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?

[JoeyKnothead]

In my opinion, child abuse is wrong. I have no means to place that opinion in an objective context.

Now we consider the abuser, who by their action shows they're fine with it.

…Let’s talk about morality in the same way.

We can frame hypotheticals to produce any desired outcome, and find such "iffing" will not be a reliable determinant of an objective moral value.

I'll snip the rest of the ifothetical.

You said “I have no means to place that opinion in an objective context.” I just helped you do that. It’s fine if you don’t want to address the issue.

That's kinda my point here. When it comes to morality, the only objective claim is that it's subjective

Of course explaining this to a Christian is gonna be a struggle, when the bible declares atheists can do no good. And don't it beat all, that too is merely an opinion.

[Miles]

In my opinion, child abuse is wrong. I have no means to place that opinion in an objective context.

Now we consider the abuser, who by their action shows they're fine with it.

…Let’s talk about morality in the same way.

We can frame hypotheticals to produce any desired outcome, and find such "iffing" will not be a reliable determinant of an objective moral value.

I'll snip the rest of the ifothetical.

You said “I have no means to place that opinion in an objective context.” I just helped you do that. It’s fine if you don’t want to address the issue.

That's kinda my point here. When it comes to morality, the only objective claim is that it's subjective

Of course explaining this to a Christian is gonna be a struggle, when the bible declares atheists can do no good. And don't it beat all, that too is merely an opinion.

No, No, No, That's god's own objective declaration. Don't you recall him saying in Proverbs 30:5 "Every word of [mine] proves true?

In any case.

Psalms 14:1
Only fools think there is no God.
People like that are evil and do terrible things.
They never do what is right.

Psalms 53:1
Only fools think there is no God.
People like that are evil and do terrible things.
They never do what is right.

See. It's so true that god had to pound it home a second time. . . . Or else he forgot he had already said it. Hmmm . . . .

Fortunately I'm not an atheist who doesn't think there's a god, but merely an atheist who lacks convincing evidence he exists.


Whew! And to think I just squeaked by being evil, doing terrible things, and never doing what is right.

I'm a good atheist after all! Or at least not a fool.



.

[The Tanager]

You believe it to be the case. It is not.
How does the act of creation necessarily provides specific objective nature and purpose?

Again, if the BB created us all, then there is an inherent objective nature and purpose, though it may not be what you want it to be. And, in fact, you argue quite vociferously that we don't have to know what the OMVs are, only that they would entail through the act of creation.

Again, if the BB created us all, then there is an inherent objective nature and purpose, though it may not be what you want it to be.

The BB provides an objective nature, but not a purpose. Purpose comes from intentional agents. The BB is not an intentional agent.

As an intentional agent, you could create something with an objective nature and purpose.

The definition of subjective is not “depends on the creator”. A house is not a subjective feature of reality, but it “depends on the creator”.

You keep saying that word (logically). I do not think it means what you think it means.
Provide a syllogism.

P1. If object X comes into existence, then a specific nature (it’s either a cat or a non-cat, black or non-black, etc.) comes into existence
P2. An act of creation is the bringing into existence of object X
P3. Therefore, an act of creation is the bringing into existence of a specific nature
P4. A specific nature is a synonym for objective nature
P5. Therefore, an act of creation is the bringing into existence of an objective nature

Q1. If something is created by an intentional agent, then there is a specific reason for which something is created
Q2. A specific reason for which something is created is what we mean by “objective purpose”
Q3. Therefore, if something is created by an intentional agent, then there is an objective purpose for which something is created

So, now it's not just the act of creation, but it's the intentional act of creating purpose and objective nature. At some point, when will you realize you are defining your God as an "OMV maker" like my fairies?

I’ve always said it’s the intentional act of creation that gives objective nature and purpose. I’m not just defining my God as OMV maker; I’m simply following accepted definitions.

But, let's pull the thread. Yes, let's - for the sake of argument - say the Universe created us with an objective nature, and the purpose is to reproduce. To multiply. To grow. Just as the BB had to grow, it imbued the Universe with one "thought" (not a conscious one, but a forceful objective dictate: Order or become chaos.

It's one moral value is that we must do everything we can to multiple. Stars, planets, cells, atoms, etc. are all under this dictate. If you don't, you go extinct, and descend into chaos.

I don't believe this for a second, but I do think it satisfies your moral theory.

If the Universe is intentional, yes. How, on atheism is the Universe intentional?

How do you know?!?!!? You have claimed up and down that we can't know. Now you're just asserting! Stop it!

You are trying to derive and ought from an "is", but even the "is" is questionable. The evidence is equal that we are here to suffer.

I’m sorry, I thought the context was understood, that you were asking me “if ‘avoiding unneeded suffering’ is the objective truth, then why on your moral theory would this be objectively true?” We have to talk about an example. In doing so, we aren’t necessarily committed to that being true; that’s a separate question. We could use a different example.

No, I’ve said this is a different question and refused to move to that good but different question. It’s not helpful for the question one is discussing to just move to a different question. At best it ignores the question one was discussing and, at worst, causes confusion in the question one is discussing.

How convenient...

The alternative is that it is helpful (in a rational way) to change the question under discussion in order to answer the initial question. That’s just silly.

[The Tanager]

That's kinda my point here. When it comes to morality, the only objective claim is that it's subjective

Yes, you’ve made that unsupported claim various times.

Of course explaining this to a Christian is gonna be a struggle, when the bible declares atheists can do no good. And don't it beat all, that too is merely an opinion.

The Bible does not say that. Look at the order of the phrase itself. It says the fool (the immoral person) says there is no God. It does not say the one who says there is no God is a fool (an immoral person). That’s a big difference. All cats are mammals. Not all mammals are cats.

But look further than that, because it isn't saying that theists can't be immoral. In context, the point is that people who do immoral things (whether they are theists or atheists) are acting as though God doesn't exist because God cares about us treating each other morally; to treat others immorally is to go against God.

[JoeyKnothead]

That's kinda my point here. When it comes to morality, the only objective claim is that it's subjective

Yes, you’ve made that unsupported claim various times.

Of course explaining this to a Christian is gonna be a struggle, when the bible declares atheists can do no good. And don't it beat all, that too is merely an opinion.

The Bible does not say that. Look at the order of the phrase itself. It says the fool (the immoral person) says there is no God. It does not say the one who says there is no God is a fool (an immoral person). That’s a big difference. All cats are mammals. Not all mammals are cats.

But look further than that, because it isn't saying that theists can't be immoral. In context, the point is that people who do immoral things (whether they are theists or atheists) are acting as though God doesn't exist because God cares about us treating each other morally; to treat others immorally is to go against God.

Of course, keep statements opaque enough and they can be spun around like a wind vane in a tornado.

I challenge anyone to show a god cares about the doings of humans.

[boatsnguitars]

P1. If object X comes into existence, then a specific nature (it’s either a cat or a non-cat, black or non-black, etc.) comes into existence
P2. An act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of object X (Universe)
P3. Therefore, an act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of a specific nature (The specific qualities of the Universe)
P4. A specific nature (The specific qualities of the Universe) is a synonym for objective nature (The specific qualities of the Universe=Objective nature)
P5. Therefore, an act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of an objective nature (The specific qualities of the Universe=Objective nature)

Rephrased: The BB brought about the Objective properties of the Universe.

P1. If the BB created the universe, then it brought into existence it's objective nature (from P5 above)
P2. Properties of created things are objective.
C1. Therefore, Moral values are properties of the universe and are objective.

Tanager will claim that the AoC must be intentional, though that was not in the syllogism (He is smuggling in the idea by presuming "creation" must have intention). He may also argue that God must have caused the BB. These arguments have been around for millennia and I don't expect Tanager to crack this nut in our respective lifetimes.

I'll also note that his example of creation is a clue to how he thinks about creation: That God says "Let there be a black cat!" And there was a black cat, and it was good.

He doesn't seem to accept that creation can include the slow evolution of a black cat from the billions of years of energy particles coalescing into novel structures, and therefore, that cats weren't intentionally created to have a purpose - or humans. This would undermine his argument and therefore, he will ignore it.

However, I will point out, using his syllogism, I "proved" OMV's can obtain in an atheistic universe.

[JoeyKnothead]

P1. If object X comes into existence, then a specific nature (it’s either a cat or a non-cat, black or non-black, etc.) comes into existence
P2. An act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of object X (Universe)
P3. Therefore, an act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of a specific nature (The specific qualities of the Universe)
P4. A specific nature (The specific qualities of the Universe) is a synonym for objective nature (The specific qualities of the Universe=Objective nature)
P5. Therefore, an act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of an objective nature (The specific qualities of the Universe=Objective nature)

Rephrased: The BB brought about the Objective properties of the Universe.

Therefore, if moral values are a part of the universe, they are objective qualities.


Tanager will claim that the AoC must be intentional, though that was not in the syllogism (He is smuggling in the idea by presuming "creation" must have intention.). He will also argue that God must have caused the BB. These arguments have been around for millennia and I don't expect Tanager to crack this nut in our respective lifetimes.

I'll also note that his example of creation is a clue to how he thinks about creation: That God says "Let there be a black cat!" And there was a black cat, and it was good.

He doesn't seem to accept that creation can include the slow evolution of a black cat from the billions of years of energy particles coalescing into novel structures, and therefore, that cats weren't intentionally created to have a purpose - or humans. This would undermine his argument and therefore, he will ignore it.

So we see, we can't even confirm a god's involvement, much less to know what that god considers 'objectively' good or bad, as if his opinion we're the be all and end all of objective thought on the matter.

All we'll ever get in this regard are opinions, and little to nothing more.

[boatsnguitars]

P1. If object X comes into existence, then a specific nature (it’s either a cat or a non-cat, black or non-black, etc.) comes into existence
P2. An act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of object X (Universe)
P3. Therefore, an act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of a specific nature (The specific qualities of the Universe)
P4. A specific nature (The specific qualities of the Universe) is a synonym for objective nature (The specific qualities of the Universe=Objective nature)
P5. Therefore, an act of creation (BB) is the bringing into existence of an objective nature (The specific qualities of the Universe=Objective nature)

Rephrased: The BB brought about the Objective properties of the Universe.

Therefore, if moral values are a part of the universe, they are objective qualities.


Tanager will claim that the AoC must be intentional, though that was not in the syllogism (He is smuggling in the idea by presuming "creation" must have intention.). He will also argue that God must have caused the BB. These arguments have been around for millennia and I don't expect Tanager to crack this nut in our respective lifetimes.

I'll also note that his example of creation is a clue to how he thinks about creation: That God says "Let there be a black cat!" And there was a black cat, and it was good.

He doesn't seem to accept that creation can include the slow evolution of a black cat from the billions of years of energy particles coalescing into novel structures, and therefore, that cats weren't intentionally created to have a purpose - or humans. This would undermine his argument and therefore, he will ignore it.

So we see, we can't even confirm a god's involvement, much less to know what that god considers 'objectively' good or bad, as if his opinion we're the be all and end all of objective thought on the matter.

All we'll ever get in this regard are opinions, and little to nothing more.

Yep. He wants to assert "God did it" but he knows that doesn't fly as a serious argument, so he's invented rules the universe must abide by to fulfill his religious view.
He no doubt - and I'm serious - will claim that while God created the BB, he also carefully crafted, nudged, finessed and cajoled the universe to grow over billions of years, then, at some point, he created Life, then he let evolution progress for a few more billion years, and then about 500,000 years ago:

God said, "Let there be: Black Cat (or Human)!"

And Tanager says, "See! God created it! Voila! He did it with perfect intention! Bow to the awesome power of God's creative abilities! (and ignore the billions of species that were cast aside via extinction in the process)."

And, because of all this, Tanager believes God clearly has very specific moral values that his Creation must adhere to, though we don't know what they are, but he's convinced they exist because he's convinced God created everything.

Just like he learned in Sunday School when he was 5.

[The Tanager]

Rephrased: The BB brought about the Objective properties of the Universe.

P1. If the BB created the universe, then it brought into existence it's objective nature (from P5 above)
P2. Properties of created things are objective.
C1. Therefore, Moral values are properties of the universe and are objective.

Tanager will claim that the AoC must be intentional, though that was not in the syllogism (He is smuggling in the idea by presuming "creation" must have intention).

Lets make sure we understand the context correctly. I have said the definitions of (1) an act of creation and (2) intentional creation logically leads us to the thing created having (3) an objective nature and (4) an objective purpose and that (3) and (4) is one way to get to (5) morality being objective.

Argument P established the connection of (1) and (3). But that’s not enough to get to (5). You need argument Q (the syllogism you seemingly ignored) as well. No smuggling anything in, but the syllogisms you asked me for.

Argument Q doesn’t even rule out non-intentional agents from giving something an objective purpose, but you didn’t ask me to provide a syllogism for that. Here is one for that:

R1. If something is created by a non-intentional agent, then there is no specific reason for which that something is created.
R2. A specific reason for which something is created is what we mean by “objective purpose”
R3. Therefore, if something is created by a non-intentional agent, then there is no objective purpose for which that something is created.

Then, if you don’t see how it all leads to (5), here is that syllogism:

S1. If the moral agent has an objective nature and objective purpose, then morality is objective.

A1. To have objective benefit and harm for all moral agents of a kind, those moral agents must have the same objective nature because subjective natures would lead to different benefits for different natures.
A2. To have objective benefit and harm for all moral agents of a kind, those moral agents must also have the same objective purpose because subjective purposes would produce different goals from which our measurement of benefits and harms would also have to be different.

S2. The moral agent has an objective nature (from argument P)
S3. The moral agent has an objective purpose (from argument Q)
S4. Therefore, the moral agent has an objective nature and objective purpose
S5. Therefore, morality is objective.

He may also argue that God must have caused the BB. These arguments have been around for millennia and I don't expect Tanager to crack this nut in our respective lifetimes.

That would be irrelevant to this discussion, so, no, I’m not going to argue that.

I'll also note that his example of creation is a clue to how he thinks about creation: That God says "Let there be a black cat!" And there was a black cat, and it was good.

He doesn't seem to accept that creation can include the slow evolution of a black cat from the billions of years of energy particles coalescing into novel structures, and therefore, that cats weren't intentionally created to have a purpose - or humans. This would undermine his argument and therefore, he will ignore it.

I have said nothing about how I think about how creation of specific things came about and you don’t know, so this is clearly (at best) a simple misunderstanding of the discussion. In fact, I do think creation can be through slow evolution in this way. If that evolution is set off by an intentional agent, then there is still purpose behind it. Not in the sense of purposing every single detail, but definitely in the purpose of what kinds of beings there are going to be and if any of them are or will become moral agents at some point.

However, I will point out, using his syllogism, I "proved" OMV's can obtain in an atheistic universe.

No, you didn’t. You only focused on argument P, but argument Q is needed as well. You’d have to assert that the Universe is an intentional agent. Is that what you are saying?

Your last post is more empty rhetoric. You say all that to not have to deal with my actual argument that you asked for and I gave. Deal with the arguments instead of trying to guess what I believe on those irrelevant pieces and how I grew up a Christian (which I didn’t become until after high school, by the way).

[boatsnguitars]

Rephrased: The BB brought about the Objective properties of the Universe.

P1. If the BB created the universe, then it brought into existence it's objective nature (from P5 above)
P2. Properties of created things are objective.
C1. Therefore, Moral values are properties of the universe and are objective.

Tanager will claim that the AoC must be intentional, though that was not in the syllogism (He is smuggling in the idea by presuming "creation" must have intention).

Lets make sure we understand the context correctly. I have said the definitions of (1) an act of creation and (2) intentional creation logically leads us to the thing created having (3) an objective nature and (4) an objective purpose and that (3) and (4) is one way to get to (5) morality being objective.

Argument P established the connection of (1) and (3). But that’s not enough to get to (5). You need argument Q (the syllogism you seemingly ignored) as well. No smuggling anything in, but the syllogisms you asked me for.

Argument Q doesn’t even rule out non-intentional agents from giving something an objective purpose, but you didn’t ask me to provide a syllogism for that. Here is one for that:

R1. If something is created by a non-intentional agent, then there is no specific reason for which that something is created.
R2. A specific reason for which something is created is what we mean by “objective purpose”
R3. Therefore, if something is created by a non-intentional agent, then there is no objective purpose for which that something is created.

Then, if you don’t see how it all leads to (5), here is that syllogism:

S1. If the moral agent has an objective nature and objective purpose, then morality is objective.

A1. To have objective benefit and harm for all moral agents of a kind, those moral agents must have the same objective nature because subjective natures would lead to different benefits for different natures.
A2. To have objective benefit and harm for all moral agents of a kind, those moral agents must also have the same objective purpose because subjective purposes would produce different goals from which our measurement of benefits and harms would also have to be different.

S2. The moral agent has an objective nature (from argument P)
S3. The moral agent has an objective purpose (from argument Q)
S4. Therefore, the moral agent has an objective nature and objective purpose
S5. Therefore, morality is objective.

He may also argue that God must have caused the BB. These arguments have been around for millennia and I don't expect Tanager to crack this nut in our respective lifetimes.

That would be irrelevant to this discussion, so, no, I’m not going to argue that.

I'll also note that his example of creation is a clue to how he thinks about creation: That God says "Let there be a black cat!" And there was a black cat, and it was good.

He doesn't seem to accept that creation can include the slow evolution of a black cat from the billions of years of energy particles coalescing into novel structures, and therefore, that cats weren't intentionally created to have a purpose - or humans. This would undermine his argument and therefore, he will ignore it.

I have said nothing about how I think about how creation of specific things came about and you don’t know, so this is clearly (at best) a simple misunderstanding of the discussion. In fact, I do think creation can be through slow evolution in this way. If that evolution is set off by an intentional agent, then there is still purpose behind it. Not in the sense of purposing every single detail, but definitely in the purpose of what kinds of beings there are going to be and if any of them are or will become moral agents at some point.

However, I will point out, using his syllogism, I "proved" OMV's can obtain in an atheistic universe.

No, you didn’t. You only focused on argument P, but argument Q is needed as well. You’d have to assert that the Universe is an intentional agent. Is that what you are saying?

Your last post is more empty rhetoric. You say all that to not have to deal with my actual argument that you asked for and I gave. Deal with the arguments instead of trying to guess what I believe on those irrelevant pieces and how I grew up a Christian (which I didn’t become until after high school, by the way).

I really can't understand why you think saying "If God made us, than we have OBVs" needs all this. I doubt many people question it, since they presume God is defined as a Moral Making Faerie.

The problem is, you aren't supporting it. You are doing your darndest to re-state your conclusions, while thinking you are creating some objective argument for OMVs.

My point was that, according to your syllogism, the BB would suffice as a Moral Making Entity. But, you - as I predicted - claimed that the AoC needs to be intentional. I imagine if we are to drill down on what "intentional" means, you would say "done on purpose", meaning and we'd eventually get to you admitting that you mean a Mind, and only a supernatural Mind could have created us, even though the vast scientific data shows that we evolved with no apparent purpose whatsoever.

You are simply. Blindly. Religiously. Asserting that we have purpose because that's what you think we have.

Now, you'd say, "No! I'm only saying "if!" If God exists, If God made the Universe, If God is a OMV making faerie, If God made us, If God wants us to be moral, If God is Good.... then I'm right!"

Sure, buddy, whatever floats your boat.

I'll let you revise your syllogism before I respond to it. Maybe you'll see your errors?

I hope it's obvious to everyone, Tanager is what happens when you try to prove your conclusion by any means necessary, without any attention to counterfactuals, or examples that would challenge the premises. A real cautionary tale in philosophy.