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]

On the first bit, your analogy would lead to some people liking not murdering (=harmony) and some, although very few, people liking murdering (=discord). But let’s just assume no one likes discord. I don’t think you’ve applied the analogy correctly still. Saying that X is not murder would be saying that X is not a sweet food, not that it is a different kind of sweet food.

Meh, that's just semantics, murder is defined as the wrong kind of slaying, slaying is the analogy to sweet food. There is probably more disagreement over the morality of slaying than with food taste.

No, what people think about murder is irrelevant when we have other definitions and beliefs to logically work from. If we had the rules for the size of football pitches; it wouldn’t matter if everyone we asked got those dimensions wrong because we had the definitions and official statements to work from.

That's even easier. All I need to do to ground atheistic objective morality is for me to write down one set of rule of conduct. it wouldn’t matter if everyone we asked got those rules wrong because we have the rules written down, they would simply be factually incorrect.

It’s a better explanation than saying morality “just is” without the set rules, sure. It’s not more of an explanation than saying God’s nature being what it just is, explains how humans can have an objective morality because there are intermediate steps in the latter that connect from the just is to the conclusion:

(1) because God’s nature is the way it is, (2) God decides to create beings, and (3) the very act of creation provides these beings with an objective nature and purpose, which (4) necessarily gives humans an objective morality.

versus

(1) the universe has certain rules which (2) necessarily give humans an objective morality.

Okay, I can thrown in evolution as intermediate steps, now is it better?

No, it’s the same referent. And copying word for word doesn’t mean you’ve copied it concept for concept, though.

What reason did you have to deviate from concept you had in mind when you wrote it out? Of course I meant the same thing by "immoral" in my two statements.

Maybe we need three levels of statements to fully encompass the things we are talking about. “I find vanilla tastier than chocolate” is level 1. “Suzie finds chocolate tastier than vanilla,” is also a level 1. At level 1, we are saying what a particular individual’s taste is.

“Whether vanilla is tastier than chocolate or not depends on who the level 1 judge is” is a level 2. At this level we are making a more general statement that tastes are different. This statement is still about the individuals.

I think there is a third thing, a value judgment that makes a statement about the taste, not any individuals. “Vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself.” As level 3 subjectivists, since vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself, we are rationally okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream.

Why does this same non sequitur keep popping up? What is the rational ink between "vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself" and "we are okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream?" Fill in the gaps for me please.

1) vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself
...
n) we are okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream

While we are here, there is no separating a statement about the taste from a statement about individuals, tastes are inherently tied to individuals. We are okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream, is a statement about "we," the individuals' taste.

So, we can say “Bust Nak dislikes child abuse”. We can say “Bust Nak thinks child abuse tastes depend on who the level 1 judge is”. But what does Bust Nak say at level 3? And how does it play into Bust Nak being rationally okay or not with level 1 judges committing or not committing child abuse?

Okay, so level 3 statements are the rational implications of level 2 statements? This is what level 3 subjectivists like Suzie and I would say: Since vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself, rationality alone cannot determine one way or the other, whether to be okay with people eating vanilla ice cream or not. Rational analysis can only help to reduce the situation down to subjective level 1 statements. Is this level 3 enough for you?

I don’t think that’s right. The frustration isn’t with the taste, but with being force fed, or not having a different taste than one does, or with COVID affecting my tastes, or whatever.

Well, you are a more accommodating person than I am. I will get frustrated with the taste.

[The Tanager]

Suffering. If you like, consider is as a part of the laws of physics. Just because you don't accept this answer doesn't mean it's not a good answer.

Yes, I agree that me not accepting it doesn’t make it a bad answer. If “don’t cause unneeded suffering” is a law of physics, then it would provide objective morality. Of course, no one actually thinks it is a law of physics, so it’s not in atheistic moral theories.

But how is God a standard? You can't even tell us what God actually is - or if it exists. Saying your standard is Odin is meaningless to anyone. Is your standard Krishna, Hera, Balaam, Money, Fame (since some people call those things their God).

For this argument God is the Creator. Other characteristics are up for debate, but what those are have nothing to do with this question we are discussing. Good questions that I have views on, but different issues.

Again, you are trying to smuggle the idea of OMV's in your definition of God. It's just a weak and meaningless move. It is literally meaningless.

Again, I’m not doing that. It logically follows from the definitions of an act of creation, nature, intent/purpose, objective.

You don't know if a God exists, if they care about morals, if they are moral, if they can create morals, if they can create OMVs, or if they actually did create OMVs, etc.

This is irrelevant. It’s about if moral theory X is true, would it lead to objective morals. And, even more so, it’s really about any actually held moral theory X, assuming it is true. If God exists, cares about human morals, has moral views, and create humans with objective nature and purpose, would this lead to there existing OMVs? The answer is yes for the reasons I’ve given.

But if I defined God as an Objective Humor Value maker, you'd suddenly agree that there is a standard for OHVs...

I wouldn’t suddenly agree just because you say God is an objective humor value maker; I’d wait for you to give your reasoning and then either agree with you or not based on the reasoning. If your reasoning was that God created humans with an objective nature about what is funny and what is not, where everyone finds the same thing funny or (if they have free will) that God gave them a purpose to find specific things funny, then I’d say “Yes, if your view is true, then which jokes are funny is an objective feature of reality.” To answer this question it doesn’t matter if people have different theories or if different theories are true.

So, that's what I'm doing. God creates OHVs. Now, what is you standard for Humor? Let me guess, it's subjective.

But I say it isn't, and I've given a standard: God. God, the OHV Toy Maker made us with OHVs, and we are obligated to find things funny.

Don't you find things funny? How is that? Why would Evolution create laughing and humor? See - Humor Atheist - you have no answer to Humor. you can't provide a coherent account of Humor.

Yes, I believe it is subjective. I’m not claiming my view of humor is objective. If I talked of my standard and all the elements of humor, it would be silly for me to say it is objective because those features don’t logically lead to humor being objective.

Again, I have not been saying here that morals are objective, but that atheistic moral theories lead to subjective morality if one follows their own logic out. Are you disagreeing with me and saying my account of humor would lead to objectivity? That would be the analogical equivalent here.

[The Tanager]

Meh, that's just semantics, murder is defined as the wrong kind of slaying, slaying is the analogy to sweet food. There is probably more disagreement over the morality of slaying than with food taste.

Okay, but you are saying that almost everyone shares “sweet food = yum”. That would mean that you’d be saying that almost everyone shares “slaying = boo” and that’s simply not true.

That's even easier. All I need to do to ground atheistic objective morality is for me to write down one set of rule of conduct. it wouldn’t matter if everyone we asked got those rules wrong because we have the rules written down, they would simply be factually incorrect.

If you could show you had the authority to create that as a binding rule, yes. So, what is the reasoning within the atheistic moral theory that grounds morality to be objective?

Okay, I can thrown in evolution as intermediate steps, now is it better?

If your evolutionary explanations were logically intermediate. The hinge of my theory is that the definition of an act of intentional creation necessarily leads to objective nature and purpose. If you could show how the definition of evolution necessarily leads to objective morality (either via objective nature and purpose or another route), then it would be the same kind of explanation that I’ve offered and, if true, would actually give us objective morals. But if one just leaves it as “evolution gets it” or “God creating gets it” without explaining why, then it’s an assertion and not an explanation of why.

What reason did you have to deviate from concept you had in mind when you wrote it out? Of course I meant the same thing by "immoral" in my two statements.

I was saying that we could be talking past each other. For example, you thinking there are only 2 kinds of questions, while I’m saying there are 3.

Why does this same non sequitur keep popping up? What is the rational ink between "vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself" and "we are okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream?" Fill in the gaps for me please.

1) vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself
...
n) we are okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream

The only rational reason to not be okay with people fulfilling their subjective truths is if there is an overriding objective truth. Flat-earthers are wrong because an objective truth overrides their subjective experience or opinion. If there is no objective truth, there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their opinion.

While we are here, there is no separating a statement about the taste from a statement about individuals, tastes are inherently tied to individuals. We are okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream, is a statement about "we," the individuals' taste.

It’s a statement about our individual taste in the same way saying the earth is spherical is a statement about our individual opinion on the shape of the earth. Of course it is our opinion/taste, but it’s a statement about an action in itself.

[boatsnguitars]

Again, I have not been saying here that morals are objective, but that atheistic moral theories lead to subjective morality if one follows their own logic out. Are you disagreeing with me and saying my account of humor would lead to objectivity? That would be the analogical equivalent here.

Again:
1. I believe morals are subjective. I don't believe I need to support my reasoning as you agree.
2. You have tried to make the case that under Theism morals would be Objective. I gave you ample reasons why moral theorists feel this is untrue, but more to the point, if you are interested in this, I would encourage you to read up on moral theories that discuss whether morals are real or not. If they aren't real, then it doesn't matter if a God exists - that God would simply be expressing his personal, subjective outrage at some acts. As God he'd be able to enforce his desires, but it wouldn't mean that morals are objective or real, only that the Mob Boss or Toy Maker has the ultimate power to enforce his opinions on others. That is not what someone would call Objective: the fact that God feels, say, homosexuality is wrong, doesn't make it objectively wrong - it only means God doesn't like it.
3. Similar to morals, humor or beauty could be things we all consider subjective, or objective (some Theists do claim there is objective beauty).
4. The biggest take away is that you are the one interested in this, so it's on you to understand all the arguments - not rely on me to defend all positions. It's enough for me to say that moral theorists have had robust conversations about these issues and there is not a consensus. To assume you have nailed down one that works for you is great - subjectively great for you.
5. To reiterate, there are atheistic moral theories that lead to morals being real. This fact doesn't change if you disagree with my presentation of these ideas. If you are truly interestsed, read up on it. It's not something for you to dismiss or disagree with - it's like anything that we don't know: information to consider.
6. To follow 5, it appears to me you are trying to convince yourself that you are right about moral values, and not that you are trying to understand all the nuances of the conversation.

[Bust Nak]

Okay, but you are saying that almost everyone shares “sweet food = yum”. That would mean that you’d be saying that almost everyone shares “slaying = boo” and that’s simply not true.

That's the point: you were overstating the amount of agreement in morality when the word "murder" already convey immorality. There is far more agreement in food taste than in morality, invalidating the argument that general agreement in morality points towards it being objective.

If you could show you had the authority to create that as a binding rule, yes.

What makes a rule binding? Sounds like it's conveying the same sort of idea as having the authority. What gives the FA the authority to set the size of pitches?

So, what is the reasoning within the atheistic moral theory that grounds morality to be objective?

The fact that you can objectively verify if a particular action is compliant or not, makes it an objective standard.

If your evolutionary explanations were logically intermediate. The hinge of my theory is that the definition of an act of intentional creation necessarily leads to objective nature and purpose. If you could show how the definition of evolution necessarily leads to objective morality (either via objective nature and purpose or another route), then it would be the same kind of explanation that I’ve offered and, if true, would actually give us objective morals. But if one just leaves it as “evolution gets it” or “God creating gets it” without explaining why, then it’s an assertion and not an explanation of why.

That hinge right there is the weak point, what links intentional creation and objective purpose? Why is "objective nature and purpose" tied together as if it's one concept? I ask because if objective nature alone is enough to ground objective morality, then any old godless explanation of humanity existence could ground objective morality.

I was saying that we could be talking past each other. For example, you thinking there are only 2 kinds of questions, while I’m saying there are 3.

Well, we could be talkin past each other, but the point was, you seem to have a reasonable answer in mind when you gave a sample answer from Suzie, if Suzie's answer made sense to you, then why is it so hard to understand how subjectivists are consistent with subjectivism?

The only rational reason to not be okay with people fulfilling their subjective truths is if there is an overriding objective truth. Flat-earthers are wrong because an objective truth overrides their subjective experience or opinion. If there is no objective truth, there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their opinion.

Great, that sounded very much like what I meant by "since vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself, rationality alone cannot determine one way or the other..."

Please continue filling in the gaps:
1) vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself (premise)
2) there is no objective truth about the good or bad of vanilla (rephrasing of 1)
3) if there is no objective truth about the good or bad of vanilla then there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their opinion (premise)
4) there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their opinion
...
n) we are okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream

It’s a statement about our individual taste in the same way saying the earth is spherical is a statement about our individual opinion on the shape of the earth. Of course it is our opinion/taste, but it’s a statement about an action in itself.

Not the same thing at all, the shape of the Earth is not a matter of opinion: There is a huge difference between "in my opinion the Earth is round" and "objectively, the Earth is round" where as there is no difference between "in my opinion vanilla is tasty" and "subjectively, vanilla is tasty."

[JoeyKnothead]

[Using quote function to refer folks to the brilliance displayed, that leads me to...]

If only for me, the subjective nature of morality is why it's so important we discuss our morality, in terms of why or why not. We need to understand our cultures, and opinions, the how comes, and the shame on yous.

If morality is some objective holy writ, then what's to discuss? "God said it, so there", has been, throughout history, and will today be used in some form to deny rights, to imprison, and even to kill one or many of our fellow human beings.

It's a parlor trick for the theist to avoid the problems with "God said so" morality, by trying to poke holes in atheist logic regarding the topic.

This entire thread can be ground to a halt if just one solitary theist could show their god even has an opinion on morality, instead of reading, as the finger moves thoroughly, and ploddingly along, through their holy text.

You know as well danged as I, that ain't gonna happen. The theist can no more show their god has an opinion, than they can show he's there to even have him one.

So the theist continues this... this... this display of trying to discuss this topic with some sense of dignity, as they peer around the elephant just to read the arguments being put forth.

It's a common enough tactic, it needs it a name, but being dumb of bulb and dim as rock, I don't know it.

[The Tanager]

1. I believe morals are subjective. I don't believe I need to support my reasoning as you agree.

But you’ve been arguing that atheistic moral theories could make morals objective. That’s what I’ve been asking you to support.

2. You have tried to make the case that under Theism morals would be Objective. I gave you ample reasons why moral theorists feel this is untrue, but more to the point, if you are interested in this, I would encourage you to read up on moral theories that discuss whether morals are real or not. If they aren't real, then it doesn't matter if a God exists - that God would simply be expressing his personal, subjective outrage at some acts.

And I’ve responded to why I think those moral theorists fail in their claims. I have read (and continue to read) various works on various issues within morality.

As God he'd be able to enforce his desires, but it wouldn't mean that morals are objective or real, only that the Mob Boss or Toy Maker has the ultimate power to enforce his opinions on others. That is not what someone would call Objective: the fact that God feels, say, homosexuality is wrong, doesn't make it objectively wrong - it only means God doesn't like it.

That’s true for moral theories that assert objectivity because of having the power to enforce, but I haven’t. I’ve given different reasoning that gets to objectivity.

3. Similar to morals, humor or beauty could be things we all consider subjective, or objective (some Theists do claim there is objective beauty).

I absolutely agree.

4. The biggest take away is that you are the one interested in this, so it's on you to understand all the arguments - not rely on me to defend all positions. It's enough for me to say that moral theorists have had robust conversations about these issues and there is not a consensus. To assume you have nailed down one that works for you is great - subjectively great for you.

I have attempted to understand and engage with all arguments offered in this thread and defended any argument I’ve made or brought up. I expect the same of anyone else who is interested enough in this to enter this discussion and make points. If the question under discussion was whether or not there is a consensus and I was arguing there was, then it would be enough for you to say such. But that’s not the question under discussion, so it’s not enough to say there are robust conversations about this and there is not a consensus. I agree with that. We aren’t discussing that.

5. To reiterate, there are atheistic moral theories that lead to morals being real. This fact doesn't change if you disagree with my presentation of these ideas. If you are truly interestsed, read up on it. It's not something for you to dismiss or disagree with - it's like anything that we don't know: information to consider.

There are atheistic moral theories that claim to lead to morals being real. From reading up on it and engaging with everything offered in favor of this in this thread, I think this claim is objectively wrong. I don’t dismiss it. I engage it and it is perfectly fine to disagree with it. It’s not that I’m ignorant of it, but I’ve heard the cases and think such claims are logically inconsistent for the reasons I’ve shared.

6. To follow 5, it appears to me you are trying to convince yourself that you are right about moral values, and not that you are trying to understand all the nuances of the conversation.

And it appears to me that I’m trying to understand all the nuances, allowing people to give nuances and provide the reasoning, but all reasoning provided doesn’t seem to logically get objective morals from atheistic frameworks. I’m still open to seeing reasoning that leads there or being corrected (by showing, not assertion) on what I’ve misunderstood in my analysis.

[The Tanager]

That's the point: you were overstating the amount of agreement in morality when the word "murder" already convey immorality. There is far more agreement in food taste than in morality, invalidating the argument that general agreement in morality points towards it being objective.

I don’t see how a comparison of two things (even if what you are saying is true) would show that both things don’t have general agreement. I’m open to hearing your case for that as well as your case for there being more agreement in food taste versus agreement in moral principles.

What makes a rule binding? Sounds like it's conveying the same sort of idea as having the authority. What gives the FA the authority to set the size of pitches?

The FA has the authority because they are the one who makes the league, makes the rules that teams and people join in. As to all the ways a rule can be made objectively binding, I have no idea, but I’m open to hearing any and all cases.

So, what is the reasoning within the atheistic moral theory that grounds morality to be objective?

The fact that you can objectively verify if a particular action is compliant or not, makes it an objective standard.

I could say there is a rule that soccer pitches must be 75 meters by 25 meters. Pitches that don’t have those dimensions wouldn’t be compliant with my rule, we could objectively verify that, but so what? I have no objective authority or connection to establish one should comply with my rule.

That hinge right there is the weak point, what links intentional creation and objective purpose? Why is "objective nature and purpose" tied together as if it's one concept? I ask because if objective nature alone is enough to ground objective morality, then any old godless explanation of humanity existence could ground objective morality.

Objective nature and purpose are tied together because a standard requires a goal or purpose that objective truths about the natures of those placed under that goal or purpose would apply. There needs to be a goal and truths getting us to that goal. Objective nature alone gives us truths that aren’t aimed at any particular thing, so it can go in any direction. Objective purpose alone gives us a goal that contradict the nature of those supposedly asked to strive for that goal.

How can an unintentional creation give us a purpose? It seems definitionally impossible. It sounds like saying a round shape is a square. It just seems to me to trivially follow that intentional creations are how one could get an objective purpose in that thing created.

Well, we could be talkin past each other, but the point was, you seem to have a reasonable answer in mind when you gave a sample answer from Suzie, if Suzie's answer made sense to you, then why is it so hard to understand how subjectivists are consistent with subjectivism?

Because you say you agree with her, but you disagree with what I think she means by saying that.

Great, that sounded very much like what I meant by "since vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself, rationality alone cannot determine one way or the other..."

How? I said rationality alone does determine it one way or the other.

Please continue filling in the gaps:
1) vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself (premise)
2) there is no objective truth about the good or bad of vanilla (rephrasing of 1)
3) if there is no objective truth about the good or bad of vanilla then there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their opinion (premise)
4) there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their opinion
...
n) we are okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream

1) vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself (premise)
2) there is no objective truth about the good or bad of vanilla (rephrasing of 1)
3) if there is no objective truth about the good or bad of vanilla then there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice (where choice covers acts, opinions, etc.) (premise)
4) there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice
5) if there is no objective standard to say they are wrong in their choice, then one should be rationally okay with their choice (premise)
6) Therefore, one should be rationally okay with their choice (e.g., people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream)

Not the same thing at all, the shape of the Earth is not a matter of opinion: There is a huge difference between "in my opinion the Earth is round" and "objectively, the Earth is round" where as there is no difference between "in my opinion vanilla is tasty" and "subjectively, vanilla is tasty."

I think you are still conflating two distinct things.

(a) When I say “I think vanilla is tasty,” I’m saying both (1) this is me sharing my view, not someone else’s and (2) that my view is X.

(b) When I say “I think the tastiness of vanilla will differ depending on who you ask,” I’m saying both (1) this is me sharing my view, not someone else’s and (2) that my view is X.

(c) When I say “because vanilla isn’t good or bad in itself, I’m okay with people eating or not eating vanilla ice cream.” I’m saying both (1) this is me sharing my view, not someone else’s and (2) that my view is X.

(d) When I say “I think the shape of the Earth is round,”I’m saying both (1) this is me sharing my view, not someone else’s and (2) that my view is X. That this is what I think doesn’t mean it is a matter of opinion.

Now, to bring this back to the point. You said there is no separating a statement about the taste from a statement about individuals since tastes are inherently tied to individuals. There is in the sense of having a (1) and (2) for each of these statements. If saying (c2) is a statement about the taste being mine, then so is saying (d2). No, (d2) is not a statement about my individual taste, but about the Earth’s shape being an objective truth. In the same way, (c2) is not a statement about my individual taste, but about how subjectivity leads to being okay with choices that don’t agree with my individual taste.

[The Tanager]

If only for me, the subjective nature of morality is why it's so important we discuss our morality, in terms of why or why not. We need to understand our cultures, and opinions, the how comes, and the shame on yous.

I agree the import of discussing morality if it is subjective is for informational purposes that could practically benefit our subjective choices.

If morality is some objective holy writ, then what's to discuss? "God said it, so there", has been, throughout history, and will today be used in some form to deny rights, to imprison, and even to kill one or many of our fellow human beings.

I think the import would be the same as with subjective morality I mentioned above plus challenging us to explore what we should be doing and why. Yes, “God said so” has been abused in atrocious ways. The problem here is that with subjective morality, this leads to there being nothing wrong (on par with the shape of the Earth being round and not flat) with denying rights to others, to imprisoning others for any reason, to kill one or many fellow human beings. These things are just differences, on par with liking ice cream flavors we don’t like.

It's a parlor trick for the theist to avoid the problems with "God said so" morality, by trying to poke holes in atheist logic regarding the topic.

I completely agree.

So the theist continues this... this... this display of trying to discuss this topic with some sense of dignity, as they peer around the elephant just to read the arguments being put forth.

It's a common enough tactic, it needs it a name, but being dumb of bulb and dim as rock, I don't know it.

If the discussion was whether objective morality exists and the theist(s) said what they said, then sure, but that’s not the part of the discussion they have been addressing.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
The problem here is that with subjective morality, this leads to there being nothing wrong (on par with the shape of the Earth being round and not flat) with denying rights to others, to imprisoning others for any reason, to kill one or many fellow human beings. These things are just differences, on par with liking ice cream flavors we don’t like.

Of course there's something wrong with denying rights to others. It's right there where it says "rights". If one doesn't have rights though, it's much easier to punish them. We see this happening across Murica, where the simple right to read a book, or dress a certain way, is under attack

...
If the discussion was whether objective morality exists and the theist(s) said what they said, then sure, but that’s not the part of the discussion they have been addressing.

I understand that by addressing specific points, some information may become lost. I maintain my position - morality, or "right and wrong", is subjective, whether the opinion of gods, or critters.