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]

[olavisjo]

.

Please concisely and clearly present your moral argument for why donkeys can talk and zombies are real (or whatever it is), and I'll do my best to understand it and reply to it.

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

Am asking again. What is objective morals?

Objective morality was defined here...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 441#601441

[Artie]

Objective morality was defined here...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 441#601441

Morality is the ability to differentiate between "right" and "wrong". It says nothing about what is "right" and "wrong". For something to be "objectively moral or immoral" it must be shown to be so independently of the opinions of gods, humans, aliens or whoever. It is pointless therefore to appeal to the subjective opinions of gods or people or aliens and say that since some gods or people or aliens believe something to be immoral it is "objectively immoral". Can you show how something is objectively moral or immoral without referring to the opinions of gods or people or aliens or anybody?

[olavisjo]

.

Can you show how something is objectively moral or immoral without referring to the opinions of gods or people or aliens or anybody?

Is this wrong only because of the opinions of gods or people or aliens or anybody? Or is it actually wrong? Or don't you know if it is actually wrong?

[youtube][/youtube]

[JohnA]

.

Please concisely and clearly present your moral argument for why donkeys can talk and zombies are real (or whatever it is), and I'll do my best to understand it and reply to it.

The way that you have worded your request leads me to think that you have never heard or dealt with any moral arguments for God's existence. Would this be an accurate assessment?

Am asking again. What is objective morals?

Objective morality was defined here...

http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 441#601441

That is a subjective definition, since you can not back you claim that something (a god or whateva) can independently decreed what we believe to be wrong or right. You are merely begging the question with your definition of objective morality to sneak in a god.
Defining something into existence does not evidence it into existence. Why not just skip a step and just offer your god's definition to define (s)he into existence, why bother with objective morality's definition?

If your god decreed rape as acceptable, would you say it is good?

I would never say killing is 'wrong'. How ridiculous. Soldiers kill in war all the time. People kill in self defense all the time. We all kill animals and plants all the time.
The Holocaust was 'wrong' because it was murder (unlawful killing). The Nazi's may not have seen this as 'wrong' since they may not have had this murder law, maybe they saw this as killing in war or as self-defense.

And we have empathy and ethics (not objective morals) where we know the sources:
1) Evolution : minimize extinction, maximize survival. 99.9% of all species that ever lived on earth are extinct now.
2) Society : laws (not laws of logic, but rules of thought, law/policies by governments/UN)
3) Thinking : why are we still discussing abortion and gay rights when the answer is obvious?

Please do remember to answer my questions:
Why not just skip a step and just offer your god's definition to define (s)he into existence, why bother with objective morality's definition?
If your god decreed rape as acceptable, would you say it is good?
Why are we still discussing abortion and gay rights when the answer is obvious?

[Artie]

Can you show how something is objectively moral or immoral without referring to the opinions of gods or people or aliens or anybody?

Is this wrong only because of the opinions of gods or people or aliens or anybody? Or is it actually wrong?

That is what I am asking you. Explain WHY you claim it is actually wrong. What is your objective reason for claiming that it is actually wrong. Just because you don't like what they did doesn't make it objectively wrong. Even if most people don't like what they did doesn't make it objectively wrong. Explain what it is that makes it objectively wrong.

[keithprosser3]

One way to get around that objection is to compare 'genocide is wrong' (or whatever example) with the Euclid's axiom that a straight line can be drawn between two points.
Neglecting the quibble that space may not actually be flat which is irrelevant as we are discussing morality not geometry, there is no way to prove that one can draw a straight line between two points - that one can do so is 'self-evident'.

Not all true statements are provable - they are 'brute facts'. One can however go the other way. If you accept Euclid's axioms, you can use them to prove other, less obvious, things that are true. Conversely, if Euclid's axioms were wrong, the conclusions inferred from them would be wrong.

Thus we cannot prove 'genocide is wrong' using a 'bottom up' strategy, but we can still test its truth (or falsity) by considering the consequences. The consequences of rejecting the truth of 'genocide is wrong' are illustrated by the picture posted above. Whether that is a good enough proof of that 'genocide is wrong' is another matter. Put another way, how much more proof do you need?

[Artie]

The consequences of rejecting the truth of 'genocide is wrong' are illustrated by the picture posted above. Whether that is a good enough proof of that 'genocide is wrong' is another matter. Put another way, how much more proof do you need?

It's not about what I need. What objective argument would you use to convince a Nazi that it was objectively wrong? Which objective argument wouldn't he be able to refute?

[olavisjo]

.

It's not about what I need. What objective argument would you use to convince a Nazi that it was objectively wrong? Which objective argument wouldn't he be able to refute?

Then you agree that the Holocaust was wrong. And for the same reason that the Nazis should have known the Holocaust was wrong.

But rule 303 was the final evidence offered, if this did not convince them then nothing will.

[youtube][/youtube]

[olavisjo]

.

That is a subjective definition, since you can not back you claim that something (a god or whateva) can independently decreed what we believe to be wrong or right.

Then would it be your position, that there is no actual matter of fact right or wrong? In other words, the Holocaust was not necessarily wrong.

Please do remember to answer my questions:
Why not just skip a step and just offer your god's definition to define (s)he into existence, why bother with objective morality's definition?
If your god decreed rape as acceptable, would you say it is good?
Why are we still discussing abortion and gay rights when the answer is obvious?

1. I would have no problem with skipping that step, but you may have a problem with that so I am including it for your benefit.
2. No.
3. I don't know, seems to me that we should have resolved that a long time ago.

[Artie]

It's not about what I need. What objective argument would you use to convince a Nazi that it was objectively wrong? Which objective argument wouldn't he be able to refute?

Then you agree that the Holocaust was wrong. And for the same reason that the Nazis should have known the Holocaust was wrong.

So now you are claiming that just because I think something is wrong everybody else should think it's wrong too? That is called dictatorship. Why don't I just kill everybody who disagrees with me? Why do you claim what they did was objectively wrong? Do you have any other reason for saying what they did was wrong besides "I don't like what they did therefore it was wrong?" If not then what you are saying is that if the Nazis thought it was right it was right.

Say you and a friend disagree on something and you both claim to be right. Where do you go to find out who's right? You go to an objective neutral source such as a dictionary or an encyclopedia. You claim that the holocaust was wrong, the Nazis claimed the Holocaust was right. What objective neutral source would you use to find out who's right?