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]

Human intuition is just a way of saying common agreement. What difference does it matter if all humans agree, or intuit anything? (I know you are desperate to shoehorn in the Bible's claim that morals are written in our souls. But I don't believe this was meant as a scientific claim, but simply a vague hand-waving of, "Hey, we all kinda agree on things.")

Universal human intuitions are NOT a good reason to believe in OMVs - at all. The default isn't "Well, we all agree the Sun goes around the Moon unless someone proves otherwise - 'cause that's our intuition!"

I'm shocked you feel you are making a logical case. How can you trust your common sense when you already know much of what humanity intuited over the last 10,000 years has basically been wrong?

No universal intuition and universal agreement are different concepts. Humans have a universal moral intuition that morals are objective, but many overcome that intuition to become subjectivists. There is disagreement on this intuition giving us truth about reality. Intuitions aren’t the same as what humans think about a subject.

I'll go even further to explain the lack of understanding of morals by theists. They like to say, "just our ability to tell right from wrong is (not only proof of the Bible... it's not) proof of OMVs because how can we say rape is wrong if there isn't some measure?!"

That is, they can't understand why a rape victim would say, "Gee, I don't like this. I'm going to call it wrong, unpleasant, evil, complicating, inconvenient - and other words in my toolbox of language to describe my feelings about this action this Ape has decided to do to me.

"Oh," says the Theist, "Call it a bunch of things, but you can't call it wrong because without God you can't use that word! Even the word "rape" implies morality, so you are only allowed to grunt and take it like a mammal, whereas as I, the Godly person, can rape because God says it's good for me to do it."

Theists (in general) perfectly understand why a rape victim wouldn’t like being raped; that’s not the point theists are making. They don’t tell rape victims to grunt and take it or that God tells us to rape. In light of philosophical charity, I think you know this, so let’s stick to the actual claims theists make.

As to your summary critiques. This all comes from my specific Christian theist perspective; I’m not advocating for any theistic perspective.

1. There isn’t an inherent impossibility of accessing or discerning OMVs, as long as we aren’t using a silly 100% standard. These could be accessed by (a) God revealing them to humans and (b) these being built into human intuitions. The universal agreement on certain moral principles points to this being the case. If this weren’t the case, you’d have a huge diversity of moral principles in use, which simply isn’t the case.

2. While religious diversity adds complexity to figuring things out, it means nothing about there being a truth of the matter. There are, what, 12 or 20 or more interpretations of quantum mechanics and that does nothing to say there is no truth of the matter.

3. Euthyphro’s dilemma is a false one. Morality isn’t arbitrary but grounded in the way humans are made and what their purpose is and this doesn’t challenge God’s sovereignty, because God is the one responsible for those things.

4. And, yes, if a holy text is God’s revelation and people disagree with it, this will cause some moral surrender, but that would be a good thing if God knows what is best for humans.

5. God’s sovereignty is not a problem for free will at all. There is no problem of free will being compatible with God’s desire that they act morally for their own good and the good of other beings. God allows us to violate these rules as His sovereign choice.

6. This doesn’t undermine moral responsibility in any way for us.

7. God made humans so that all die. Creators doing that is different than creatures selfishly killing each other.

8. Divine commands being mediated through human understanding doesn’t make moral values functionally subjective. It makes it so we aren’t robots following programming and always getting it right, but that’s different.

9. Theistic reliance on holy texts is only as good as the authority of those texts to present God’s revelation accurately. Christians also use natural law and reason as an aspect in deciding what is moral. Catholics are the greatest advocates of that element.

10. Secular morality has no hard and fast principles to use. Some use empathy, reason, and societal consensus; some don’t.

11. While interpretations certainly vary regarding holy texts, that doesn’t mean there isn’t the right interpretation. And interpretations definitely vary where the individual and their experiences and thoughts are the basis of moral judgment like in secular morality.

12. Most everyone in this world actually operates as if morals are objective. Otherwise there wouldn’t be moral disagreements. Moral choices would be viewed as ice cream choices, if we operated subjectively and that is simply not the case.

13. Theists say we measure morality by God and we can know what God thinks, although we should be tentative in what we think is moral. Some atheists say reason and reduction of harm, some say for selfish reasons. Theists can definitely act in those same ways.

[boatsnguitars]

1. There isn’t an inherent impossibility of accessing or discerning OMVs, as long as we aren’t using a silly 100% standard. These could be accessed by (a) God revealing them to humans and (b) these being built into human intuitions. The universal agreement on certain moral principles points to this being the case. If this weren’t the case, you’d have a huge diversity of moral principles in use, which simply isn’t the case.

This is just not rational. I can't understand why you'd think humans on a single planet wouldn't develop moral values that are broadly similar, with variations?

We've established that even if 100% agreed that torturing babies was good or bad, it wouldn't mean it is a "God Sanctioned OMV." It would only mean that most people find it irrational.

So, you've conceded that, but then use it as an argument for your position! That's absurd!

2. While religious diversity adds complexity to figuring things out, it means nothing about there being a truth of the matter. There are, what, 12 or 20 or more interpretations of quantum mechanics and that does nothing to say there is no truth of the matter.

Yeah, let's not try to drag science down just because religion is horrible at figuring things out. What did Science do to you!?

Religion "adds complexity" - yeah, complexity that get people killed en masse... Yet, religion claims to be the place you go for Truth... go figure.

3. Euthyphro’s dilemma is a false one. Morality isn’t arbitrary but grounded in the way humans are made and what their purpose is and this doesn’t challenge God’s sovereignty, because God is the one responsible for those things.

It's not false. It's a real problem for theists.
You don't even address the other horn of the dilemma - what makes God the arbiter? Just because? Your argument for why it's good to kill gays (or not) is because God says so? Not because of a better standard (like it really hurts gay people).

4. And, yes, if a holy text is God’s revelation and people disagree with it, this will cause some moral surrender, but that would be a good thing if God knows what is best for humans.

I'll expect you to convert to Islam then?
Which religion is the right one? Which was the right one 3000 years ago? What about 2000 years from now when Christianity is dead?

5. God’s sovereignty is not a problem for free will at all. There is no problem of free will being compatible with God’s desire that they act morally for their own good and the good of other beings. God allows us to violate these rules as His sovereign choice.

Which raises the question of his morality - as he allows evil... Your ethical framework is a mess.
In what world is Free Will more sacrosanct than, for example, a murderer killing an Muslim who may have converted to Christianity in a few days if he wasn't killed? God prefers the Free Will of a murderer over the eternal consequence of that Muslim?
Of course, you will just claim that either God is Good to allow that, or that he's Good and wouldn't allow it - because you have no idea.

6. This doesn’t undermine moral responsibility in any way for us.

Even if morals are entirely subjective, we are all responsible for our actions if Determinism isn't true.

7. God made humans so that all die. Creators doing that is different than creatures selfishly killing each other.

Those assertions just flow from you without thought, don't they? God exists and made humans, eh? Sure - prove it.
But, I have to wonder: When God commanded his armies to kill men, women, children and livestock - that wasn't selfish?

8. Divine commands being mediated through human understanding doesn’t make moral values functionally subjective. It makes it so we aren’t robots following programming and always getting it right, but that’s different.

Just words with no basis in reality. Also, isn't the whole point of religion to give you (the robot) the moral rules (code) to follow God's programming?

9. Theistic reliance on holy texts is only as good as the authority of those texts to present God’s revelation accurately. Christians also use natural law and reason as an aspect in deciding what is moral. Catholics are the greatest advocates of that element.

You may have noticed that most people don't take Christianity seriously. AS far as Catholics: the ones that killed and raped millions of children and have been trying to cover it up? Quite the moral giants!

10. Secular morality has no hard and fast principles to use. Some use empathy, reason, and societal consensus; some don’t.

Yep, morals and humans are messy and complicated.
However, couldn't the exact same thing be said about Theists: " Some use empathy, reason, and societal consensus; some don’t."

11. While interpretations certainly vary regarding holy texts, that doesn’t mean there isn’t the right interpretation. And interpretations definitely vary where the individual and their experiences and thoughts are the basis of moral judgment like in secular morality.

Messy - like I said. A God would have made it clear. Since there is no God, we'd expect it to get messy.

12. Most everyone in this world actually operates as if morals are objective. Otherwise there wouldn’t be moral disagreements. Moral choices would be viewed as ice cream choices, if we operated subjectively and that is simply not the case.

Apparently, you've never seen people argue over who the greatest football team is, who the best band is, who the greatest artist is, who the best President was, etc.
Where we don't see such untethered and ridiculous arguments is in Science, where debates are settled with cold, hard data - not opinion or interpretation of an ancient guys epileptic seizure.

13. Theists say we measure morality by God and we can know what God thinks, although we should be tentative in what we think is moral. Some atheists say reason and reduction of harm, some say for selfish reasons. Theists can definitely act in those same ways.

Yes, Theists do say that, it's absurd.

Theists:
Catholicism, Protestantism, Orthodox Christianity: Various denominations within Christianity centered around the belief in Jesus Christ as the central figure and God.
Sunni Islam, Shi'a Islam: The two major branches of Islam, both centered on the belief in one God (Allah) and the teachings of Prophet Muhammad.
Orthodox Judaism, Conservative Judaism, Reform Judaism: Different branches within Judaism, all rooted in the belief in the one God of Abraham.
Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism: Different sects within Hinduism, each focused on devotion to specific deities while recognizing the ultimate divine reality (Brahman).
Sikhism: a religion founded by Guru Nanak, emphasizing the belief in one God (Waheguru) and the teachings of the Gurus.
Pure Land Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism: Variations within Mahayana Buddhism that incorporate celestial Buddhas or deities in their practices.
Bahá'í Faith: a religion emphasizing the oneness of God (Allah'u'Abha), unity of religions, and the essential oneness of humanity.
Shinto: The indigenous spirituality of Japan, involving the veneration of kami (spirits), including major deities such as Amaterasu.

So, which one knows what God thinks? You?

[The Tanager]

This is just not rational. I can't understand why you'd think humans on a single planet wouldn't develop moral values that are broadly similar, with variations?

We've established that even if 100% agreed that torturing babies was good or bad, it wouldn't mean it is a "God Sanctioned OMV." It would only mean that most people find it irrational.

So, you've conceded that, but then use it as an argument for your position! That's absurd!

Humans on a single planet have a wide variety of food tastes; they aren’t all “broadly similar” because subjective things should give us a wider variety. That doesn’t happen with moral principles. And, once again, it isn’t about agreement. I never conceded it was and clarified the nuance you missed. It would be absurd to ignore the nuance and think one is defeating one’s opposing view.

Yeah, let's not try to drag science down just because religion is horrible at figuring things out. What did Science do to you!?

Religion "adds complexity" - yeah, complexity that get people killed en masse... Yet, religion claims to be the place you go for Truth... go figure.

Drag science down? I’m doing the opposite. I’m saying even with how great science is, there are disagreements, so throw out the bad philosophical argument that disagreements means something is bad or false.

People kill each other. They’ll use religion or secularism or atheism or science to do it. That is our history.

3. Euthyphro’s dilemma is a false one. Morality isn’t arbitrary but grounded in the way humans are made and what their purpose is and this doesn’t challenge God’s sovereignty, because God is the one responsible for those things.

It's not false. It's a real problem for theists.
You don't even address the other horn of the dilemma - what makes God the arbiter? Just because? Your argument for why it's good to kill gays (or not) is because God says so? Not because of a better standard (like it really hurts gay people).

I addressed both horns, as one can tell from the bolded parts above. God “says so” because of how God made people (with the ability to be hurt) and His purpose for them (to not be hurt in the ways gay people often have been, among other things).

I'll expect you to convert to Islam then?
Which religion is the right one? Which was the right one 3000 years ago? What about 2000 years from now when Christianity is dead?

Islam doesn’t have reason behind it; Christianity does.

Which raises the question of his morality - as he allows evil... Your ethical framework is a mess.
In what world is Free Will more sacrosanct than, for example, a murderer killing an Muslim who may have converted to Christianity in a few days if he wasn't killed? God prefers the Free Will of a murderer over the eternal consequence of that Muslim?
Of course, you will just claim that either God is Good to allow that, or that he's Good and wouldn't allow it - because you have no idea.

The choice here is between (1) allowing the good of free will with the possibility of it being used for evil versus (2) no free will and no ability for love. I think (1) is the better choice. If you would rather someone freely choose to be your friend or lover versus being forced to act the part, then you agree.

Even if morals are entirely subjective, we are all responsible for our actions if Determinism isn't true.

We are the ones that made the choice, but we aren’t responsible to anyone or anything in those choices, if morals are subjective and determinism false.

Those assertions just flow from you without thought, don't they? God exists and made humans, eh? Sure - prove it.
But, I have to wonder: When God commanded his armies to kill men, women, children and livestock - that wasn't selfish?

Don’t switch the critique if you want to be rational. I responded to the critique that assumed God’s existence and said shouldn’t he have to follow the same rules, not to “prove God made the rules to begin with”.

No, God’s use of human societies’ to judge sinful human societies (even Israel is judged this way in the Bible) is not selfish; it’s a last resort to get through to humans that they are worth more than that and could be different.

Just words with no basis in reality. Also, isn't the whole point of religion to give you (the robot) the moral rules (code) to follow God's programming?

No, the point of my religion is that I’m not a robot, but that I’m made to flourish in certain ways which involve helping others to flourish because life can be marvelous if we do, but we can’t do it left to ourselves, and God never planned on leaving us to ourselves.

You may have noticed that most people don't take Christianity seriously. AS far as Catholics: the ones that killed and raped millions of children and have been trying to cover it up? Quite the moral giants!

No group of humans are moral giants; that’s why we need an omniscient creator who loves us to guide us.

Yep, morals and humans are messy and complicated.
However, couldn't the exact same thing be said about Theists: " Some use empathy, reason, and societal consensus; some don’t."

Yes. That was my point.

Messy - like I said. A God would have made it clear. Since there is no God, we'd expect it to get messy.

We would expect it to get messy with God and free will creatures, too.

Apparently, you've never seen people argue over who the greatest football team is, who the best band is, who the greatest artist is, who the best President was, etc.
Where we don't see such untethered and ridiculous arguments is in Science, where debates are settled with cold, hard data - not opinion or interpretation of an ancient guys epileptic seizure.

When they argue they point to what they feel are objective truths that make them so. That’s the point. Moral arguments are the same. If people really believed morality was subjective; they wouldn’t argue. They might share their favorite moral choices alongside their favorite type of ice cream treat, but it wouldn’t be an argument.

I agree there isn’t this kind of thing going on in the actual science, but scientists (or science popularizers or everyday people) go beyond those bounds all the time, as though they have immunity because they know the science.

[boatsnguitars]

Humans on a single planet have a wide variety of food tastes; they aren’t all “broadly similar” because subjective things should give us a wider variety. That doesn’t happen with moral principles. And, once again, it isn’t about agreement. I never conceded it was and clarified the nuance you missed. It would be absurd to ignore the nuance and think one is defeating one’s opposing view.

OK, we firmly agree that agreement isn't the measure of an OMV. Great!
So what is the defining characteristic that we'd recognize of an OMV?

Also, Human food is very much similar. Meat, vegetables, starch, fruit, etc. - there are certain nutrients we need, and certain poisons that affect us all. Even alcohol is a pretty normal thing across time and culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_food

So, right away, I feel we are not on the same page when you try to understand morals, as you are trying to say they are like food - all subjective - but in reality, you are simply wrong. Most people eat variations of the same thing.
Likewise, morals would be similar: basically the same thing, with local variation.
Let's take an easy one: Killing vs Murder. Most societies have laws against some forms of killing (called murder), but they allow other forms of killing. Only the Jains (as far as I am aware) have a rule against all killing of animals, at least (Plants aren't so lucky).

Drag science down? I’m doing the opposite. I’m saying even with how great science is, there are disagreements, so throw out the bad philosophical argument that disagreements means something is bad or false.

People kill each other. They’ll use religion or secularism or atheism or science to do it. That is our history.

There is disagreement in science - until there isn't. Eventually, the truth is discovered. That's when the religionists go to work and deny it.

I addressed both horns, as one can tell from the bolded parts above. God “says so” because of how God made people (with the ability to be hurt) and His purpose for them (to not be hurt in the ways gay people often have been, among other things).

What gives God that moral Right? That's what you don't address! You aren't understanding the counter -arguments to your position!

Islam doesn’t have reason behind it; Christianity does.

Sure... Easy to say, isn't it? Just like I say there is no reason behind Christianity - but you might be surprised that Muslims may want to argue with you.
Just like every religion tries to argue for it's Rationale.

The choice here is between (1) allowing the good of free will with the possibility of it being used for evil versus (2) no free will and no ability for love. I think (1) is the better choice. If you would rather someone freely choose to be your friend or lover versus being forced to act the part, then you agree.
I think there are more than two choices. You have just exposed how limited Christian thinking is.

We are the ones that made the choice, but we aren’t responsible to anyone or anything in those choices, if morals are subjective and determinism false.

So, if the world is as it appears (Subjective morals, non-Deterministic), you think we wouldn't be able to freely create social laws? Why not?

Don’t switch the critique if you want to be rational. I responded to the critique that assumed God’s existence and said shouldn’t he have to follow the same rules, not to “prove God made the rules to begin with”.

No, God’s use of human societies’ to judge sinful human societies (even Israel is judged this way in the Bible) is not selfish; it’s a last resort to get through to humans that they are worth more than that and could be different.

Religious mumbo-jumbo. I have no idea how you have determined what rules God abides by or makes. I know you chose a religion, but when you convert to Islam, what then? (And you'll say, "I'll never convert," yet you can't say this, as people convert all the time. The glaring problem is you can't defend your religion any better than anyone else - and you all still have a problem of demonstrating the existence of the God of your Belief.)

No, the point of my religion is that I’m not a robot, but that I’m made to flourish in certain ways which involve helping others to flourish because life can be marvelous if we do, but we can’t do it left to ourselves, and God never planned on leaving us to ourselves.

Your view... your belief... your faith...
When will we get to some substance of this thing you hope for?
You do realize that I could be arguing with any Theist, Supernaturalist, Wiccan, or other person who believes in woo and can't show evidence of their beliefs, right?

No group of humans are moral giants; that’s why we need an omniscient creator who loves us to guide us.

Needing something doesn't make it manifest. George Floyd needed someone to kick the cop off his neck.
I acknowledge that you FEEL you need a creator to care for you.

We would expect it to get messy with God and free will creatures, too.

Is it messy in Heaven? Would we expect that? Or is there no free will, even though it's considered the highest form of living?
Seems your argument for the sacrosanctity of Free Will hits a snags with Heaven.
Or, your claim that Free Will must lead to chaos, sin, harm, etc.

Don't worry, I know Heaven is only a tale they tell children, so you don't need to tell me your belief/feeling/faith about it.

When they argue they point to what they feel are objective truths that make them so. That’s the point. Moral arguments are the same. If people really believed morality was subjective; they wouldn’t argue. They might share their favorite moral choices alongside their favorite type of ice cream treat, but it wouldn’t be an argument.

There are objective truths about moral values! OMG, what the heck is your understanding of morals?!?!?!

When we debate the morality of killing a person, there are objective things: people, killing. When we take about torturing babies, we acknowledge the objective existence of babies, torture, harm, pain, sorrow, reason, etc.

I swear, I can't understand how Theists can be so ignorant of morals!

I agree there isn’t this kind of thing going on in the actual science...(edited)

Let's end on a good note. We agree.

[The Tanager]

OK, we firmly agree that agreement isn't the measure of an OMV. Great!
So what is the defining characteristic that we'd recognize of an OMV?

I’m not sure why you are asking about a defining characteristic. Could you rephrase this?

Also, Human food is very much similar. Meat, vegetables, starch, fruit, etc. - there are certain nutrients we need, and certain poisons that affect us all. Even alcohol is a pretty normal thing across time and culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_food

So, right away, I feel we are not on the same page when you try to understand morals, as you are trying to say they are like food - all subjective - but in reality, you are simply wrong. Most people eat variations of the same thing.
Likewise, morals would be similar: basically the same thing, with local variation.

How are food tastes similar? No one faults other people liking flavors they don’t like because they recognize the variety and the subjectivity of food taste. That is not how the majority of even self-professed subjectivists treat moral choices.

Let's take an easy one: Killing vs Murder. Most societies have laws against some forms of killing (called murder), but they allow other forms of killing. Only the Jains (as far as I am aware) have a rule against all killing of animals, at least (Plants aren't so lucky).

Yes, they share that moral principle. They apply it differently because they believe different facts about reality (Jains believe different facts that lead them to think killing all animals is wrong). A truly different morality would be a society or a person being okay with indiscriminate killing. Like how someone may like the gross jelly bean flavors while the sane ones think they are gross. But even then, we don’t really fault people for liking different flavors than us; that isn’t the case with moral choices.

There is disagreement in science - until there isn't. Eventually, the truth is discovered. That's when the religionists go to work and deny it.

I mourn those who do; it doesn’t have to be that way. Science is the sort of thing that truth can not only be discovered but largely in a way that is harder to escape than philosophical matters. That doesn’t mean truth doesn’t lay there, just that there is an easier escape hatch because of the nature of the field of inquiry.

But the religionists are also why we have science in the first place. Science doesn’t make sense on an atheistic worldview. There is no reason to think that reality should be intelligible to us if it’s just the result of deterministic socio-biological evolution.

What gives God that moral Right? That's what you don't address! You aren't understanding the counter -arguments to your position!

I have addressed that, although not directly in this way perhaps. There is no standard above the moral standard (whether that is God or something else), so nothing gives God that moral right, in that sense, and that’s not a problem because that will be true of whatever the moral standard is, by definition.

Sure... Easy to say, isn't it? Just like I say there is no reason behind Christianity - but you might be surprised that Muslims may want to argue with you.
Just like every religion tries to argue for it's Rationale.

Everybody argues for their rationale. I don’t just say it, though. I research it and am willing to always support my beliefs, not just share my conclusions.

The choice here is between (1) allowing the good of free will with the possibility of it being used for evil versus (2) no free will and no ability for love. I think (1) is the better choice. If you would rather someone freely choose to be your friend or lover versus being forced to act the part, then you agree.

I think there are more than two choices. You have just exposed how limited Christian thinking is.

Then share the other choices, keeping the context of my comment in mind.

So, if the world is as it appears (Subjective morals, non-Deterministic), you think we wouldn't be able to freely create social laws? Why not?

No, of course I don’t think that at all. We would absolutely be able to create social laws, but it would just be a matter of the strongest (in physical strength, influence, whatever) group gets their subjective tastes enforced; it certainly wouldn’t be objective laws.

Your view... your belief... your faith...
When will we get to some substance of this thing you hope for?
You do realize that I could be arguing with any Theist, Supernaturalist, Wiccan, or other person who believes in woo and can't show evidence of their beliefs, right?

Of course, because this is the part of the discussion the thread is focusing on. If you want all the earlier stuff, then let’s talk about it all. That often starts at the Kalam for me, as you’ve been in that other thread. So don’t act like I’m not willing to back up my beliefs.

Needing something doesn't make it manifest. George Floyd needed someone to kick the cop off his neck.
I acknowledge that you FEEL you need a creator to care for you.

I never said it did make it manifest.

Is it messy in Heaven? Would we expect that? Or is there no free will, even though it's considered the highest form of living?
Seems your argument for the sacrosanctity of Free Will hits a snags with Heaven.

Or perhaps there is a snag in your understanding (assumption, since you’ve never asked a clarifying question) of what I believe about heaven? I believe there is free will and no mess in Heaven. I think the only way to accomplish this is to have a space where free will can get messy and then redeem those individuals (as their free wills cooperate with that) so that once in Heaven we would have experienced our rebellion and freedom through redemption prior to seeing God as He is. If we didn’t have that intermediate state, so to speak, God’s presence in Heaven would have to eradicate our free will for us to not be messy.

There are objective truths about moral values! OMG, what the heck is your understanding of morals?!?!?!

When we debate the morality of killing a person, there are objective things: people, killing. When we take about torturing babies, we acknowledge the objective existence of babies, torture, harm, pain, sorrow, reason, etc.

I swear, I can't understand how Theists can be so ignorant of morals!

If morality is subjective then while these things are true descriptions: there is a person killing or harming or paining another person, but we can’t say that such an action is wrong. It’s disliked by one and liked by the other in the moment, but we couldn’t say it is wrong. We should speak of torture like we do of pistachio ice cream (not for me, but you may like it). But we don’t because we are actually objectivists. There are few consistent subjectivists I’ve come across. Some are out there.

[boatsnguitars]

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meta ... OOpeQueArg

Yet Moore’s casual slide from claims about what we are thinking to the nature of the properties we are attributing in thinking as we do, offered an important point of resistance. As Moore saw things, to make a moral claim is to express a distinctive belief (that might be true or false) about how things are. Specifically, it is to express the belief that some course of action, or institution, or character trait had the property of being right, or good, or virtuous. The challenge (Moore assumed) is to figure out what property it is that we are taking a thing to have, in thinking of it as right, or good, or virtuous. And the place to look, he thought, is at the content of our beliefs.

According to many, while Moore’s Open Question argument does show that moral thinking is distinctive and should not be treated as part and parcel of thinking about non-moral matters, Moore was wrong in holding that the important difference should be traced to the nature of the properties we are taking things to have. According to some of these critics, Moore’s mistake is in thinking we are attributing properties at all, when we think of something as right, or good, or virtuous; according to others, his mistake was in thinking that how we think of a property reveals the true nature of the property.[8]

The first line of criticism emerged soon after Moore first offered his Open Question Argument, with philosophers suggesting that in thinking morally we may well not be attributing properties at all.[9] Agreeing that it was a mistake to see moral claims as attributing natural properties to things, non-cognitivists argue that Moore’s mistake was in thinking that moral claims attribute any sort of property to things, and so he was also wrong in thinking that moral claims have propositional content and express genuine beliefs.

If, like Moore, you are going to propose Morals are something unique, then you need to identify the property that makes them unique.

Or, you can abandon this (and Divine Command Theist/Divine Moral theory). You can't have it both ways. If you try you are simply wrapping a mystery in another mystery - a hyper-extended argument from ignorance.

Either God has a true belief about a moral claim which can be articulated, or, he doesn't. Saying "God is the standard and he doesn't like gays, therefore being gay is morally wrong." doesn't cut it.


Note:

At the same time, the non-cognitivists’ proposals fit well with granting Hume’s claim concerning the gap between ‘is’ and ‘ought’: whatever facts one grants, whatever ‘is’ claims one endorses, there is no logical inconsistency involved in failing to take a relevant stand, or to express an emotion towards it, or to prescribe something related to it. Between the beliefs we might have and the other attitudes we might form, no entailment relations hold at all.

Which is what I've been doing.

[The Tanager]

Either God has a true belief about a moral claim which can be articulated, or, he doesn't. Saying "God is the standard and he doesn't like gays, therefore being gay is morally wrong." doesn't cut it.

When did I say that? My view is that God creates humanity with a specific purpose and in a way that fits into that purpose. Taking your example, homosexual acts (if they are wrong) would be so because they cause individuals to settle for second best instead of what they were made for. Now, you can disagree on why that is second best, but the logic is about what is truly going to give humans the good life. We can dig deeper into this reasoning as well, but I wanted to start off by showing your description simply doesn’t get my view correct.

Which is what I've been doing.

Like I said in that other thread, I need to see if you are truly a subjectivist before proceeding. I’ll ask the same thing here. When a Christian priest abuses a child, do you look at that the same basic way you look at someone who chooses an ice cream flavor you don’t like?

[boatsnguitars]

Either God has a true belief about a moral claim which can be articulated, or, he doesn't. Saying "God is the standard and he doesn't like gays, therefore being gay is morally wrong." doesn't cut it.

When did I say that? My view is that God creates humanity with a specific purpose and in a way that fits into that purpose. Taking your example, homosexual acts (if they are wrong) would be so because they cause individuals to settle for second best instead of what they were made for. Now, you can disagree on why that is second best, but the logic is about what is truly going to give humans the good life. We can dig deeper into this reasoning as well, but I wanted to start off by showing your description simply doesn’t get my view correct.

Which is what I've been doing.

Like I said in that other thread, I need to see if you are truly a subjectivist before proceeding. I’ll ask the same thing here. When a Christian priest abuses a child, do you look at that the same basic way you look at someone who chooses an ice cream flavor you don’t like?

See my other response to this lack of your understanding of moral values.

Also, the fact that you think I need to assert an absolute position on how I view moral values exposes your religious thinking - as if I must choose a tribe and be dogmatic.

I look at moral values philosophically: I question them, I ponder, I wonder, I examine, I explore,

and I resist thinking that raping kids is as simple as choosing Rocky Road - because I don't want children to be harmed. I don't know if God doesn't like it or not - I don't care. God was fine murdering women and children, according to some accounts. So, I'm not convinced God is a proper standard when it comes to my child, or anyones child.

After all, if there is a God, then he seems fine with the rape, murder and death of children by the billions.

I disagree with God on this - if God exists.

I think Reason, Sympathy and Empathy is a better standard.

[The Tanager]

I look at moral values philosophically: I question them, I ponder, I wonder, I examine, I explore,

and I resist thinking that raping kids is as simple as choosing Rocky Road - because I don't want children to be harmed.

I responded in the other thread as well, but to clarify I’m not saying it is necessarily as simple as choosing Rocky Road; there are definitely different complexities to different kinds of choices, although the choice seems pretty straightforward to me: don’t rape the child for any reason whatsoever.

I realize you don’t want children to be harmed and so you don’t do it. But you don’t want to eat pistachio ice cream either. I get you not doing that. I wouldn’t get you telling someone who loves that flavor to not do it either and to try to stop them and think they couldn’t justify that choice. Yet you do those kinds of things with someone who wants to rape a child. You are acting like a subjectivist about ice cream flavors and an objectivist about moral choices.

I don't know if God doesn't like it or not - I don't care. God was fine murdering women and children, according to some accounts. So, I'm not convinced God is a proper standard when it comes to my child, or anyones child.

After all, if there is a God, then he seems fine with the rape, murder and death of children by the billions.

I disagree with God on this - if God exists.

I think Reason, Sympathy and Empathy is a better standard.

What God likes (if God exists) is a good question. That you disagree with what you think various Gods like or dislike is perfectly fine and good questions to pursue. We will agree on some things in these areas and not others.

But the problem with Reason, Sympathy, and Empathy as a better standard is justifying why. Some people don’t like being sympathetic and empathetic. Why are you and me right there, but not them? Reason simply works off of foundations, so different foundations give us different conclusions. It’s the foundations you’ve got to justify first.

[boatsnguitars]

I look at moral values philosophically: I question them, I ponder, I wonder, I examine, I explore,

and I resist thinking that raping kids is as simple as choosing Rocky Road - because I don't want children to be harmed.

I responded in the other thread as well, but to clarify I’m not saying it is necessarily as simple as choosing Rocky Road; there are definitely different complexities to different kinds of choices, although the choice seems pretty straightforward to me: don’t rape the child for any reason whatsoever.

I realize you don’t want children to be harmed and so you don’t do it. But you don’t want to eat pistachio ice cream either. I get you not doing that. I wouldn’t get you telling someone who loves that flavor to not do it either and to try to stop them and think they couldn’t justify that choice. Yet you do those kinds of things with someone who wants to rape a child. You are acting like a subjectivist about ice cream flavors and an objectivist about moral choices.

I don't know if God doesn't like it or not - I don't care. God was fine murdering women and children, according to some accounts. So, I'm not convinced God is a proper standard when it comes to my child, or anyones child.

After all, if there is a God, then he seems fine with the rape, murder and death of children by the billions.

I disagree with God on this - if God exists.

I think Reason, Sympathy and Empathy is a better standard.

What God likes (if God exists) is a good question. That you disagree with what you think various Gods like or dislike is perfectly fine and good questions to pursue. We will agree on some things in these areas and not others.

But the problem with Reason, Sympathy, and Empathy as a better standard is justifying why. Some people don’t like being sympathetic and empathetic. Why are you and me right there, but not them? Reason simply works off of foundations, so different foundations give us different conclusions. It’s the foundations you’ve got to justify first.

Just to make it clear to everyone what Theists are proposing for morals:

If God says it's bad, it's bad, if God says it's Good, it's Good.

If God says "It's good to kill men, women and children", it's Good.
If God says, "Ice Cream is bad" it's bad.
If God says "Raping kids is Good, it's Good."

Regardless of logic, reason, empathy, etc. - it's up to God and the feelings he was "born" with. Combine this horrific reality with the fact that millions for various people claim to speak for God, and have killed, raped, etc. because they believe God said it was OK, you can see the absolute depravity of Theistic ethics.