists think there must be objective morals as that is what lived moral experience shows us. Even they cannot deny this.

But let's say I did say that. Are you saying my word provides greater evidence than the evidence I just posted? So you are using a logical fallacy anyway to support your objection.

I am interested in why you think that if there are objective morals it is an embarrassment to faithful Christians.

 

[Speedwell]

I think you will find that I said non-objective morality is possible according to atheists. I said that to show even atheists think there must be objective morals as that is what lived moral experience shows us. Even they cannot deny this.

What you actually said which caught my attention is this:
"But I am not sure why you posted it as though it lends support for there being objective moral values it still more or less supports a naturalistic basis for them."
In the case of the article I linked to, a naturalistic basis which you have failed to account for.

But let's say I did say that. Are you saying my word provides greater evidence than the evidence I just posted? So you are using a logical fallacy anyway to support your objection.

I am interested in why you think that if there are objective morals it is an embarrassment to faithful Christians.

It's not. And I have never argued against the existence of objective morality. It is your lame attempt to show there are objective morals as a proof for God which is embarrassing.

 

[stevevw]

What you actually said which caught my attention is this:
"But I am not sure why you posted it as though it lends support for there being objective moral values it still more or less supports a naturalistic basis for them."
In the case of the article I linked to, a naturalistic basis which you have failed to account for.

But I just accounted for it in my last post. The article was trying to make out there is some special way to know objective morals without God and without appealing to naturalistic objective morality. But it has done no such thing. It merely is using a fancier way of using naturalistic processes to account for objective morality.

AS I stated and provided evidence for that naturalistic processes for objective morality have already been refuted by many ethicists. If you think the article has provided some special way of supporting objective morality without God and naturalistic processes then explain to me what these are.

But I am confused as to what you are saying. You initially said
Now you are on record as admitting non-theistic objective morality is possible. Your moral argument for God is in the trash where it belongs and can no longer be an embarrassment to faithful Christians.

So I was responding to that in which I said I was not posting any support for non-theistic objective morality but showing how atheists also believe in objective morality. I wasn't saying that their believing in objective morality was legitimate and I gave the reasons why. You have obviously assumed I was posting support for non-theistic objective morality.

As far as my argument for God based on objective morality is concerned I am also not sure where you are coming from ion this. First I am not specifically making an argument for God but rather making an argument for objective morality. Second, even if I am why is this so bad. Most Christian apologists make different arguments for God IE the moral argument for God, the cosmological argument for God. Different Ontological arguments for God
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/#HisOntArg

St. Thomas Aquinas had several arguments for God
Aquinas did not think the finite human mind could know what God is directly, therefore God's existence is not self-evident to us.[2] So instead the proposition God exists must be "demonstrated" from God's effects, which are more known to us.[3]
Five Ways (Aquinas) - Wikipedia.

What is so horrible about trying to support God through different arguments. I think it is a natural thing for humans to do. Yes we can never prove God and we must come to him in faith but we are humans who want to know and discover things so we like to also reason. God gave us a mind to reason as well. So long as we realize that in the end we can never physically prove God and it is only by faith that we can be saved.

It's not. And I have never argued against the existence of objective morality. It is your lame attempt to show there are objective morals as proof for God which is embarrassing.

Who said anything about trying to prove God through objective morality. All I have been doing is trying to prove that there is objective morality. That has taken up and preoccupied my entire attention let alone prove God. And besides, if you say you support objective morality then why didn't you back what I was saying. It would have made it easier to have someone else who supports objective morality.

But I still don't know what you are implying anyway. What do you mean lame attempt? Are you saying that because you perceive I am trying and failing to support God through a moral argument that this is the embarrassment or that trying in the first place is the embarrassment?

Question are you saying Christians should never reason God's existence.