Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument[W:222:829]

[Rich2018]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

This topic comes up often in other threads, so I've decided to create a separate thread dedicated to discussing the topic of morality.

Here is The Moral Argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist...

OK stop right there ... where is the argument that if god doesn't exist, objective morals do not exist ?

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

The question asked was based on what if there was not a god.You are being dishonest here by denying the question yet still saying you answered it.
Your answer here can only mean that if there was no bible then you would kill for fun if the mood took you to.

You're still missing the point... Even with the bible, and with God, people still "kill for fun", so your last sentence doesn't have the meaning and power that you think it does, and it's actually a problem for yourself because, without an objective moral standard, you would have no grounding in which to condemn behavior and say that a person "ought" to behave in a certain way in order to fulfill their moral duties (if subjective, then all behavioral choices would instead be nothing more than a matter of personal opinion).

Again, a subjective opinion. First you need to give some reason to believe in a god before you can use one to justify morality. So far you have not given any reason to buy into the idea of objective morality. All your beliefs are based on subjective understandings.

Objective morality is the basis from which we all innately operate... Any "you ought" or "you ought not" statement is undeniable evidence of this, as that is making an appeal to some sort of objective moral standard. "If God doesn't exist, objective moral values/duties do not exist." Since you believe that morality is subjective, you agree with that statement because there is then no perfect standard of "goodness" that exists in reality. Premiss 2 is what you are denying (objective moral values/duties do exist), and in doing so, you are accepting the subjective morality (just a matter of personal opinion) of completely abhorrent sh!t such as mutilating a little girl's genitalia and then slowly cutting, burning, torturing her to death. But, you don't want to accept that action as objectively morally wrong (as in, everyone has a moral duty to not do sh!t like that to people) because if you accept that, then you accept both premises, which philosophically leads you directly to God's existence. Instead, you choose to stay in denial and claim that mutilating little girls' genitalia and slowly torturing them to death is moral behavior that is simply a matter of personal opinion.

But it is not morality that gives us that understanding. Morality is merely the means by which we codify that understanding. Not killing people comes from our own innate understanding of empathy. After all there have been societies where killing even babies is morally acceptable. War becomes noble and the spoils of winning is rape, pillage and murder. Not because they have to but because it is fun to do so. Perfectly moral attitude for those times.

You're mixing up moral epistemology with moral ontology...

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

It's the society and its shared cultural norms and definitions of acceptable behavior that vary.

Why should arbitrarily selecting a set of rules and labeling them as "objective" be more convincing to you than simply acknowledging that your choice of rules to obey is subjective?

So, in short, it's a difference in epistemology... that's what I was getting at. That has no bearing on moral ontology...

And there's nothing arbitrary about it. And because everybody has a moral duty to not mutilate young girls' genitalia and slowly cut, burn, torture them to death. That is what makes morality objective.

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

No. Morality is subjective. Even if we are genetically wired to believe certain things are right and wrong and even if 100% of humanity all agreed a particular thing is right or wrong, it would still just be the opinion of humans. There could just as easily be an alien species out there that all believes something different.

Subjective morality is no morality. If your standard for what is moral can change at any given time, then you have no moral standard. We choose what our standard for morality is (and I think that's what you're talking about), but if your standard is strictly subjective, then you don't have any standard. A true moral standard can only be one that is objective and external to oneself.

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Also, even if there is a god why would that mean objective morality exists? If God says “tofu tastes better than bacon” does that make it objectively so? No, it is just God’s subjective opinion.

I think that a big part of makes God who He is, is the ability to make perfect moral judgments. It's not His opinion, but rather His knowledge that gives Him that moral high ground. If you know the outcome of every decision, then you can see what is moral and what isn't. That knowledge is what gives God the moral foundation that He has.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Objective morality is the basis from which we all innately operate... Any "you ought" or "you ought not" statement is undeniable evidence of this, as that is making an appeal to some sort of objective moral standard. .

That haws NEVER been evidence of anything LMAO Yes YOU have repeated it and claimed it was but its never been hence why multiple posters have destroyed it and pointed that fact out. What you are missing is that YOU are the only thing giving it meaning. YOU think its meaningful based on your subjective feelings. Thats it and in that regard its worthless. By definition morality is factually subjective and theres no way you prove other wise. If there it would be easy to do and you would have done it already.

if you disagree simply back up your claims and factual prove other wise, thanks!

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

yes we do i think we do let me look up epistemology ya we do

Moral ontology is asking if morals objectively exist independently to be discovered by people, or if morals are merely a mental construct of people and therefore inseparable from people. ... Moral epistemology is about knowledge of and the understanding of how one arrives at morals and what those morals are.

So no, we don't have to agree on epistemology in order for an objective moral standard to exist.

or as long as the psychopath believes that for that psychopath yes yes it is a moral action for every one who agrees with the psycho path for as long as they do its is a moral action

???

Every firstborn son in Egypt will die, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sits on the throne, to the firstborn son of the female slave, who is at her hand mill, and all the firstborn of the cattle as well.

He said to them, "Thus says the LORD, the God of Israel, 'Every man of you put his sword upon his thigh, and go back and forth from gate to gate in the camp, and kill every man his brother, and every man his friend, and every man his neighbor.'" 28So the sons of Levi did as Moses instructed, and about three thousand men of the people fell that day. 29Then Moses said, "Dedicate yourselves today to the LORD-- for every man has been against his son and against his brother-- in order that He may bestow a blessing upon you today."…

under subjective morality including subjective morality that some one claims is objective they dont even have to consider killing to be murder

its is just as valid that's why we need to fight against people that are not that kind of thing if we dont like it

???

right now your trying to appeal to what you assume i dont like to get me to believe in your objective morality that not dependent on what i like or dont like ( good luck with that )

Well, do you find mass murder to be a moral action?

if you take away personal preference then any atrocity could go under the label of moral or immoral and those labels would loose the meaning they have dividing whats desirable from whats not or what is less desirable

it just become nonsense where what you consider atrocity can still be designated as moral but your just expected to go along with that because its labeled as moral period

and the reverse what you consider to be moral can be labeled as evil for every one just because that's what it is

the only difference between your subjective morality claiming be objective and objective morality is the later destroys utterly the purpose and meaning of the word

and that's why the only way to hold onto that purpose and meaning while having objectivity is if it physically impossible for any one to want and dislike different things from any one else ever

and thats not the case

No, it's the complete opposite in fact... "personal preference" (subjective morality, where everything is simply a matter of personal opinion) is precisely what allows any atrocity to go under the label of moral or immoral, because it's all apparently just a matter of subjective personal opinion. An objective moral standard wouldn't allow for that, because it would be moral or immoral for everybody.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Subjective morality is no morality. If your standard for what is moral can change at any given time, then you have no moral standard. We choose what our standard for morality is (and I think that's what you're talking about), but if your standard is strictly subjective, then you don't have any standard. A true moral standard can only be one that is objective and external to oneself.

Agreed but it would only be objective to an individual or people that CHOOSE to follow it. In reality its still subjective. In reality it cant be anything else but subjective because theres nothing that makes it objective. Unless my god or any god shows himself to this world or some other ultimate power and presents what is moral and what is not it will remain subjective. For me i might have objective morals but they are meaningless to the world. Thats the only way to make morals objective until then they will forever remain subjective.

A person can have objective morality for themselves
The world has subjective morality making morals subjective by default

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

1.) i agree not in the slighest but in the biggest way possible it is subjective and you have no ability to change that fact
2.) thats because you feelings are fact based they are your subjective feelings based on factual inaccuracies. yes based on yoru false claim of objective morality that wouldnt make sense but im not using your made up false definition.

I simply pointed out the fact a person could have morals they feel or objective but in the world they are still subjective. a very basic and factual concept to understand

regardless the fact remains that by definition morals are subjective and theres no way to prove otherwise in this wold. if you disagree simply back up your claims and factual prove other wise, thanks!

I stopped reading after that part, the part where you admit that my 2nd point is correct, but it bothers you so much to admit that I am correct about something so you completely dismiss the literal definition of objective and instead want to use the definition of absolute in its place, which means we are talking about two completely different things...

This is where I begin to ignore you once again, because you are unwilling to have a serious philosophical discussion about the topic.

 

[gfm7175]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

OK stop right there ... where is the argument that if god doesn't exist, objective morals do not exist ?

Not sure what you're asking... are you asking for proof of that premiss? Or are you saying that atheists don't argue against that premiss (they agree with that statement)?

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

i dont know how objective morty could exist unless the laws of nature require everyone to feel the same way about things all the time

Thats right, it simply cant.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

1.)I stopped reading after that part, the part where you admit that my 2nd point is correct, but it bothers you so much to admit that I am correct about something so you completely dismiss the literal definition of objective and instead want to use the definition of absolute in its place, which means we are talking about two completely different things...
2.)This is where I begin to ignore you once again, because you are unwilling to have a serious philosophical discussion about the topic.

1.) Doesn't matter where you stopped reading the fact remains by definition morals are subjective you cant prove otherwise :shrug:
2.) Translation: your posts and claims have failed at every turn losing to facts, logic, reality and honesty so you will run away again because you want me to see merit in your failed unsupportable claims but i simply dont and that bothers you LMAO

When you cant support your proven wrong claims with anything of honest, objective, reality based and intellectual merit please let us know and post it, thanks

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Agreed but it would only be objective to an individual or people that CHOOSE to follow it. In reality its still subjective. In reality it cant be anything else but subjective because theres nothing that makes it objective. Unless my god or any god shows himself to this world or some other ultimate power and presents what is moral and what is not it will remain subjective. For me i might have objective morals but they are meaningless to the world. Thats the only way to make morals objective until then they will forever remain subjective.

A person can have objective morality for themselves
The world has subjective morality making morals subjective by default

Objective morality is the only truly reliable morality. As long you get to pick and choose your standard with every decision, you have no standard. It doesn't mean that you always follow your standard, but that your standard is clearly defined and not by you. That's what the point of an objective standard is. If it's subjective, then you have no standard, just doing what you want, when you want.

 

[devildavid]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Subjective morality is no morality. If your standard for what is moral can change at any given time, then you have no moral standard. We choose what our standard for morality is (and I think that's what you're talking about), but if your standard is strictly subjective, then you don't have any standard. A true moral standard can only be one that is objective and external to oneself.

Where do we find that external standard? How would we know we have found it?

 

[devildavid]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

I think that a big part of makes God who He is, is the ability to make perfect moral judgments. It's not His opinion, but rather His knowledge that gives Him that moral high ground. If you know the outcome of every decision, then you can see what is moral and what isn't. That knowledge is what gives God the moral foundation that He has.

How do you know this?

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Where do we find that external standard? How would we know we have found it?

It's in the Holy Babble.

 

[zyzygy]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

How do you know this?

He believes it, he does not know it.

 

[Excon]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

This topic comes up often in other threads, so I've decided to create a separate thread dedicated to discussing the topic of morality.

Here is The Moral Argument for God:

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2. Objective moral values do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.


Soooooo, is morality objective? Is it subjective? Is it absolute? Is it relative? How do you support your position?


To start the brainstorming, consider this moral question... Is it ever okay to painfully torture babies for fun?


Also consider this example...
Dad: "Did you steal a hammer from that man?"
Son: "Yes, dad, but he was going to hit me with it!"


Doesn't it seem like both father and son intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal “for the fun of it”? The action of stealing seems to require proper justification before anyone finds it to be morally acceptable.


I think it's obvious what my position is, especially if you've seen my comments in other threads, but what's yours (and why do you think that is so)?

Morals, by nature, are subjective, but once you have chosen your set of morals their application then become objective.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Objective morality is the only truly reliable morality. As long you get to pick and choose your standard with every decision, you have no standard. It doesn't mean that you always follow your standard, but that your standard is clearly defined and not by you. That's what the point of an objective standard is. If it's subjective, then you have no standard, just doing what you want, when you want.

Yes for an INDIVIDUAL and reality that is true but I dont get your point. It didnt change anything.

How does any of that change the fact Morality is subjective?

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

Yes for an INDIVIDUAL and reality that is true but I dont get your point. It didnt change anything.

How does any of that change the fact Morality is subjective?

Subjective morality is not morality, it is simply behavior. Morality demands an external standard. It's part of what defines the very concept of a set of morals. If you can change the standard of behavior at will, then you have no standard and morality is a standard of behavior that you cannot change. You can violate it, but you can't change it.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

1.)Subjective morality is not morality, it is simply behavior. Morality demands an external standard. It's part of what defines the very concept of a set of morals. If you can change the standard of behavior at will, then you have no standard and morality is a standard of behavior that you cannot change. You can violate it, but you can't change it.

the definition disagrees with your false claim. the standard comes from the person practicing said morals they may practice them objectively but the foundation the morals are based on, are in fact subjective . . again by definition. :shrug:

Im not even really disagreeing with what your saying it just has no impact to the fact morals are still subjective

and the question remains, what do you think you are posting that changes this fact? Can you list any morals that are factual and prove it? What makes them factual?

 

[Logicman]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

I do not find that argument of Craigs to be rational, reasonable or correct.

Of course you don't. When have you ever embraced valid theological truths?

 

[soylentgreen]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

You're still missing the point... Even with the bible, and with God, people still "kill for fun", so your last sentence doesn't have the meaning and power that you think it does, and it's actually a problem for yourself because, without an objective moral standard, you would have no grounding in which to condemn behavior and say that a person "ought" to behave in a certain way in order to fulfill their moral duties (if subjective, then all behavioral choices would instead be nothing more than a matter of personal opinion).


Objective morality is the basis from which we all innately operate... Any "you ought" or "you ought not" statement is undeniable evidence of this, as that is making an appeal to some sort of objective moral standard. "If God doesn't exist, objective moral values/duties do not exist." Since you believe that morality is subjective, you agree with that statement because there is then no perfect standard of "goodness" that exists in reality. Premiss 2 is what you are denying (objective moral values/duties do exist), and in doing so, you are accepting the subjective morality (just a matter of personal opinion) of completely abhorrent sh!t such as mutilating a little girl's genitalia and then slowly cutting, burning, torturing her to death. But, you don't want to accept that action as objectively morally wrong (as in, everyone has a moral duty to not do sh!t like that to people) because if you accept that, then you accept both premises, which philosophically leads you directly to God's existence. Instead, you choose to stay in denial and claim that mutilating little girls' genitalia and slowly torturing them to death is moral behavior that is simply a matter of personal opinion.


You're mixing up moral epistemology with moral ontology...

No, it is you who are missing the point by insisting that morality is the cause of morality. There is no such thing as an objective morality. As you point out people approach it from a subjective view point. What we do have and hat is the cause of morality in the first place and is objective is that a social creatures humans have developed empathy and altruism. We canundersatnd that harming other humans does create pain so we can understand that killing for fun is not right.

And no it is you who are misusing epistemology to create a false belief in a thing that does not exist. Objective morality is merely a mistaken idea about something that social animals do which is empathise.

 

[faithful_servant]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

the definition disagrees with your false claim. the standard comes from the person practicing said morals they may practice them objectively but the foundation the morals are based on, are in fact subjective . . again by definition. :shrug:

Im not even really disagreeing with what your saying it just has no impact to the fact morals are still subjective

and the question remains, what do you think you are posting that changes this fact? Can you list any morals that are factual and prove it? What makes them factual?

I never made any claims about "factual". What I said was "external to oneself". A subjective moral standard is an oxymoron. If you can change your standard, then you have no standard. It is ONLY when your standard is an externally controlled one, that it can truly be called a moral standard. If I choose to follow a standard set by you that states that I can only wear black socks, then while I can violate that standard, I can't change it. I can choose which standard I follow, but if I'm the one setting the standard, then I have no standard, since today I may wear white socks and be perfectly moral in my standard and tomorrow wear blue socks and still be perfectly moral. Such a path is that of having NO moral standard whatsoever. As a society, we are subject to the same issue. As long as it's us who are deciding what the moral standard is, we have no true standard, since what is moral today can become immoral tomorrow. So an moral standard based on what the people who are following it want is no moral standard at all. It's simply a way to make that society feel good about what it is doing. Not to Godwin this subject, but most Nazi era Germans thought that taking away the Jews belongings and homes was a moral act. 20 years prior, it would have been considered reprehensible. The act itself didn't change, but they chose a different standard to follow after. Had they stuck to an external standard, they may have still done what they did, but it would been an immoral act instead of a moral one, since the standard of what was moral was not within their control (subjective).

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Does Objective Morality Exist? && The Moral Argument

I never made any claims about "factual". What I said was "external to oneself". A subjective moral standard is an oxymoron. If you can change your standard, then you have no standard. It is ONLY when your standard is an externally controlled one, that it can truly be called a moral standard. If I choose to follow a standard set by you that states that I can only wear black socks, then while I can violate that standard, I can't change it. I can choose which standard I follow, but if I'm the one setting the standard, then I have no standard, since today I may wear white socks and be perfectly moral in my standard and tomorrow wear blue socks and still be perfectly moral. Such a path is that of having NO moral standard whatsoever. As a society, we are subject to the same issue. As long as it's us who are deciding what the moral standard is, we have no true standard, since what is moral today can become immoral tomorrow. So an moral standard based on what the people who are following it want is no moral standard at all. It's simply a way to make that society feel good about what it is doing. Not to Godwin this subject, but most Nazi era Germans thought that taking away the Jews belongings and homes was a moral act. 20 years prior, it would have been considered reprehensible. The act itself didn't change, but they chose a different standard to follow after. Had they stuck to an external standard, they may have still done what they did, but it would been an immoral act instead of a moral one, since the standard of what was moral was not within their control (subjective).

You are free to feel that way but facts and definitions dont support you. All moral standards are subjective by definition and that isnt an oxymoron. Im not sure what you are trying to sell or what point you are trying to make since nothing is changing? I wont be abandoning facts and definitions simply cause you say so. Is there something specific you are trying to get across?

So again after all that, the fact remains morals are subjective.