Moral objective values...

whisperit · Post by **whisperit** » Wed Oct 02, 2013 9:02 pm

[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]

instantc · Post by **instantc** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:18 am

Jax Agnesson wrote:
Darias wrote:
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?

I think his point was that murder has to be immoral because a system where the opposite is true would necessarily be inconsistent and self-contradictory. That's the primary idea of Stefan Molyneux's Universally Preferable Behavior system.

olavisjo · Post by **olavisjo** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:30 am

.

Jax Agnesson wrote: 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!

How much further do you need to explore? Are you going to keep exploring till you find that the Holocaust is a good thing?

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:31 am

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

There is a hidden implication that if god did not exist genocide would not be wrong. I can't let that go by without comment.

The idea that giving up god also means giving up one's moral compass or moral sense is pure rhetoric - a red herring as someone else would say.

Giving up god means rejecting god as the source of morality, not rejecting morality, just as atheism means rejecting god as the source of the universe doesn't mean rejecting the universe.

Atheists don't have to claim to know the answers to everything- atheism is a claim to know what the answer is not.

Jax Agnesson · Post by **Jax Agnesson** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:35 am

[Replying to post 61 by instantc]

Yes, thanks instantc. I followed Darias's link to the right-wing libertarian think-tank, and read some of it. (I felt it was a bit nauseating, but that's of topic.).
'Murder is evil.' Darias asserts. 'Therefore murder is objectively immoral'. Well that's self-assertion at its very finest!
Where have we heard this circular reasoning before?

Skeptic: How come God says 'Thou shalt not kill' and then promptly commands a series of genocides?
Christian: The nth Commandment doesn't actually say 'Thou shalt not kill', it says 'Thou shalt not murder'.
Skeptic: Oh right. Er, what's the distinction?
Christian: Well, murder is killing when it would be wrong to do so.

Great. Killing isn't necessarily forbidden, but killing when it would be wrong to do so is, er, wrong.
Fine. God did all that burning bush stunt to tell us that?
OK. A bible-fundie would have to say that murder is therefore always wrong, because God said so. And anyone else would have to agree that killing when it is wrong to do so is always wrong, but killing when it isn't wrong, isn't wrong.
OK. Got it now. Thanks.

olavisjo · Post by **olavisjo** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:37 am

.

keithprosser3 wrote: Atheists don't have to claim to know the answers to everything- atheism is a claim to know what the answer is not.

I don't think you want to say that, this is not the party line.

Atheism is a lack of belief, it claims nothing not even what the answer is not. Anything else implies a burden of proof.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:37 am

keithprosser3 wrote: I think a perfectly good defence of the idea that genocide is bad is that it is BLOODY OBVIOUS!

Sure, it's obvious to me too. What isn't so obvious is that genocide is objectively bad.

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.

Then you are at a disadvantage. You can't prove that genocide is bad given your premise that morality is objective; where as I can prove that genocide is bad, starting from my premise that moral is subjective. I can demostrate the obvious fact that genocide is bad from my philosophical stance.

Besides, if you are appealing to your intuition, you could hardly argue that right or wrong is independent of your intuition. And if it isn't independent of your intuition, then how is it independent of ones mind?

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'.

People took it seriously enough to carry out genocide. I would say that qualify as very seriously.

instantc wrote: '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.

I agree with both points, where I suspect we differ is that I would also say 'Hitler thought Holocaust was good' is a statement that tell us something about morality of actions.

olavisjo wrote: How much further do you need to explore? Are you going to keep exploring till you find that the Holocaust is a good thing?

How about we keep exploring until you accept that Holocaust is bad doesn't imply Holocaust is objectively bad? I would like that.

Jax Agnesson · Post by **Jax Agnesson** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:42 am

olavisjo wrote: .
Jax Agnesson wrote: 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!
How much further do you need to explore? Are you going to keep exploring till you find that the Holocaust is a good thing?

I will keep exploring and questioning, especially questioning my own most strongly held beliefs, until the day my mind ossifies into a smug state of self-certainty. At that point, I have a trusted friend who has promised to shoot me!

olavisjo · Post by **olavisjo** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:47 am

.

keithprosser3 wrote: Giving up god means rejecting god as the source of morality, not rejecting morality, just as atheism means rejecting god as the source of the universe doesn't mean rejecting the universe.

If someone like Ted Bundy rapes, tortures and kills a girl and nobody knows about it, can you say he did something wrong? No, of course not.

If nothing or no one sees what we do in secret then there can be no moral accountability, we would be free to do anything that we can get away with, to then say that there exists some moral law, would be to speak nonsense of the invisible pink unicorn kind.

keithprosser3 · Post by **keithprosser3** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 9:55 am

Kinda laudable, but if you always question you have no foundation to take things further - you will always be tearing down, never building up. On some issues - such as my own infallibility(*) - I am unshakable.

(*sorry - I meant the non-existence of god).

Jax Agnesson · Post by **Jax Agnesson** » Fri Oct 04, 2013 10:31 am

keithprosser3 wrote: Kinda laudable, but if you always question you have no foundation to take things further - you will always be tearing down, never building up. On some issues - such as my own infallibility(*) - I am unshakable.

(*sorry - I meant the non-existence of god).

Airline pilot 'kicks the tyres' every time she boards a plane. Plane goes where it should if it's still sound! If not, it doesn't fly till it gets fixed.
Constant skepticism need not be permanent paralysis.
PS I too am unshakeable in my opinion about your infallibility!