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?

[The Tanager]

Logic tells me morals and ice cream are not an apt comparison because it leaves out harm.

You're undercutting your own argument, or you don't know what logic is.

How about showing the logic then? Why isn't harm like nuts in ice cream; some actions have harm as an ingredient and some don't? Some people like nuts and some people think it's fine to inflict harm on others.

[boatsnguitars]

Logic tells me morals and ice cream are not an apt comparison because it leaves out harm.

You're undercutting your own argument, or you don't know what logic is.

How about showing the logic then? Why isn't harm like nuts in ice cream; some actions have harm as an ingredient and some don't? Some people like nuts and some people think it's fine to inflict harm on others.

You really want to die on this hill: that you see no difference, logically, between ice cream and raping a child? Perhaps I should insist you believe in a God that demands you don't rape kids!

[The Tanager]

You really want to die on this hill: that you see no difference, logically, between ice cream and raping a child? Perhaps I should insist you believe in a God that demands you don't rape kids!

I see a difference that I ground in God's existence. You (1) don't think that grounds the difference adequately and (2) even if it did, that God doesn't exist. So, I'm asking for how YOU ground the difference. What is it? I will die on this hill because it is vital to your view; show the logic if you have it.

[boatsnguitars]

You really want to die on this hill: that you see no difference, logically, between ice cream and raping a child? Perhaps I should insist you believe in a God that demands you don't rape kids!

I see a difference that I ground in God's existence. You (1) don't think that grounds the difference adequately and (2) even if it did, that God doesn't exist. So, I'm asking for how YOU ground the difference. What is it? I will die on this hill because it is vital to your view; show the logic if you have it.

I can logically see a difference. I can reason - as you claimed God could. I really hope I don't have to point out the logical, rational differences, do I? For example, lets simply start with the feeling of pain, or the loss of autonomy of a moral being (I'm talking about the child, in case you were confused).

Apparently you are going to do your best General Custer impression...

[The Tanager]

I can logically see a difference. I can reason - as you claimed God could. I really hope I don't have to point out the logical, rational differences, do I? For example, lets simply start with the feeling of pain, or the loss of autonomy of a moral being (I'm talking about the child, in case you were confused).

Apparently you are going to do your best General Custer impression...

I agree that there is a feeling of pain and the loss of autonomy. So what? Why are those things bad instead of just different from pleasure and forced conformity (just like nuts are different than chocolate chips and caramel swirls)? I think it comes down to the intentionality God gives creation, but without God what, in your view, gives our world any objective intentionality (or something else that can provide the objectivity)?

[boatsnguitars]

I can logically see a difference. I can reason - as you claimed God could. I really hope I don't have to point out the logical, rational differences, do I? For example, lets simply start with the feeling of pain, or the loss of autonomy of a moral being (I'm talking about the child, in case you were confused).

Apparently you are going to do your best General Custer impression...

I agree that there is a feeling of pain and the loss of autonomy. So what? Why are those things bad instead of just different from pleasure and forced conformity (just like nuts are different than chocolate chips and caramel swirls)? I think it comes down to the intentionality God gives creation, but without God what, in your view, gives our world any objective intentionality (or something else that can provide the objectivity)?

First, pain and loss of autonomy are objective things right? (Not experienced exactly the same, but pain and loss of autonomy are real).

Pain and loss of autonomy are considered negative because humans generally find them unpleasant and detrimental to well-being.
Concepts such as pleasure and autonomy are valued because they contribute to a more fulfilling and positive human experience.
Pain, for example, is seen as an evolutionary mechanism signaling harm, while pleasure is associated with activities that promote survival and reproduction.
Concepts of right and wrong are derived from what benefits society and fosters cooperation among individuals.
Secular ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics derive objective moral principles without invoking a divine authority. These theories provide frameworks for evaluating actions based on consequences, duties, or character virtues.
The absence of God doesn't negate the significance of human agency - as you claim God can have, without himself having a God to give him agency or purpose. Individuals have the capacity to shape their own lives, contribute to the well-being of others, and find purpose and meaning through personal and collective endeavors.
Atheists recognize that values, intentionality, and perceptions of good and bad are influenced by cultural and historical factors. We recognize the importance of critically examining and evolving ethical perspectives in response to changing societal norms.

Theists want us to believe there are fixed, handed-down-by-God (so forever lost) moral values that they want to declare are objectively true because God (a person) says. This is why you inject personhood into Kalam - because you need it to support your God argument.

It's so transparent.

[The Tanager]

First, pain and loss of autonomy are objective things right? (Not experienced exactly the same, but pain and loss of autonomy are real).

Yes, I already agreed with that.

Pain and loss of autonomy are considered negative because humans generally find them unpleasant and detrimental to well-being….

Some humans (you and I) consider pain and loss of autonomy as negative in themselves, but some don’t. Some only consider their pain and loss of autonomy as negative, while the pain and loss of autonomy by others is a positive that benefits them greatly. So, why are we correct and they are wrong?

Secular ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics derive objective moral principles without invoking a divine authority. These theories provide frameworks for evaluating actions based on consequences, duties, or character virtues.

That is the claim, but I’m asking you to support it. How do these derive objective moral principles? How do they show their framework is objectively true, rather than just their framework?

The absence of God doesn't negate the significance of human agency - as you claim God can have, without himself having a God to give him agency or purpose. Individuals have the capacity to shape their own lives, contribute to the well-being of others, and find purpose and meaning through personal and collective endeavors.
Atheists recognize that values, intentionality, and perceptions of good and bad are influenced by cultural and historical factors. We recognize the importance of critically examining and evolving ethical perspectives in response to changing societal norms.

As far as I can see, if atheism is true, all of these things are subjective. Why do humans have moral agency but not sharks and lions in your view? What separates us out? I agree, on your view, humans can shape their own lives, contribute to subjective ideas of what well-being means, find subjective purposes and subjective meaning in life, through both individual and collective attempts, but what makes one idea of “well-being” or “meaning” or “purpose” objectively true?

Theists want us to believe there are fixed, handed-down-by-God (so forever lost) moral values that they want to declare are objectively true because God (a person) says. This is why you inject personhood into Kalam - because you need it to support your God argument.

It's transparent.

You can continue to pop psychologize or deal with the actual arguments; only the latter is a rational response.

[boatsnguitars]

First, pain and loss of autonomy are objective things right? (Not experienced exactly the same, but pain and loss of autonomy are real).

Yes, I already agreed with that.

Pain and loss of autonomy are considered negative because humans generally find them unpleasant and detrimental to well-being….

Some humans (you and I) consider pain and loss of autonomy as negative in themselves, but some don’t. Some only consider their pain and loss of autonomy as negative, while the pain and loss of autonomy by others is a positive that benefits them greatly. So, why are we correct and they are wrong?

Secular ethical theories such as utilitarianism, deontology, or virtue ethics derive objective moral principles without invoking a divine authority. These theories provide frameworks for evaluating actions based on consequences, duties, or character virtues.

That is the claim, but I’m asking you to support it. How do these derive objective[/i] moral principles? How do they show their framework is objectively true, rather than just their framework?

The absence of God doesn't negate the significance of human agency - as you claim God can have, without himself having a God to give him agency or purpose. Individuals have the capacity to shape their own lives, contribute to the well-being of others, and find purpose and meaning through personal and collective endeavors.
Atheists recognize that values, intentionality, and perceptions of good and bad are influenced by cultural and historical factors. We recognize the importance of critically examining and evolving ethical perspectives in response to changing societal norms.

As far as I can see, if atheism is true, all of these things are subjective. Why do humans have moral agency but not sharks and lions in your view? What separates us out? I agree, on your view, humans can shape their own lives, contribute to subjective ideas of what well-being means, find subjective purposes and subjective meaning in life, through both individual and collective attempts, but what makes one idea of “well-being” or “meaning” or “purpose” objectively true?

Theists want us to believe there are fixed, handed-down-by-God (so forever lost) moral values that they want to declare are objectively true because God (a person) says. This is why you inject personhood into Kalam - because you need it to support your God argument.

It's transparent.

You can continue to pop psychologize or deal with the actual arguments; only the latter is a rational response.

You've said God can use reason to come to moral truths. Therefore it is Reason that is the defining factor, not God.

You've died on the hill and now the bloating has begun.

After all, the question can be posed back to you: Why does God or Reason make a moral objectively true or not? Just because?

Dr. Shelly Kagan probably sums it up well in this debate with WLC.

You can see the Theist (WLC) seems to be completely ignorant of basic moral principles, like the Social Contract. He simply can't grasp the concept Kagan is proposing, and keeps inserting God into the mix because that's his goal. Kagan, on the other hand starts from the opposite end: not assuming there is a God or not, but not needing to introduce a God at any point as he explores the nature of morality. Clearly Kagan is doing Philosophy while WLC is doing Apologetics.



I'd highly recommend the entire debate, but especially Kagan's opening.

Also I'd point out: If a 1 year old pulls the trigger on a gun and kills someone, is that evil/wrong? If not, why not - if morals are objective?

[The Tanager]

You've said God can use reason to come to moral truths. Therefore it is Reason that is the defining factor, not God.

I didn’t say God uses reason to come to moral truths, I said reason applied to God’s act of creation necessarily creates moral truths. That makes God the defining factor because reason gets applied to God’s choices in creation.

After all, the question can be posed back to you: Why does God or Reason make a moral objectively true or not? Just because?

I’ve already answered that many times and you know that because you keep responding to it.

You can see the Theist (WLC) seems to be completely ignorant of basic moral principles, like the Social Contract. He simply can't grasp the concept Kagan is proposing, and keeps inserting God into the mix because that's his goal. Kagan, on the other hand starts from the opposite end: not assuming there is a God or not, but not needing to introduce a God at any point as he explores the nature of morality. Clearly Kagan is doing Philosophy while WLC is doing Apologetics.

The Social Contract is subjective morality, not objective morality. It is agreement among humans and they could choose to agree on any number of things, if that is all morality was.

I'd highly recommend the entire debate, but especially Kagan's opening.

It is a good debate and I would recommend it as well.

Also I'd point out: If a 1 year old pulls the trigger on a gun and kills someone, is that evil/wrong? If not, why not - if morals are objective?

Because they don’t have moral agency yet. Morals only apply to moral agents. They don’t apply to lions and sharks and 1 year olds.

[boatsnguitars]

You've said God can use reason to come to moral truths. Therefore it is Reason that is the defining factor, not God.

I didn’t say God uses reason to come to moral truths, I said reason applied to God’s act of creation necessarily creates moral truths. That makes God the defining factor because reason gets applied to God’s choices in creation.

That's absurd. If God said killing babies is Good (which you believe he did in the Bible), then you "simply" "reason" to "Well, God said it, so it must be Good!"
That's horrible.
You again and again refuse to acknowledge the horns of Euthyphro and skip from one to the other thinking you avoided both.

What makes God choice in creation Good? You hem and haw and jump to the other horn, then when challenged jump back to the other horn.

After all, the question can be posed back to you: Why does God or Reason make a moral objectively true or not? Just because?

I’ve already answered that many times and you know that because you keep responding to it.

I've noticed you think responding is the same as answering.
Like here, you now get to say you've responded to the question - without answering the question.

You can see the Theist (WLC) seems to be completely ignorant of basic moral principles, like the Social Contract. He simply can't grasp the concept Kagan is proposing, and keeps inserting God into the mix because that's his goal. Kagan, on the other hand starts from the opposite end: not assuming there is a God or not, but not needing to introduce a God at any point as he explores the nature of morality. Clearly Kagan is doing Philosophy while WLC is doing Apologetics.

The Social Contract is subjective morality, not objective morality. It is agreement among humans and they could choose to agree on any number of things, if that is all morality was.

Based on objective qualities. Again, I notice you don't know much about moral theory.

I'd highly recommend the entire debate, but especially Kagan's opening.

It is a good debate and I would recommend it as well.

Also I'd point out: If a 1 year old pulls the trigger on a gun and kills someone, is that evil/wrong? If not, why not - if morals are objective?

Because they don’t have moral agency yet. Morals only apply to moral agents. They don’t apply to lions and sharks and 1 year olds.

Right. That's the point, isn't it? That once you are a moral agent - i.e., have the ability to reason - your actions or inactions become moral events. Therefore, murdering someone is not Objectively morally wrong - otherwise, the 1 year old would be punished.

You are seeing how a Moral Theory can be built on Reason, be Objective, and not require God.