Key Questions for Atheists and Agnostics

[Kenny]

There are twp issues here:

What is objective / absolute morality
Does it exist.

First off we have to accept that morality is not a tangible thing, much like consciousness.
As such it many not be demonstrable, like love is not demonstrable but its effects and results and actions are.

Objective morality means that there IS such a thing as right and wrong and this IS demonstrable through out history:
In every society, every culture, since the dawn of recorded history, there has always been a right and wrong ( regardless of what they may have been, there always WAS a right and a wrong).
This is demonstrable via history and anthropology.
ALSO, it is demonstrable via rational and reasoning ( and before anyone goes on a tangent about what is reason and whatever, remember this: We are having a discussion and if you don't get how that refutes your very issue, then don't be part of this discussion).

Now that we have established what is objective morals and that it is demonstrable and how, does it exist?

Well, laws and society couldn't function without it so, yes, it quite obviously does.

I see right and wrong as labels; like silly, funny, or serious. Do labels exist? Also, I think some people confuse ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

Ken

You can all right and wrong whatever you like, doesn't change the evidence that there is objective right and wrong.
The evidence proves this:
History, anthropology, reasoning and even evolutionary biology.
All point to the fact that through out the existence of mankind, there has always been a right and a wrong.

Through out the existence of mankind, there has also always been beauty and ugly. Would you label those objective?

Ken

[Kenny]

But according to you, NOT YOURS?

Yes. I think it is natural for people to be more skeptical of other people's claims than their own

Ken

At least you are honest about your bias.

I don't think it is so much of a bias as it is the fact that my ideas and beliefs are a result of the best information I have at the moment. This is not the case with somebody else's ideas and beliefs.

You ASSUME it is not the case.

I'm saying I think it is natural to apply less skepticism to your own beliefs than someone else's.

Ken

[Justhuman]

If it is man made then it MUST be subjective for obvious reasons.
If it is man DISCOVERED ( sort of like man discovering the Pythagorean theory) then it can be objective ( like the aforementioned theory).

At better thought, it's neither man-made nor man-discovered, but more mankind-evolved.
Since mankind has one common ancestor, all descendants inheritted the same values. Even in isolated areas it has been like a convergent evolution.
Thus, mankind is basically good, and like a self-correcting mechanism, holds on to those caring principles. For a deviation from that path results in disaster and death.

[PaulSacramento]

If it is man made then it MUST be subjective for obvious reasons.
If it is man DISCOVERED ( sort of like man discovering the Pythagorean theory) then it can be objective ( like the aforementioned theory).

At better thought, it's neither man-made nor man-discovered, but more mankind-evolved.
Since mankind has one common ancestor, all descendants inheritted the same values. Even in isolated areas it has been like a convergent evolution.
Thus, mankind is basically good, and like a self-correcting mechanism, holds on to those caring principles. For a deviation from that path results in disaster and death.

What is this "good" you speak of when you say "basically good"?
What is this "values" you speak of?

[Justhuman]

If it is man made then it MUST be subjective for obvious reasons.
If it is man DISCOVERED ( sort of like man discovering the Pythagorean theory) then it can be objective ( like the aforementioned theory).

At better thought, it's neither man-made nor man-discovered, but more mankind-evolved.
Since mankind has one common ancestor, all descendants inheritted the same values. Even in isolated areas it has been like a convergent evolution.
Thus, mankind is basically good, and like a self-correcting mechanism, holds on to those caring principles. For a deviation from that path results in disaster and death.

What is this "good" you speak of when you say "basically good"?
What is this "values" you speak of?

C'mon, can't you read between the lines what I mean?

Good as in positive, tolerant, caring, sharing, understanding.
Values like righteousness, humanitarianism.

We are basically constructive cooperative of nature, because in the end that gives the most productive result. At the same time we are also distant protective, but mostly because we want to protect what is dear to us.
It are often individuals that have started the violent and intollerant era's in our history, a small group that were devote followers, and a larger 'dumb' mass. But the majority of the people don't want conflicts, violent disagreements or war. No, they just want to live their lives in a peacefull way. That is what I mean with basically good.
Of course there are dark spots in each of us, or in humanity itself, but overall I'm convinced we all want the same. A loving happy living.

If one would draw a graph of humanities overall 'good and bad', would it be more good than bad, or vv.?

[PaulSacramento]

If it is man made then it MUST be subjective for obvious reasons.
If it is man DISCOVERED ( sort of like man discovering the Pythagorean theory) then it can be objective ( like the aforementioned theory).

At better thought, it's neither man-made nor man-discovered, but more mankind-evolved.
Since mankind has one common ancestor, all descendants inheritted the same values. Even in isolated areas it has been like a convergent evolution.
Thus, mankind is basically good, and like a self-correcting mechanism, holds on to those caring principles. For a deviation from that path results in disaster and death.

What is this "good" you speak of when you say "basically good"?
What is this "values" you speak of?

C'mon, can't you read between the lines what I mean?

Good as in positive, tolerant, caring, sharing, understanding.
Values like righteousness, humanitarianism.

We are basically constructive cooperative of nature, because in the end that gives the most productive result. At the same time we are also distant protective, but mostly because we want to protect what is dear to us.
It are often individuals that have started the violent and intollerant era's in our history, a small group that were devote followers, and a larger 'dumb' mass. But the majority of the people don't want conflicts, violent disagreements or war. No, they just want to live their lives in a peacefull way. That is what I mean with basically good.
Of course there are dark spots in each of us, or in humanity itself, but overall I'm convinced we all want the same. A loving happy living.

If one would draw a graph of humanities overall 'good and bad', would it be more good than bad, or vv.?

You can't get to B without A.
You can't get to what is good without there being such a thing AS GOOD.
No subjective without objective.

Define good, define values.
You can't without addressing the objective good.

There is a reason that no one, outside of a demented sociopathic mind, things raping a infant is good.

You can't make a comment on people being "basically good" without defining what that is since "basically good" for a radical muslim terrorist is very different from basically good to an Amish.

Some people try to define it by what is "beneficial for the common good" but that is 100% subjective and needs a quantifier.
Most productive result? define productive, productive to who? in spite of what? regardless of what?

[Philip]

Not to mention, if we're all just programmed by nature to do whatever we'd selfishly like, IF nature is ALL there is, and we're just all playing tiny roles in some big, brutal, soulless Darwinian machine, then there is NO definitive right or wrong - actually, form a purely naturalist point of view, it's all about advantages, disadvantages, and how anyone one organism is able to triumph over others, when and how it so desires to. In fact, it's curious that a pure naturalist who doesn't believe that there is a definitive or objective morality - why would they even ask the question about whether something is moral or not? What happens can be just blamed upon our genes - which makes no sense.

Kill a cow, kill a man - whether the killing was done at Auschwitz or in a McDonald's beef supplier's processing plant - any differences would be merely subjective. I often think of the enormous inconsistency of PETA - are it's members upset about carnivores on African plains killing herbivores? Or large omnivore's like bears killing baby deer? Course not. A new male lion is able to dispatch the current alpha male - what's the first thing that usually happens? He kills all the cubs in the pride - begins his own lineage with the fertile females. Nature's rules say these are all but successful outcomes: One animal doesn't starve, while another must pay the full price of the meal. One animal's aggression pays off - another pays the price. But if a person - omnivore's all - kill an animal - people freak! Why are they upset about one, but not the other? Why do they only think in terms of morality based upon highly selective and subjective human morality, cherry-picked from only certain societies. Some creatures prey upon others - per naturalism, that's just the way things have always been - how is it a moral question? WHO said it was? Why?

[Kenny]

If it is man made then it MUST be subjective for obvious reasons.
If it is man DISCOVERED ( sort of like man discovering the Pythagorean theory) then it can be objective ( like the aforementioned theory).

At better thought, it's neither man-made nor man-discovered, but more mankind-evolved.
Since mankind has one common ancestor, all descendants inheritted the same values. Even in isolated areas it has been like a convergent evolution.
Thus, mankind is basically good, and like a self-correcting mechanism, holds on to those caring principles. For a deviation from that path results in disaster and death.

What is this "good" you speak of when you say "basically good"?
What is this "values" you speak of?

C'mon, can't you read between the lines what I mean?

Good as in positive, tolerant, caring, sharing, understanding.
Values like righteousness, humanitarianism.

We are basically constructive cooperative of nature, because in the end that gives the most productive result. At the same time we are also distant protective, but mostly because we want to protect what is dear to us.
It are often individuals that have started the violent and intollerant era's in our history, a small group that were devote followers, and a larger 'dumb' mass. But the majority of the people don't want conflicts, violent disagreements or war. No, they just want to live their lives in a peacefull way. That is what I mean with basically good.
Of course there are dark spots in each of us, or in humanity itself, but overall I'm convinced we all want the same. A loving happy living.

If one would draw a graph of humanities overall 'good and bad', would it be more good than bad, or vv.?

You can't get to B without A.
You can't get to what is good without there being such a thing AS GOOD.
No subjective without objective.

Define good, define values.
You can't without addressing the objective good.

As moral subjectivist, I would define good as that which I find favorable and value as behaviors that I deem necessary.

There is a reason that no one, outside of a demented sociopathic mind, things raping a infant is good.

You can't make a comment on people being "basically good" without defining what that is since "basically good" for a radical muslim terrorist is very different from basically good to an Amish.

I would define the terrorist as bad because his actions goes against what I find favorable. If I find the Amish actions favorable I would define them as good.

Some people try to define it by what is "beneficial for the common good" but that is 100% subjective and needs a quantifier.

the person labeling it “common good” is the quantifier.

Most productive result? define productive, productive to who? in spite of what? regardless of what?

Again; this is determined by the person providing the label

Ken

[Kenny]

Not to mention, if we're all just programmed by nature to do whatever we'd selfishly like, IF nature is ALL there is, and we're just all playing tiny roles in some big, brutal, soulless Darwinian machine, then there is NO definitive right or wrong - actually, form a purely naturalist point of view, it's all about advantages, disadvantages, and how anyone one organism is able to triumph over others, when and how it so desires to.

I disagree. A naturalist will still label something hen finds favorable as good, and something he finds harmful as bad

In fact, it's curious that a pure naturalist who doesn't believe that there is a definitive or objective morality - why would they even ask the question about whether something is moral or not?

He would ask the question because he has an opinion of what is good and what is bad. A belief in the spiritual world isn’t necessary for this

What happens can be just blamed upon our genes - which makes no sense.

You seem to be confusing ethical subjectivism with ethical nihilism. If someone says that it is "wrong," but disagrees that it is "objectively wrong" on the grounds of subjectivism, it doesn't follow that they are therefore saying that it's "not wrong.”

It seems you and some of the other “Objective moralist” seem to take the position that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and because we are flawed, it isn’t something that can be determined by mankind; but someone beyond mankind who isn’t flawed. Is this correct? If not, tell me where I went wrong; if it is correct, how do you know whoever it is that is beyond mankind isn’t flawed? Is it just a matter of faith? If not, what method do you use to verify who you have determined is flawless and is qualified to determine right from wrong, is flawless and is qualified to do so?

[PaulSacramento]

As moral subjectivist, I would define good as that which I find favorable and value as behaviors that I deem necessary.

Welcome to 20th century Germany, USSR, Cambodia, China, Romania, etc, etc, etc...

[Kenny]

As moral subjectivist, I would define good as that which I find favorable and value as behaviors that I deem necessary.

Welcome to 20th century Germany, USSR, Cambodia, China, Romania, etc, etc, etc...

Is there a point here?

K

[PaulSacramento]

As moral subjectivist, I would define good as that which I find favorable and value as behaviors that I deem necessary.

Welcome to 20th century Germany, USSR, Cambodia, China, Romania, etc, etc, etc...

Is there a point here?

K

Yes, there is.
Can't you see it?

[Kenny]

As moral subjectivist, I would define good as that which I find favorable and value as behaviors that I deem necessary.

Welcome to 20th century Germany, USSR, Cambodia, China, Romania, etc, etc, etc...

Is there a point here?

K

Yes, there is.
Can't you see it?

No I do not. Please explain.

K

[Philip]

Ken: I disagree. A naturalist will still label something he finds favorable as good, and something he finds harmful as bad.

Of course, but that would only be HIS opinion - an opinion no better or worse - if there is only naturalism. Murder - only the assessment of certain species - and mostly of men - that is, MOST men. Assigning ANY moral values to any act or activity is only subjective - if there is NO rules or Ruler that says otherwise. A man who is a serial killer - any better than the lion who just killed all the offspring of the pride's previous dominate male he was able to dispatch? Both activities are predatory in nature, where there is a successful outcome sought and accomplished by one life form, and for the other one - not so much.

Ken: He would ask the question because he has an opinion of what is good and what is bad. A belief in the spiritual world isn’t necessary for this

Again - an artificial subjective opinion - that other people may or may not share. There is no right or wrong without some standard that is over all. Naturalism says there is only the survival of the fittess - it doesn't qualify HOW that survival is achieved. And we know that ALL don't agree with any particular standard - although, nonetheless, we all still, for the most part, clearly share a common morality. Why? And why would it matter, from a purely naturalist view? It wouldn't!

Ken: It seems you and some of the other “Objective moralist” seem to take the position that there is such a thing as right and wrong, and because we are flawed, it isn’t something that can be determined by mankind; but someone beyond mankind who isn’t flawed. Is this correct? If not, tell me where I went wrong;

Partly - just because we are flawed doesn't mean we can't objectively know, and subjectively agree, that there IS a such thing as right and wrong. But only a God Who has power and authority over all can rightly use Himself and His standards as standards for us as well.

Ken: How do you know whoever it is that is beyond mankind isn’t flawed? Is it just a matter of faith? If not, what method do you use to verify who you have determined is flawless and is qualified to determine right from wrong, is flawless and is qualified to do so?

It IS, to a great degree, that we believe God to be perfect - based upon what He says about Himself. A God who can construct a univere, says He loves me, and came to DIE for my imperfections, as only perfection can stand in His presence - absorbing all He truly is - well, then I not only trust IN Him, but also what He says about Himself. But if such a God exists, one must admit that surely HE is the standard of right and wrong. That created beings could have more understanding about such things than the One Who created them - how ridiculous!

[PaulSacramento]

As moral subjectivist, I would define good as that which I find favorable and value as behaviors that I deem necessary.

Welcome to 20th century Germany, USSR, Cambodia, China, Romania, etc, etc, etc...

Is there a point here?

K

Yes, there is.
Can't you see it?

No I do not. Please explain.

K

Everything that happened in those places, happened because some people found them favorable and necessary which, according to your subjective view, makes them "good" and "valuable".