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?

[The Tanager]

That's not telling me how he determines that rape is wrong. Certainly you and your god have a reason, right? What is that reason?
You are basically saying that your god provides an objective standard for determining rape is wrong and that objective standard is the creator. How does that make sense?

I’m saying rape is wrong because humans are given (through design and purpose) an objective worth that rape damages. Not only does rape harm the victim from the perspective of their own desires for safety, autonomy, etc. but it involves the rapist treating the victim as something less than they objectively are (in spite of the rapist’s subjective perspective on the matter), a being who is inherently worthy of not having those things violated. A being designed and purposed to not be harmed in that specific way. Unguided social and biological evolution can’t provide this second element.

[Compassionist]

I can't even prove to myself that anything outside my consciousness is real. I can't even prove that I have a body, never mind anything else. Can you prove to me that you exist? Can you prove to me that gods exist?

You have given no rational support for needing the above kind of proof, for 100% certainty. Yet, you keep returning to it as though it is a rational response to my claims here. These refrains you keep returning to are you sharing your conclusions and this move goes against your clear desire to hold rational views. If we both offered arguments and support and simply didn’t convince each other, fine. If you didn’t care about being rational and then simply offered your conclusions, then so be it. But you obviously do care about being rational and then, when the reasoning seems to lead to where you disagree, you just return to your refrain where you list your opinions again. That's inconsistent.

You have offered little support (and I've dealt with why it isn't rational support) for (1) 100% certainty being the standard we should use, (2) the objectivity/subjectivity question is about whether we have our own views or can have a view that is not ours, (3) that God wouldn’t be able to know something objectively, (4) determinism/constrained will is true, and (5) that veganism is more ethical for me as well as you (if you believe it is).

If you are just interested in sharing your conclusions, then fair enough and you’ve done so. I’m interested in also rationally analyzing those conclusions (and my own). I think you clearly are as well. So stop going back to the refrain where you repeat your conclusions without support and address the questions. If you have no answers, then tentatively change your conclusions.

I am an agnostic, not just about the existence of gods but also about the nature of reality. I am an agnostic because I think it is a rational position. I can't figure out how I can know anything objectively. I also can't figure out how anyone else, including gods, would know anything objectively. I am being rational. Ontological idealism is impossible to disprove.

Do identical variables (genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences) cause identical choices? To answer this question I would need to create a large number of identical universes (e.g. one billion) and see what choices are made by organisms and compare them. As I don't have the power to create one billion identical universes I can't run this experiment.

I am not trying to get you or anyone else to agree with me. I exist. I am not sure anyone else even exists. You didn't prove your existence to me. You didn't prove the existence of God or Gods either. I find your claims to be irrational. You keep talking about limited free will when there is no basis for such a limited free will.

I referred you to this video in an earlier post:



I have transcribed the section from 1:25 to 2:51 for your convenience:

Neurobiologists can go and find the neuron in your motor cortex which sent the signal to those muscles to flex and you could find the neurons in what are called the pre-motor cortex which sent signals which triggered that motor cortex to send that signal and you could then find neurons in the frontal cortex that triggered that and find neurons in the pre-frontal cortex that triggered that and neurons in the emotional parts of the brain that triggered those neurons and basically show me the neuron that started that cascade, a neuron that fired that had an action potential for no reason whatsoever – a neuron whose firing was not regulated by the physical laws of the universe, that happened for no prior causal antecedent reason. Show me a neuron that started that and that works that way and then we could talk about free will - you have just shown me some sort of neurobiological building block for free will - and it’s just not there. There is no causeless cause. There is nothing in the biology of our behaviour that just happens from out of nowhere. Every single biological even that we have has a history.

As you can see from the quote above, it is impossible for us to have free will.

[Purple Knight]

That it works out that way because of natural selection. Groups that fall upon one another survive less than groups that don't do that. So you might say, social animals are not supposed to kill their group members... generally.

Why would someone say that? I can understand someone saying “social animals generally do not kill their group members,” but not “social animals generally are not supposed to kill their group members. Moral statements could be descriptive, but why prescriptive?

It's a statement about how morality evolved and what kinds of things (we estimate) disrupt and sabotage what has been built up. If lions routinely killed their own (males do routinely kill, but only in one situation) they could not hunt. They might get a meal here and there but they would not experience the success they do without the pride, which is maintained by lions not killing one another.

Is this enough for you to swear off killing in a world without a god, or would you kill whenever you could get away with it?

Whether an individual would or not isn’t the question. If atheism is true, for various biological and sociological reasons, as of right now, I would not kill whenever I thought I could get away with it, but other people do try to do so, which would also be a result of their biological and sociological history. I can say their actions disagree with mine. But I can’t say their actions are objectively wrong. Their difference of actions are akin to them liking country music to me. I don’t like it; they do. So, to be consistent, I (logically) should treat their moral tastes like I treat their musical tastes. But this isn’t how most people approach moral choices.

This alternative is still dependent on human opinion, just more than one human who shares the opinion. One’s opinion will determine whether they agree the rule is beneficial and, therefore, worth their agreement.

That's true but it frees morality of the requirement that either it is dependent on opinion, and thus subjective and worthless, or potentially just something one person imposes on another unilaterally. If every person has to agree to every moral requirement, it is objective without needing a tyrant.

While it frees one from the tyranny of the one, it clearly doesn’t free morality from being opinion based. It simply becomes the tyranny of the many (at least in terms of power, if not number). I doubt any specific moral rule would be agreed upon by everybody. People reach situations where they want theirs to be the exception and, therefore, aren’t really agreeing with the moral requirement. At that point, in spite of their lip service of agreement, they don’t agree, showing the “objectivity” (which is not objective but just group subjectivity even if all agree) to be groundless and worthless in settling the dispute of ideas that arise.

It also frees from the tyranny of the many, and you can declare that murder is wrong, among however many people agree to it. As for people who don't agree to it, they willingly subject themselves to that which they declare to be permissible. So when one of these opter outers kills you, or Fred, or Danny, or anyone else who agreed that murder was wrong, no your remaining members can't declare he is wrong. You can, however, do to him that which he declares permissible.

So this fellow is not subject to the tyranny of the many. If he thinks killing is good, and he's willing to be killed if someone can and it strikes their fancy, what tyranny is there in that? He is free to opt out of all rules he dislikes, always subjecting himself to that which he declares permissible. There are a few hiccups when it comes to taxation and the like but this works as a moral theory that is both objective, and non-tyrannical. Instead, it is agreement-based.

Declarations of moral wrongness would strictly be for people who agreed and later tried to get away with what they agreed not to do.

[Primaris]

That's not telling me how he determines that rape is wrong. Certainly you and your god have a reason, right? What is that reason?
You are basically saying that your god provides an objective standard for determining rape is wrong and that objective standard is the creator. How does that make sense?

I’m saying rape is wrong because humans are given (through design and purpose) an objective worth that rape damages. Not only does rape harm the victim from the perspective of their own desires for safety, autonomy, etc. but it involves the rapist treating the victim as something less than they objectively are (in spite of the rapist’s subjective perspective on the matter), a being who is inherently worthy of not having those things violated. A being designed and purposed to not be harmed in that specific way. Unguided social and biological evolution can’t provide this second element.

Well, what's gods reason?

[Miles]

That's not telling me how he determines that rape is wrong. Certainly you and your god have a reason, right? What is that reason?
You are basically saying that your god provides an objective standard for determining rape is wrong and that objective standard is the creator. How does that make sense?

I’m saying rape is wrong because humans are given (through design and purpose) an objective worth that rape damages. Not only does rape harm the victim from the perspective of their own desires for safety, autonomy, etc. but it involves the rapist treating the victim as something less than they objectively are (in spite of the rapist’s subjective perspective on the matter), a being who is inherently worthy of not having those things violated. A being designed and purposed to not be harmed in that specific way. Unguided social and biological evolution can’t provide this second element.

Well, what's gods reason?

In view of god's use of rape as recorded in the Bible, I'd say he's all for it.

Numbers 31:9-18 NLT
9 Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. 11 After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, 12 they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. 13 Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains[a] who had returned from the battle. 15 “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. 16 “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people. 17 So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. 18 Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Clearly Moses and God approves of raping virgins. But there's more murder Rape and pillage:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Then there's god's law of rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God. Then there's David’s punishment – The rape of his wives.

2 Samuel 12:11-14
Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’-

And more Spoils of War

Judges 5:30
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

Think the only thing these captured damsels did was cook and clean? Yeah, sure.

Nope, beside the fact that next to murder rape is most heinous act one can preform on another human god doesn't appear to have any problem with it. "You've earned it. Rape away."

.

[Compassionist]

That's not telling me how he determines that rape is wrong. Certainly you and your god have a reason, right? What is that reason?
You are basically saying that your god provides an objective standard for determining rape is wrong and that objective standard is the creator. How does that make sense?

I’m saying rape is wrong because humans are given (through design and purpose) an objective worth that rape damages. Not only does rape harm the victim from the perspective of their own desires for safety, autonomy, etc. but it involves the rapist treating the victim as something less than they objectively are (in spite of the rapist’s subjective perspective on the matter), a being who is inherently worthy of not having those things violated. A being designed and purposed to not be harmed in that specific way. Unguided social and biological evolution can’t provide this second element.

Well, what's gods reason?

In view of god's use of rape as recorded in the Bible, I'd say he's all for it.

Numbers 31:9-18 NLT
9 Then the Israelite army captured the Midianite women and children and seized their cattle and flocks and all their wealth as plunder. 10 They burned all the towns and villages where the Midianites had lived. 11 After they had gathered the plunder and captives, both people and animals, 12 they brought them all to Moses and Eleazar the priest, and to the whole community of Israel, which was camped on the plains of Moab beside the Jordan River, across from Jericho. 13 Moses, Eleazar the priest, and all the leaders of the community went to meet them outside the camp. 14 But Moses was furious with all the generals and captains[a] who had returned from the battle. 15 “Why have you let all the women live?” he demanded. 16 “These are the very ones who followed Balaam’s advice and caused the people of Israel to rebel against the Lord at Mount Peor. They are the ones who caused the plague to strike the Lord’s people. 17 So kill all the boys and all the women who have had intercourse with a man. 18 Only the young girls who are virgins may live; you may keep them for yourselves.

Clearly Moses and God approves of raping virgins. But there's more murder Rape and pillage:

Deuteronomy 20:10-14
As you approach a town to attack it, first offer its people terms for peace. If they accept your terms and open the gates to you, then all the people inside will serve you in forced labor. But if they refuse to make peace and prepare to fight, you must attack the town. When the LORD your God hands it over to you, kill every man in the town. But you may keep for yourselves all the women, children, livestock, and other plunder. You may enjoy the spoils of your enemies that the LORD your God has given you.

Then there's god's law of rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29
If a man is caught in the act of raping a young woman who is not engaged, he must pay fifty pieces of silver to her father. Then he must marry the young woman because he violated her, and he will never be allowed to divorce her.

What kind of lunatic would make a rape victim marry her attacker? Answer: God. Then there's David’s punishment – The rape of his wives.

2 Samuel 12:11-14
Thus says the Lord: ‘I will bring evil upon you out of your own house. I will take your wives while you live to see it, and will give them to your neighbor. He shall lie with your wives in broad daylight. You have done this deed in secret, but I will bring it about in the presence of all Israel, and with the sun looking down.’-

And more Spoils of War

Judges 5:30
They must be dividing the spoils they took: there must be a damsel or two for each man, Spoils of dyed cloth as Sisera’s spoil, an ornate shawl or two for me in the spoil.

Think the only thing these captured damsels did was cook and clean? Yeah, sure.

Nope, beside the fact that next to murder rape is most heinous act one can preform on another human god doesn't appear to have any problem with it. "You've earned it. Rape away."

.

I totally agree with you. The Biblical God is evil and imaginary. Please see https://www.evilbible.com and https://skepticsannotatedbible.com/all/cr_list.html for more evil conduct by God and his followers.

[JoeyKnothead]

If free will was really a thing, how come I can't put our feet up on the coffee table?

Free will is a bit of an illusion. I can't just up and fly to Alpha Centari.

But I can take the trash out every chance I get.

[The Tanager]

I am an agnostic, not just about the existence of gods but also about the nature of reality. I am an agnostic because I think it is a rational position. I can't figure out how I can know anything objectively. I also can't figure out how anyone else, including gods, would know anything objectively. I am being rational. Ontological idealism is impossible to disprove.

For your agnosticism to be a rational position you first need to rationally support why 100% certainty should be the standard. You’ve only asserted this; you haven’t offered a rational argument for it.

I offered an argument as to why a creator (such as God) would necessarily know something objectively. Your critique was that subjective means “existing within the mind,” so anything that a being thought or even created, by definition, would be non-objective. I shared why that confuses having an opinion about a claim with whether the type of claim is objective or subjective. You responded with just restating that subjective means what you think it means. The objective-subjective debate isn’t about that kind of “subjectivity” at all.

That ontological idealism is impossible to disprove doesn’t matter; that doesn’t mean it should be believed true.

Do identical variables (genes, environments, nutrients, and experiences) cause identical choices? To answer this question I would need to create a large number of identical universes (e.g. one billion) and see what choices are made by organisms and compare them. As I don't have the power to create one billion identical universes I can't run this experiment.

Yet you keep asserting an answer to this question, namely, that identical variables do cause identical choices.

I am not trying to get you or anyone else to agree with me. I exist. I am not sure anyone else even exists. You didn't prove your existence to me. You didn't prove the existence of God or Gods either. I find your claims to be irrational.

You may find them irrational, but you aren’t showing them irrational.

You keep talking about limited free will when there is no basis for such a limited free will.

You have not even attempted to show such a thing is logically impossible; you just write it off with no actual reason for doing so. As to the basis for it, you have the burden of proving determinism because you made the positive claim that determinism is true; it’s not that limited free will must be proven true or determinism is true.

I have transcribed the section from 1:25 to 2:51 for your convenience:

Neurobiologists can go and find the neuron in your motor cortex which sent the signal to those muscles to flex and you could find the neurons in what are called the pre-motor cortex which sent signals which triggered that motor cortex to send that signal and you could then find neurons in the frontal cortex that triggered that and find neurons in the pre-frontal cortex that triggered that and neurons in the emotional parts of the brain that triggered those neurons and basically show me the neuron that started that cascade, a neuron that fired that had an action potential for no reason whatsoever – a neuron whose firing was not regulated by the physical laws of the universe, that happened for no prior causal antecedent reason. Show me a neuron that started that and that works that way and then we could talk about free will - you have just shown me some sort of neurobiological building block for free will - and it’s just not there. There is no causeless cause. There is nothing in the biology of our behaviour that just happens from out of nowhere. Every single biological even that we have has a history.

As you can see from the quote above, it is impossible for us to have free will.

He is equating “free will” with randomness here, which it isn’t. Free will doesn’t mean there was a neuron that fired for “no reason whatsoever”.

You have still shared no good reasons to believe 100% certainty is the standard, that the subjective-objective debate is about the way you define “subjectivity”, that God wouldn’t be able to know something objectively, that determinism is true, and that veganism is more ethical for me as well as for you.

[The Tanager]

It's a statement about how morality evolved and what kinds of things (we estimate) disrupt and sabotage what has been built up. If lions routinely killed their own (males do routinely kill, but only in one situation) they could not hunt. They might get a meal here and there but they would not experience the success they do without the pride, which is maintained by lions not killing one another.

But why call this what animals are supposed to do? Supposed to do if they are to have a better chance at surviving? Okay. But that’s not morality. If there is a situation where they would need to kill in order to have a better chance at surviving, then this would be what they are “supposed to do” rather than what you just called “morality”,

It also frees from the tyranny of the many, and you can declare that murder is wrong, among however many people agree to it. As for people who don't agree to it, they willingly subject themselves to that which they declare to be permissible. So when one of these opter outers kills you, or Fred, or Danny, or anyone else who agreed that murder was wrong, no your remaining members can't declare he is wrong. You can, however, do to him that which he declares permissible.

So this fellow is not subject to the tyranny of the many. If he thinks killing is good, and he's willing to be killed if someone can and it strikes their fancy, what tyranny is there in that? He is free to opt out of all rules he dislikes, always subjecting himself to that which he declares permissible. There are a few hiccups when it comes to taxation and the like but this works as a moral theory that is both objective, and non-tyrannical. Instead, it is agreement-based.

How is this objective? You said you can’t declare he is wrong; it’s just that some people got together and shared some opinions and are now holding each other to those shared opinions, if they have the power to do so.

Declarations of moral wrongness would strictly be for people who agreed and later tried to get away with what they agreed not to do.

So no one could ever change their moral opinion? Any change would be them becoming morally wrong?

[The Tanager]

Well, what's gods reason?

God’s reason for designing and purposing humans this particular way, to where raping another human is objectively harmful? Because of God's eternal nature just being that way.