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]

[Bust Nak]

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.

Your argument would work, if and only if "genocide is bad " is an objective fact as "world is a sphere" is an objective fact. The truth of this premise is exactly what is being debated. It is you who has committed 'begging the question' fallacy.

[keithprosser3]

... Nazis won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them, it would be good to everybody left alive.

Which means everyone would be mistaken, not that genocide was good.

[Bust Nak]

... Nazis won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them, it would be good to everybody left alive.

Which means everyone would be mistaken, not that genocide was good.

Again question begging. Everyone would be mistaken if and only if genocide is bad objectively. You are asserting two things. There is an objective morality, and genocide is bad objectively, both of these needs defending.

[keithprosser3]

I think a perfectly good defence of the idea that genocide is bad is that it is BLOODY OBVIOUS!

More seriously, I work on the basis that genocide is bad and the problem is that we lack the means demonstrate that obvious fact, not that the fact is actually in doubt. On some things I am prepared to back my intuition - I don't think I am sticking my neck out very far in saying genocide is bad - in the confident expectation that a proof does exist, just as Fermat's Last Theorem was true even before it was proved.

Seeking such a proof is one of the things I try to do.

Put another way I think it is more likely the Nazis were mistaken than genocide could be good. Ask me to prove it and I can't (yet) - but I wonder how seriously other people really take the idea that genocide could be 'good'.

[Divine Insight]

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.

This actually raises questions about the validity of human logic.

Humans have never created a system that when questioned thoroughly enough does not produce paradoxes. This includes mathematics.

Also this particular kind of apparent self-contradictory logical statement is highly questionable. For example, there is no paradox in the statement, "There are no absolutes". It only becomes a paradox when taken as an absolute statement itself. Then this observation becomes an "absolute". And this brings up the question of whether it even makes any sense to speak about such abstract concepts as though they can be dependable to obey any "laws of logic or reason".

We can being to ask the question of why abstract notions should need to be perfectly consistent in any case. We have no guarantee the our own ideas of "logic" have any merit. We weren't given logic by nature. Logic is nothing other than our own attempt to formalize our sense of reasoning. There is no absolute ground upon which we can demand that anything needs to adhere to our ideas of what we deem to be logical.

Logic itself is a human invention of reasoning and may very well be ultimately flawed.

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.

Actually arguments can be made that our discoveries in science and mathematics are objective discoveries. In fact, scientists absolutely claim this is true of the sciences. Mathematics is more controversial and rightfully so. None the less, historically mathematics began as an observation of the quantitative nature of reality. Precisely what it has become today is questionable. It's my own personal opinion that mathematics has actually gotten off track from its original purpose.

In fact, I hold the following conditional statement to be true:

If mathematical formalism is supposed to correctly reflect the quantitative properties of our physical universe, then our current modern mathematical formalism is wrong.

I hold that this is a true statement. If you accept the proposition then I can prove the conclusion. If you reject the proposition then the statement holds true logically anyway. So it's a true conditional statement either way.

[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.

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.

'Hitler thought Holocaust was good' is a statement about Hitler, it's a description of his thoughts. A moral statement would be one that tells us something about morality of actions.

[olavisjo]

.

Seeking such a proof is one of the things I try to do.

Put another way I think it is more likely the Nazis were mistaken than genocide could be good. Ask me to prove it and I can't (yet) - but I wonder how seriously other people really take the idea that genocide could be 'good'.

You do not need to seek such a proof.

• Descartes, used the method of doubt, called Cartesian doubt, to systematically doubt everything he could possibly doubt, until he was left with what he saw as irrefutable truths. Using these self-evident propositions as his axioms, or foundations, he went on to deduce his entire body of knowledge. The foundations are also called “a priori truths.â€�

If anything can be held as a priori truth, it would be morality.

[Jax Agnesson]

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.

Really? If we are investigating a subtle and complex issue, is it 'irrelevant' to start with some things which are related but apparently simpler, and possibly easier to reach some basic agreement about?
I am starting with a question about whether a statement about preferences can be objectively true, and offering several, increasing subtle, examples of statements about preferences.

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.

Here you have made some statements about some of your opinions.
1. Can you establish that these statements are objectively valid, (as descriptions of your state of mind);
2. Can you recognise that question 1. above is not asking whether the opinions exist objectively. (That would be qhuestion 4 in this list!)
3. Can you say either that there is, or that there is not, something objectively different about your brain-state if you are holding opinion A than if you are holding opinion B?
See where the inquiry is going?
Do you still feel it was sensible to declare in advance that 'The wants and needs of non-human animals are irrelevant to a discussion about human ethics.'?
You can only make a ruling that something is irrelevant to an inquiry if you think you already know all the answers to the question raised: IOW if you do not enter into the spirit of the inquiry.

Using power over the powerless, well it's a bit too vague to address.

Fair comment. But why then go to the trouble of addressing it?

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.

This is a set of assertions, without any reasoned arguments in support. You start with a contentless assertion: an act is 'objectively evil' because it is 'objectively immoral'. This suggests that you are already in possession of an answer to the question of the existence of objective morality.
Now, the fact that I am inclined to the same opinion as you, (in this matter, at least) does not mean that our opinions we hold at the moment should not be open to further scrutiny, does it? The fact that hundreds or millions of people hold a belief in common does not necessarily mean that belief is right, does it? The fact that we have held an opinion in common for a very long time does not relieve us of the obligation to re-examine, does it?

[olavisjo]

.

Thank you so much for this post. It is a lot to absorb (for me). I would like to learn from others who are far more knowledgeable and certainly far more articulate on the subject, which clearly I misrepresented/misinterpreted.

The moral argument used to be frustrating for me too, till I went on vacation to Norway and visited a fish market, it was there that I had an epiphany, I said to myself "I have never seen this many red herrings in my life... except when I debate morality".
When you debate morality they will throw out a lot of red herrings and if you go after them you will get lost. So you have to stay on point.

1. Some things are right and some things are wrong
2. This would not be the case if God did not exist

A good place to start learning how to defend the moral argument, go to...

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/defenders-2-podcast/s4

And click on Parts 19, 20, 21 & 22.

[Jax Agnesson]

.

1. Some things are right and some things are wrong
2. This would not be the case if God did not exist

That is olavisjo's opinion. The answer to your complex and subtle question about God and morality is to memorise Olavisjo's opinion on the matter, and then be careful not to explore any further. Wonderful!