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?

[Bust Nak]

No, I wasn’t. The whole test is comparing ALL moral principles and finding agreement in every case. Your supposed analogy is comparing ALL features of food tastes, finding agreement in some features but not others and then grading only some of those questions.

But I did the same thing as you. The whole test is comparing ALL food principles and finding agreement in every case. The only differences are in application of said principles.

I agree. But if every professional football field you measure (and you measure all you are aware of) has the same dimensions, then this is a good indicator that there is an objective rule about what the field dimensions have to be...

That isn't agreement though, if you ask a whole bunch of people and they tell you the same dimension when asked about the size of professional football field, does support an objective rule?

It depends on how you mean it. Obviously, Super God’s creation of God would have to come from the nature Super God has. That alone doesn’t make it an explanation. Saying it is an explanation, to me, means that there is some reason beyond “Super God with Super God’s nature did it”.

Then how is "God created morality according to his nature" an explanation?

And I think you are wrong. I think I am viewing things through the lens of subjectivism (as something addressing the same issue objectivism does) correctly, while your “subjectivism” is something else. When we talk about food taste being subjective, we’re not talking about any individual’s actual taste on the matter, we’re saying that whether vanilla is good or bad depends on the individual. That’s a general statement that doesn’t make any proclamation about what your or my individual taste on the matter is.

But that's exactly what I am saying, I said morality is a matter of taste just like food taste is a matter of taste; I said "vanilla is tasty" is the same kind of statements as "child abuse is immoral." That's not a proclamation about what how much I love vanilla ice-cream or how much I hate it when children are abused. I also stated that food taste subjectivism make claims about the nature of good/bad flavor, but does not claim "ice-cream is tasty." I have been referring to the nature of good and bad all along.

It seems like you are saying, no, by saying food taste is subjective, we’re saying “Bust Nak thinks vanilla is good and The Tanager thinks vanilla is bad and Johnny thinks…” It seems like you are saying you are a subjectivist about moral tastes and, in that, you mean that “Bust Nak dislikes child abuse and The Tanager dislikes child abuse and Johnny likes child abuse, but Bust Nak and The Tanager don’t like Johnny committing child abuse…”.

It's not just "Bust Nak thinks vanilla is good," on top of that I am also saying the very fact that I, Bust Nak the individual, think it is good, means that it is good. That's the implication of "whether it is good or not depends on the individual."

There are two levels here that I think you are missing. Level 1 has two judges (one and another) making a statement about how vanilla tastes to them. Level 2 has one judge, making a more general statement about how taste interacts with all individual taste judges. Objectivism is a level 2 statement. The subjectivism that addresses the same question must be a level 2 statement. Your subjectivism is a level 1 statement.

Well let this be my declaration that I am making a level 2 statement - a more general statement about how taste interacts with all individual taste judges: Whether something is good or not, depends on individual taste judges.

I think it’s consistent with Level 1 “subjectivism” but not Level 2 “subjectivism”.

For the reason that is currently being debated? That Level 2 "subjectivism" is suppose to imply that "person A must judge the value of person B's action based on person B's taste," right? If so we can just continue the debate below.

You seem to be saying that the value Person A puts on an action is based on Person A’s individual taste. I agree. Same with Person B, Person C, etc. So, from this kind of subjectivism, we have “X is bad to me” and “X is good to him”. Moral preferences exist. A person’s moral preference depends on what they prefer. Of course. Cats exist. What kind of cat they are depends on what kind of cat they are. Of course.

On top of that I've also said morality is a matter of taste/preference/opinion, reiterated a number of ways. Moral preferences exist, the same way food preferences exist. Of course, on top of that I am also say morality is like food taste, they have the same nature.

Oliver the Objectivist (who is Person O, let’s say and so has his own preference about X) then comes in to “do science”. Oliver says that “X is good” apart from any individual opinions on the matter.

Suzie the Subjectivist (who is Person S and has her own preference about X) then disagrees with Oliver. No, “X is not good,” the value of X depends on who is engaging in the act because value depends on individual preferences. Suzie both has a specific view on X, but is making a bigger claim about what the value of X is apart from her view on it and she is saying that the value depends on the subject judging it. She is a level 2 judge that says the value at level 2 depends on who the level 1 judge is. She is not saying my level 1 judgment is the same as my level 2 judgment, because those are different issues.

Okay, I can work with that...

I, Bust Nak, the Subjectivist (who is Person BN and have my own preference about X) partly agree with Suzie. "X is indeed not good," the value of X depends on who is judging the act because value depends on individual preferences. I both have a specific view on X, but am making a bigger claim about what the value of X is apart from my view on it and I am saying that the value depends on the subject judging it. I am a level 2 judge that says the value at level 2 depends on who the level 1 judge is. I am not saying my level 1 judgment is the same as my level 2 judgment, because those are different issues.

While we are here, Suzie the Subjectivist is inconsistent because she claims that "value depends on the subject judging it" and "the value of X depends on who is engaging in the act." It can't be both when the subject judging it is not the same person engaging in the act; more often than not, it's different people.

My taste buds can’t get angry. They disagree with the flavor I’m tasting, but if I’m getting angry, it’s because of the force feeding. If I fed myself the gross flavor, I’d be silly to get angry because I’m choosing it and wouldn’t have to. I'm grossed out, but not angry.

That's why we were talking about being force fed, right? Where you are not choosing it. To step round the moral issue with force feeding, imagine if you have a serious case of COVID and it affected your sense of taste very negatively instead. Would you not get frustrated with the bad taste itself then?

[boatsnguitars]

Yeah, then we're back to your circular reasoning: "if God exists, in the way I define it to exist, and morals are as I define them, and the act of creation is as I say, and they create objective morals, then objective morals exist".

Sure, but what's the point?

We can all do that with anything. It sure ain't doing philosophy. It's sophistry.

The question we’ve been discussing is “what moral theories, if true, would lead to objective morality?” It’s not whether objective morals actually exist. That question requires assuming the truth of the moral theory as presented (if theistic…that God exists in specific ways; if atheistic…that God doesn’t exist, that reality exists in specific ways, such as the socio-biological evolutionary process being an unguided process, etc.). Morality is defined as everyone uses it, something like “principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior” not in any question begging way. The act of creation is defined as everyone uses it, something like “the action or process of bringing something with its nature and characteristics into existence”. Of course this requires the source of the creation of morals, of where morals come from.

The point is then to follow the theories out and see if it leads to morals being objective or subjective. That’s it. It’s simply following the same definitions of the same words and following what the moral theory claims and seeing if that would make morality objective or subjective because that is the very question we’ve been asking. There is no circular reasoning in that. There is no sophistry. It's just following definitions (both of the terms and the theory itself).

I've been discussing it, but you seem intent on getting us to agree to your subjective perspective.

1. The existence of God doesn't automatically entail Objective Morals exist, unless you defeine God as a Being that makes them entail.
2. Morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior" Sure, but you removed that from our current understanding of what is right and wrong by claiming that what is right and wrong is based on what the "divine programmer" decides, which is directly related to the Euthyphro Dilemma. It's literally like you created a perfect argument for it to apply.
3. The Act of Creation is not some magic solution to morals. This seems so obvious to me that I can't understand why you feel this is a thing.
4. I've given objective reasons for the grounding of morals: suffering in sentient creatures. This is real, it's not up for debate - like the circumference of the Earth.
5. I've not argued for Subjective Moral Values here.
6. You haven't offered a "Theory", you've provided sophistry. Inventing a fiction that you think solves your problems in this debate is sophistry.

[boatsnguitars]

Remember, Theist's argument is this:

We know there is something called morals, but we don't know exactly what things are moral or immoral (because we can't know God's thoughts), but, while we know nothing about these moral values, they must come from God.

In short, "We don't know, therefore God."

[JoeyKnothead]

As to proving my assertion, I present the inability to prove one, just one moral value that's true across all times and people, as evidence of the subjective nature of morality. There's my evidence for my claim. If folks wanna think it ain't right, or it's too weak, or whatever, so be it.

Shifting the burden is not evidence for one's claim. If you want to present the inability to prove one you'd have to display every single attempt and logically show how they all fail.

While it may appear to be a shifting of the burden, it's still a fact that none can present a single solitary moral value that doesn't rely on their own subjective opinion.

Where a fact stands, I contend the accusation of burden shifting is a bit of herring fishing.

[The Tanager]

But I did the same thing as you. The whole test is comparing ALL food principles and finding agreement in every case. The only differences are in application of said principles.

I don’t think there is agreement in every case. Yes, harmony sounds good to most (some music makes use of discord), but even beyond that people like different kinds of harmony. Sweet food yum, sure, but a lot of variety within sweet foods. That is not like morality where it’s not like people have differences within their general view that murder is wrong. In the foods, your principles should be broken down to be a more fitting analogy.

That isn't agreement though, if you ask a whole bunch of people and they tell you the same dimension when asked about the size of professional football field, does support an objective rule?

If almost everyone, from very different cultures and walks of life told you the same dimension, I think that would be good support. If there wasn’t an objective, one would expect all kinds of different answers.

Then how is "God created morality according to his nature" an explanation?

The explanation is that God’s act of creation gives humans an objective nature and purpose. What that nature and purpose is (nature A rather than nature B, for instance) is because of God’s nature. The first is an explanation. The second is a “just is”.

So, if you are saying compare that to this claim: Super God’s act of creation gives God an objective nature, this is an explanation. Yes. But now we are comparing to “just is” explanations. They are the same in all areas except that the Super God explanation adds an additional layer, so, unless there are arguments for Super God’s existence, then simplicity is on the no-Super God side.

Well let this be my declaration that I am making a level 2 statement - a more general statement about how taste interacts with all individual taste judges: Whether something is good or not, depends on individual taste judges.

I’m not sure you are, though. I’m not asking you for the truth about how Bust Nak feels about tasting vanilla, I’m asking you for a truth about vanilla. I’m not asking you for the truth about how Bust Nak feels about child abuse, but for a truth about child abuse itself. Do your feelings tell us anything about child abuse itself?

“Bust Nak thinks child abuse is bad and Jimmy thinks child abuse is good,” is a level 1 statement, where you are sharing individual judgments. With level 2, you must now say a truth about child abuse unrelated to Bust Nak or Jimmy (except in a general way). What is that statement?

Okay, I can work with that...

I, Bust Nak, the Subjectivist (who is Person BN and have my own preference about X) partly agree with Suzie. "X is indeed not good," the value of X depends on who is judging the act because value depends on individual preferences. I both have a specific view on X, but am making a bigger claim about what the value of X is apart from my view on it and I am saying that the value depends on the subject judging it. I am a level 2 judge that says the value at level 2 depends on who the level 1 judge is. I am not saying my level 1 judgment is the same as my level 2 judgment, because those are different issues.

So, then you are both saying “I don’t like child abuse” (i.e., “child abuse is immoral”) and “child abuse is both moral and immoral depending on who the level 1 judge is. ‘Immoral’ in the first statement must mean something else in the second for this to not be a contradiction. Help me see what you think it means in the second.

While we are here, Suzie the Subjectivist is inconsistent because she claims that "value depends on the subject judging it" and "the value of X depends on who is engaging in the act." It can't be both when the subject judging it is not the same person engaging in the act; more often than not, it's different people.

The one ‘engaging in the act’ was another way to say the individual judger, as an attempt to avoid confusion between Suzie being the level 2 judger.

That's why we were talking about being force fed, right? Where you are not choosing it.

Yes, but you said “It's important to point out here I am referring to getting frustrate with tasting the flavor, as opposed to getting frustrated with being force fed.”

To step round the moral issue with force feeding, imagine if you have a serious case of COVID and it affected your sense of taste very negatively instead. Would you not get frustrated with the bad taste itself then?

I would be frustrated with the effect of COVID messing up my taste, yes, but I’m still simply grossed out by the taste, not angry at it.

[The Tanager]

1. The existence of God doesn't automatically entail Objective Morals exist, unless you defeine God as a Being that makes them entail.

I have already said it isn’t true of all theisms. But the ones it works for comes not from just defining that they entail, but defining God in a way that those characteristics logically entail objective morals. The way I defined God was through the act of creation (i.e., as a Creator) of beings with objective nature and purpose. Those definitions then logically entail the existence of objective morals. That’s not simply defining God as a Being that makes them entail.

2. Morality: "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior" Sure, but you removed that from our current understanding of what is right and wrong by claiming that what is right and wrong is based on what the "divine programmer" decides, which is directly related to the Euthyphro Dilemma. It's literally like you created a perfect argument for it to apply.

I’ve shared why the Euthyphro dilemma fails in this case. The dilemma is that either God could have chosen whatever to be immoral (and could still change its mind) or that God is appealing to something outside of itself for right and wrong. My scenario obviously doesn’t fail for the second reason.

But it also doesn’t run foul of the first. God’s act of creation sets in stone, so to speak, what is moral/immoral so that even if God changed its mind, moral/immoral would stay the same. As to choosing whatever to be moral/immoral, it doesn’t because it has a specific nature as to what it thinks is good or bad. That nature wasn’t given to it by anything else, it wasn’t formed by looking at some other standard, or anything like that. The dilemma is a false dilemma.

3. The Act of Creation is not some magic solution to morals. This seems so obvious to me that I can't understand why you feel this is a thing.

How is rationally following out definitions “magic”?

4. I've given objective reasons for the grounding of morals: suffering in sentient creatures. This is real, it's not up for debate - like the circumference of the Earth.

You can’t just claim it’s not up for debate. You have to support your view. There are others who say they don’t care about the suffering of other creatures. The circumference of the Earth has data to support it; your view (which is also mine) also needs support.

5. I've not argued for Subjective Moral Values here.

You have not offered anything that, if true, would logically entail that the morals you’ve spoken of aren’t subjective.

6. You haven't offered a "Theory", you've provided sophistry. Inventing a fiction that you think solves your problems in this debate is sophistry.

I gave arguments; show their weakness. Claiming it’s just sophistry is a cop out.

[The Tanager]

While it may appear to be a shifting of the burden, it's still a fact that none can present a single solitary moral value that doesn't rely on their own subjective opinion.

Where a fact stands, I contend the accusation of burden shifting is a bit of herring fishing.

I made two claims about one issue. Instead of addressing that issue, you responded to that by talking about a different issue and made a claim about that different issue. You are free to talk about that issue. I’m willing to talk with you about that issue, but you will need to support your claims as fact and shifting the burden to be proven wrong is not supporting your claims.

[JoeyKnothead]

I made two claims about one issue. Instead of addressing that issue, you responded to that by talking about a different issue and made a claim about that different issue.

Please note that site rules are such that as long as I stay on topic, I'm within the bounds to comment in the manner I deem fit, to posts I deem worthy of a response.

It's my contention I'm sticking right in the OP, though I may interchange "morality" with " right or wrong". A distinction in spelling only.

You are free to talk about that issue. I’m willing to talk with you about that issue, but you will need to support your claims as fact and shifting the burden to be proven wrong is not supporting your claims.

I present my claim as based on logic and reason. Morality is merely an opinion based on actions or thoughts. This creates then the fact that nobody is going to present a single, solitary instance of an objectively true moral value.

Let's jump straight to killing. While many would agree that killing is wrong, as creatures who can't fix carbon, we rely on the killing (or at minimum, the death) of something to provide our sustenance. We would die of starvation otherwise.

Transponse that to "don't kill humans", and we see that many are perfectly content killing them a human for various and sundry reasons.

Rape? Ask the rapist.

Stealing? Ask the thief

The fact is, morality will only ever been shown to be a subjective opinion.

My contention could be proven in error simply by showing us all just one objective moral value. While this does kinda shift the burden, it also represents me realizing a real or potential problem with my notion. In this fashion then, I present the observer an angle of attack against me. The observer is assured then that I've considered my argument beyond some knee-jerk response.

To date I've not had any takers. I contend that is at least a small data point in favor of my argument.

[The Tanager]

I made two claims about one issue. Instead of addressing that issue, you responded to that by talking about a different issue and made a claim about that different issue. You are free to talk about that issue.

Please note that site rules are such that as long as I stay on topic, I'm within the bounds to comment in the manner I deem fit, to posts I deem worthy of a response.

It's my contention I'm sticking right in the OP, though I may interchange "morality" with " right or wrong". A distinction in spelling only.

As I said (bolded above in the original quote), yes, you are free to talk about that issue.

I present my claim as based on logic and reason. Morality is merely an opinion based on actions or thoughts. This creates then the fact that nobody is going to present a single, solitary instance of an objectively true moral value.

Yes, if morality is merely an opinion based on actions or thoughts, then nobody is going to present a single, solitary instance of an objectively true moral value. Your burden is to support the first part of this conditional statement as true.

Let's jump straight to killing. While many would agree that killing is wrong, as creatures who can't fix carbon, we rely on the killing (or at minimum, the death) of something to provide our sustenance. We would die of starvation otherwise.

Transponse that to "don't kill humans", and we see that many are perfectly content killing them a human for various and sundry reasons.

Rape? Ask the rapist.

Stealing? Ask the thief

The fact is, morality will only ever been shown to be a subjective opinion.

The last statement doesn’t follow. It seems to be based on the principle that disagreement = subjective feature of reality. That would also mean science is a subjective field because there are disagreements. If it is based on a different principle, I'm not sure what that is.

My contention could be proven in error simply by showing us all just one objective moral value. While this does kinda shift the burden, it also represents me realizing a real or potential problem with my notion. In this fashion then, I present the observer an angle of attack against me. The observer is assured then that I've considered my argument beyond some knee-jerk response.

To date I've not had any takers. I contend that is at least a small data point in favor of my argument.

A theist could do the same kind of thing. The fact is, God will only ever be shown to exist. Their contention could be proven in error simply by showing us one argument to the contrary. While this does kinda shift the burden, it also represents the theist realizing a real or potential problem with their notion. In this fashion then, the theist presents the observer an angle of attack against them. The observer is assured then that the theist has considered her argument beyond some knee-jerk response.

You shouldn’t accept that kind of argument from a theist as being a rational one. You certainly are free to and respond with an argument against their theism, but not doing so doesn’t mean they have a point in favor of their argument. Books and books are written by theists (and non-theists) arguing for objective morality, so it’s not like there really are no takers anyway.

As for me, I’m engaged in a different issue and will stick with that here. I think you have been the most consistent subjectivist as far as that issue is concerned. You seem to agree that there’s nothing wrong with child abuse, although you dislike it.

[boatsnguitars]

I have already said it isn’t true of all theisms. But the ones it works for comes not from just defining that they entail, but defining God in a way that those characteristics logically entail objective morals. The way I defined God was through the act of creation (i.e., as a Creator) of beings with objective nature and purpose. Those definitions then logically entail the existence of objective morals. That’s not simply defining God as a Being that makes them entail.

Sure, if you invent Moral-Making Fairies, you can claim they create Objective Morals, too. They make OBV's entail through their fanatic, and viscous application of retributive justice to bring upon endless suffering to all those who stick gum under desks - the only thing they have determined it Objective Wrong.

Face it, you defined a certain God: One that creates things, and in doing so has established the rules of moral values. You could define another God as Creator-that-doesn't-care-what-we-do (Deism). Your specific Theism wasn't invented by you, but it was subjectively chosen by you to assert as real.

You aren't exploring the concept, you are fixated on getting people to agree with you.

I’ve shared why the Euthyphro dilemma fails in this case. The dilemma is that either God could have chosen whatever to be immoral (and could still change its mind) or that God is appealing to something outside of itself for right and wrong. My scenario obviously doesn’t fail for the second reason.

That thing "outside itself" (Creation) is what the Universe could claim, in an atheistic universe.

Would you agree that the Big Bang, therefore, is the grounding of moral values?

But it also doesn’t run foul of the first. God’s act of creation sets in stone, so to speak, what is moral/immoral so that even if God changed its mind, moral/immoral would stay the same. As to choosing whatever to be moral/immoral, it doesn’t because it has a specific nature as to what it thinks is good or bad. That nature wasn’t given to it by anything else, it wasn’t formed by looking at some other standard, or anything like that. The dilemma is a false dilemma.

You just defined subjective moral values.

Objective means it is true regardless how anyone thinks about it - even God.

How is rationally following out definitions “magic”?

The definition of "Creation" doesn't include moral values. You magically inserted them, and now insist we agree.

4. I've given objective reasons for the grounding of morals: suffering in sentient creatures. This is real, it's not up for debate - like the circumference of the Earth.

You can’t just claim it’s not up for debate. You have to support your view. There are others who say they don’t care about the suffering of other creatures. The circumference of the Earth has data to support it; your view (which is also mine) also needs support.

I don't care that other people do or don't care about suffering. The Objective fact is that suffering exists - or are you going to claim it's all subjective?

You have not offered anything that, if true, would logically entail that the morals you’ve spoken of aren’t subjective.

Yes I have, you refuse to agree.

I gave arguments; show their weakness. Claiming it’s just sophistry is a cop out.

I've been showing your their weakness, you simply refuse to budge because you are a Theist.