Objective Morality

[RickD]

Kenny,

Byblos asked you for an example of a subjective truth. You answered with an example of subjective morality. You said "racism is immoral" is an example of subjective morality. Are you saying morality and truth are the same?

[PaulSacramento]

Objective morality - the fact that there is such a thing as Good and Evil or right and wrong if you prefer.
Subjective Morality - What is considered Good and Evil / right and wrong.

Exactly points! I say Good and evil; right and wrong do not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings didn't exist; neither would good and evil. Now obviously what is CONSIDERED good and evil exist thus good, evil, right, wrong are subjective not objective.
Do you agree?

Ken

No Ken.
Right and wrong, good and evil, they exist INDEPENDENT of whether ANY intelligent life exists.
You are still viewing them subjectively because you are focusing on what you think good and evil ARE as opposed to thinking that they simply ARE.
The first step is to understand that good and evil ( or right and wrong) exist REGARDLESS of what anyone defines what IS good and evil.
You seem to be saying that cold and hot exist ONLY because intelligent beings can differentiate temperature BUT that is NOT true.
Hot and Cold exist because there is such a thing differences in temperature and regardless of anyone being around to notice them.

[jlay]

Ken stated: Now this doesn’t make sense to me. If you can ground your morality in the word of your God, why is it so difficult for you to believe that I could ground my morality in what makes sense to me? I am unable to understand why this is so difficult for you to understand.

Ken, it's already been shown that your view doesn't make sense. To you or anyone else. You are smuggling in OM and then denying it. That is self-defeating. What I'm saying is that your position is untenable. So, no, I can't understand why someone would espouse a contradictory, self-defeating moral position. Can you?

Yes it does! It is my opinion, it is your opinion, and it is what you claim as your God’s opinion. Now obviously my opinion carries no weight in your eyes, and your claim of God’s opinion doesn’t carry any weight in my eyes, so why is your claim any better than mine?

If your own worldview is correct then your opinion should carry no weight. By your own admission, it is arbitrary and has no objective value. You've also stated that humans have no inherent value. I assume you believe you are human? Therefore, you are saying that your opinion is just that, an opinion and nothing more. (An opinion of a being that has no intrinsic value.) Therefor, morals are illusory and just a result of unguided, biological processes; and human morality is no more naturalistically significant than an elephant fart. So, on what grounds do you ask the question, "why is your claim any better than mine?" Your own claim undermines itself. Maybe you should look in the mirror and ask yourself that question.

When I claim my view has more value, it is because I am actually appealing to OM. A standard that is not my opinion or preference, but supersedes opinion. Whether I'm correct or not, I really do believe that objective moral values and duties exist and that they are grounded in a supreme, transcendent, moral being. You do not.

I decide my standards. I’ve decided my moral view is my standard.

I'd like to see a criminal tell that to a judge. One day, you will stand before the ultimate judge and your claim will look just as ridiculous.

As I said with Paulsacramento; Good/evil, right/wrong does not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings did not exist, neither would good or evil.

And you just made an objective claim about morality. If you really believe morality is subjective, then please stop making objective truth claims about it. Again, follow that line of thinking to its logical ends.

Of course, God is an intelligent being, therefore.......

The standard you use is only valuable to you and those who agree with you. The standard I use is only important to me and those who agree with me. Now how does the standard you use carry any more weight than the standard I use

Asked and answered.
Ken, I dare you to start living that way. You aren't, and as already demonstrated you don't really believe this. You have contradicted this multiple times in this thread alone. You are either lying to us, lying to yourself, or both. Although, since your moral ethic is arbitrary and only your opinion, I guess lying isn't "really" wrong.

You shouldn’t assume if I followed my world view to its logical conclusions; I would conclude the same thing as you.

We don't have to assume. You aren't. You haven't followed your worldview to its logical conclusions. That has already been demonstrated.

So if I understand you correctly; you believe all moral issues are objective. BTW if morality is objective, why does it need to be interpreted?

Were you born understanding math?

I didn’t ask anything about justice preferred over injustice, I asked if everybody agrees on objective moral issues. In other words; do all reasonable people agree on all moral issues such as sex out of wedlock, interracial, same sex relationships, stem cell research, abortion, etc. Do all reasonable people agree on these things?

First, your question is fallacious and assumes that agreement is proof and truth. Agreement doesn't determine truth. That is an ad populum fallacy. We are talking about the foundation of moral ethics. So, you take situational topics and think that this determines principles of morality. It doesn't. Justice is a principle. Are you saying there are people who think injustice is better than justice? Go and steal from that person and then get back to me.
So, the best way to answer is this; A person who is in favor of abortion honestly believes they are doing the RIGHT thing. A person who is against abortion honestly believes they are doing the RIGHT thing. Both are convinced that there is a way things ought to be. They are both appealing to the same objective principle. However, one has made an interpretive error.

What you are saying is different. You are saying that there is NOT a way things ought to be; that no moral position has any more intrinsic value than any other position. Therefore, if I believe might equals right, then what is wrong with forcing my worldview on someone else? Nothing. You can say you don't like it, but you can't say it's wrong. Why? because your worldview robs the word 'wrong' of any meaning. (Wrong, according to what?)
You've already evidenced that you don't really believe that. If I tried to force my worldview on you, you'd say "That is WRONG." And you'd be using the term wrong in an objective sense. You absolutely believe in objective moral values and duties. You just have no reason to. And sense you have no reason to, you are trying to justify that morality is subjective and a result of the human mind. Why? Because you don't like where it points. You don't like that you are actually accountable to a supreme moral authority.

Sounds to me like you are suggesting objective morality is only for those who believe in God.

Jlay
Ken, if that's what you think then you need to take basic reading comprehension. Let me give you an example. I can't see oxygen. In fact I've never seen it. Have you? Yet, I believe it exist. I believe that my lungs breath in this invisible molecule and absorb it into my bloodstream to keep me alive. Now, if I didn't believe in oxygen, would I suddenly not be able to breathe? Of course not. I can still enjoy the benefits of oxygen even if I didn't understand molecular biology.
As i've shown, you and others who deny OM, actually live as if OM is true. You deny it, but smuggle it in where it suits you.
An atheist, for example, can be a moral person. they simply don't have any reason to do so. When someone says, "I am a moral person," or, "I'm a good person," what are they saying? Good according to what? What they are saying is that there really is a way people OUGHT to behave. And good is better than bad. They are smuggling in a standard.

If nature was all there was; and mankind didn’t exist; neither would morality.

Bald assertion. Ken, no one is saying you aren't entitled to your opinion. But if that is what you really believe then it undermines any reason for you being here. And, as already stated, you certainly don't live your life consistent with that statement.

[Kenny]

Kenny,

Byblos asked you for an example of a subjective truth. You answered with an example of subjective morality. You said "racism is immoral" is an example of subjective morality. Are you saying morality and truth are the same?

I answered with a claim about subjective morality. The difference between truth and morality is truth is about what you say or claim; morality is about what you do

Ken

[Kenny]

Objective morality - the fact that there is such a thing as Good and Evil or right and wrong if you prefer.
Subjective Morality - What is considered Good and Evil / right and wrong.

Exactly points! I say Good and evil; right and wrong do not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings didn't exist; neither would good and evil. Now obviously what is CONSIDERED good and evil exist thus good, evil, right, wrong are subjective not objective.
Do you agree?

Ken

No Ken.
Right and wrong, good and evil, they exist INDEPENDENT of whether ANY intelligent life exists.
You are still viewing them subjectively because you are focusing on what you think good and evil ARE as opposed to thinking that they simply ARE.
The first step is to understand that good and evil ( or right and wrong) exist REGARDLESS of what anyone defines what IS good and evil.
You seem to be saying that cold and hot exist ONLY because intelligent beings can differentiate temperature BUT that is NOT true.
Hot and Cold exist because there is such a thing differences in temperature and regardless of anyone being around to notice them.

Intelligent life does not exist on the moon. Tempature does exist on the moon. Please provide an example of evil on the moon

Ken

[Kenny]

Jlay
Ken, it's already been shown that your view doesn't make sense. To you or anyone else. You are smuggling in OM and then denying it. That is self-defeating. What I'm saying is that your position is untenable. So, no, I can't understand why someone would espouse a contradictory, self-defeating moral position. Can you?
Ken
No; it doesn't make sense to YOU, but we aren't talking about what make sense to you; we are talking about what make sense to ME! again..... why is it so difficult for you to understand that I could ground my morality in what makes sense to me?

Jlay
When I claim my view has more value, it is because I am actually appealing to OM. A standard that is not my opinion or preference, but supersedes opinion. Whether I'm correct or not, I really do believe that objective moral values and duties exist and that they are grounded in a supreme, transcendent, moral being. You do not.
Ken
Fair enough! But for someone who doesn’t believe in the existence of your supreme, transcendent, moral being; your view has no more value than mine; right?

Jlay
And you just made an objective claim about morality. If you really believe morality is subjective, then please stop making objective truth claims about it.
Ken
Do you know the difference between “morality” and a simple claim about morality?

Jlay
Were you born understanding math?
Ken
No, but I eventually learned it. According to you not everybody understands objective morality and are left having to interpret it. If it were objective it would be obvious.

Jlay
First, your question is fallacious and assumes that agreement is proof and truth
Ken
No, it assumes if morality were objective, it would be agreed upon by reasonable people. The fact that it isn’t should tell you something.

Jlay
Ken, if that's what you think then you need to take basic reading comprehension.
Ken
Did you not define objective morality as a morality that transcends the opinion of humans? What else could you possibly be talking about if you aren’t talking about a God?

Jlay
Bald assertion. Ken, no one is saying you aren't entitled to your opinion. But if that is what you really believe then it undermines any reason for you being here. And, as already stated, you certainly don't live your life consistent with that statement.
Ken
So you tellin me if intelligent life didn’t exist; good and evil would still exist? Okay then I will ask you the same question I asked someone else; there is no intelligent life on the moon. Does evil exist on the moon?

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

Objective morality - the fact that there is such a thing as Good and Evil or right and wrong if you prefer.
Subjective Morality - What is considered Good and Evil / right and wrong.

Exactly points! I say Good and evil; right and wrong do not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings didn't exist; neither would good and evil. Now obviously what is CONSIDERED good and evil exist thus good, evil, right, wrong are subjective not objective.
Do you agree?

Ken

No Ken.
Right and wrong, good and evil, they exist INDEPENDENT of whether ANY intelligent life exists.
You are still viewing them subjectively because you are focusing on what you think good and evil ARE as opposed to thinking that they simply ARE.
The first step is to understand that good and evil ( or right and wrong) exist REGARDLESS of what anyone defines what IS good and evil.
You seem to be saying that cold and hot exist ONLY because intelligent beings can differentiate temperature BUT that is NOT true.
Hot and Cold exist because there is such a thing differences in temperature and regardless of anyone being around to notice them.

Intelligent life does not exist on the moon. Tempature does exist on the moon. Please provide an example of evil on the moon

Ken

You didn't understand the example.

[Kenny]

Objective morality - the fact that there is such a thing as Good and Evil or right and wrong if you prefer.
Subjective Morality - What is considered Good and Evil / right and wrong.

Exactly points! I say Good and evil; right and wrong do not exist by themselves; they only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings didn't exist; neither would good and evil. Now obviously what is CONSIDERED good and evil exist thus good, evil, right, wrong are subjective not objective.
Do you agree?

Ken

No Ken.
Right and wrong, good and evil, they exist INDEPENDENT of whether ANY intelligent life exists.
You are still viewing them subjectively because you are focusing on what you think good and evil ARE as opposed to thinking that they simply ARE.
The first step is to understand that good and evil ( or right and wrong) exist REGARDLESS of what anyone defines what IS good and evil.
You seem to be saying that cold and hot exist ONLY because intelligent beings can differentiate temperature BUT that is NOT true.
Hot and Cold exist because there is such a thing differences in temperature and regardless of anyone being around to notice them.

Intelligent life does not exist on the moon. Tempature does exist on the moon. Please provide an example of evil on the moon

Ken

You didn't understand the example.

I understood you as saying Good and Evil exist by itself; independent of whether or not an intelligent being is there to proclaim "this is evil this is good". I listed a place where there are no intelligent beings and asked you to give an example of evil existing independent of itself at that place. Where am I going wrong?

Ken
Ken

[PaulSacramento]

I understood you as saying Good and Evil exist by itself; independent of whether or not an intelligent being is there to proclaim "this is evil this is good". I listed a place where there are no intelligent beings and asked you to give an example of evil existing independent of itself at that place. Where am I going wrong?

Ken

You are wrong because the existence of anything other than God is not relevant in regards to whether Good and evil exist.
Location is irrelevant.
Presence of intelligent life is irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that infanticide on the moon is ok?

[Kenny]

I understood you as saying Good and Evil exist by itself; independent of whether or not an intelligent being is there to proclaim "this is evil this is good". I listed a place where there are no intelligent beings and asked you to give an example of evil existing independent of itself at that place. Where am I going wrong?

Ken

You are wrong because the existence of anything other than God is not relevant in regards to whether Good and evil exist.
Location is irrelevant.
Presence of intelligent life is irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that infanticide on the moon is ok?

Didn't you just say the presence of intelligent life is irrevelant? How is infanticide possible without the presence of intelligent life?

Ken

[PaulSacramento]

I understood you as saying Good and Evil exist by itself; independent of whether or not an intelligent being is there to proclaim "this is evil this is good". I listed a place where there are no intelligent beings and asked you to give an example of evil existing independent of itself at that place. Where am I going wrong?

Ken

You are wrong because the existence of anything other than God is not relevant in regards to whether Good and evil exist.
Location is irrelevant.
Presence of intelligent life is irrelevant.

Are you suggesting that infanticide on the moon is ok?

Didn't you just say the presence of intelligent life is irrevelant? How is infanticide possible without the presence of intelligent life?

Ken

You are confusing the ACT with WHO is doing the act, that is why you are confusing OBJECTIVE MORALITY ( There is such a thing as Good and Evil) With Subjective Morality ( What is Good and Evil).
Infanticide was an example. You seem to be implying that for morals to exist, human life must exist, is that what you are saying?

[PaulSacramento]

As humans we tend to be "self-centered" in other words we are relational beings with our environment ( which includes other people) and we can only learn AND express via relational terms.
That is why subjective is easier than objective.
To say and prove that an act (like rape) is wrong and evil is very easy BUT it is based on our relation to what society we live in ( if we lived in a society in which rape was legal and viewed as ok, we would think it ok) BUT would it be OK?

Is putting a baby in a mircowave and turning it on evil and wrong because we are intelligent and know it to be wrong? if so, WHY do we know it to be wrong? and what IS WRONG?
The whole notion of wrong comes from a belief that there IS SUCH A THING AS WRONG, not what IS wrong but that such a thing as wrong DOES exist.

Ken seems to be implying that it is only because humans exist to feel that way, the if humans didn't exist there would be no such thing as right or wrong, good and evil.

Well, Yes, that may be the case BUT the issue is NOT that, the issue is does OBJECTIVE MORALITY exist and the answer is YES because if SUBJECTIVE does ( and all agree it does) then OBJECTIVE MUST exist also, why?
Because anything subjective requires an OBJECTIVE to be based on.

Subjective is WHAT is good and evil
Objective is good and evil exist.

If good and evil did not exist, there would be NO subjective view of them.

[Kenny]

Paulsacramento
You are confusing the ACT with WHO is doing the act, that is why you are confusing OBJECTIVE MORALITY ( There is such a thing as Good and Evil) With Subjective Morality ( What is Good and Evil).
Ken
No, I couldn’t care less who is doing the act; I’m saying without somebody doing the act; there is no act. Without an act there is no moral issue.

Paulsacramento
Infanticide was an example. You seem to be implying that for morals to exist, human life must exist, is that what you are saying?
Ken
Pretty much! I believe my exact words were “Good and Evil only exist in the context of intelligent beings. If intelligent beings didn’t exist; neither would Good and evil.

Paulsacramento
If good and evil did not exist, there would be NO subjective view of them.

Ken
Human actions is what exists. Good and evil are only a couple of the pelethora of lables we attach to human actions That's why (as I mentioned before) there is no evil on the moon; because there is no human action on the moon. Good and evil only exists in the context of human action.

Ken

[1over137]

Suppose humans do not exist. Suppose there is one planet where animals are killing each other. Suppose there is another planet where animals are not killing each other. Is something good, is something wrong?

[Lonewolf]

Human actions is what exists. Good and evil are only a couple of the pelethora of lables we attach to human actions That's why (as I mentioned before) there is no evil on the moon; because there is no human action on the moon. Good and evil only exists in the context of human action.

Ken

not just with human actions, but also with celestial beings and spirits., where there is life, there is morality