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]

[youtube][/youtube]

Do explain in detail, how that is supposed to be evidence of objective morality? Or will you pull the "if you can't see it then I can't help you" gambit again?

[olavisjo]

.

Yes it's a very subjective definition. But try to defend it if you want.

A definition need not be defended.

Probably a good idea, since [claim] there is no such thing as objective morality. [/claim]

You made the claim, please defend it or withdraw it.

[olavisjo]

.

Do explain in detail, how that is supposed to be evidence of objective morality? Or will you pull the "if you can't see it then I can't help you" gambit again?

If I take a person to the zoo and show her an elephant and she still tells me that she does not believe in elephants, then all I can say is "sorry, I can't help you".

You don't have to believe that the Holocaust was objectively wrong, it just means that we live in very different realities.

[Artie]

Probably a good idea, since there is no such thing as objective morality.

• To say that there are objective moral 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 morally 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.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/our-gras ... z2gg0n3jlR

Given this definition of objective morality, do you still claim that no such thing exists? You will then be defending the idea that the Nazis did nothing wrong, is this your position?

If genocide is objectively immoral how could it be right when God did it but wrong when the Nazis did it?

[Bust Nak]

Do explain in detail, how that is supposed to be evidence of objective morality? Or will you pull the "if you can't see it then I can't help you" gambit again?

If I take a person to the zoo and show her an elephant and she still tells me that she does not believe in elephants, then all I can say is "sorry, I can't help you".

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.

You don't have to believe that the Holocaust was objectively wrong, it just means that we live in very different realities.

Right, but I would argue that my "reality" has fewer unknowns than yours, is philosophically perferable for that reason, and also easier to defend in an debate.

[olavisjo]

.

If genocide is objectively immoral how could it be right when God did it but wrong when the Nazis did it?

Please support your claim that "God did it".

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to olavisjo]

If genocide is objectively immoral how could it be right when God did it but wrong when the Nazis did it?

Please support your claim that "God did it".

Providing support for this claim depends entirely on your position regarding the Bible. Is the Bible the Word of God... or is it simply the word of man?

[Ionian_Tradition]

.

Do explain in detail, how that is supposed to be evidence of objective morality? Or will you pull the "if you can't see it then I can't help you" gambit again?

If I take a person to the zoo and show her an elephant and she still tells me that she does not believe in elephants, then all I can say is "sorry, I can't help you".

You don't have to believe that the Holocaust was objectively wrong, it just means that we live in very different realities.

Unlike the elephant, the historicity of the Holocaust, and its objective truth, is not in dispute among us. Your sentiments regarding the moral quality of this event are. As such, I propose a more apt analogy in which your friend expresses skepticism in response to the subjective sentiment that the elephant you both perceive is objectively "pretty". In this respect, we observe that merely pointing to the elephant itself is not a sufficient demonstration of the objective nature you wish to ascribe to your subjective aesthetic judgements. In the same way, merely calling our attention to the Holocaust is not a sufficient demonstration that popular sentiments regarding its moral quality constitute an objective fact which exists irrespective of subjective disposition, opinion or preference. So while the objectivity you wish to assign to your moral judgements regarding the Holocaust may seem intuitively veridical to you, we must ask of you a more robust method of demonstrating the truth of your claims. Therefore, I ask you once more on behalf of all those with whom I share a certain skepticism, can you demonstrate that your subjective judgements regarding the ethical nature of the Holocaust constitute an objective fact regarding its moral quality? Can you show that our collective disapprobation regarding this event constitute an objective moral fact which exists irrespective of subjective disposition, opinion or preference?

[Jax Agnesson]

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.

Please do not abandon the thread; note that it is provoking some heated discussion. You have posed a good question; let's follow it as far as we can.
WLC is a professional Christian apologist; when he raises a question about the possible existence of objective moral values, he is attempting to argue for the existence of God. Fair enough; that's his job. And this presents a context in which the problem can be examined.
If we take some standard definitions of 'objective', moral' and 'values' we find that 'objective' is used to indicate things that can exist independent of the human mind. When we talk about 'values' we are necessarily talking about things which cannot exist outside of a mind.
Latching together 'objective' and 'moral values', and then insisting that they must exist, either in a consciousness or not in a consciousness, is disingenuous, if he has already defined the terms in such a way as to preclude one of the possibilities..
WLC defines 'objective moral values' as something that exists, but that cannot exist without a mind, and then he triumphantly announces that therefore a mind independent of our minds, must exist.
But can objective moral values exist independent of any particular mind?
Personally I'm not really decided on this question; it all turns on definitions.
You posed the question: 'what is the foundation for objective moral values, God or creationism'? I take it you meant 'God or Evolution'?
Some posters have responded by claiming that objective moral values don't exist. If this is true, then asking 'what is the foundation' for something that doesn't exist is obviously absurd.
But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that some objective values could exist. What would their existence be like? (NB: I'm setting aside the word 'moral' for now. If we can make ay sense of the idea that some sorts of values can exist 'objectively' than it will be worth turning to the 'moral' question. And if not, not!
Consider the following claim:
My Aunt Maisie has a great sense of humour.
Could this statement be objectively true?
I suggest that, for the statement to be objectively true, my Aunt Maisie's great sense of humour would have to exist.
Can we at least complain that the adjective 'great' in this context is an opinion, and therefore entirely subjective? Let us allow that objection, for now.
Well, the statement 'Aunt Maisie has an opinion about something' can be objectively true, can't it? And if it is objectively true, does it mean that that opinion objectively exists? (NB This is quite separate from the question of whether the opinion is valid; I am exploring the possibility that even invalid opinions can exist.)

I sit here, at this moment, in this place, and I hold the opinion that God does not exist.. This statement will not cease to be true, even if nobody remembers it.
This is a statement of objective truth. If so, does my opinion objectively exist or not?
You see, when we get into discussing the existence of ideas and beliefs, and we start discussing what qualifies as an objectively existing idea and what is 'merely' subjective, we find it's not exactly simple.

To return to the content of your OP:
There is strong evidence that primates (eg chimps and macaques) exhibit a primitive sense of fairness. (eg when another ape gets better treatment, they show all the behaviours which, in a human, would be recognised as anger, or jealousy, resentment, sulking, etc. Is it at least possible that they are feeling the same things (or similar things) to what humans feel in similar situations?
Is it objectively true that humans have a strong innate sense of justice?
Is it objectively true that the human brain and the chimp brain have a shared developmental history?
Is it objectively true that some aspects of 'moral preference' predate human consciousness, and exist independently of it?
Is it objectively true that 'morality' could exist outside any human consciousness? and would this constitute the existence of 'objective moral values'?
I am still undecided about these matters. But if I am at some point in a position where I am obliged to conclude that the non-existence of God means we can't describe out moral values as 'objective', well, so be it.

[whisperit]

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.

Please do not abandon the thread; note that it is provoking some heated discussion. You have posed a good question; let's follow it as far as we can.
WLC is a professional Christian apologist; when he raises a question about the possible existence of objective moral values, he is attempting to argue for the existence of God. Fair enough; that's his job. And this presents a context in which the problem can be examined.
If we take some standard definitions of 'objective', moral' and 'values' we find that 'objective' is used to indicate things that can exist independent of the human mind. When we talk about 'values' we are necessarily talking about things which cannot exist outside of a mind.
Latching together 'objective' and 'moral values', and then insisting that they must exist, either in a consciousness or not in a consciousness, is disingenuous, if he has already defined the terms in such a way as to preclude one of the possibilities..
WLC defines 'objective moral values' as something that exists, but that cannot exist without a mind, and then he triumphantly announces that therefore a mind independent of our minds, must exist.
But can objective moral values exist independent of any particular mind?
Personally I'm not really decided on this question; it all turns on definitions.
You posed the question: 'what is the foundation for objective moral values, God or creationism'? I take it you meant 'God or Evolution'?
Some posters have responded by claiming that objective moral values don't exist. If this is true, then asking 'what is the foundation' for something that doesn't exist is obviously absurd.
But let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that some objective values could exist. What would their existence be like? (NB: I'm setting aside the word 'moral' for now. If we can make ay sense of the idea that some sorts of values can exist 'objectively' than it will be worth turning to the 'moral' question. And if not, not!
Consider the following claim:
My Aunt Maisie has a great sense of humour.
Could this statement be objectively true?
I suggest that, for the statement to be objectively true, my Aunt Maisie's great sense of humour would have to exist.
Can we at least complain that the adjective 'great' in this context is an opinion, and therefore entirely subjective? Let us allow that objection, for now.
Well, the statement 'Aunt Maisie has an opinion about something' can be objectively true, can't it? And if it is objectively true, does it mean that that opinion objectively exists? (NB This is quite separate from the question of whether the opinion is valid; I am exploring the possibility that even invalid opinions can exist.)

I sit here, at this moment, in this place, and I hold the opinion that God does not exist.. This statement will not cease to be true, even if nobody remembers it.
This is a statement of objective truth. If so, does my opinion objectively exist or not?
You see, when we get into discussing the existence of ideas and beliefs, and we start discussing what qualifies as an objectively existing idea and what is 'merely' subjective, we find it's not exactly simple.

To return to the content of your OP:
There is strong evidence that primates (eg chimps and macaques) exhibit a primitive sense of fairness. (eg when another ape gets better treatment, they show all the behaviours which, in a human, would be recognised as anger, or jealousy, resentment, sulking, etc. Is it at least possible that they are feeling the same things (or similar things) to what humans feel in similar situations?
Is it objectively true that humans have a strong innate sense of justice?
Is it objectively true that the human brain and the chimp brain have a shared developmental history?
Is it objectively true that some aspects of 'moral preference' predate human consciousness, and exist independently of it?
Is it objectively true that 'morality' could exist outside any human consciousness? and would this constitute the existence of 'objective moral values'?
I am still undecided about these matters. But if I am at some point in a position where I am obliged to conclude that the non-existence of God means we can't describe out moral values as 'objective', well, so be it.

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.