In defense of objective morals

[RickD]

Byblos wrote:
Months and months of conversing through countless posts and kenny comes up with that. Just ... wow.

You sound surprised? Kenny has been dazzling us with this kind of logic since he joined the forum. It's amazing, isn't it?

[PaulSacramento]

You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.

I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken

Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

Dude, first off NO ONE postulated a deity at all, period.
I am surprised you took that road since I have not brought up a source for objective morality at all.

The whole point is that objective morality is OUTSIDE and INDEPENDENT of a "source" or else it IS subjective.

To understand this you must FIRST grasp that there IS objective morality and that is NOT WHAT is good and bad but that there IS good and bad.
After grasping THAT you can segway into where it comes form.

[Kenny]

You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.

I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken

Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

Dude, first off NO ONE postulated a deity at all, period.
I am surprised you took that road since I have not brought up a source for objective morality at all.

C’mon brah! Gimme a little more credit than that! You are a Christian who believes morality is objective, responding on a Christian forum.
If Objective morality requires a moral base, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that you see the God as described in the Bible as this moral base.

Now if I am wrong, say so now; otherwise henceforth I will assume you believe morality is based upon God’s word.

The whole point is that objective morality is OUTSIDE and INDEPENDENT of a "source" or else it IS subjective.

To understand this you must FIRST grasp that there IS objective morality and that is NOT WHAT is good and bad but that there IS good and bad.
After grasping THAT you can segway into where it comes form.

Sorry I can’t do that. This myopic view of only putting a little on the table at a time to figure out doesn’t work for me. If we are going to discuss morality as objective, everything associated with it must be allowed on the table as well; otherwise false conclusions could be made.

Again do you believe Objective morality requires a moral base? If so, is this base God as described in the Bible? Yes or No.

Ken

[RickD]

You do realize that some slavery was self -imposed ( indentured servitude) to pay off debt for example.

It is important to make the moral distinction between forced slavery ( chattel slavery) and elective or "prisoner" slavery.

I'm not talking about indentured servants, I'm talking about slavery where you own a person as you would an animal.

Ken

Ah, good because it is always important to be clear in these matters.
As to your question:

How could objective morality prevent something such as slavery? Please explain.

Objective morals in of themselves can't do anything.
BUT the belief that there is a absolute right and wrong for everyone is the beginning stage from which one can get to the point where slavery is wrong.
Without that, at best, slavery MAY be wrong under certain conditions, ie: it becomes totally subjective and can ONLY be subjective.

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

Dude, first off NO ONE postulated a deity at all, period.
I am surprised you took that road since I have not brought up a source for objective morality at all.

C’mon brah! Gimme a little more credit than that! You are a Christian who believes morality is objective, responding on a Christian forum.
If Objective morality requires a moral base, it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that you see the God as described in the Bible as this moral base.

Now if I am wrong, say so now; otherwise henceforth I will assume you believe morality is based upon God’s word.

The whole point is that objective morality is OUTSIDE and INDEPENDENT of a "source" or else it IS subjective.

To understand this you must FIRST grasp that there IS objective morality and that is NOT WHAT is good and bad but that there IS good and bad.
After grasping THAT you can segway into where it comes form.

Sorry I can’t do that. This myopic view of only putting a little on the table at a time to figure out doesn’t work for me. If we are going to discuss morality as objective, everything associated with it must be allowed on the table as well; otherwise false conclusions could be made.

Again do you believe Objective morality requires a moral base? If so, is this base God as described in the Bible? Yes or No.

Ken

PaulSacramento,

I can let you borrow my dog, if you need something to kick.

[edwardmurphy]

I don't think that objective morality can exist without some power in the background to enforce the rules (i.e. gods). Since gods don't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

It's pretty simple to identify which kinds of behavior will lead to a safe, prosperous, stable society and which won't, and it's equally simple to establish that the vast majority of people in the history of the world prefer safety, prosperity, and stability to danger, destitution, and chaos. From there it seems reasonable to generally categorize the socially adaptive behaviors as "moral" and the "maladaptive ones as "immoral."

That's good enough for me.

[RickD]

edward wrote:
I don't think that objective morality can exist without some power in the background to enforce the rules (i.e. gods). Since gods don't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

I don't believe gods exist, yet I believe OM exists.

[Kenny]

edward wrote:
I don't think that objective morality can exist without some power in the background to enforce the rules (i.e. gods). Since gods don't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

I don't believe gods exist, yet I believe OM exists.

The point he was making applies to God as well. Nice try!

Ken

[RickD]

edward wrote:
I don't think that objective morality can exist without some power in the background to enforce the rules (i.e. gods). Since gods don't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

I don't believe gods exist, yet I believe OM exists.

The point he was making applies to God as well. Nice try!

Ken

Umm...I beg to differ. He said, "Since gods don't exist..."

Only a fool would say that God doesn't exist. And Edward ain't no fool. I don't think Edward would assert that God does not exist. It's one thing to think that there's a lack of proof for God's existence. But like I said, only a fool would assert that God DOES NOT EXIST!

[Kenny]

edward wrote:
I don't think that objective morality can exist without some power in the background to enforce the rules (i.e. gods). Since gods don't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

I don't believe gods exist, yet I believe OM exists.

The point he was making applies to God as well. Nice try!

Ken

Umm...I beg to differ. He said, "Since gods don't exist..."

Only a fool would say that God doesn't exist. And Edward ain't no fool. I don't think Edward would assert that God does not exist. It's one thing to think that there's a lack of proof for God's existence. But like I said, only a fool would assert that God DOES NOT EXIST!

PaulSacramento didn't seem to need it, but I do. Let me borrow that dog of yours I need something to kick

K

[RickD]

edward wrote:
I don't think that objective morality can exist without some power in the background to enforce the rules (i.e. gods). Since gods don't exist there is no such thing as objective morality. I'm not sure why that's a problem.

I don't believe gods exist, yet I believe OM exists.

The point he was making applies to God as well. Nice try!

Ken

Umm...I beg to differ. He said, "Since gods don't exist..."

Only a fool would say that God doesn't exist. And Edward ain't no fool. I don't think Edward would assert that God does not exist. It's one thing to think that there's a lack of proof for God's existence. But like I said, only a fool would assert that God DOES NOT EXIST!

PaulSacramento didn't seem to need it, but I do. Let me borrow that dog of yours I need something to kick

K

Sorry. No can do. My dog doesn't like atheists agnostics skeptics.

[Kenny]

Sorry. No can do. My dog doesn't like atheists agnostics skeptics.

All the more reason to kick some sense into him.

Ken

[RickD]

Sorry. No can do. My dog doesn't like atheists agnostics skeptics.

All the more reason to kick some sense into him.

Ken

And again, you fail to grasp the concept. Kicking the dog, has nothing to do with punishing the dog, or knocking sense into the dog.

[Kenny]

Sorry. No can do. My dog doesn't like atheists agnostics skeptics.

All the more reason to kick some sense into him.

Ken

And again, you fail to grasp the concept. Kicking the dog, has nothing to do with punishing the dog, or knocking sense into the dog.

So do you have a perspective on the point's I made earlier at 6:21 am? PS doesn't seem to be responding.

Ken

[RickD]

Sorry. No can do. My dog doesn't like atheists agnostics skeptics.

All the more reason to kick some sense into him.

Ken

And again, you fail to grasp the concept. Kicking the dog, has nothing to do with punishing the dog, or knocking sense into the dog.

So do you have a perspective on the point's I made earlier at 6:21 am? PS doesn't seem to be responding.

Ken

Kenny,

Unless your time is the same as my time, I don't know what 6:21 is. It's easier if you show me the post.

[RickD]

Kenny,

Is this the post you are referring to?

Okay I see, and this is one of the reasons I find the belief that morality as objective; frightening. To believe morality is based upon the word of a Deity, God, another being, etc prevents discourse on the specific moral issue. If right and wrong, is determined by what this person says, what happens when this person says something you believe is wrong? Is there a system in place to state your case? I have always believed the truth should always be up for question. But if God’s word is seen as the ultimate truth, then there will be no questions allowed!

To use Slavery as an example, if your God Yahweh says slavery is wrong, that’s fine as long as you agree slavery is wrong; but what happens if someone says his God Ahura Mazda says slavery is good? Sure you can yell till you’re blue in the face and say Ahura Mazda is a false God, and he will yell till he is blue in the face that Yahweh is a false God, and neither of you will get anywhere because the same faith that you have that Yahweh is the moral base is the exact same faith that he uses to determine Ahura Mazda is. And as I’ve said before, the problem with faith is there is no means of establishing the truth!

Objective morality doesn’t solve moral problems, it only kicks the can one step further down the road and prevents discourse on moral issues by saying God said it, I believe it, and that settles it! And that is a frightening attitude to have IMO

Ken

If it is, I have one response. Ontology vs. epistemology. Know the difference, then you'll begin to understand your error on this.