Right and Wrong has to be Absolute

PDN wrote: »

This reminds me of Cypher, in the Matrix movies, who was happy to betray his friends in order to gain illusory rewards back in the Matrix. He knew that the experiences and sensations in the Matrix weren't objectively real - but they felt real enough to make the transaction worthwhile. "Ignorance is bliss."

Poor analogy because it works under the assumption that there is an alternative that moral nihilists are turning their back on.

To a moral nihilist this is just the way reality is, pretending otherwise is some what pointless. Probably the same way you view it as just the way it is that there is an objective morality.

Enkidu wrote: »

I don't understand the analogy. Cypher betrayed people for something in the matrix that was fake, ultimately harming others for his own self-satisfaction.

What I am describing has nothing really to do with this. I'm not advocating betraying or harming anybody in order to "gain" some fake reward. Could you be more explicit with what you are saying?

I think PDN was talking about the desire to live in a world that is illusionary but comforting rather than live in a harsh yet real world.

I agree though the analogy is poor, each side could say that the other side is retreating to an illusionary notions for comfort. Neither side though seem to be consciously aware they are doing it, where as Cypher was.

Enkidu wrote: »

I see, thanks. Although I don't think it's even an analogy. For example me and you walk around with classical thoughts and concepts and "ignore" the quantum mechanical world. However this isn't illusory and we're not retreating away from it, it's just that it has no real baring on our everyday lives.

Similarly the fact that morality wasn't defined prior to the Big Bang in some atemporal sense doesn't make it illusory. It just means that this system of rules we apply to ourselves is open to discussion. I mean the fact that people feel bad, hurt, upset is an objective fact and we work out reasoned responses to that, the notion of that being "illusory" just because a Supreme intellect didn't forge it before the existence of physical matter is a bit odd to me.

(I realise you don't think any of this, I'm just explaining my position)

But don't you see the weakness in determining right and wrong on the basis of what people feel, with no objective reality to determine if one person's feeling is more valid than another?

For example, I might feel outrage at the thought of a baby being tortured. But a Nazi might feel an equal sense of outrage at a Jew being allowed to become a Member of Parliament. Now, without an objective standard of right or wrong, what basis is there for arguing that my sense of outrage is more valid than that of the Nazi?

Moral nihilism would appear to assert that the racial hatred of the Nazi is no worse than my desire not to see babies suffer. It is merely different.

PDN wrote: »

I believe they are determined by divine revelation, which we use logic and reason to assess.

And how is that working out for everyone? We whittled down the thousands of religions yet?

PDN wrote: »

What makes you think I want everyone to agree with me?

Your Nazi analogy. What problem does objective morality solve if you still have to get people to agree with you in order to get them to act as you wish them to?

That is exactly what a world full or moral nihilists would look like, lots of people arguing different moral opinions trying to get others to agree with them.

That looks pretty much like this world now.

PDN wrote: »

Exactly, my point. If the objective moral standard doesn't exist then the morality of Hitler is as equally valid as the morality of Martin Luther King.

You are going to have to define "equally valid"

Valid according to what or valid in what fashion. To me neither of them are valid or invalid they are simply opinions.

Valid is an irrelevant concept in a world of relative morality, since there is nothing to compare one moral opinion to in order to determine if it is or isn't a valid opinion.

PDN wrote: »

I'm not interested in imposing my views on anyone. But, given the views expressed in this thread, I fervently hope that I never live in a society where the moral nihilists get their hands on a big stick.

That world would look exactly the same as this one.

We didn't stop the Nazi's by explaining that according to the objective standard they were wrong. We stopped them with guns and bullets. They didn't care that Churchill thought they were wrong, they thought Churchill was wrong.

PDN wrote: »

I'm not making any mistake. I was asking a question, and you have confirmed my suspicions. Thank you.

Saying the lack of objective morality means one moral opinion is as valid as another moral opinion is making a mistake. It is objective morality thinking (something is or isn't a valid moral opinion) applied to a hypothetical where no objective morality exists in the first place.

Or to put it another way, moral views don't have to be valid or invalid. They just have to exist and have people prepared to fight for them.

PDN wrote: »

Nice, but transparent, attempt at a derailment.

Again it goes back to the point in at the top, what problem do you think objective morality solves?

You believing you have access to the objective moral standard of the universe means nothing to someone who things you are wrong, particularly if they think they have access to the objective moral standard of the universe and it is different to your one

PDN wrote: »

But, given the views expressed in this thread, I fervently hope that I never live in a society where the moral nihilists get their hands on a big stick.

That depends on the particular moral nihilists in question surely? A moral nihilist with a big stick who really likes seeing people that are happy and really hates seeing people suffer would be different to a moral nihilist with a big stick who loves torturing children. They would do different things.

Nice, but transparent, attempt at a derailment.

It's in no way an attempted derailment. An absolute morality can be one that says "jews must burn" or it can be one that says "murder is wrong and so is two dudes having sex" such as yours.

I agree with you about a world without an absolute objective morality superimposed on it having a weakness in terms of wanting everyone in the world to think and behave in a certain way. It also has a strength in that people who act and think a certain way can be convinced to act and think in another way.

You will never think homosexuality or pre-marital sex are not wrong. If I could show that pre-marital sex leads to unrestrained happiness for the people involved and everyone that comes into contact with them, reduces disease and starvation the world over and prevents your water pipes from freezing over in winter, you will still believe it's wrong because you ascribe to an absolute morality which says it's wrong. There is no room for discussion, it's written in stone. Regardless of the effects, consequences or context of two unmarried people having sex you will never be capable of viewing it as anything other than wrong. There is a weakness in moral nihilism but there is a weakness in absolute morality too, isn't there?

Enkidu wrote: »

Let's make this simpler, as I suspect that every answer I give will generate another extreme analogy (Cypher, Nazis and baby killers, now murderous supermen).

Extreme in what way? If there is no objective morality then killing babies or Jews is no more extreme than picking your nose. Extreme, to the moral nihilist, is merely another word for different.

What do you mean by morally right or morally wrong? Not how do you decide if something is right or wrong, like suffering, but what do the basic concepts mean?

By right and wrong, I mean those moral qualities which are what God desires and intends for mankind. He desires truth, love and justice - so they are right. He does not desire falsehood, hate and injustice - so they are wrong.

Enkidu wrote: »

Over the top, going for the most outrageous example to emphasise some kind of degeneracy or something. (Nazi baby killing is okay according to moral nihilism, Shock Horror!)


Eh, so the phrase morally right means what God intends. It's not that God's intentions show what is morally right, but that God's intentions are the meaning of the phrase "morally right".

So when you say:
How can you decide what is right or wrong if there is no God?
you mean:
How can you decide what God intends or doesn't intend if there is no God?

So to take one of your examples, killing babies is wrong because it's not what God intends?

Which just leads to the question why is it not what God intends and you are right back at square one (why is something moral instead of not moral) :P

Zombrex wrote: »

It isn't nonsense at all, outrageous means the person was outraged at the behavior of another. It is entirely subjective on the person themselves. Something I find outrageous you might find mild and boring.

Now you are being outrageous. In fact, since people can choose to be outraged over just about anything, the word is meaningless.

Do you really believe that when you find something outrageous it is because it is actually objectively outrageous? Rather than just it is outrageous to you?

What I find outrageous may or may not be valid.

But there are things that are outrageous whether anyone is outraged by them or not. That is why most of us admire people like William Wilberforce or Martin Luther King - because of their ability to show us that we should be outraged at certain situations, even when we were previously complacent and not outraged at all.

Enkidu wrote: »

And these things are outrageous because they contravene the qualities of God, just as things are wrong because they contravene the qualities of God. However that still leaves us with why it is wrong to contravene the qualities of God.

Yes. It would not have mattered if every single person on the planet believed that black people are inferior to white people and that it was OK to oppress them. Such an attitude would still be outrageous, and injustice would still be wrong.

It is wrong to contravene the qualities of God, because God is the Creator and Supreme Being by which we are to set our moral compass. Without Him we would not exist, nor would our notions of right and wrong exist, therefore it is perfectly reasonable for Him to determine whhat is right and what is wrong.

Of course unbelievers are free to offer alternative theories of right or wrong. But all I've heard offered so far is a mushy postmodern notion that right and wrong are whatever you want them to be - but which waxes indignant about things being outrageous or extreme when it wants to score points by hijacking the kind of real language where terms have objective meanings.

Zombrex wrote: »

But that is what it has always meant. People can and do choose to be outraged about anything, outrage, like morality has always depended on the person who is outraged and their standards of outrage.

Here we go into a bog of semantics - but no, that isn't what it has always meant. It is perfectly legitimate to use the word 'outrageous' to apply to situations that should provoke outrage, but which don't.

So, for example, it is proper to say, "It is outrageous that no-one is outraged over a young man's death."

In this scenario, of course, the very concept that we should be outraged does in itself presuppose an objective morality. To the consistent moral nihilist, 'should' would refer to a probability rather than a desirable outcome.

According to who, and would you care if I said what you are being outraged about was invalid?

It's more a case of according to what. According to the objective morality that is established by God.

Would I care if you said that any of my feelings were valid? Not at all. I think your opinions of me or anyone else are pretty irrelevant and worthless, not being grounded in anything other than your own subjective values.

But that is exactly the point, we became outraged at slavery. Initially we weren't and then we were. We changed, slavery didn't.

Exactly. Slavery didn't change, even though human perception of it did. Slavery was not good before Wilberforce, but then somehow became bad at the end of the 18th Century. Slavery was wrong - even if people didn't recognise it as being wrong.

And that happened by people like Wilberforce convincing others of their opinion, not by a demonstration of the correctness of anti-slavery views in relation to the objective moral standard of the universe.

It wasn't that people just didn't notice that "slavery is wrong" was a fundamental law of nature until Wilberforce pointed it out to them.

He appealed to all the evolutionary instincts in us that you dismiss as meaningless.

Maybe you should go and read up on Wilberforce?

His primary argument against slavery was that it was a moral evil that transgressed the objective moral standard of the universe.

Enkidu wrote: »

You think that people's opinions of others are worthless because they're subjective? Would you not take advice about yourself from a friend?

Not if that friend admitted that their advice was not grounded in objective reality - no.