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?

[Compassionist]

[Replying to Diogenes in post #69]

I totally agree with you.

[boatsnguitars]

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. I’m only saying that if God exists, morality could be objective and that if atheism is true, then morality would not be objective. I’ve shared why I think atheism can’t 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.

What’s good? Not harming people? Why is that good? Because you defined good to mean "not harming". That’s 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, it’s 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 it’s 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 don’t think God's values are contrary to human flourishing, but that’s irrelevant to you defending your claims. And you have the burden to support your reasoning; I don’t have the burden of disproving them. So, assuming atheism is true (i.e., I won’t 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 can’t be objectively good, then we are in agreement.

No, I think it's possible that if Atheism is true, there could be Objective moral values. I'd argue that in the same way someone argues for the sudden and inexplicable existence of an Omni-Being, I'd argue the same could be the case for Moral Values. I see no reason to discount that our Universe popped into existence and, for no reason other than it could happen, it has Objective Moral values. They could be completely unknown to us, but they could be "written" in the very nature of Reality and embodied in us, or some other creature that is capable of enforcing them, even if they don't understand why. A kind of Karma.

I don't believe this to be the case, but I do think it's an option. Since it's more simple than a God (which includes Objective Moral Values and a host of other attributes), it's more likely than a God. Still highly unlikely, though, but who's to say what the odds are? What is likely or unlikely with a data set of 1?

[Purple Knight]

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?

Consider that you've just deduced that it's really not anything's fault that it is evil.

You can construct an obligation to suicide but that's very dangerous because it is now the autotrophs which are inflicting pain and death on everyone else through their moral system. If we had this moral system where everything that arises without the ability to feed itself off sunlight must kill itself, an alien looking down on that planet of death-by-guilt-herbivore-genociders would conclude that the trees were the problem, because one herbivore arose, and then the trees forced him to die. The alien might look at the trees, unwilling to share some of their leaves with the parasites who can feed without killing, and then really get the idea that the trees were evil incarnate.

[boatsnguitars]

If you think, assuming atheism to be true, that morality can’t be objectively good, then we are in agreement.

See my previous post about why we could have Objective Moral Values under Atheism.

But, I can't help but notice a little issue with your phrasing.

You say, under atheism, "morality can’t be objectively good". Well, under one view, not only can't they be Good, Morals can't be Bad either, and, more importantly, the very concept of Good and Bad is irrelevant. So, to say there is something bad (or good) about not having objective morals is incoherent. (I believe you agree).

If this is an Atheistic Universe (and there are no Objective moral values), we are expressing our preferences when we talk about Good and Evil, but holds no more weight than that. That is, if there are no Objective Moral Values, then there is no ability to say it's not Good to have Subjective morals. It just is what it is. Having a feeling that Subjective morals being bad is simply a feeling.

However, that doesn't change our feeling about what is good and bad, and doesn't - necessarily - remove our obligations to act certain ways. Clearly, stabbing people randomly in a crowd works counter to their goals as human beings. Calling it Good or Evil is less important than the actual affect it has on an individual. (After all, a religious zealot could be doing it because they think it's Good, and how would we know if it is or not?)

The Slaughter of the Canaanites : Good or Evil? Can't say, but we can - at least - comment on the affect it had on the people, their families, etc.) We can call it Evil (as we generally call genocide), but Christians often disagree - despite believing there are Objective Moral Values.

So, two things:

1. Moral Realism is a debate within Philosophy:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Also:
https://plato.stanford.edu/search/search?query=Moral

2. Moral Realism is not agreed on by Philosophers. Since they are the professionals who do this every day, we'd be unwise to pick a position and presume we're right:
https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

Meta-ethics: moral realism or moral anti-realism?
Accept or lean toward: moral realism 525 / 931 (56.4%)
Accept or lean toward: moral anti-realism 258 / 931 (27.7%)
Other 148 / 931 (15.9%)

Moral judgment: cognitivism or non-cognitivism?
Accept or lean toward: cognitivism 612 / 931 (65.7%)
Other 161 / 931 (17.3%)
Accept or lean toward: non-cognitivism 158 / 931 (17.0%)

Moral motivation: internalism or externalism?
Other 329 / 931 (35.3%)
Accept or lean toward: internalism 325 / 931 (34.9%)
Accept or lean toward: externalism 277 / 931 (29.8%)

Normative ethics: deontology, consequentialism, or virtue ethics?
Other 301 / 931 (32.3%)
Accept or lean toward: deontology 241 / 931 (25.9%)
Accept or lean toward: consequentialism 220 / 931 (23.6%)
Accept or lean toward: virtue ethics 169 / 931 (18.2%)

Interestingly, the vast majority of Philosophers lean towards Atheism, yet, they still lean slightly towards Moral Realism.

God: theism or atheism?
Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.6%)

So, my answer: I don't know, but I can try to understand all the arguments for and against. But, I can't agree with your claim that if Atheism is true, Morality can't be Objectively Good.

[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?

Consider that you've just deduced that it's really not anything's fault that it is evil.

You can construct an obligation to suicide but that's very dangerous because it is now the autotrophs which are inflicting pain and death on everyone else through their moral system. If we had this moral system where everything that arises without the ability to feed itself off sunlight must kill itself, an alien looking down on that planet of death-by-guilt-herbivore-genociders would conclude that the trees were the problem, because one herbivore arose, and then the trees forced him to die. The alien might look at the trees, unwilling to share some of their leaves with the parasites who can feed without killing, and then really get the idea that the trees were evil incarnate.

I agree with you. I would never create an obligation to commit suicide because one is not an autotroph. I am an egalitarian. I want all living things to be forever happy. I think we can achieve this by making all living things autotrophs and all-knowing and all-powerful. Sadly, I don't have the power to implement my solution.

[The Tanager]

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.

This is just begging the question. You are saying pain is bad because it is pain. Why is the causing of all pain bad? You are doing the same with injustice and death. You are just claiming it’s bad without any foundation for doing so.

[The Tanager]

No, I think it's possible that if Atheism is true, there could be Objective moral values. I'd argue that in the same way someone argues for the sudden and inexplicable existence of an Omni-Being, I'd argue the same could be the case for Moral Values. I see no reason to discount that our Universe popped into existence and, for no reason other than it could happen, it has Objective Moral values. They could be completely unknown to us, but they could be "written" in the very nature of Reality and embodied in us, or some other creature that is capable of enforcing them, even if they don't understand why. A kind of Karma.

Can you lay out your argument more clearly? Are you just saying it could be an unexplainable brute fact? There is just this thing called goodness out there that some things have and others don’t? It sounds like you might just be saying “such could be the case, but we have no reason for thinking it is the case”. If so, I don’t see why that is a rational position. To hold.

You say, under atheism, "morality can’t be objectively good". Well, under one view, not only can't they be Good, Morals can't be Bad either, and, more importantly, the very concept of Good and Bad is irrelevant. So, to say there is something bad (or good) about not having objective morals is incoherent. (I believe you agree).

There is a difference between saying something is morally good/bad and rationally good/bad. But, in saying that, I’m not saying subjective morals are rationally worse than objective morals. I’m saying atheists need to act consistent with their beliefs; to not do so is rationally worse than to act consistent with one’s beliefs.

However, that doesn't change our feeling about what is good and bad, and doesn't - necessarily - remove our obligations to act certain ways. Clearly, stabbing people randomly in a crowd works counter to their goals as human beings. Calling it Good or Evil is less important than the actual affect it has on an individual. (After all, a religious zealot could be doing it because they think it's Good, and how would we know if it is or not?)

It’s not an obligation, though, it’s a personal choice. If someone thinks their goals are better served by stabbing a random person, then why ought they not do that (if atheism is true)?

2. Moral Realism is not agreed on by Philosophers. Since they are the professionals who do this every day, we'd be unwise to pick a position and presume we're right:

We’ve already had this discussion and I’ve shared why I would disagree with this statement. Philosophy is not an area where a consensus should be expected and, therefore, we’d be unwise to wait on such a thing before trying to pick and (tentatively hold) a position on the issues. I haven’t seen a response to you about why we should still wait on a consensus here.

[Compassionist]

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.

This is just begging the question. You are saying pain is bad because it is pain. Why is the causing of all pain bad? You are doing the same with injustice and death. You are just claiming it’s bad without any foundation for doing so.

The foundation is my thoughts. I think they are bad, therefore, they are bad. I already quoted Shakespeare in an earlier post: "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Knowledge and morality are both subjective. I don't blame the murderers who murdered my relatives. I don't blame the kidnapper who kidnapped me. I don' blame the rapist who raped me. They were all prisoners of causality who were doing what was inevitable. We are all doomed to suffer and die. No God is going to save us from suffering and death.

[The Tanager]

The foundation is my thoughts. I think they are bad, therefore, they are bad. I already quoted Shakespeare in an earlier post: "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Knowledge and morality are both subjective. I don't blame the murderers who murdered my relatives. I don't blame the kidnapper who kidnapped me. I don' blame the rapist who raped me. They were all prisoners of causality who were doing what was inevitable. We are all doomed to suffer and die. No God is going to save us from suffering and death.

Oh, so by saying they are "bad" you simply mean that they don't agree with your personal taste. Thus, you are only saying that God, if such a being existed and created a world with these things in them, that you would have done something differently. God's choice isn't worse, just different than what you would have done? Are you faulting God for that choice? Are you saying that a being with free will should be faulted for making a different choice than one particular being would have made? If so, why?

[Compassionist]

The foundation is my thoughts. I think they are bad, therefore, they are bad. I already quoted Shakespeare in an earlier post: "Nothing is either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." Knowledge and morality are both subjective. I don't blame the murderers who murdered my relatives. I don't blame the kidnapper who kidnapped me. I don' blame the rapist who raped me. They were all prisoners of causality who were doing what was inevitable. We are all doomed to suffer and die. No God is going to save us from suffering and death.

Oh, so by saying they are "bad" you simply mean that they don't agree with your personal taste. Thus, you are only saying that God, if such a being existed and created a world with these things in them, that you would have done something differently. God's choice isn't worse, just different than what you would have done? Are you faulting God for that choice? Are you saying that a being with free will should be faulted for making a different choice than one particular being would have made? If so, why?

I was not talking about taste. Taste is about what flavour of ice-cream you like. I am talking about what is good and what is evil, what is right and what is wrong. I think that murder, kidnapping, rape, torture, robbery, theft, fraud, etc, are evil and wrong. I think that saving lives and improving lives are good and right. These are my thoughts. Biological organisms don't have free will. Therefore, we should not punish them for their evil actions or reward them for their good actions. We should instead help all biological organisms to be good by changing the variables that caused them to be evil.

Please see