Moral objective values...

[whisperit]

[font=Verdana]In one of his papers, Dr. William Lane Craig (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lane_Craig) argues moral objective values is to say something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. If God does not exist, what is the foundation for moral objective values?[/font][/url]

[Bust Nak]

I think anyone who thinks the holocaust was fine is unlikely to reject objective morality. More likely they will embrace objective morality wholeheartedly, but have a warped sense of what is objectively moral.

Right, which makes it all the more frustrating when the holocaust is used to hammer subjectivists. An objectivists is more likely to think holocaust was fine than an subjectivist.

Rather I think it is that people who reject objective morality - usually on the basis of an exaggerated regard for rigorous proof - are forced into the awkward position of almost having to defend the Nazis to maintain some consistency rather than harbouring latent anti-semitism.

There is some truth to that. Objectivists treat "XYZ is wrong" as axioms, I wouldn't expect one to have a proof for a claim such as "Hitler was wrong" other than "he just was!"

Perhaps the problem is that demanding a logically rigorous proof that the holocaust was evil before we start out makes the job of discovering why it is evil hard to begin.

It's not hard for us at all. It's really simple to prove the holocaust was evil under moral subjectivism, because it is simply a matter of opinion. My personal testimoney that I think the holocaust was evil, is more than enough to prove that I do indeed think the holocaust was evil; and what I think is evil, is evil.

[keithprosser3]

It's not hard for us at all. It's really simple to prove the holocaust was evil under moral subjectivism.

My apology for not being clearer. I meant that the project of developing an objectivity-based theory of morality can't get started because of the repeated demand
to prove objectively and rigorously that the holocaust was evil before we even get started on it.

On the issue of objective morality, I am sceptical such a thing exists in 'pure form', but I think it is a worthwhile matter to explore. There is a practical side to it. For one thing, if this government or the next begins to massacre Muslims, or Welshmen or anyone whose name ends in N I'd quite like a better argument than 'Personally, I don't think that's a very nice thing to do but if you think it's ok, go ahead.'

The other itch I have is that it seems to obvious that the holocaust (and so many other evils in the world) are bad it seems strange we can't prove them to be bad.

And of course, finally I am am a little arrogant. I believe the evil of genocide and such like are not just my opinion but a fact about the world. I want to back my hunch about genocide being evil, and I am sometimes a little disappointed that some people - the subjectivists - seem happy to have an opinion but not have any confidence in it.

Now for Pete's sake don't ask me to prove that objective morality exists! The fact that I can't prove that is precisely why I am posting. I am not suggesting we will find objective morality if we do look for it, but (who knows!) we might find something even better. We won't find anything if we only keep repeating the obvious fact that we have no proof we will succeed.

[Bust Nak]

My apology for not being clearer. I meant that the project of developing an objectivity-based theory of morality can't get started because of the repeated demand to prove objectively and rigorously that the holocaust was evil before we even get started on it.

Surely coming up with a way to objectively and rigorously demostrate that the holocaust was evil, would be the best place to start on a project developing an objectivity-based theory of morality. It is one of the very few moral statements that can almost be universally agreed on.

On the issue of objective morality, I am sceptical such a thing exists in 'pure form', but I think it is a worthwhile matter to explore. There is a practical side to it. For one thing, if this government or the next begins to massacre Muslims, or Welshmen or anyone whose name ends in N I'd quite like a better argument than 'Personally, I don't think that's a very nice thing to do but if you think it's ok, go ahead.'

Practically we would say 'Personally, I don't think that's a very nice thing to do and if you think it's ok, I'll do what I can to stop you.' There is nothing in moral subjectivism to suggest apathy towards another's action.

The other itch I have is that it seems to obvious that the holocaust (and so many other evils in the world) are bad it seems strange we can't prove them to be bad.

All the more reason to embrace moral subjectivism. We can prove it, objectivists can't and can only treat it as an self-evidently true axiom.

And of course, finally I am am a little arrogant. I believe the evil of genocide and such like are not just my opinion but a fact about the world. I want to back my hunch about genocide being evil, and I am sometimes a little disappointed that some people - the subjectivists - seem happy to have an opinion but not have any confidence in it.

Oh, I can be very confident in my opinion - confident enough to resort to violence to enforce it.

Now for Pete's sake don't ask me to prove that objective morality exists! The fact that I can't prove that is precisely why I am posting. I am not suggesting we will find objective morality if we do look for it, but (who knows!) we might find something even better. We won't find anything if we only keep repeating the obvious fact that we have no proof we will succeed.

Well, philosophers have been trying for millennia. Good luck.

[keithprosser3]

Well, philosophers have been trying for millennia. Good luck.

Problem is I can't spare much time to work on objective morality until I've had the illusion of explaining consciousness and proved free will doesn't exist (or does exist, I can't make up my mind on that). Thank God at least we've settled He doesn't exist at last!

[olavisjo]

.

Nope, you are straw manning me saying that I implied evolution has nothing to say about morality.

What does evolution have to say about morality?

[olavisjo]

.

You apologize yet you keep on doing it. Do you still want to maintain that you are innocence against my accusation re: backhand implication that those who don't accept moral objectivism think the Holocaust was fine?

If a person is going to deny that there is a right and wrong, then why would everything not be fine?

[olavisjo]

.

It's not hard for us at all. It's really simple to prove the holocaust was evil under moral subjectivism, because it is simply a matter of opinion. My personal testimoney that I think the holocaust was evil, is more than enough to prove that I do indeed think the holocaust was evil; and what I think is evil, is evil.

Compare it to this...

It's not hard for us at all. It's really simple to prove the world is flat under scientific subjectivism, because it is simply a matter of opinion. My personal testimoney that I think the world is flat, is more than enough to prove that I do indeed think the the world is flat; and what I think is flat, is flat.

[olavisjo]

.

Oh, I can be very confident in my opinion - confident enough to resort to violence to enforce it.

How is this any different from the Muslims being confident in their opinions - confident enough to resort to flying planes into buildings to enforce it.

[arian]

[Replying to post 272 by arian]

Appreciate your nice opinions, but you lack substance (facts).

Thanks, .. but how will you recognize facts I present to you without your subjective opinions standing in the way? We have to establish facts first and base them as absolutes. You know, like this UN Resolution Agenda 21 I mentioned; representatives from 120 some nations came together to decide on the fate of the entire world, and I don't remember being invited, or asked for my opinion on it?

These 120, from 7.2 billion people decided on and established an objective plan for sustainable development for the human race, including what they believe should be our moral objective values in every aspect of our lives, including what we eat, how much we eat, what we learn, what to teach our kids, what jobs we should have, where we should live, whether or not we should live, .. it is comprehensive, it is absolute, .. which we can't seem to establish here on this forum? How did these 120 representatives do it I wonder? This may hold the answer for the OP!?!

In my humble and unheard opinion, we don't have a problem with overpopulation, the problem we do have is with the populations moral objective values. The people don't know or even define what moral objective value is, and I guess this is another reason they came up with Agenda 21 for the nations, .. it explains to them everything without any subjective input.

If your god decreed rape and murder as 'not wrong', would you agree?

1. You see, .. you said "your god" when in the objective it is "our God".

Now of course you will without even considering my definition of God/fact, which by the way is not by religious indoctrination but by established unwavering faith, .. another word my belief in 'our God' is both philosophically and scientifically established FACT, .. and you can simply say: "Your God doesn't exist"
If you can't even make an honest effort in knowing the truth about 'our God' without allowing to be influenced by your subjective personal feelings and opinions, then what exactly is your understanding of "objective"?

I can explain the existence of our Creator God, and yet you (or anyone) could subjectively say; "No he, .. or she, .. or it don't exist". So what is FACT if you refuse to agree with me on it because of your personal feelings and opinions?
You guys say: "The Bible is an old storybook of fairytales made up of ignorant superstitious tribesmen!" So what is your opinions on the Book Agenda 21?

This is why I explained the FACT that God exists outside of human opinion. So if God tells us that killing our children is wrong, and then He tells Abraham to sacrifice his son for him, it is still absolute. Why? Because everything God does is for our benefit, for our evolution back to image we were created in. People in Abrahams time were sacrificing their children to other man-made gods, so God tested the faith of Abraham His servant if he would be willing to kill his own son for The Creator, like other pagans do for their created gods? What is wrong with that?

The Old Testament was evolution of fallen man by experience through laws and consequences. After the Messiah came, He explained all this to us, by revealing Gods love for us in His Sons sacrificial death.

But nothing I say matters if you are unable to establish 'facts', .. or 'absolutes'. If you can't define 'absolute good' or recognize the difference between good and evil, how would you define moral objective values? No wonder so many of you support this evil Agenda 21 initiative.

[JohnA]

.

Nope, you are straw manning me saying that I implied evolution has nothing to say about morality.

What does evolution have to say about morality?

I answered that many times already:
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 116#607116

Strictly speaking evolution does ensure "Survival of the Fittest" via "Natural selection" = "better designed for an immediate, local environment", not your inference of "in the best physical shape".
Natural selection is the gradual natural process by which biological traits become either more or less common in a population as a function of the effect of inherited traits on the differential reproductive success of organisms interacting with their environment. (Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_selection)
Survival is merely a normal prerequisite to reproduction. Fitness has specialized meaning in biology different from how the word is used in popular culture. In population genetics, fitness refers to differential reproduction. "Fitness" does not refer to whether an individual is "physically fit" – bigger, faster or stronger – or "better" in any subjective sense. It refers to a difference in reproductive rate from one generation to the next. (source: Colby, Chris (1996-1997), Introduction to Evolutionary Biology, TalkOrigins Archive, retrieved 2009-02-22) .




The tragic part here is that with a few clicks of the mouse, you can look this stuff up for yourself. The question is why don't you? That is for you to answer. I suspect that deep down you don't want to find what you faith based belief has no rational foundation. Your mistake is your reasoning that being rational makes you less of a person. It doesn't. You can be rational too, but I don't think you'll ever relinquish your faith based belief. It is too precious to you, which is why debate is pointless because you adopted some authority's faith. You do not even answer my questions or admit your own writings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_ethics
^^ Read the links below, the sources.


You still have ALL my questions to deal with.

Notice, there was no reference to your god in the definition of 'wrong' you provided. Am glad you saw this and admitted before that you just define 'objective morals' to sneak in your god. You also admitted that you would not agree with your god if he decrees rape as not wrong. We now know your god is not needed for morals and morals are subjective.
So, the question now is: what is the source of these subjective morals? Well you can answer that self seeing that you are doing so well so far:

Based on your definition of 'wrong', can you now tell us how do you know the Holocaust would be wrong if your god decreed it 'not wrong'?