otseng wrote: ↑Sat Jan 13, 2024 4:49 pm
boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 9:11 am
otseng wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 8:01 am
The fact that skeptics complain about the morality of the God of the Old Testament points that they are using objective moral values to charge God is evil.
After all, slavery is considered objectively bad today, but not during the OT.
Objectively wrong means it would be wrong for all time. If it is wrong now and acceptable in the past would be subjective morality, not objective morality.
Your comment was making the connection between the objective morals that God expresses, and the acts that we consider morally wrong. I understand what OMVs are, I wonder if you do?
Otherwise, you'd be more inclined to say that modern morals are wrong, God is right: Slavery is fine.
But, you claim this process of discerning what is right and wrong must come from an idea of objective right and wrong. Whereas, it seems absolutely apparent to me that moral values change over time. One can say slavery was always wrong, even when no one believed it, but that is a spurious claim. It's just making things up - like the people who wrote the Bible.
That is, while you feel - today - there are bases for comparison (Good vs Evil), there is evidence they are Subjective to an Age, not defined by a God, nor by others.
For you to simply claim you know they exist is just wrong.
Is it wrong to rape someone?
Is it wrong to torture babies?
Is it OK to not bring any justice to those responsible for the Holocaust?
Is it acceptable to be unfaithful to your spouse?
Is it fine to steal from someone?
Is it wrong to murder someone?
Was it OK for the kid to cut in front of me yesterday in the grocery store checkout line?
Are you asking me if I believe those things are wrong, or if they are objectively wrong?
Why would it matter what I think? Isn't your whole point that you claim that they are Objective - and at some point you are going to prove they are, right?
Here are a few philosophical explanations that Moral Realist atheists offer in support of moral realism:
Not sure why you keep bringing this up. The issue is not moral realism, but the justification of objective morality. Unless you mean they both mean the same thing.
OMVs are more a religious/Christian thing. That's another data point that proves Christians are bad at moral values. Philosophers are in a robust debate to understand if morals are real or not. God doesn't come into the question, except for Theists who need to shoehorn God into every conversation.
Objective Morality through Reasoning:
Atheistic moral realists often argue that moral truths can be discovered through reason and rational inquiry. They may posit that objective moral facts are grounded in the nature of human beings, societal well-being, or other aspects of the natural world. Through thoughtful reflection and ethical reasoning, individuals can arrive at objective moral conclusions.
You'll need to be consistent with your arguments. When you claim atheists can account for OMV, they must believe that OMV exists in order to account for it. Are you skeptical as well when atheists claim OMV does exist?
That's ridiculous. I can make you aware of other positions. I'm debating with you, and my position is that you don't know if morals are real/objective or not, and I think it ridiculous that you feel the need to assert it one way or another. I am debating that it is more appropriate to say, "I have a certain belief about these things, but there is a robust discussion among professionals who have this conversation at a far deeper level. But, more importantly, there is no test that proves what morals are, only conjecture. You keep trying to convince me your opinion is right, which you have lost. You have no method to support your claim, only allusions to things that can easily be rejected.
Social Contract Theories:
Atheistic moral realists might appeal to social contract theories, which suggest that moral principles arise from implicit or explicit agreements within human societies. According to this view, certain moral rules are necessary for social cooperation and the well-being of individuals, and they are objective in the sense that they are grounded in the shared interests and agreements of rational beings.
Doubtful this can be considered objective when they are derived from a particular group and shared agreements.
Doubt away, it's still a valid position. It is an "if-then" statement. If a=b, then b=a. That's an objective truth. If one wants to achieve well being for a society, the argument is that there are objective moral values that need to be adopted to maximize well being.
You would need to argue against that as if you know that we can have objective well being by random moral values, or some such thing.
Erik Wielenberg defends a non-theistic form of moral realism. In his works like "Robust Ethics: The Metaphysics and Epistemology of Godless Normative Realism," he argues that objective moral facts can exist without the need for a theistic framework.
Russ Shafer-Landau, in his book "Moral Realism: A Defence," defends moral realism without grounding it in theistic premises. He argues for the existence of objective moral facts independent of divine authority.
Richard Joyce is known for his work in evolutionary ethics. In "The Myth of Morality," he explores the evolutionary origins of moral beliefs and argues for a non-theistic form of moral realism.
Simon Blackburn, although not exclusively an atheist, has explored quasi-realism in works like "Spreading the Word." His position seeks to reconcile moral realism with a non-realist, expressivist approach, without invoking a theistic foundation.
Derek Parfit, in his influential work "On What Matters," engages with questions related to moral realism without relying on theistic premises. His complex and nuanced exploration contributes to discussions about the nature of morality.
Instead of just presenting a list of books, what are the arguments and evidence they present?
Because it's not my goal to defend all of them, but to show you that there are valid discussions that support moral realism without a God. I have done that.
Why not simply admit these philosophers exist and have valuable contributions to the conversation, rather than ruling authoritian-ly "OMVs exist, and they need God!"
I'm not "authoritian-ly" proclaiming anything. I've simply presenting my arguments to defend my position. Further, I have investigated opposing arguments and given my rebuttal to them.
All you need to do is show how we'd know morals are objective, right? From Stanford:
Suppose, for the sake of the argument, that there are moral facts. Suppose even that the moral facts are properly thought of as at least compatible with science. One thing Moore’s Open Question Argument still seems to show is that no appeal to natural facts discovered by scientific method would establish that the moral facts are one way rather than another. That something is pleasant, or useful, or satisfies someone’s preference, is perfectly compatible with thinking that it is neither good nor right nor worth doing. The mere fact that moral facts might be compatible with natural facts does nothing to support the idea that we could learn about the moral facts.
So, keep claiming morals are objective - AND - they are derived somehow from God.
I'll keep claiming they aren't and we are exactly on the same footing.
I simply don't find the need to declare them wrong, just because I don't think OMVs exist, and I question your need to do this.
You'll need to be a consistent skeptic. Accepting what someone on your side claims and not accepting what your opponent says, even though we both claim OMV exists, is not a consistent skeptic.
I'm being incredibly consistent. You keep thinking I am trying to argue something I'm not. That's on you.
Is there a prize if you win?
Who's claiming anyone is winning? I'm simply debating and defending my position, which is the purpose of this forum.
Very well. Let's recap.
You've claimed that there are OBVs and they must come from God. Your argument is:
1. In order to judge what is right or wrong clearly proves there is something objective about moral values.
2. If boatsnguitars thinks rape is wrong, then rape is objectively wrong.
1. These can be explained - and seem better explained - by the fact that humans have similar experiences, have roughly similar goals, are social species, and are learning what is most beneficial to the common goals they develop over time. The reason they seem objective is that, for example, rape doesn't seem to have any logical benefit to a society in light of other preferred options.
2. You know why this is a poor argument. Your argument doesn't get stronger if you poll every person alive and dead and they come to 100% concurrence. Your whole point is that these moral truths transcend opinion. Therefore, you'd have to accept the following possibility:
1. Objective Morals exist
2. None of them are known to anyone now, nor will ever be known.
So, even if you could show that God exists, and they are Objective, you still can't tell us what they are.
Further, you might slide to "well, just the sense of discernment is proof that a kind of moral objective exists, because otherwise, why would we search for it?"
Which is like saying, "If Bigfoot doesn't exist, why do so many people search for him? Clearly, we have a sense that Bigfoot exists. The very use of reason and logic to argue Bigfoots existence proves the existence of Bigfoot."
