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?

[boatsnguitars]

Just to clarify to everyone here. Here is a rough synopsis of the various moral theories that are most popular with those who make a living out of such things:

Materialist Perspectives:

1. Naturalistic Ethics: Naturalistic ethics, rooted in scientific and empirical inquiry, seeks to explain moral values through natural processes and human behavior. It posits that moral values emerge from the natural world, such as social instincts, cultural norms, and evolutionary principles. Moral values are seen as subjective and contingent on human experiences, shaped by social, cultural, and biological factors.

2. Ethical Egoism: Ethical egoism asserts that individuals ought to pursue their own self-interest as the foundation of moral values. It emphasizes personal well-being, happiness, and the satisfaction of one's desires. Moral values in ethical egoism are subjective and relative to individual perspectives, prioritizing individual self-interest rather than universal principles.

3. Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism holds that moral values are grounded in the principle of maximizing overall happiness or well-being. It emphasizes the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Utilitarianism can be understood in both subjective and objective terms. Some variants consider happiness as subjective experiences, while others argue for an objective measurement of well-being based on preferences or welfare.

Non-Materialist Perspectives:

4. Divine Command Theory: Divine command theory posits that moral values originate from a higher authority, typically a divine being or a religious framework. Moral values are grounded in the commands or will of this higher power. In this view, moral values are objective and derive their objectivity from the divine source.

5. Ethical Intuitionism: Ethical intuitionism argues that moral values are self-evident and known through moral intuition. It posits that individuals have an innate ability to recognize moral truths directly. Moral values are considered objective and real, rooted in rational intuition rather than external sources.

6. Rationalism: Rationalist theories, such as Kantian ethics, emphasize the role of reason in grounding moral values. Moral principles are derived from rationality and the ability to act according to universal laws. Moral values are seen as objective and based on rational considerations rather than subjective preferences.

Tanager has decided to hitch his wagon to #5 with, perhaps, hints of 5 and/or 6 - but has decided that the "Act of Creation" (which automatically imbues objective purpose and an objective nature into the Creation). Tanager has decided that this must mean it is not merely what a toy maker would make as an objective purpose for a toy, but that the Toy Maker makes it a moral imperative that the toy perform it's function in order to please the Toy Maker. Free Will or not, the Toy must abide by the Toy Maker's whim.

Forget that a toy maker could make a frisbee and use it as a plate - this would be immoral to Tanager.
Or forget that the Toy Maker could be amoral, or immoral - The Toy Maker, by Tanager's definition - would be Moral ("Morally Right" - since Good and Bad would be meaningless in Tanager's world. It wouldn't matter the morality of the Toy Maker, only that the Toy Maker can Create.

Morals, to Tanager, are simply what the Creator decides for his toys. Fight to the death for his amusement, adore him, mill about for millions of years trying to desperately determine what the Toy Maker wants from them. This is Morality to Tanager.

[The Tanager]

I really can't understand why you think saying "If God made us, than we have OBVs" needs all this. I doubt many people question it, since they presume God is defined as a Moral Making Faerie.

The problem is, you aren't supporting it. You are doing your darndest to re-state your conclusions, while thinking you are creating some objective argument for OMVs.

Well, I don’t presume it and you asked me to give syllogisms, including syllogisms for definitions. As I said from the beginning, all I was doing was following the definitions. Now you are surprised that the syllogisms you asked for are just arguments following the definitions? If you disagree with the definitions, offer counter definitions or point out the premise(s) you disagree with.

My point was that, according to your syllogism, the BB would suffice as a Moral Making Entity. But, you - as I predicted - claimed that the AoC needs to be intentional. I imagine if we are to drill down on what "intentional" means, you would say "done on purpose", meaning and we'd eventually get to you admitting that you mean a Mind, and only a supernatural Mind could have created us, even though the vast scientific data shows that we evolved with no apparent purpose whatsoever.

You are simply. Blindly. Religiously. Asserting that we have purpose because that's what you think we have.

Of course being intentional means doing something on purpose! What do you think “intentional” means?

Argument Q says nothing of the supernatural. How we were created is completely irrelevant to argument Q. Yes, if we evolved with no apparent purpose whatsoever, then there is no objective purpose. You’ve just shown that your point above (bolded) is wrong. According to my syllogisms, the BB does not suffice as a Moral Making Entity.

I’m not simply, blindly, religiously asserting we have purpose. This discussion isn’t about if we have objective purpose or not as humans, but how moral objectivity could come about and if theism and atheism can both get us there. So, all I’m saying is that one way of getting moral objectivity would be through humans having an objective purpose (and objective nature). You then tried to turn around and use my argument to show an atheistic moral theory could do this, except you’ve admitted it doesn’t give us an objective purpose.

If atheism can lead to objective morality, then you need to give a different argument to get it there. What is that argument? Not just a claim it does, but the argument for why it does. You shared various theories in that post that claim to objectively ground morality, but not the support for atheistic versions doing so.

Tanager has decided to hitch his wagon to #5 with, perhaps, hints of 5 and/or 6 - but has decided that the "Act of Creation" (which automatically imbues objective purpose and an objective nature into the Creation). Tanager has decided that this must mean it is not merely what a toy maker would make as an objective purpose for a toy, but that the Toy Maker makes it a moral imperative that the toy perform it's function in order to please the Toy Maker. Free Will or not, the Toy must abide by the Toy Maker's whim.

And the problem with an objective standard for morality meaning you must abide by it to be objectively moral is what? That’s just what it means.

Forget that a toy maker could make a frisbee and use it as a plate - this would be immoral to Tanager.

If “using it as a plate” goes against its objective nature or given objective purpose(s), then, yes, this by definition would be immoral. There is no guarantee that the toy maker is against it being used as a throwing device or a plate.

Or forget that the Toy Maker could be amoral, or immoral - The Toy Maker, by Tanager's definition - would be Moral ("Morally Right" - since Good and Bad would be meaningless in Tanager's world. It wouldn't matter the morality of the Toy Maker, only that the Toy Maker can Create.

Immoral by what standard? You are just assuming there is a bigger standard of morality; this critique doesn’t make any sense.

[boatsnguitars]

I really can't understand why you think saying "If God made us, than we have OBVs" needs all this. I doubt many people question it, since they presume God is defined as a Moral Making Faerie.

The problem is, you aren't supporting it. You are doing your darndest to re-state your conclusions, while thinking you are creating some objective argument for OMVs.

Well, I don’t presume it and you asked me to give syllogisms, including syllogisms for definitions. As I said from the beginning, all I was doing was following the definitions. Now you are surprised that the syllogisms you asked for are just arguments following the definitions? If you disagree with the definitions, offer counter definitions or point out the premise(s) you disagree with.

My point was that, according to your syllogism, the BB would suffice as a Moral Making Entity. But, you - as I predicted - claimed that the AoC needs to be intentional. I imagine if we are to drill down on what "intentional" means, you would say "done on purpose", meaning and we'd eventually get to you admitting that you mean a Mind, and only a supernatural Mind could have created us, even though the vast scientific data shows that we evolved with no apparent purpose whatsoever.

You are simply. Blindly. Religiously. Asserting that we have purpose because that's what you think we have.

Of course being intentional means doing something on purpose! What do you think “intentional” means?

Argument Q says nothing of the supernatural. How we were created is completely irrelevant to argument Q. Yes, if we evolved with no apparent purpose whatsoever, then there is no objective purpose. You’ve just shown that your point above (bolded) is wrong. According to my syllogisms, the BB does not suffice as a Moral Making Entity.

I’m not simply, blindly, religiously asserting we have purpose. This discussion isn’t about if we have objective purpose or not as humans, but how moral objectivity could come about and if theism and atheism can both get us there. So, all I’m saying is that one way of getting moral objectivity would be through humans having an objective purpose (and objective nature). You then tried to turn around and use my argument to show an atheistic moral theory could do this, except you’ve admitted it doesn’t give us an objective purpose.

If atheism can lead to objective morality, then you need to give a different argument to get it there. What is that argument? Not just a claim it does, but the argument for why it does. You shared various theories in that post that claim to objectively ground morality, but not the support for atheistic versions doing so.

Tanager has decided to hitch his wagon to #5 with, perhaps, hints of 5 and/or 6 - but has decided that the "Act of Creation" (which automatically imbues objective purpose and an objective nature into the Creation). Tanager has decided that this must mean it is not merely what a toy maker would make as an objective purpose for a toy, but that the Toy Maker makes it a moral imperative that the toy perform it's function in order to please the Toy Maker. Free Will or not, the Toy must abide by the Toy Maker's whim.

And the problem with an objective standard for morality meaning you must abide by it to be objectively moral is what? That’s just what it means.

Forget that a toy maker could make a frisbee and use it as a plate - this would be immoral to Tanager.

If “using it as a plate” goes against its objective nature or given objective purpose(s), then, yes, this by definition would be immoral. There is no guarantee that the toy maker is against it being used as a throwing device or a plate.

Or forget that the Toy Maker could be amoral, or immoral - The Toy Maker, by Tanager's definition - would be Moral ("Morally Right" - since Good and Bad would be meaningless in Tanager's world. It wouldn't matter the morality of the Toy Maker, only that the Toy Maker can Create.

Immoral by what standard? You are just assuming there is a bigger standard of morality; this critique doesn’t make any sense.

I've given you a higher standard: The reduction of suffering in sentient creatures. This standard is far superior to a moral standard based on the whims of a Toy Maker. Under your moral theory, all things are allowed: slavery, masochism, sadism, war, pain - all the things we see in the world and more. It's all possible depending on the Toy Maker.

I have offered, for everyone's consideration, the idea that a higher moral principle is honoring sentient Beings as the primary moral grounding - whereas you have offered a Toy Maker that could make "Good" = "Suffer for me, Die for me, Praise me, or else."

Suffering is objectively negative to the our nature, it's objectively experienced by all sentient creatures, and it an objective part of our reality. You have offered some obscure, unknown, whimsical, possibly amoral or immoral grounding to moral values - which is to say you haven't grounded anything at all.

If that distinction isn't clear, I don't know what you mean by Moral Values. You aren't talking about moral values if you aren't trying to make a clear distinction between what we call "Good" and "Evil." You have simply said, "What is forced upon us is Moral, whether it is Good or Evil."

Meanwhile, you will no doubt, continue to ask "Why is suffering bad?" That's because you have no concept of morality. To you it is nothing but what the Toy Maker wants.

[The Tanager]

I've given you a higher standard: The reduction of suffering in sentient creatures.

That’s not a standard; it’s part of the moral code given by the standard.

Suffering is objectively negative to the our nature, it's objectively experienced by all sentient creatures, and it an objective part of our reality.

I agree it’s an objective part of our reality, but you need to show why our objective suffering is objectively negative…not to our nature, but to reality outside of ourselves. That which shows us that our individual sufferings are objectively negative to reality outside of ourselves is the standard. What is that standard for you? It can’t be “the reduction of suffering in sentient creatures” because that is what is trying to be explained.

I have offered that the source of creation providing an objective purpose to reality would be such a standard. What is your standard?

[boatsnguitars]

I agree it’s an objective part of our reality, but you need to show why our objective suffering is objectively negative…not to our nature, but to reality outside of ourselves. That which shows us that our individual sufferings are objectively negative to reality outside of ourselves is the standard. What is that standard for you? It can’t be “the reduction of suffering in sentient creatures” because that is what is trying to be explained.

I have offered that the source of creation providing an objective purpose to reality would be such a standard. What is your standard?

[/quote]
You agree suffering is objective. We know that's true because of our experience of suffering.
There is no need to propose anything outside our individual experiences of suffering since we've already determined objective suffering exists and it's negative.

Your flaw is in the assumption that an external standard is necessary to establish the objective negativity of suffering, disregarding the possibility of understanding and evaluating suffering based on our subjective experiences and empathetic understanding. Like recognizing that the Sun exists - we recognize it as an objective fact, though we each subjectively experience it through our individual senses - like suffering.

Why do you presume these is a reality outside ourselves that must account for a standard of suffering? Where on Earth did you get this idea?

[Bust Nak]

I don’t think there is agreement in every case. Yes, harmony sounds good to most (some music makes use of discord), but even beyond that people like different kinds of harmony. Sweet food yum, sure, but a lot of variety within sweet foods.

That's the same for morality, where people agree with the general view that murder is wrong, but with tons of disagreement on which slaying counts as murder, and which is justified killing.

If almost everyone, from very different cultures and walks of life told you the same dimension, I think that would be good support. If there wasn’t an objective, one would expect all kinds of different answers.

So all I need for grounding atheistic objective morality, is the usual godless explanation for the existence of humanity, along with a bunch of people agreeing that murder is wrong?

The explanation is that God’s act of creation gives humans an objective nature and purpose. What that nature and purpose is (nature A rather than nature B, for instance) is because of God’s nature. The first is an explanation. The second is a “just is”.

So, if you are saying compare that to this claim: Super God’s act of creation gives God an objective nature, this is an explanation. Yes. But now we are comparing to “just is” explanations. They are the same in all areas except that the Super God explanation adds an additional layer, so, unless there are arguments for Super God’s existence, then simplicity is on the no-Super God side.

Same sort of point as above, is "the universe runs on set rules, and such rules gave rise to morality," now more of an explanation, rather than "morality just is?"

Well let this be my declaration that I am making a level 2 statement - a more general statement about how taste interacts with all individual taste judges: Whether something is good or not, depends on individual taste judges.

I’m not sure you are, though. I’m not asking you for the truth about how Bust Nak feels about tasting vanilla, I’m asking you for a truth about vanilla. I’m not asking you for the truth about how Bust Nak feels about child abuse, but for a truth about child abuse itself. Do your feelings tell us anything about child abuse itself?

“Bust Nak thinks child abuse is bad and Jimmy thinks child abuse is good,” is a level 1 statement, where you are sharing individual judgments. With level 2, you must now say a truth about child abuse unrelated to Bust Nak or Jimmy (except in a general way). What is that statement?

It's literally right there, I bolded it for you. I am telling you this truth about vanilla: Whether vanilla is tasty or not, depends on individual taste judges. Surely you don't think that's a level 1 statement? If this is a level 1 statement then what does it tell you about how I feel about tasting vanilla? I am not sharing my individual judgement, I am saying this level 2 truth about child abuse: whether child abuse is moral or not, depends on individual taste judges. This truth is unrelated to Bust Nak or Jimmy (except in this general way: Jimmy and I are individual taste judges.)

So, then you are both saying “I don’t like child abuse” (i.e., “child abuse is immoral”) and “child abuse is both moral and immoral depending on who the level 1 judge is. ‘Immoral’ in the first statement must mean something else in the second for this to not be a contradiction. Help me see what you think it means in the second.

Well, I pretty much copied word for word what Suzie said, did you meant for the "good" in "X is not good" to be the same or a different concept to the positive value in "the value of X?" Did you meant for Suzie to contradict herself?

Again, think ice-cream: Does the word "tastier" in "whether vanilla is tastier than chocolate or not, depending on who the level 1 judge is" mean different things to the "I find vanilla tastier than chocolate?" Or think weights: Does the word "heavy" in "whether this dumbbell is heavy or nor, depends on how strong the lifter is" mean different things to "this dumbbell is too heavy for me?" Do you see any contradiction here?

Again I see intuitive ideas about subjective features that everyone understands, suddenly goes out of the window when the topic is switched to morality. You might not think morality is subjective, but don't let that stop you from apply the same understanding to morality.

The one ‘engaging in the act’ was another way to say the individual judger, as an attempt to avoid confusion between Suzie being the level 2 judger.

Well then I am saying the exact same thing Suzie is, the only thing I did was changed "engaging in the act" to "judging the act." Look back at my earlier point, when God is judging the value of a man's action, who is the one ‘engaging in the act’? God is the one engaged in the act, because God is the one individual level 1 judger here; not the man doing the action, because the man would be the another level 1 judger.

Yes, but you said “It's important to point out here I am referring to getting frustrate with tasting the flavor, as opposed to getting frustrated with being force fed.”

Yeah, the point there was to separate getting frustrate with tasting the flavor from getting frustrate with being force fed. The point here, on the other hand, is that being grossed out once probably won't lead to frustration because you can avoid it, but constantly being grossed out would lead to frustration with the taste.

I would be frustrated with the effect of COVID messing up my taste, yes, but I’m still simply grossed out by the taste, not angry at it.

Would you not get frustrated with being grossed out consistently? Or are you saying the frustration would not turn into anger?

[boatsnguitars]

Immoral by what standard? You are just assuming there is a bigger standard of morality; this critique doesn’t make any sense.

This is what is frustrating. I've given you the standard: Reduce Suffering.

"Reducing Suffering" is a standard or a guiding principle in ethical discussions. It aligns with the moral framework of reducing harm and promoting well-being.

But we all know what your subtext: you think it has to be a God. For you, morals can only exist with a God.

You are simply wrong and it's getting tiresome that you haven't learned anything in all the years(?) you've had these discussions.

Do you also believe there is an objective standard for Humor?

[The Tanager]

This is what is frustrating. I've given you the standard: Reduce Suffering.

"Reducing Suffering" is a standard or a guiding principle in ethical discussions. It aligns with the moral framework of reducing harm and promoting well-being.

By “standard” I don’t mean guiding principle; I mean what gives rise to the guiding principles. The “standard” for what a football pitch can be is the Football Association; they decide the rules. That a football pitch must fall within 90m and 120m in length and 45m and 90m in width is a guiding principle they have made. Reducing suffering, reducing harm, promoting well-being are guiding principles, not the standard.

Examples of proposed standards would be: me, my tribe, God, laws of physics, platonic forms, etc. What is your standard that gets us these guiding principles?

Your flaw is in the assumption that an external standard is necessary to establish the objective negativity of suffering, disregarding the possibility of understanding and evaluating suffering based on our subjective experiences and empathetic understanding.

There are different subjective experiences and understandings, though. While we see causing suffering in others to help ourselves as negative, others are quite fine with causing it. They don’t see causing the suffering of others as a negative. Their subjective experience is different. If the standard is subjective human experiences and their different understandings, then morality is subjective not objective.

Like recognizing that the Sun exists - we recognize it as an objective fact, though we each subjectively experience it through our individual senses - like suffering.

Some people have believed that the sun is a god; that’s their subjective experience. Some think it’s an illusion or simulation; that’s their subjective experience. Some think it’s a hot ball of glowing gases; that’s their subjective view. There must be something external to these subjective views to ground the objective facts about the sun, if there are any.

Why do you presume these is a reality outside ourselves that must account for a standard of suffering? Where on Earth did you get this idea?

From the definition of what it means for a statement to be an objective truth.

Do you also believe there is an objective standard for Humor?

No, I don’t. I don't think God made particular kinds of humor an objective feature of our nature or purpose. God could have, but I don't think God did.

[The Tanager]

I don’t think there is agreement in every case. Yes, harmony sounds good to most (some music makes use of discord), but even beyond that people like different kinds of harmony. Sweet food yum, sure, but a lot of variety within sweet foods.

That's the same for morality, where people agree with the general view that murder is wrong, but with tons of disagreement on which slaying counts as murder, and which is justified killing.

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.

If almost everyone, from very different cultures and walks of life told you the same dimension, I think that would be good support. If there wasn’t an objective, one would expect all kinds of different answers.

So all I need for grounding atheistic objective morality, is the usual godless explanation for the existence of humanity, along with a bunch of people agreeing that murder is wrong?

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.

Same sort of point as above, is "the universe runs on set rules, and such rules gave rise to morality," now more of an explanation, rather than "morality just is?"

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.

Well, I pretty much copied word for word what Suzie said, did you meant for the "good" in "X is not good" to be the same or a different concept to the positive value in "the value of X?" Did you meant for Suzie to contradict herself?

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

Again, think ice-cream: Does the word "tastier" in "whether vanilla is tastier than chocolate or not, depending on who the level 1 judge is" mean different things to the "I find vanilla tastier than chocolate?"

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.

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?

Yeah, the point there was to separate getting frustrate with tasting the flavor from getting frustrate with being force fed. The point here, on the other hand, is that being grossed out once probably won't lead to frustration because you can avoid it, but constantly being grossed out would lead to frustration with the taste.

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.

[boatsnguitars]

Examples of proposed standards would be: me, my tribe, God, laws of physics, platonic forms, etc. What is your standard that gets us these guiding principles?

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.

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).

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. 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.

You call it your standard - but it is not a standard. It's wishful thinking. You are saying "If morals are made by God, then they'd have a standard - because I said so. Whether God agrees or not!"

You've created in your head a Moral-Making Toy Maker, called it God, then chastise us for not agreeing with you - then, and this is the final hilarious punchline - you call it "philosophy".

Do you also believe there is an objective standard for Humor?

No, I don’t. I don't think God made particular kinds of humor an objective feature of our nature or purpose. God could have, but I don't think God did.

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

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.