Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[Inigo Montoya]

Such long word games to ask such a simple question.

Holocausts and elephants...

If you claim a thing is wrong, objectively, then I ask you simply, ''To whom is it wrong?""

What is this ''wrong'' you're beating to death? Do you mean to say your God says it's wrong? Now we have a separate discussion to have.

If it ISN'T God your getting this rule-set from, then nothing you've said makes any sense anyhow.

And if it IS from God, how is it objective? Does God not have a mind?

[olavisjo]

.

Well, you could first agree on a definition of what an elephant is to both your satisifaction, the point out how this creature in the zoo fits that defintion. How about you try that with your Holocaust example.

Which part of the definition do you not agree with?

Remember the label "objective moral values" only describes the concept that I defined. It is possible that the terms have a different meaning to you. If that is the case forget about the label and go by the definition.
Let us call the concept that I am defining by the label vessa hata values, then...

• To say that there are vessa hata values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was hata wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

By this definition would you say that there are any vessa hata values?

[olavisjo]

[Replying to post 38 by Ionian_Tradition]

If it is your position that it is possible, that if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them then the Holocaust could have been a good thing, then we have nothing more to discuss.
If you are open to evidence that would show that the Holocaust was good, then we do not live in the same reality.

[olavisjo]

.

If you claim a thing is wrong, objectively, then I ask you simply, ''To whom is it wrong?""

I would think that it is wrong to everyone, would you not agree? Do you think that it would ever be possible for humans to discover some new evidence that would allow us to conclude that the Holocaust was not wrong?

[olavisjo]

.

Providing support for this claim depends entirely on your position regarding the Bible.

• 4. Unsupported Bible quotations are to be considered as no more authoritative than unsupported quotations from any other book.

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... php?t=9741

[Darias]

1)

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font]

Dr. William Lane Craig is an advocate of Divine Command Theory, and he claims that objective morality can only come from the commands of Yahweh. However, by definition, objective morality cannot proceed forth from the dictates of subjective authorities, be they gods, governments, or gurus. Since it is impossible for Yahweh's commands to exist independently of what he says as an individual, they cannot be said to be objective by any measure of that definition. To say that objective morality is higher than god, which is arguably done every time someone qualifies god as "good," is to say that god is inferior to something higher. To say that god is good is to contradict the very meaning of what it is to be god. This is but one reason of many why the very idea of god is nonsensical.



2)

My dog likes stinky old cowbones and doesn't like getting washed.
Is there any possibility that the above statement could be objectively true?

I feel that it is always wrong to use personal power to your own advantage and to the disadvantage of persons in less powerful positions.
Is there any possibility that the above statement could be objectively true?

Almost all human cultural groups abhor the random slaughter of children for entertainment.
Is there any possibility that the above statement could be objectively true?

Can you clarify whether any of the above statements, if true, would constitute objective moral truths, in your interpretation of the term?

The wants and needs of non-human animals are irrelevant to a discussion about human ethics. Your dog is acting on instinct and learned behavior, but if it could be said that he does indeed have preferences, in this instance such preferences would be subjective. It's proclivity for treats is personally positive for him, if not amoral altogether.

Using power over the powerless, well it's a bit too vague to address. If it involves unwanted infliction over people who have not instigated force against anyone, then that use of power is universally proscribed, or evil -- which can be resisted by use of force or violence in self defense.

The random slaughter of innocent children is objectively evil, not because most recoil from the thought, but because murder is objectively immoral. Murder cannot logically be made an objective virtue that everyone seeks out. Murder cannot be made "good" because it makes an unjustified exception for the murderer, who avoids harm to himself. The idea of murder as a universal moral good is by default contradictory, and therefore invalid.



3)

What is the foundation for objective moral values?

Reason alone.



4)

Without a God there wouldn't be any moral objective values. And that's probably the truth of reality. Morality itself is a human created concept. So it stands to reason that since humans invented it they should be able to subjectively define what they mean by it.

The existence of god is irrelevant to the discussion about objective ethics. If Yahweh did exist, any values that proceeded from him would not be objective, but subjective (as you pointed out).

Ethical frameworks are man made; so is the scientific method and mathematics. Morality certainly doesn't exist in nature, but that doesn't mean it can't be objective. Its nonexistence doesn't invalidate it either.



5)

There isn't any.

‣ Self-referential incoherence
"There are absolutely no absolutes." This is an example of a self-contradictory claim. Therefore it is invalid.



6)

If God was not the guiding force behind evolution, what are objective moral values based on?

Evolution is not guided. Evolution is the result of the phenomenon of natural selection. The genes of the creatures which survive long enough to reproduce are the only things that "guide" evolution; there is no goal involved.

Empathy is a result of evolution, but it is not a foundation of morality, as not everyone possesses the capacity for empathy. Empathy may re-enforce reason based ethics, and it may contribute to the survival of the species, but emotion is surely not a foundation for right and wrong, and neither is survival (as survival and flourishing for some or most may involve predation and other forms of the initiation of force against innocents).

Therefore, apart from consciousness and intelligence that can arise from the process of evolution, the theory of evolution and Yahweh have nothing at all to do with objective ethics.



7)

Where was there any morality in the universe before humans?

Prior to humans, morality existed wherever science did. Who knows maybe intelligent aliens first possessed both? But saying that there was no system of ethics prior to life is not a valid argument against ethics now.



8)

Before humans animals just ate each other freely as food. They still do this to this very day even sometimes attacking and possibly eating humans.

This is why ethics do not apply to the animal kingdom, only agents capable of reason or who possess the potential for reason. This is why you cannot morally condemn the violent impulses of a bear or an insane person.



9)

So where is there any objective morality in the universe?

No, and neither was there any science or math, but none of those things are subjective just because they don't exist in the fabric of space and time.



10)

Based on empathy, and enlightened self interest

Nope. Not everyone possesses the capacity for empathy, but that doesn't mean they cannot be ethical. Self interest can involve everything from preying upon others for their resources to sharing with others. Self interest can involve having your wife killed to get insurance money, to preferring a certain color or flavor of ice cream, to conforming to society's culture. So there is no category or consistency for self interest.

Objective goods are grounded in reason alone.



11)

Why is killing and stealing and adultery wrong? Says who?

Killing, stealing, raping, paedophilia and genocide are all wrong because they harm innocent people. Not because your invisible friend says so. Especially not when your invisible friend actually orders this behaviour and participates in it himself.
How can such a being be the centre of objective morality?

I did not say God is the centre of objective moral values. I posed the question, what is the foundation for objective moral values, God or creationism? Are humans intrinsically good by nature or is God the guiding force. Anyway, I am struggling to articulate my thoughts. I think I will put this thread to rest. Thank you.

Murder, theft, and rape are objectively evil, and their objective "wrongness" is not based on "who says." If someone declares something to be so without basing his declaration on anything apart from his own authority, then his declaration is subjective by nature. Might does not make right.

Murder, theft, and rape are objectively wrong, not because most people condemn them, since objective morality is not a democracy subject to popular opinion.

Murder, theft, and rape are objectively wrong, not because they are violent, because harm and violence can also be involved in self-defense or life-saving surgeries, and they may even be desired (e.g. BDSM). Murder, theft, and rape are objectively immoral because they all entail the initiation of force of varying degree upon those who cannot consent to their aggression by default. The moment you consent to rape is the moment rape becomes rough sex, the moment you consent to murder is the moment murder becomes assisted suicide. The moment you consent to theft is the moment theft becomes charity. But please do not confuse consent with compliance. Compliance is just submission (or a form of non-violent self-defense) and submission does not imply consent in any way, shape or form.

Murder, theft, and rape can never be universal virtues. To claim this is to argue for inconsistency; to do so is absurd. Murderers, thieves, and rapists always make themselves the exception to what they wish to do to others -- this is special pleading and therefore invalid. Therefore, in cannot be said that murder, theft, and rape are universally preferable behaviors -- since that which is universally preferable applies to all agents (human, alien, etc.) capable of reason and consent.

To ask if the foundation for an objective framework for ethics comes from God or evolution/creationism is to present a false choice. Humans are not intrinsically good and I cannot declare if humans even have a nature. Humans can be predatory or empathetic and reasonable (or have the inclination for all three); this is because natural selection doesn't care about morality; it doesn't care about anything. The blind phenomenon "favors" those traits which help the species survive. Being a predator or a social creature are both advantageous (in their own respective rights) towards passing on genes and ensuring the continual survival of individuals within species.

The only valid concept of objective morality is the framework of UPB. You can read more about it here.

Check out the whole book here.

Take a listen to the audiobook here.

And finally check out the brief updates, summary/clarifications here.

Now there is another atheist who argues for objective ethics. His name is Sam Harris, and his book is called The Moral Landscape. The Moral Landscape is invalid for many reasons. First it's rife with fallacies. It starts with painting a picture, rather than definitions. It argues for "universal ethics" based on utilitarian ethics -- that which is best for most. It argues that survival and empathy are the basis of universal morality. Harris often appeals to the middle of two cultural extremes (a fallacy) in order to seem objective. In other words, The Moral Landscape is as valid as Divine Command Theory. For more on why Harris is wrong, check out my posts on this thread.



-

[instantc]

My argument for objectivity of morals runs something like this,

1. There are moral propositions
2. Those propositions are either true or false (Law of the excluded middle)
3. Not all of them are false
4. Therefore some of them correspond to the actual state of affairs and morals are part of the objective reality (Correspondence of the truth theory)

I'm guessing (3) can be disputed on several grounds. An example of what I think would be a true moral statement is 'Intentionally inflicting pain on children for fun is morally inferior to refraining from doing it'. It seems to stand to pure reason. As another example, to borrow from the UPB system endorsed by Darias above, 'Rape is morally bad' has to be true, since no consistent moral system could hold the opposite.

[Bust Nak]

Which part of the definition do you not agree with?

Remember the label "objective moral values" only describes the concept that I defined. It is possible that the terms have a different meaning to you. If that is the case forget about the label and go by the definition.
Let us call the concept that I am defining by the label vessa hata values, then...

• To say that there are vessa hata values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti-Semitism was hata wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

I fully agree with that definition. I would also futher clarify "independently of whether whether anybody believes it" means independently of any perception. i.e. Nazi anti-Semitism was hata wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust percieved it to be good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in altering the preception of every mind to see it as good.

By this definition would you say that there are any vessa hata values?

No, I would say there isn't any vessa hata values. Only precieved values - Nazi anti-Semitism was good according to the those who thought that it was good, which includes those who carried it out; and had Nazis won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them, it would be good to everybody left alive.

[keithprosser3]

If the Nazis believed the world was flat and had won the war we might all believe the world was flat, but that wouldn't mean the world would suddenly become flat.

The Nazis had the mistaken belief that genocide was good, just as flat-earthers have the mistaken belief that the earth is flat.

If people can have mistaken beliefs about non-moral facts (such as the shape of the earth), people can be mistaken about moral facts. We don't have to respect the error of flat-earhers, so why should we respect the error of Nazis?

That genocide is bad is as objectively true as is that the world is a sphere, whatever Nazi's and flat-earthers believe.

The alternative is circular nonsense. You can't prove that genocide becomes good because people believe it by asserting that would be the case. That used to be called 'begging the question' until the common meaning of that phrase changed.

[Bust Nak]

My argument for objectivity of morals runs something like this,

1. There are moral propositions
2. Those propositions are either true or false (Law of the excluded middle)
3. Not all of them are false
4. Therefore some of them correspond to the actual state of affairs and morals are part of the objective reality (Correspondence of the truth theory)

I'm guessing (3) can be disputed on several grounds. An example of what I think would be a true moral statement is 'Intentionally inflicting pain on children for fun is morally inferior to refraining from doing it'. It seems to stand to pure reason. As another example, to borrow from the UPB system endorsed by Darias above, 'Rape is morally bad' has to be true, since no consistent moral system could hold the opposite.

This argument also depends on how you define moral proposition. (4) could be challenged re: cognitivism vs non-cognitivism. For example, "Hitler thought Holocaust was good" would a moral propositions under moral subjectivism, fitting into the premise 1 to 3, and the first part of premise 4, without the later part being true.