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]

[keithprosser3]

So?

So the principle of supposing individuals always aim simply for personal survival or even for the survival of their genome doesn't explain their actual behaviour. Now apparently that isn't what you were saying anyway, but I think both instantc and I were both under the impression it was, so maybe that is cleared up.

What are we arguing over anyway?e

[Artie]

So?

So the principle of supposing individuals always aim simply for personal survival or even for the survival of their genome doesn't explain their actual behaviour. Now apparently that isn't what you were saying anyway, but I think both instantc and I were both under the impression it was, so maybe that is cleared up.

What are we arguing over anyway?e

I'm not sure... I'm not arguing I'm just trying to explain things and make you understand.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to Artie]

The rock climber scenario may be a poor analogy. He likely did not think he would die because because he climbed without saftey equipment. If he knew he was going to die if he climbed that particular day, then he probably wouldn't have climbed. (just a guess, don't know for sure) The only people who you can be sure that they value a different desire greater than survival are those that actively choose their death. If I die in a plane crash, that doesn't mean I chose the expediancy of air travel over my own life, it just means I didn't think that the unlikely event that I was going to die would occur.

Regardless, basic desires (survival included), don't seem to be the basis for any system of objective morality. In fact, many moral systems are put into place to inhibit desires, implying that desires are often contrary to whatever objective value is placed as the pillar of virtue.

Just to put this into context of my beliefs, I don't think there is any form of objective morality.

[JohnA]

I knew a guy who died rock climbing without safety equipment, he took a volitional risk. He sacrificed the survival of himself and his genome for the mere pleasure of risk taking. Now, risk taking is beneficial in evolutionary terms no doubt, but the fact remains that he sacrificed the survival of himself and his future offspring for a simple pleasure.

And now he is dead and his defective genome that made him take too big a risk and put pleasure before survival is now out of circulation and he won't produce more like him. That is how evolution works.

This is so wrong on so many levels. This is a lack of very basic understanding of evolution.
He was a result of evolution, that is how he came to be. Evolution did not get rid of him, nor did evolution make him take a risk. You can not say evolution makes defects and get rid of defects in the same sentence - how would evolution know it is a defect and not, surely is something males defects it is defective as well.

Evolution does not work on individuals, it works on populations.
It works on random mutations. Read again: random.
Via non-random natural selection. Read again: non-random.

Please Artie. Do read up.

[Artie]

Regardless, basic desires (survival included), don't seem to be the basis for any system of objective morality. In fact, many moral systems are put into place to inhibit desires, implying that desires are often contrary to whatever objective value is placed as the pillar of virtue.

Just to put this into context of my beliefs, I don't think there is any form of objective morality.

There seem to be many subjective definitions of "objective morality".

1. If everybody agrees something is moral it is.
2. Something is moral regardless what anybody think.
3. If a deity says it's moral it is.

Are there more?

[keithprosser3]

I'm just trying to explain things and make you understand.

Remember to use short words then because I'm not very bright.

Are there more?

Well, I am not sure what I mean by 'objective morality'. For me it resembles a 'Platonic form' of morality, an ideal morality that all other moralities derive from with more or less imperfection.

As an example, if you take any real circle, its circumference/diameter will not be exactly pi. To get pi we have to use an abstract circle, not a real one. Thus - and this is a loose analogy not a definition - the evil of the holocaust is definite and fixed in some platonic/objectve morality, even if it is not definitively evil in all actual moralities.

But that is 'work in progress', not my dogma. It either comes under 2 or is

4) A Platonic form of morality.

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to keithprosser3]

Objective morality would be what is moral, regardless of opinion, so option 2
Objective - "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts."

#1 would still be subjective, even though a majority of people agree.

#3 would fall under #2 because in the hypothetical situation of a deity dictating morality, it would still be fact regardless of opinion. (an all-powerful being's decision on a subject should essentially be considered fact)

Keith, your "platonic form" seems to also fall under #2 as your opinion of worldly morality would just be a best approximation of the ideal morality that is the set standard, which would appear to be objective by your description

[JohnA]

I'm just trying to explain things and make you understand.

Remember to use short words then because I'm not very bright.

Are there more?

Well, I am not sure what I mean by 'objective morality'. For me it resembles a 'Platonic form' of morality, an ideal morality that all other moralities derive from with more or less imperfection.

As an example, if you take any real circle, its circumference/diameter will not be exactly pi. To get pi we have to use an abstract circle, not a real one. Thus - and this is a loose analogy not a definition - the evil of the holocaust is definite and fixed in some platonic/objectve morality, even if it is not definitively evil in all actual moralities.

But that is 'work in progress', not my dogma. It either comes under 2 or is

4) A Platonic form of morality.

How can you offer 2) when all humans are faulty according to your golden rule?
What is spiritual or non-physical about morality in 4)?

Morality is either objective or not. Obscurantism is not the answer.

This platonic reference is from Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher who wrote on the subject of love. Platonic love and platonic friendships are marked by the absence of physical or sexual desire. Plato did acknowledge physical desire, but thought that if two people truly inspired each other, their spiritual or ideal love would bring them closer to God.

[Artie]

But that is 'work in progress', not my dogma. It either comes under 2 or is

4) A Platonic form of morality.

4. Moral is what leads to happiness and well-being?

[nayrbsnilloc]

[Replying to Artie]

That would be some form of utilitarianism, which would still fall under either the subjective or objective morality category depending on the particular view that is held