How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[Diogenes]

Why would blind evolution result in a universal moral principle unless there is moral truth built into reality, which goes against the theorys view that specific design isnt built into anything? But even putting that aside, the result of a universally shared moral principle among human cultures would give us objective morality. Atheism leads to morality being akin to music tastes; it would be completely subjective.

It genuinely saddens me when I see good debaters, thoughtful, well-read folk, good people, so heavily indoctrinated by the 'Creator-God' thought formula/ideology they have difficulty thinking outside those constraints. It is correct that evolutionary forces have no 'mind,' no purpose, no sense of a "built-in universal moral principle." And indeed there is none. Spiders, bacteria, and millions of other life forms have no such moral principle.

But social animals, mostly mammals, have evolved to have this sense of morality because it is vital to the cooperation that allowed them to enhance their chance for survival. Sharks and Amur (Siberian) Tigers (at least for much of their adult lives) are not social, but solitary predators, with at least much less of such a 'friendliness' gene that led some wolves to evolve into dogs. It is only after the fact, that some incorrectly look back at this process and infuse natural selection with conscious principles of purpose or direction.

[The Tanager]

It genuinely saddens me when I see good debaters, thoughtful, well-read folk, good people, so heavily indoctrinated by the 'Creator-God' thought formula/ideology they have difficulty thinking outside those constraints. It is correct that evolutionary forces have no 'mind,' no purpose, no sense of a "built-in universal moral principle." And indeed there is none. Spiders, bacteria, and millions of other life forms have no such moral principle.

But social animals, mostly mammals, have evolved to have this sense of morality because it is vital to the cooperation that allowed them to enhance their chance for survival. Sharks and Amur (Siberian) Tigers (at least for much of their adult lives) are not social, but solitary predators, with at least much less of such a 'friendliness' gene that led some wolves to evolve into dogs. It is only after the fact, that some incorrectly look back at this process and infuse natural selection with conscious principles of purpose or direction.

Are you saying that I'm doing this? I agree with your view (at least concerning what would be the case if atheism is true).

EDIT: Perhaps because I left out the "not" that I have now put in the previous post? I believe atheism leads to subjective morality rather than objective morality.

[AgnosticBoy]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

Morality has not been proven to be anything beyond socio-cultural conditioning. All theories that I've encountered suffer from any one of the following problems:
1. Justifying an objective ontology
2. Having an objective epistemology
3. Defining what objective morality means, especially when viewed as part of the Universe overall, instead of just being focused on biology.

I only live as if objective morals exists for practical reasons. However, in a purely intellectual context, such as a debate, I don't pretend to know that one thing is objectively right or wrong.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense. For instance, if you like pistachio flavored ice cream, it isn't helpful to call your tastes "wrong". Morality would be the same. Even trying to judge the action by the harm/help it creates won't work because there are so many different ideas of what is harmful and helpful, again putting harm/help on the level of ice cream flavor you like.

What does ones' belief in God have to do with this? Why can't it be that a God could exist, and there is still no difference between ice cream and genocide?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense. For instance, if you like pistachio flavored ice cream, it isn't helpful to call your tastes "wrong". Morality would be the same. Even trying to judge the action by the harm/help it creates won't work because there are so many different ideas of what is harmful and helpful, again putting harm/help on the level of ice cream flavor you like.

What does ones' belief in God have to do with this? Why can't it be that a God could exist, and there is still no difference between ice cream and genocide?

I didn't say one's belief in God has anything to do with this. Also, I agree that it could be that a god would exist and human morality still be subjective. I've only said that some forms of theism would lead to human morality being objective, not that all forms of theism would.

What I said above, however, is about what morality is if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then there is no difference between those two actions because morality is subjective. Therefore, even if one has an adverse emotional reaction to creatures undergoing harm, one should realize one should rationally be okay with such harm occurring. Do you agree? If not, why not?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense. For instance, if you like pistachio flavored ice cream, it isn't helpful to call your tastes "wrong". Morality would be the same. Even trying to judge the action by the harm/help it creates won't work because there are so many different ideas of what is harmful and helpful, again putting harm/help on the level of ice cream flavor you like.

What does ones' belief in God have to do with this? Why can't it be that a God could exist, and there is still no difference between ice cream and genocide?

I didn't say one's belief in God has anything to do with this. Also, I agree that it could be that a god would exist and human morality still be subjective. I've only said that some forms of theism would lead to human morality being objective, not that all forms of theism would.

What I said above, however, is about what morality is if atheism is true. If atheism is true, then there is no difference between those two actions because morality is subjective. Therefore, even if one has an adverse emotional reaction to creatures undergoing harm, one should realize one should rationally be okay with such harm occurring. Do you agree? If not, why not?

I read that as "if atheism is true=x, under Theism = y." To me, I don't see how a God, especially a belief in God (or not) matter to what is actually moral?

Also, while I lean towards Morals being Subjective, there are arguments that even under Atheism, there may be Objective moral values. The problem is, people fiddle with the definition of what is "Good" and that causes problems. For example, if "Good" means "Don't Harm", them we can talk about Objective Moral values because pain is Objective.

1. If Human flourishing is more beneficial than not, one ought to increase those actions that contribute to flourishing, and limit those actions that don't contribute to flourishing.
2. Flourishing and Harm can be objectively measured in the Human Species.
3. Therefore, with respect to Human Flourishing, there are Objective Goods (morals).

(I was distracted writing this and have to run out, so I'm sure it could be refined, but you get the gist.)

[The Tanager]

I read that as "if atheism is true=x, under Theism = y." To me, I don't see how a God, especially a belief in God (or not) matter to what is actually moral?

I gave the quick version on how God (not a belief in God, but the actual existence of a God) would make morality objective in post 49, if you would like to analyze and discuss this further here.

Also, while I lean towards Morals being Subjective, there are arguments that even under Atheism, there may be Objective moral values. The problem is, people fiddle with the definition of what is "Good" and that causes problems. For example, if "Good" means "Don't Harm", them we can talk about Objective Moral values because pain is Objective.

Defining "good" as "dont harm" is begging the question. This does nothing to rationally support "dont harm" is objectively good.

1. If Human flourishing is more beneficial than not, one ought to increase those actions that contribute to flourishing, and limit those actions that don't contribute to flourishing.
2. Flourishing and Harm can be objectively measured in the Human Species.
3. Therefore, with respect to Human Flourishing, there are Objective Goods (morals).

Why think that it is objectively true that human flourishing is more beneficial than not? More beneficial towards what goal? And why that goal and not some other one?

[boatsnguitars]

I read that as "if atheism is true=x, under Theism = y." To me, I don't see how a God, especially a belief in God (or not) matter to what is actually moral?

I gave the quick version on how God (not a belief in God, but the actual existence of a God) would make morality objective in post 49, if you would like to analyze and discuss this further here.

A God might make it POSSIBLE that Morals are Objective. It's also POSSIBLE that a God could exist AND morals are subjective.
We'd never know, unless we could talk directly with God and He completely explained how objective moral values can only obtain by his existence.
We only have people claiming a God exists and this (alleged) God has set some moral laws that (allegedly) can't be Objective without a God.
All things are possible with God... even Subjective moral values.

Also, while I lean towards Morals being Subjective, there are arguments that even under Atheism, there may be Objective moral values. The problem is, people fiddle with the definition of what is "Good" and that causes problems. For example, if "Good" means "Don't Harm", them we can talk about Objective Moral values because pain is Objective.

Defining "good" as "dont harm" is begging the question. This does nothing to rationally support "dont harm" is objectively good.

I tihkn you beg the question that what God determines is Good is actually Good. I've at least grounded my morals in something we both understand: harm.

1. If Human flourishing is more beneficial than not, one ought to increase those actions that contribute to flourishing, and limit those actions that don't contribute to flourishing.
2. Flourishing and Harm can be objectively measured in the Human Species.
3. Therefore, with respect to Human Flourishing, there are Objective Goods (morals).

Why think that it is objectively true that human flourishing is more beneficial than not? More beneficial towards what goal? And why that goal and not some other one?

Are you suggesting a goal must exist? Isn't that Utilitarianism?

If you would like to argue that more ice cream is Good, then you can. It would be subjective.
If you want to argue that doing what God says is Good, you can. It would be subjective.


I can certainly let you argue that human flourishing isn't Good. Would you say that God's Moral Values are contrary to Humanity?

Do morals exist at all?

[The Tanager]

A God might make it POSSIBLE that Morals are Objective. It's also POSSIBLE that a God could exist AND morals are subjective.

So we agree? I was questioned on if some form of theism could produce an objective human morality if it were true. You are saying that, yes, such a thing is possible, right?

We'd never know, unless we could talk directly with God and He completely explained how objective moral values can only obtain by his existence.

Why would we need that to know?

We only have people claiming a God exists and this (alleged) God has set some moral laws that (allegedly) can't be Objective without a God.

I was doing no such thing here. Im only saying that if God exists, morality could be objective and that if atheism is true, then morality would not be objective. Ive shared why I think atheism cant give us objective morality. You are free to argue why it can.

I tihkn you beg the question that what God determines is Good is actually Good. I've at least grounded my morals in something we both understand: harm.

Whats good? Not harming people? Why is that good? Because you defined good to mean "not harming". Thats clearly begging the question.

How am I doing that same kind of thing in post 49?

Are you suggesting a goal must exist? Isn't that Utilitarianism?

No, its not in this context. Something is only good for some specific aim or goal. For something to flourish there must be a goal one is trying to reach to determine if its flourishing or not.

I can certainly let you argue that human flourishing isn't Good. Would you say that God's Moral Values are contrary to Humanity?

Do morals exist at all?

I dont think God's values are contrary to human flourishing, but thats irrelevant to you defending your claims. And you have the burden to support your reasoning; I dont have the burden of disproving them. So, assuming atheism is true (i.e., I wont say anything about why I think God exists to critique your claim here), support that human flourishing could be objectively good.

If you think, assuming atheism to be true, that morality cant be objectively good, then we are in agreement.

[Compassionist]

Autotrophs don't consume other living things in order to stay alive. Therefore, they are ethical. Heterotrophs consume other living things in order to stay alive. Therefore, they are unethical. Since God allegedly made unethical heterotrophs, God is evil.

Our imperfections harm us. Since God allegedly made us imperfect, God is evil.

Imperfections made 99.9% of all the species to exist so far on Earth go extinct. Since God allegedly made imperfect organisms, God is evil.

Yes, if a 'God' made animals knowing they would have to tear each other apart in order to survive, thereby unnecessarily introducing constant pain and terror to 'his creation,' then such a conscious creator must be an immoral god. Compassionist's question well shows the impossibility of positing a 'good' god as a conscious creator of all life on Earth.

These assume that such causing of pain is immoral. Why do you think that?

Because pain is painful. It's not just pain that I have issues with. I also have issues with injustices and deaths. If God is real and good, he would have made all living things autotrophs, all-knowing, and all-powerful. Then no natural disasters or accidents or illnesses would have harmed any living thing and we could all have lived happily ever after.