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]

[10CC]

.

Who is denying there is a right and wrong?

Those who deny the objectivity of morality, deny that there is an actual right or wrong.

How absolutely wrong could this not be? It couldn't.
What an asinine thing to say.

Please, Please, Please, Please, Please, tell me JUST ONE objective moral and you will win this argument.

That's it.
Just ONE objective moral that is right and you win. Just ONE.

It seems to me that you made a claim that you never defended, would you care to do so, or show me where you already did. Else, please withdraw your claim.

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.

Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.
The ethical branch of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_morality

So as we see objective morality is a claim without supporting evidence as such objective morality doesn't exist.

Now can you supply us with just one objective moral?

[olavisjo]

.

Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.
The ethical branch of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_morality

So as we see objective morality is a claim without supporting evidence as such objective morality doesn't exist.

Now can you supply us with just one objective moral?

I ask you to support your claim and I get a pointless cut, copy, and paste from Wikipedia and an argument from ignorance.

Please try again.

[JohnA]

.

Moral objectivism may refer to:

Robust moral realism, the meta-ethical position that ethical sentences express factual propositions about robust or mind-independent features of the world, and that some such propositions are true.
Moral universalism (also called minimal or moderate moral realism), the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics or morality is universally valid, without any further semantic or metaphysical claim.
The ethical branch of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objective_morality

So as we see objective morality is a claim without supporting evidence as such objective morality doesn't exist.

Now can you supply us with just one objective moral?

I ask you to support your claim and I get a pointless cut, copy, and paste from Wikipedia and an argument from ignorance.

Please try again.

I can see you problem.
Have seen this before.
You lack of logical epistemology is showing, your reason filter need an upgrade.
Read carefully:
Everthing does not exist until shown not to.

Now, when will you start using an honest debate style and answer my questions?
Shall I post them again?
You already admitted yourself that objective morals do not exist. So why do you deny your own admission?

[JohnA]

.

not your inference of "in the best physical shape".

Where did I say "in the best physical shape"?

In one of your posts to me.

Notice, there was no reference to your god in the definition of 'wrong' you provided. Am glad you saw this and admitted before that you just define 'objective morals' to sneak in your god. You also admitted that you would not agree with your god if he decrees rape as not wrong. We now know your god is not needed for morals and morals are subjective.
So, the question now is: what is the source of these subjective morals? Well you can answer that self seeing that you are doing so well so far:

Based on your definition of 'wrong', can you now tell us how do you know the Holocaust would be wrong if your god decreed it 'not wrong'?

[Bust Nak]

So there is an actual right and wrong but not an objective right and wrong.

Got it.

So is the holocaust actually bad?

That's right, to put it in a more exact, philosophical wording: In moral subjectivism, moral statements have truth values, they can be either true or false. They are factual statements that describe the opinion of people. i.e. "The holocaust is bad according to Bust Nak" is a statement that is actually true - it is one about my opinion.

[instantc]

So there is an actual right and wrong but not an objective right and wrong.

Got it.

So is the holocaust actually bad?

That's right, to put it in a more exact, philosophical wording: In moral subjectivism, moral statements have truth values, they can be either true or false. They are factual statements that describe the opinion of people. i.e. "The holocaust is bad according to Bust Nak" is a statement that is actually true - it is one about my opinion.

Correct, that is not a statement about morality, it's a statement about your thoughts.

'Instanc thinks that the universe is a million miles wide' is not a statement about the universe, it's a true statement about my opinion.

[Bust Nak]

Correct, that is not a statement about morality, it's a statement about your thoughts.

So objectivists like to claim, can you demostrate that a statement about morality and a statement about one's opinion of good and evil, are not just two ways of saying the same thing?

'Instanc thinks that the universe is a million miles wide' is not a statement about the universe, it's a true statement about my opinion.

Take it up with those who thinks the size of the universe is a matter of opinion. I would also like to point out 'Instanc thinks that the universe is a million miles wide' is likely to be a false statement about your opinion.

[Danmark]

Lane makes the statement "If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist."

He then goes on at great length demonstrating he cannot prove his assertion (except perhaps in his own mind). First, look at what he is really saying, that by definition objective morality is decreed by "God"; that "God" is the source of objective morality. He is simply defining objective morality with the word or concept of 'God.' This is a tautology.

Craig goes on and on trying to refute evolution as a basis for morality and he virtually admits he fails at this while trying to claim the opposite:

... [T]here’s no good evidence that our perception of moral and aesthetic values has been programmed by evolution. Darwinists are extremely imaginative and creative in coming up with what are called “just so� stories in order to explain things via evolution for which there is no empirical evidence. Indeed, these stories are almost endlessly adaptable, so that they become almost irrefutable and, hence, unfalsifiable.

In other words he confesses he cannot refute the claim that our perception of moral values has been "programmed by evolution."

And how could he, when we observe the same moral behavior in monkeys and other mammals that all humans (at least collectively) agree is moral: a sense of fairness and reciprocity, that we don't steal from each other, whether it is life, or property, or reputation.

[instantc]

Correct, that is not a statement about morality, it's a statement about your thoughts.

So objectivists like to claim, can you demostrate that a statement about morality and a statement about one's opinion of good and evil, are not just two ways of saying the same thing?

I don't want to enter into that 'is holocaust really wrong' debate, but let me ask you this. If every moral statement is just a statement of opinion, then on what basis exactly would you intervene, if a society far far away had a tradition of sacrificing people to their God, for example? Isn't that like being angry at someone for eating the kinds of food that you don't like? Suppose that the people being sacrificed don't like it but also believe that it has to be done.

We have partially been over this, and you gave me a quite good answer previously, but I'd still like some clarification.

[Bust Nak]

I don't want to enter into that 'is holocaust really wrong' debate, but let me ask you this.

Careful. That could be taken as an suggestion that your opponents are fine with the holocaust.

If every moral statement is just a statement of opinion, then on what basis exactly would you intervene, if a society far far away had a tradition of sacrificing people to their God, for example?

On the basis of my opinion that they are evil for doing so.

Isn't that like being angry at someone for eating the kinds of food that you don't like? Suppose that the people being sacrificed don't like it but also believe that it has to be done.

Kinda, I wouldn't say anger though. I would say it is like being repulsed at someone for eating the kinds of food that you don't like, repulsed enough to stop them from eating that food.