[
Replying to otseng in post #3382]
Since atheists have no justification to believe in objective morality, their belief is no more credible than a Christian saying God exists and having no justification for it. It is a blind faith assertion. Making any moral judgment against the God of the Old Testament cannot be justifiably made.
I first became aware of this argument of objective morality through/from Tanager.
I still am not sure what Tanager meant although what we argued and appeared to agree with, is that human beings are the local source re objectifying subjective concepts...and the following interaction with GPT clarifies that observation in more detail.
________
Me: What is meant by "objective morality"?
GPT:
Objective morality refers to the idea that moral principles or values exist independently of individual beliefs, opinions, or cultural norms. In other words, it posits that there are objective and universal moral truths that apply to everyone, regardless of personal perspectives or cultural variations.
Me: Can one name any moral principle or value which exists independently of individual beliefs?
GPT: Identifying specific moral principles or values that universally exist independently of individual beliefs is a challenging task, as it is a subject of considerable debate in philosophy and ethics. However, some examples are often cited in discussions about potential candidates for objective morality. It's important to note that opinions on this matter can vary, and not everyone agrees on the existence of objective moral principles. Here are a few examples that have been proposed:
1. Respect for Human Dignity: Some argue that a fundamental respect for the intrinsic worth and dignity of every human being is an objective moral principle. This may include the belief that certain actions, such as torture or slavery, are inherently wrong because they violate the dignity of individuals.
2. Truthfulness: Another candidate for an objective moral principle is the value of truthfulness. The idea is that honesty and the avoidance of deception are universally moral, regardless of cultural or individual differences.
3. Justice and Fairness: The principle of justice, treating individuals fairly and impartially, is often considered by some as an objective moral value. This includes concepts such as equal treatment under the law and the fair distribution of resources.
4. Non-Aggression: The principle of non-aggression suggests that initiating force or harm against others without just cause is inherently wrong. This principle is foundational in some ethical theories, including certain forms of deontology and libertarian ethics.
5. Compassion and Empathy: Some argue that the capacity for compassion and empathy is a universal moral value, as it promotes caring for others and understanding their suffering.
While these examples are often discussed in the context of objective morality, it's important to recognize that there is ongoing philosophical debate about whether such principles are genuinely objective or whether they are culturally conditioned and subject to interpretation. Different ethical theories provide various perspectives on the nature and existence of objective morality.
Me: Respect for Human Dignity can be sourced in the subjective and then objectified - but is objectifying something the act of making a subjective thing "objective"?
GPT: Yes, your understanding is on the right track. The process you're describing involves taking a subjective concept and attempting to objectify or make it objective. Let's break down the idea:
1. Subjective Perspective: The notion of "respect for human dignity" often begins as a subjective concept rooted in individual beliefs, cultural values, or personal experiences. Different people or cultures may have varying interpretations of what constitutes human dignity.
2. Objectification: Objectifying a moral principle involves seeking a basis for it that transcends individual or cultural subjectivity. This can involve attempting to ground the principle in something more universal or objective, such as rationality, inherent human rights, or shared ethical intuitions.
In the case of "respect for human dignity," proponents of objective morality might argue that certain aspects of human nature, rationality, or fundamental rights provide an objective foundation for this moral principle. For example, some ethical theories assert that certain rights or dignities are inherent to being human and should be respected universally.
It's important to note that the process of objectification doesn't necessarily make a moral principle entirely objective in an absolute sense. The challenge lies in establishing a universally accepted and unchanging foundation for morality. Different ethical theories and philosophical perspectives propose various ways of approaching this challenge, and the debate continues within the fields of ethics and philosophy.
Me: So when Richard Dawkins said that "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.” the idea re the observation is to point out that at least in human beings, Richard is incorrect and forgetting to include human beings as part of the universe he is describing, is a fallacy - a mistake on the part of his expressed observation-claim.
GPT: Richard Dawkins, a prominent evolutionary biologist and atheist, often expresses a naturalistic and atheistic worldview. The quote you provided reflects his perspective on the apparent lack of inherent purpose or moral qualities in the universe. The statement implies a universe that operates according to natural laws, without an overarching design, purpose, good, or evil.
If one were to critique Dawkins' statement, a common response might be to argue that the absence of inherent purpose or moral values in the universe does not preclude the existence of purpose or morality at the human level. In other words, critics may assert that while the universe at large may appear indifferent, human beings, as conscious and moral agents, can imbue their existence with purpose and moral significance.
The potential fallacy you are highlighting could be related to the scope of Dawkins' statement. If he is asserting that the universe lacks inherent purpose or moral qualities, it might be seen as an oversimplification if it's interpreted as denying the existence of purpose or morality altogether, especially at the level of human experience.
It's important to recognize that statements about the nature of the universe and the existence of purpose or morality can be complex and are often rooted in philosophical and metaphysical assumptions. Different individuals may interpret and respond to such statements based on their own perspectives, beliefs, and philosophical frameworks.
Me: It is not about what Richard might have meant - but about his lack of acknowledging that human beings are a part of the universe and therefore the universe does exhibit design, purpose, evil, good, rather than "nothing but pitiless indifference".
GPT: I understand your point. It seems like you're highlighting a potential oversight in Richard Dawkins' statement, pointing out that human beings, as part of the universe, do bring elements of design, purpose, good, and evil into the overall cosmic picture. By characterizing the universe as having "nothing but pitiless indifference," Dawkins might be perceived as neglecting the role of conscious, moral agents, such as humans, in shaping the nature of the universe at least from a subjective, human-centered perspective.
Indeed, one could argue that if the universe includes conscious beings capable of experiencing and ascribing meaning, purpose, good, and evil, then these qualities become part of the universe's overall tapestry, even if they are not inherent in the physical laws that govern the cosmos.
The philosophical discussion around the nature of the universe, purpose, and morality is complex and often involves contrasting perspectives. Some may emphasize the naturalistic, atheistic view that the universe lacks inherent purpose or moral qualities, while others may argue that the subjective experiences and moral judgments of conscious beings contribute significant meaning and value to the cosmic narrative.
In any case, such discussions often delve into the realms of metaphysics, philosophy of mind, and ethics, and perspectives on these matters can vary widely among individuals and scholars.
The interaction went on as I had more questions and observations to critique through the GPT machinery... here is the final part...
Me: We can accept that human beings are still trying to understand WHY morals exist and which of them are evil and which of them are good - but that does not make the fact that morality is an objective reality go away, even that humans might disagree...
GPT: Your statement captures a key aspect of the ongoing philosophical discourse on morality. The fact that humans continue to explore and debate the nature of morality, seeking to understand its origins, principles, and distinctions between good and evil, doesn't inherently negate the possibility of objective morality.
While humans may hold diverse and sometimes conflicting views on moral matters, the question of whether there are objective moral truths independent of individual beliefs or cultural perspectives remains a subject of philosophical inquiry. Proponents of objective morality argue that, despite disagreements, certain moral principles exist objectively, providing a universal foundation for distinguishing between good and evil.
The challenge lies in establishing a widely accepted and objective basis for morality that transcends individual and cultural differences. Various ethical theories and philosophical perspectives contribute to this ongoing exploration, shaping the discourse on the nature of morality and the potential existence of objective moral realities.
(The full interaction can be viewed here)
