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]

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.

If it’s because they say so, that doesn’t logically get one to objectivity. If it’s because they have the power to enforce their view, that doesn’t logically get one to objectivity. My scenario offered a different reason than these. In my scenario it was the act of creation that grounded God’s moral determination to be objectively true of humans. How do the Fairies do it in yours?

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 have never said: therefore, you should be a theist or my particular version of theist. I have never said: therefore, theism or my particular version of theism is real.

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?

I agree that an atheistic Big Bang and the unguided evolutionary process that followed would provide humans with an objective nature, but not with an objective purpose. So, it’s grounding of moral values would lead to subjective morality.

You just defined subjective moral values.

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

Yes. It doesn’t matter how God thinks of it, it matters that God created it based on what God thought about it. Just like a painting is the way it is, with the meaning it was created with because the artist created it based on what she thought about it at the time.

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

I did not. I applied the definition of creation (which doesn’t include moral values) to the sphere of moral values by following the logic.

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?

I agree suffering exists, that’s not your task. Your task is to show that “humans ought to try to avoid causing unneeded suffering” no matter whether they want to or not.

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.

Yes, to be more exacting in our phrasing, I should have said that you have not offered anything that would seem to me to logically entail the morals you’ve spoken of aren’t subjective. You should be saying that you believe you have, and that you think I'm wrong for disagreeing with what you've shared. If there is nothing new on that front, then I’m okay with letting people read our posts and making up their own minds.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
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.

There's no "if" to it. Morality is a subjective opinion. Whether a human's or a god's.

...
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.
[/quote]
That's the thing, where none can show an objective moral reality, then the rational conclusion is that morality is subjective.

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.

There's multiple gods contrary to multiple proposed gods.

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.

No doubt folks need to do better than present logic and reason for the theist to accept, well, logic and reason.

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.

Considering how many theists are found to've abused children, I don't think your argument in that regard does you any favors.

[The Tanager]

There's no "if" to it. Morality is a subjective opinion. Whether a human's or a god's.

Saying there’s no if and showing it are two different things. It doesn’t look like you want to offer support for your claim.

That's the thing, where none can show an objective moral reality, then the rational conclusion is that morality is subjective.

So, the principle for supporting your claim is to shift the burden.

There's multiple gods contrary to multiple proposed gods.

Not an argument, but irrelevant to my point anyway because I was saying a theist who shifted the burden onto you wasn’t making a good argument.

No doubt folks need to do better than present logic and reason for the theist to accept, well, logic and reason.

Saying that’s the case and showing it are two different things. It doesn’t look like you want to offer support for your claim.

Considering how many theists are found to've abused children, I don't think your argument in that regard does you any favors.

Completely irrelevant to my point. Are you saying you not only don’t like child abuse, but you think it is immoral/wrong for others as well? Or, as a consistent subjectivist, do you think it is moral/good for others who like child abuse?

[JoeyKnothead]

There's no "if" to it. Morality is a subjective opinion. Whether a human's or a god's.

Saying there’s no if and showing it are two different things. It doesn’t look like you want to offer support for your claim.

My support is in the form of reasoned, logical explanations.

That's the thing, where none can show an objective moral reality, then the rational conclusion is that morality is subjective.

So, the principle for supporting your claim is to shift the burden.

My burden is based in reason and logic. As morality is an opinion, godly or otherwise, that's the best any of us can do.

There's multiple gods contrary to multiple proposed gods.

Not an argument, but irrelevant to my point anyway because I was saying a theist who shifted the burden onto you wasn’t making a good argument.

My argument is predicated on the fact that none can present a moral value that's not based on opinion.

No doubt folks need to do better than present logic and reason for the theist to accept, well, logic and reason.

Saying that’s the case and showing it are two different things. It doesn’t look like you want to offer support for your claim.

Reason and logic are my support.

Considering how many theists are found to've abused children, I don't think your argument in that regard does you any favors.

Completely irrelevant to my point. Are you saying you not only don’t like child abuse, but you think it is immoral/wrong for others as well? Or, as a consistent subjectivist, do you think it is moral/good for others who like child abuse?

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.

[The Tanager]

My burden is based in reason and logic. As morality is an opinion, godly or otherwise, that's the best any of us can do.

Your reason and logic is to not show the reason and logic. This is simply making a claim, not supporting why it is true with reason and logic.

My argument is predicated on the fact that none can present a moral value that's not based on opinion.

Your argument offered in positive support of your view, then, is to shift the burden, which is fallacious reasoning and logic. Now, if you went ahead and laid out all the attempts and where exactly you think they fail, then that would be good reasoning and logic to support your view.

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.

Issue 1: What shape do you view the Earth as?

To you the Earth is spherical, I assume. Jimmy thinks the Earth is flat. Suzie agrees with you. Amy agrees with you as well.

Issue 2: Do you think the shape of the Earth is an objective or subjective feature of reality?

To you, I’ll assume again, the Earth is objectively spherical. Jimmy agrees with you. Suzie disagrees with you, thinking that the shape of the Earth depends on the individual, that it really is spherical for you and her, but really flat for Jimmy. Amy is agnostic; she just doesn’t know.

Let’s talk about morality in the same way.

Issue 1: Do you like or dislike child abuse?

You don’t like it. Jimmy is okay with it. Suzie doesn’t like it. Amy doesn’t like it.

Issue 2: Do you think the act of abusing a child is an objective or subjective feature of reality?

Jimmy thinks it is objectively good to abuse children, not just something good for him, but good for all. Suzie thinks it is good for some and bad for others, not the same for everyone. Amy is an agnostic; she just doesn’t know.

Do you agree with one of these three? Or do you say it is objectively bad for everyone to abuse children, even if they like doing so? Or some option I've missed?

[JoeyKnothead]

My burden is based in reason and logic. As morality is an opinion, godly or otherwise, that's the best any of us can do.

Your reason and logic is to not show the reason and logic. This is simply making a claim, not supporting why it is true with reason and logic.

I'm content having the observer make that determination.

My argument is predicated on the fact that none can present a moral value that's not based on opinion.

Your argument offered in positive support of your view, then, is to shift the burden, which is fallacious reasoning and logic. Now, if you went ahead and laid out all the attempts and where exactly you think they fail, then that would be good reasoning and logic to support your view.

I've presented examples where morality is shown to be opinion, and encourage folks to refute those examples. In attempting to do so, I expect they'll see my argument holds.

So I ask folks, what moral value is not shown to be opinion?

I contend that in the absence of a single 'objective' moral value, the rational conclusion is that morals are subjective.

Issue 1: What shape do you view the Earth as?

To you the Earth is spherical, I assume. Jimmy thinks the Earth is flat. Suzie agrees with you. Amy agrees with you as well.

Is it objectively im/moral for folks to hold their opinions of how they view the Earth?

Issue 2: Do you think the shape of the Earth is an objective or subjective feature of reality?

I think one's opinion on the morality of your question here will be shown to be subjective.

To you, I’ll assume again, the Earth is objectively spherical.

If I needed you to present my arguments for me, I'd give up debate.

Jimmy agrees with you.

Is it objectively im/moral for Jimmy to agree with me?

Suzie disagrees with you,...

Is it objectively im/moral for Suzie to disagree with me?

Amy is agnostic; she just doesn’t know.

Is it objectively im/moral for Amy to be agnostic?

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.

[boatsnguitars]

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.

If it’s because they say so, that doesn’t logically get one to objectivity. If it’s because they have the power to enforce their view, that doesn’t logically get one to objectivity. My scenario offered a different reason than these. In my scenario it was the act of creation that grounded God’s moral determination to be objectively true of humans. How do the Fairies do it in yours?

By the fact that they make Objective Moral Values. No one knows how, but they just do. Just like how your God somehow makes OMVs obtain through the act of creation.
See, we can simply assert things as true. But it's meaningless. You claiming that God's act of creation some how makes OMVs is just as arbitrary.
Why you refuse to see this is beyond me.

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 have never said: therefore, you should be a theist or my particular version of theist. I have never said: therefore, theism or my particular version of theism is real.

You keep asserting that the act of creation means something to moral values.

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?

I agree that an atheistic Big Bang and the unguided evolutionary process that followed would provide humans with an objective nature, but not with an objective purpose. So, it’s grounding of moral values would lead to subjective morality.

No. It was the act of creation, therefore, the moral values are imbedded in the act - according to you. The Universe enforces it by killing off people who violate it's OBVs.

Just because we don't know what they are, doesn't absolve us from them - which is your argument.

You just defined subjective moral values.

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

Yes. It doesn’t matter how God thinks of it, it matters that God created it based on what God thought about it. Just like a painting is the way it is, with the meaning it was created with because the artist created it based on what she thought about it at the time.

Which is why I can assert - based on your logic - that the Universe can make OBVs. It didn't think about it, it just created us. Same thing you are arguing.

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

I did not. I applied the definition of creation (which doesn’t include moral values) to the sphere of moral values by following the logic.

How does the act of creation entail moral values? Magically?

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?

I agree suffering exists, that’s not your task. Your task is to show that “humans ought to try to avoid causing unneeded suffering” no matter whether they want to or not.

The same question is to you, however, why must we avoid unneeded suffering according to you? Just because?

See, you have admitted that we don't know which moral values may be OMVs. You have no claim - according to your own argument that we ought to avoid suffering.

Of course, you may declare that avoiding suffering isn't an OMV, or that we don't know. But then what value are OMVs if we don't know what to avoid? Your entire moral theory is a wreck. It's useless to anyone.

[The Tanager]

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.

[The Tanager]

By the fact that they make Objective Moral Values. No one knows how, but they just do. Just like how your God somehow makes OMVs obtain through the act of creation.
See, we can simply assert things as true. But it's meaningless. You claiming that God's act of creation some how makes OMVs is just as arbitrary.
Why you refuse to see this is beyond me.

So you are saying moral values are objective because “we don’t know” is equivalent to saying moral values are objective because “an act of creation necessarily provides a specific objective nature and purpose (if the creator has intentions)”? The first is an arbitrary assertion; the second is not arbitrary but provides actual reasoning.

How does the act of creation entail moral values? Magically?

No, by definition. An act of creation (logically) necessarily provides an objective nature. A creation by an intentional agent (logically) necessarily provides an objective purpose. It’s logically necessary by the very definitions. Why do you call accepted definitions magic?

No. It was the act of creation, therefore, the moral values are imbedded in the act - according to you. The Universe enforces it by killing off people who violate it's OBVs.

Just because we don't know what they are, doesn't absolve us from them - which is your argument.

So, you are saying that the Universe is this thing that has intentions and objective purpose? I want to make sure of this because it’s not typical of atheists.

The same question is to you, however, why must we avoid unneeded suffering according to you? Just because?

No, because there is an objective truth that unneeded suffering harms what humans were created to be.

See, you have admitted that we don't know which moral values may be OMVs. You have no claim - according to your own argument that we ought to avoid suffering.

Of course, you may declare that avoiding suffering isn't an OMV, or that we don't know. But then what value are OMVs if we don't know what to avoid? Your entire moral theory is a wreck. It's useless to anyone.

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.

[boatsnguitars]

By the fact that they make Objective Moral Values. No one knows how, but they just do. Just like how your God somehow makes OMVs obtain through the act of creation.
See, we can simply assert things as true. But it's meaningless. You claiming that God's act of creation some how makes OMVs is just as arbitrary.
Why you refuse to see this is beyond me.

So you are saying moral values are objective because “we don’t know” is equivalent to saying moral values are objective because “an act of creation necessarily provides a specific objective nature and purpose (if the creator has intentions)”? The first is an arbitrary assertion; the second is not arbitrary but provides actual reasoning.

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.

I imagine you would then claim, "no, it has to be through an intentional creation", but why is that the case? Can I create a life form and have it moral that those creatures entertain me by fighting for survival for millions of years? How does that make morals Objective if it depends on the Creator? It's the definition of Subjective.

How does the act of creation entail moral values? Magically?

No, by definition. An act of creation (logically) necessarily provides an objective nature. A creation by an intentional agent (logically) necessarily provides an objective purpose. It’s logically necessary by the very definitions. Why do you call accepted definitions magic?

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

No. It was the act of creation, therefore, the moral values are imbedded in the act - according to you. The Universe enforces it by killing off people who violate it's OBVs.

Just because we don't know what they are, doesn't absolve us from them - which is your argument.

So, you are saying that the Universe is this thing that has intentions and objective purpose? I want to make sure of this because it’s not typical of atheists.

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?

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.

The same question is to you, however, why must we avoid unneeded suffering according to you? Just because?

No, because there is an objective truth that unneeded suffering harms what humans were created to be.

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.

See, you have admitted that we don't know which moral values may be OMVs. You have no claim - according to your own argument that we ought to avoid suffering.

Of course, you may declare that avoiding suffering isn't an OMV, or that we don't know. But then what value are OMVs if we don't know what to avoid? Your entire moral theory is a wreck. It's useless to anyone.

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...