PDN wrote: » I think you're missing Philiogos' point. The existence of objective right and wrong does not depend on who accepts them or not - by definition that would make them subjective rather than objective. Hmm, do you see how your use of the word 'reasonable' involves a recognition that such standards are indeed objective?
philologos wrote: » The the absence of any objective standard of good and evil as most atheists will say. Ethics is a matter of preference preference. It is entirely subjective, and in theory what is good is what I think is good, and what is evil is what I think is evil. If there is a God who has declared what is good and evil to us through His word, then morality isn't subjective any longer. It's objectively binding on all irrespective of whether or not they believe.
marienbad wrote: » Ok. give me some examples of these objective rights and wrongs.
PDN wrote: » It is wrong to torture babies to death for the fun of it. Now, you can view that statement in one of two ways: a) It describes a moral absolute. That means that torturing babies to death as a recreational activity is always wrong, and always will be wrong, irrespective of any circumstances. That is objective morality. b) It describes a social construct that has evolved to aid the survival of our species. That means that, because of our particular circumstances, we don't like the concept of torturing babies to death as a recreational activity. But, since morality is subjective, it is perfectly possible that another society might find it biologically useful to treat babies in such a manner. And, if that society does come to such a conclusion, then their position is no more right or wrong than ours. Since there is no objective morality, their behaviour towards children is, essentially, a matter of preference such as whether we open our boiled eggs at the pointy end or the rounded end. That is subjective morality. Now, you might complain that I have chosen an extreme example. Of course, I have, that is how we best determine 'big' ethical questions such as whether morality is objective or not. If anyone's championing of subjective morality cannot cope with extreme cases then it is pointless and dishonest to use it as a concept to discuss more ambiguous cases.
PDN wrote: » It is wrong to torture babies to death for the fun of it. Now, you can view that statement in one of two ways: a) It describes a moral absolute. That means that torturing babies to death as a recreational activity is always wrong, and always will be wrong, irrespective of any circumstances. That is objective morality. b) It describes a social construct that has evolved to aid the survival of our species. That means that, because of our particular circumstances, we don't like the concept of torturing babies to death as a recreational activity. But, since morality is subjective, it is perfectly possible that another society might find it biologically useful to treat babies in such a manner. And, if that society does come to such a conclusion, then their position is no more right or wrong than ours. Since there is no objective morality, their behaviour towards children is, essentially, a matter of preference such as whether we open our boiled eggs at the pointy end or the rounded end. That is subjective morality.
marienbad wrote: » who derives it and why is that not subjective ?
Zombrex wrote: » Given that some people do torture babies to death for fun it would seem that b) is closest to reality, would it not?
You can argue that these people are wrong beyond simply you believing they are wrong, but I would be very interested in how you demonstrate this objectively to them.
PDN wrote: » No, not in the slightest. That would simply indicate that some people have a warped and wrong idea of what is moral.
PDN wrote: » Hmm, maybe I'll learn by observing how you've spent years in the Creationism thread trying, and failing, to objectively demonstrate to Wolfsbane that evolution is true. Which, if I follow your logic, would make it appear that Creationism and evolution are simply subjective options rather than either of them being objectively true.
Zombrex wrote: » Let me save you the trouble -Theist - You poor atheists, you have no idea what is truly right or wrong, you just go with what ever you think yourselves, what ever makes sense to you personally.Atheist - As opposed to what?Theist - Well I know objective morality exists, and God has communicated it to us through his words. We know what is truly right and truly wrong.Atheist - And you know this because it is written in your holy book?Theist - Correct, and God has written it in our conscience.Atheist - You know God did this how?Theist - Well it is what we believe.Atheist - And you believe it why?Theist - Well I evaluated many religions and Christianity is the one that made the most sense to me. It just fits with what I feel is true .... oh I see what you did there ....
Zombrex wrote: » What is the tangible different between a world where some people follow what they think is the objective moral standard (with no way of objectively determining it is), and a world where there is no objective moral standard and people just follow what they think is subjectively right?
That doesn't answer my question. I can show Wolfsbane what the measurements supporting evolution are, and he can carry out the same experiments and see if he arrives at the same results. The fact that he doesn't want to is not relevant to whether he can or not.
How do you or I determine or assess what is or isn't the correct objective moral standard? We can then present this to the baby killer and they can carry out the same process and arrive at the same objective outcome. It is then up to them whether they follow this or not.
marienbad wrote: » I ask you again then PDN can you give me some examples of this ''objective moral standard'' and how it is arrived at .
PDN wrote: » I've already given you one, Marien. How many is enough? Two? Four? Six? 1. Torturing babies to death for fun is wrong. 2. Deliberately discarding food and stamping it into the ground in front of a starving man is wrong. 3. Mocking and bullying a disabled child because of their disability is wrong. 4. Killing a baby because it's crying annoyed you is wrong. 5. Raping someone is wrong. 6. Stealing a blind man's guide dog is wrong.
PDN wrote: » These are all examples of things that are objectively wrong. They are not preferences such as what colour of shirt you wear. They are actions which, under any circumstances and in any time or place, are objectively wrong. They remain wrong even when some people choose to do them, and even when some people think that they are OK. Objective morality does not depend on a popular vote. Even if an entire society thought one of the above was OK, that would not alter the fact that it is objectively wrong. How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways: a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust. b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong. c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another.
PDN wrote: » I've already given you one, Marien. How many is enough? Two? Four? Six? 1. Torturing babies to death for fun is wrong. 2. Deliberately discarding food and stamping it into the ground in front of a starving man is wrong. 3. Mocking and bullying a disabled child because of their disability is wrong. 4. Killing a baby because it's crying annoyed you is wrong. 5. Raping someone is wrong. 6. Stealing a blind man's guide dog is wrong. These are all examples of things that are objectively wrong. They are not preferences such as what colour of shirt you wear. They are actions which, under any circumstances and in any time or place, are objectively wrong. They remain wrong even when some people choose to do them, and even when some people think that they are OK. Objective morality does not depend on a popular vote. Even if an entire society thought one of the above was OK, that would not alter the fact that it is objectively wrong. How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways: a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust. b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong. c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another.
marienbad wrote: » Ok , is taking human life always wrong , and rather that cloud the issue I am not referring to just wars, self defence etc, more like the death penalty.
(b) and (c) are no different that any subjective method of arriving at at moral code - so that just leaves (a)How does revelation work ? As soon as there is a human involvement subjectivity must come into it ?
Moral absolutism is not the same as moral universalism (also called moral objectivism). Universalism holds merely that what is right or wrong is independent of custom or opinion (as opposed to relativism), but not necessarily that what is right or wrong is independent of context or consequences (as in absolutism). Moral universalism is compatible with moral absolutism, but also positions such as consequentialism
marienbad wrote: » Sorry you have lost me there re Bonhoeffer - are you saying he took life or it was ok to take his life ?
I don't think I am confused at all. An objective truth if you want to compare it to the boiling point of water or 2+2=4 should mean that that truth is the same it all places and at all times irrespective of what people think it is. Is that correct ?
The subjectives processes by which we arrive at the conclusion are made objective by the fact that no matter who when or where carries out the experiment the result is always the same and even then only so long as some new scientific discovery renders them incorrect- or so my friends in advanced physics tell me.
Can you say the same for any moral truth ? Can you give me any moral precepts that have been the same for all time and in all places - which if you want to retain the boiling point of water as a comparision - must be the case
PDN wrote: » He plotted (and failed) to take a life (Hitler's). That IMHO would be a case of takking a human life that would not be morally wrong. So i would not argue that it is always wrong to take a human life. Exactly. Even if people misread the thermometer, or they have a brain condition that causes them to think that 2+2+48, that does not alter the objective truth that water boils atr a particular temperature and that 2+2+4. The same would apply to what lies in the centre of a black hole. Although we have no way currently to answer that question, the answer remains the same irrespective of our ability to know that answer. No, that isn't actually true. The conclusions may vary depending on subjective factors. For example, if your thermometer is faulty then you might come up with the wrong temperature for water. Or you may misread the data and therefore produce a faulty conclusion. While your friends in advanced physics might do their best to make their processes as objective as possible, they will never be completely successful. The human involvement inevitably brings an element of subjectivity. It can be minimised, but never eliminated entirely. . And you claim not to be confused? You are managing to miss the point spectacularly. The fact that people interpret something differently does not in any sense whatsoever mean that there is no objective truth to it. If you can't grasp that very basic logical principle then we'ew both wasting our time. Think again of the black hole. Scientists may disagree about what lies at the centre of a black hole. Does that mean that there is no actual objective answer to the question of what lies at the centre of a black hole? You are arguing the same kind of logic that says that a falling tree doesn't make any sound unless someone is there to hear it. That is post-modern subjective slush. The fact is that the falling tree made a particular noise - and that truth remains unaltered even if nobody heard the noise, or even if someone's mental condition caused them to hallucinate so that they thought the falling tree actually sounded like an ice cream van's chimes.
marienbad wrote: » Whew, condescend much ! I am not arguing any such thing about falling trees etc.
We both agree that an objective anything must be the same for all people in all places and all times , correct ?
I am having difficulty relating that to a moral truth , you keep giving examples of perception - the falling trees etc - but I am not making the leap you are and relating that to how a objective morality is found.
PDN wrote: » Yes you are. You are muddling the objectivity of a truth with the subjectivity with which we try to apprehend a truth. And until you stop comitting such a basic error we won't get very far. No - I am saying that an objective anything must be the same irrespective of the opinions of any people in any time. How an objective anything is found is a totally separate issue from whether the objective anything exists in the first place. Unless we believe that an objective anything exists, then we have no motivation to discover what that objective anything is. This, incidentally, is why Christians such as Bacon, Copernicus and Galileo were so instrumental in the development and early application of the scientific method. They fervently believed that the world was ordered by God rather than being chaotic and unpredictable. Therefore, they reasoned, if objective truths existed then it was worth expending the time, effort and money to discover what those objective truths were. The same is true in the area of morality. If we believe objective moral standards exist, then we are prepared to ask the hard, and often uncomfortable, questions involved in the study of ethics. But if such objective moral truths do not exist, then why bother trying to discover what doesn't exist. In that case it makes more sense to create your own morals based on your preferences and what you can get away with. That is why, in my opinion, truly consistent atheists end up embracing a position similar to Nietzsche. In the absence of objective morality all that really matters is will and power. Of course, if you're not careful, such a philosophy can make you go crazy. In practice, however, most atheists live and act as if there was an objective morality, because deep down they know that the alternative is too awful to contemplate. This, of necessity, involves a certain amount of cognitive dissonance.
marienbad wrote: » Forget about Copernicus etc - we have no way of knowing why they were as they were , no more than the Oppenheimer generation - as a race we have always searched for knowledge for myriads of reason.
My issue is how you find that objective moral truth, how do you know ? When ever anyone puts that kettle on - it will always boil at 100 c. What is the equivilent for a moral truth and will the same moral dilemma yield the same answer to all peoples in all places and at all times ?
PDN wrote: » Fair enough, but is it OK for me to quote this everytime you, or any other atheist, jump to conclusions as to what motivated the Inquisition or the Crusades? After all, if you have no way of knowing why people were the way they were, then that must cut both ways. I'm sure you won't try to have your cake and to eat it - will you? If you concede that an objective moral truth exists then I'll gladly get into a discussion as to how we find it. But that would be in a different thread since that is not an Atheist/Christian dispute.
Moral realism is the meta-ethical view which claims that: Ethical sentences express propositions. Some such propositions are true. Those propositions are made true by objective features of the world, independent of subjective opinion.
marienbad wrote: » I have no problem with you quoting me to me at all, other atheists can answer for themselves. And in a sense those two issues - the inquisition and the crusades do go to the heart of the discussion as I presume those men in those times believed as you do that there was an objective morality and it was on their side ? And that it not a cut at Christians all men for the most part in all disputes have believed the same or convinced themselves so.How can I concede an objective moral truth exists and still be a card carrying atheist and surely it goes to the heart of the Atheist/Christian dispute. But you have already shown me how you think it can be found on post 4423. But , and I genuinely mean you no disrespect , the answer in that post means it is whatever you or any individual says it is, unlike the boiling point of water.
philologos wrote: » I'm not sure if you understand the distinction that PDN is trying to make. He's drawing a distinction between reality, and what is apprehended by the human mind. It is possible that there is truth, that is not apprehended by humans. Just because it is not apprehended does not make it true. Truth is not something that is dependant on the mind. Something can be true, irrespective of whether or not I understand it as true. Most atheists are quite good at determining that truth lies outside of the human mind. It is the reason why they believe that Christians are deluded. What Christianity puts forward about morality, is that in the same way as there are objective truths out there such as the earth not being flat, there are objective truths about what is good, and what is evil. You could say that Christianity presents a form of moral realism. Wikipedia will help us a little more I think: It doesn't matter what we believe to be true or false. Some things are real, and some things are mere fiction. Likewise, it doesn't matter what we think, some things are good, and some things are downright evil. Christianity goes that step further where atheism never really does. It says logically if there are objective truths in existence, there are also objective truths concerning morality. If there are objective truths concerning morality, there must be an objective moral source from which this is derived. This is why I believe the moral objectivity argument points towards a holy, just and sovereign God. The moral objectivity argument also points us to the cross. It tells us why Jesus needed to die on our behalf.
marienbad wrote: » I understand the distinction perfectly philologos, I just don't agree with the train of though that you and PDN outline is objective , I refer you back to post 4423 by PDN on how an objective moral standard standard can be arrived at .
marienbad wrote: » ''How is this objective moral standard arrived at? By several ways: a) By revelation. Either by God Himself or by people we trust. b) By conscience. Although our faculties are marred by sin we still retain, as humans made in the image of God, some innate sense of right and wrong. c) By discussion. As we interact with others who are interested in doing right, we examine arguments concerning morality and ethics. This often causes us to re-evaluate our morality in one respect or another.'' (a) can be whatever you want it to be (b) and (c) are the same for any person - just exclude God in (b) and use Society , Nurture ,The Party, whatever instead.
marienbad wrote: » That is why down through history witch burning , crusades, inquisition, ekateringburg, gulags, death camps have all been justified as taking the right moral choice.
Sonics2k wrote: » Just so I can clear this up, as I'm in a bit of rush and don't have time to read over the last few pages. Are people here actually claiming that you need to be religious to have proper morals and separate good from evil, and right from wrong?
