Tercel

I think you are under a misunderstanding, two in fact:

1. I have not agreed to prove the existence of objective morality. My argument was of the form that assuming the truth of objective morality was the only sensible option. I did not (and do not) intend to prove the truth of objective morality - as I do not believe it can be done. Hence the proofs I gave were to the effect that you should believe in objective morality, and that the existence of objective morality would imply the existence of God.
Hence you are getting on my nerves by demanding proofs for objective morality. The most I can do is to show that you believe in objective morality despite the fact that you claim not to. Since this proposition may not be true (though my guess is that it probably is), I may not be able to show it. And even if it is true, I still may not be able to demonstrate it. But you are making the whole thing difficult by:

2. You have not answered my questions. In response to my questions in my post on June 06, 2002 02:31 AM you responded:
[qb]"Quit dodging the question. Demonstrate the existence of objective morals. That would include an objective definition of "objective," as well as examples of objective morals."</strong>
As well as the absurdity of using "objective" in the same sentence as you asked for its definition in, that really doesn't look like an answer to my questions.

So I'll ask again:
If you say that you are really right and he is wrong then you stand accused of believing in objective morality, despite your denials. Or you can bite the bullet and admit that my hypothetical friend has an equally valid opinion to your own. An admission, I would imagine, that you have no wish to make.
An interesting choice in my opinion...

Typhon

No this is not an interesting choice, sigh. I honestly think theists like yourself, have a very weird blind spot about understanding what are some really, basic, obvious facts, readily available which describe and explain naturalistic morality.

ONE: Morality arises from our behavior and evolution as a social, cooperative species.

Again, if we were lone, predatory types, who only interacted to mate, we would have neither gods nor morality nor courts of law to worry much about. Perhaps we might have a god of hunting, dismembering, and eating-of-the-bloody-entrails, but even so, you'd never see a priest, nor a code of written behavior, or ever more than one worshiper in the church at the same time.

Our evolution and needs as a social species, create certain, universal moral tendencies which can be found in all societies (and I might add, even show up in other social species, not limited to Homo sapiens). Most of these involve balancing aggression and an interest in seeing one's own genes passed on, and cooperation and kin-based altruistic behavior which assures not only one's own survival, but the survival of the group, and the entire species as well.

These generalized morals are made further complex by the specific and regional variations and/or solutions which are locality based. In other words, morality differs in the particulars and in many of the supporting customs, from culture to culture, and from time period to time period. However, all morality, across all cultures and all time periods, can be readily explained and understood, as a part of the larger behavior and requirements we all share, as members of our species.

TWO: Morality is rarely if at all, composed of universal, abstract absolutes.

Killing is sometimes moral, sometimes immoral. This is not arbitrary or based on a whim, but rather on the complex and meaningful rules that cultures, philosophies, and localities, develop.

An iron-age warrior defending his kin group from another group of humans or a hostile predator species, commits an act that is highly moral, by killing several of the enemy, slaying the attacking lions, or otherwise driving off the threat.

A modern day office worker who guns down his family, ex-wife, and some of his fellow employees out of anger and frustration because he has lost his job, his house, and his sexual potency, commits an act that is judged highly immoral by society.

Each of these examples show how an act is judged moral or immoral by the circumstances in which they occur, as held up to the agreed upon custom and mores of the society in which the act occurs.

In simple terms, the morality of an act, is often more determined by the factors which surround that act, than the act itself. Without context, most acts are moral neutral, dependent upon the philosophical underpinnings which a group or society might have. Some cultures hold that killing anything, even insects by the accidental breathing of them into one's lungs, is wrongful. Others find moral justification in slash and burn harvesting of the rainforest which destroys entire species.

Without context, an act is just a verb. It is hard to say anything about it at all.

Outside of the presence of human society or at least, human beings, there is no morality to talk about. These are abstract and purely species (for the most part) specific laws which help to govern behavior within the group, and on a larger scale, survival of the species (by this manner we can actually hook our own morality and survival into that of other species and the biosphere as a whole to point out one line of thinking which might widen this beyond a strictly Homo sapiens oriented point of view).

Now let's look at your examples:

Whose kid is he torturing BTW? Are these his children? And why is he doing so, just because he enjoys it? To appease the god of the crops? To strike fear into his enemies? Because god has commanded him?

Regardless, torture is something that all feelings forms of life generally find to be unpleasant. By the social mores of most societies now extant, this would be seen as a deplorable, immoral act.

However, there have been societies where the sacrifice of children were common. Many Mesoamerican civilizations had practices of this sort, which were seen as holy, justifiable, acts, within the context of their society. So did the Israelites and other societies of the Bible, in which we see children sacrificed to even god, and it being declared "good."

Again, by our current society's standards, this is a highly immoral act. Children are still starved, killed, and even abused, by people today, for example, who think they are doing what their religion or god wants. Some may be hiding their own ugly desires behind the shield of "god wants it" while others may be honest in at least their opinion, as based upon their illogical beliefs. I would say they range from the emotionally maladjusted to simply misguided. Regardless, if they live and exist under the social compact that we currently share, they are thus, regardless of their "opinion" guilty.

Slavery is another one. Many societies have seen slavery as a natural state, and acceptable in the eyes of society. Nearly all cultures, including those of the Bible, have endorsed or at least allowed, slavery at one point or another. In some cases, this was a way of proving or showing victory over a conquered people, or a means of acquiring cheap labor. However, being a slave has never been seen as a necessarily good thing, certainly not by the slave's point of view. Slavery in hindsight, is not even a good means of agricultural or industrial production, certainly not so much that the act is out weighed by its "gain" to the society that allows slavery. Slavery normally or at least can, induce miserable conditions in the oppressed, and hence, is something that modern humans with more interest in individual human rights, and a sense of empathy, look unfavorably upon.

Again, by the society we live in, this friend of yours is guilty of an immoral act if he or she involves themselves in real slavery (and I'm not talking consensual, sexual role-playing, that's a whole nother issue of human sexuality).

Once more, this is not a matter of personal opinion. This depends on the opinion of society. Why should atheists be killed at all? Some people in our own society (I'm not one of them BTW) think that all murderers should be killed as painfully as possible. Some people think they should be killed humanely. Others, think they shouldn't be killed at all. Here's another example of where there is not a moral, black and white absolute. Simple minded people often desire simple minded absolutes. Unfortunately, this is one of the draws of some religions, which carry over such systems of morality. However, these always tend to break down in the complex interactions of most societies, and hence, the rule of secular law in our complex, Westernized world.

Of course, this does not require that all members share a total consensus of opinion. Many people in our society find drug use for example, not only immoral, but illegal as well, at least in the cases of some substances, and in some countries/states/locations. I for example do not agree with the criminalization of most controlled substances. Thus, I could do something that was moral in my eyes, but immoral in the eyes of the law, and even the general society. This could be held to be true if for example I lived in a theocracy, where worship of a different god (or none at all), or failure to uphold strict religious observances, could result in my death.

However, if atheism is not held by society to be a crime, this would be a very immoral act by the laws of society should this person act out their feelings on the matter. Since we live in such a society where this is true, we would furthermore find such a society, by our moral standards, immoral.

Objective morality does not exist IMO, save as a function of any shared, universal codes of behavior we might have as members of the same species. And even here, most codes are locally and temporally refined to reflect the needs and realities of a specific time period and/or culture.

It is neither moral or immoral for a rock to roll over and kill a man who is standing next to it. It is certainly unfortunate for the man, but it is not evil, or even murder, and doesn't make the rock an immoral object.

Religions such as most Abrahamic ones as we are familiar with in the West, hate these kind of complex, real world moral quandaries. They are simplistic faiths which do not have good answers for the wider scope of modern day societies. In the Middle Ages, animals would often be tried, convicted, and even sentenced to death, for "crimes." Partly, this was out of the logical extension of a moral code that was based on a religion that could not see shades of gray, and/or was made to cover a limited range of human behavior, often for a specific group of people who had been under a particular set of circumstances, in a relatively small or isolated section of the world, a long time ago.

No wonder the 10 Commandments are not the full extent of the law in Western society. They could never handle the needs of a society, as complex and subtle as our own.

.T.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Tercel

And I honestly think you're naive to think that I have a blind spot in the area which you preceed to outline.

And though I shouldn't really make gross generalisations about theists in general, I do not recall many theistic discussions I have read that dealt with the topic of morality that demonstrated a blind spot in this area.

So thanks but no thanks for your lectures and twisted conclusions on the subjects of my "blind spots"...

philechat

Tercel:

Wait, didn't God support all these in the Bible?

Perhaps you should look elsewhere for moral principles

Tercel

Hmm, well I didn't think you said much that was particularly insightful...

You gave the standard 1000x heard explanation (which Typhon later felt he needed to repeat a few more times for the benifit of my blind spot) of why it is that humans act morally when there is no God. ...boooring... Especially since it seemed to me to be unrelated to the discussion which was on whether we should believe in objective morals and whether the existence of objective morals would imply the existence of God. Why it is that humans act morally was not something of particular interest.

Then you proceeded to wreck anything you might have acheived by deriving an ought from an is in your concluding sentences, which didn't impress me over greatly. Or at least that was the only sensible interpretation I could draw from your rather ambiguous:

Your PS note said nothing I felt was particularly worth responding to.

And hence having nothing constructive to say, or arguments to make, I didn't bother responding to your post.

Typhon

Rest assured, if nothing else, you have definitely shown that.

I chose blind spot over deafness, as I assumed you were reading, rather than using an aural text reader. You obviously didn’t read either way, my post.

I answered your “question” with a definitive “no” as in “objective morals do not exist save as simplistic, abstract, and as far as human beings are concerned, sodding useless mental exercises.” The rest was an explanation of why this was true, and addressing your specific examples/questions.

As for whether or not the existence of poxy objective morals written on the moon or somewhere would point towards the existence of some version of god, well, it hardly matters, as there is no evidence that objective morals, outside the context of at best, a species related general morality, exist.

It’s not my fault you find airy unsubstantiated statements more interesting. That’s your problem not mind, and I really couldn’t care less what bores you or does not.

So, then, considering you have nothing “constructive to say, or arguments to make,” I’ll chalk you down to agreeing with both my points and my conclusion.

Thanks.

I wish all theists were half as obliging.

Cheers,

.T.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Typhon ]</p>

Vorkosigan

A false choice, of course. I don't need "objective" morals to say your friend is wrong and I am right. I can simply declare myself right. The only time I need some reason is if I wish to convince someone else of my rightness. In order to do that, I don't need some universal moral standard. Just logical arguments, appeals to values, and appeals to emotion -- the same ones Aristotle identified so many centurie ago -- and the same ones Christians use today to negotiate over issues their deity left them no guidance on.

I am glad you say you cannot demonstrate the existence of objective morals, but merely believe they exist. Then there is really nothing further to discuss, since you have adopted them same position as my hypothetical one in declaring yourself morally right.

Vorkosigan

Vibr8gKiwi

Tercel,

I'm not really interested in arguing the "brain in the jar" argument as I already said. I think hitting you with a 2x4, though not actual proof (I never said it was), would provide convincing evidence to YOU were weren't imagining things. Of course I could be dreaming of beating you up, or you could be dreaming you were being beat up, but the hard hitting evidence would be underlining to you that senses are not to ignored. But again as I said you already know this and would duck my 2x4 because you DO follow your senses and trust them despite this silly pointless discussion.

In the end, the real problem here is the attempts to misuse the "brain in a jar" argument to support stupid ideas that have no support. "Gee, there’s a tiny possibility that we could just be imagining this reality, therefore my [insert stupid imagined reality here] could be as real as any." The fact is, "brain in the jar" can be misused as "support" for ANY ridiculous notion, and so it actually has no supportive power at all. Please stop trying to use it that way--it’s not persuasive in the least.

Tercel

Okay, now I'm annoyed…

At the great risk of sounding somewhat like Koy (though I’ll refrain from the swearing, calling your beliefs a “cult” and writing <strong>MORE</strong> before every quote), it is time to do some post-demolishing.

Oh yes, you "introduce" me to basic logic. Clearly as a theist I wouldn't know basic reasoning if I fell over it, and you - the highly intelligent naturalist you are need to "introduce" it too me.
Insults are not a good way to start a post if you wanted a sensible response.

Yeah evolution provides a great umbrella for "explanations" doesn't it? Anything where a person acts selfishly can be "explained" by the fact that this is an evolutionary advantage to procure the continuation of their own genes over that of others. Anything where a person acts unselfishly can be "explained" by the fact that this is an evolutionary advantage to procure the continuation of the genes of their species.
ie Your statements should read:
With evolution we can explain anything.
Stuff's happened.
Therefore evolution can explain it.


Even if your "logic" proved anything, you're arguing against a position that no one (except your imagined opponents no doubt existing in your own mind) is holding. Evolution happened... so what? Evolution has an effect on the behaviour of species... so what? Hence evolution can explain the oberserved moral behaviour of humans... whoop-de-doo... try telling us something we don't already know please!

Different people do things differently!
Sheesh, how could I have overlooked that...

Um basic logic revision here:
Saying p'=&gt;q' and q' doesn't say anything about the truth or otherwise of p!

I think I need to start a list of stupid statements...

You're preaching to the choir here, which you would know if you gave it two seconds thought.

What sort of crap is this? Life seeks to exist for the sole puporse of "life exists"?

Good for you...

I sense eqivication between subjective beauty and enjoyment vs objective meaning going on here.
To answer the question:
I would find a sunset beautiful and enjoy it regardless of its fleeting nature.

When have I said it implied otherwise? Enjoy it all you like. You're preaching against a position no one's holding again... perhaps it's that blind spot you were talking about?

The general ad hominems being implied here are not appreciated.
No doubt naturalists are the only ones who think carefully and rationally and honestly!

Yeah sure.
Even a cursory glance at religious stats will be sufficient demonstrate that religious belief is the norm for the human race. We should rather be looking at what are the physiological and psychological factors that are giving rise to the abnormality of atheism.
Professor Paul C. Vitz in his article <a href="http://www.origins.org/truth/1truth12.html" target="_blank"> The Psychology of Atheism</a> suggests a number of possible explanations. I am not convinced that Professor Vitz’ article completely covers all the causes (as he also admits) however it goes a long way towards identifying many important trends in the athiests’ road to abnormality.

~snip personal testimony about the meaningfulness of life to you~

Those are brilliant unsupported assertions you’ve got going here.

I see you’re back to your pointless evolution “explanations” again…

Since evolution provides potentially infinite “explanatory” power to the question of “why are things the way they are” limited only by our imaginations, it’s hardly surprising we can dream up an evolutionary explanation of stuff is it?

Again, that’s good opinion-asserting you’ve got going.

Clearly at some stage you missed the point in this thread that I’m not actually arguing that objective morality exists. But of course that hasn’t stopped you from telling me your views. Please try finding someone who cares. Plenty of atheists around here make claims of objective morality. Eg Try spouting this rubbish in J Lowder’s direction…

Really? It seems to me that your examples are completely different and that both societies would agree about these situations. Defending kin from hostile humans or predators would be accepted as moral and heroic in both societies. Killing your family and friends because you’re annoyed at how the world is would equally be judged immoral by both societies.
Whether or not the point your trying to make is right, your suggestions here are complete crap.

~snip your answers to my questions which were not directed at you~

And here I was thinking non-intelligent objects could act immorally…

A little thought would show that the 10 Commandments weren’t the full extent of the law in the ancient Israelite society either!


In conclusion, your posts say nothing useful and a lot that’s really stupid. Happy? Is that sufficiently clear enough for you? Or are you still going to “chalk you down to agreeing with both my points and my conclusion”?

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: Tercel ]</p>

Tercel

Of course you do. If you say that he is wrong and you are right then you are appealing to some sort of objective standard of right-ness and wrong-ness by which your views can be contrasted. My thoughts on London can be right or wrong because London exists independently to my thoughts about it and my thoughts can be compared to what actually exists. If you deny objective morals actually exist then claiming that your moral opinions are "right" and someone elses are "wrong" is simply absurd. To deny objective morality is to deny that are "true" or "right" moral opinions.
The word "right" as you are using it is simply meaningless and equivalent to "sjdklajf".

And I can simply declare you to have contradicted yourself.