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]

And I would propose God is the standard of objective human moral values.

This is simply a bald, unsupported assertion. Surely you can see that, no? Why not Steve, or that bird over there, or germs, or planets, or Odin, or Sauron?

I have yet to see how you can assert that an - admitted by almost all Theists - unknowable, mysterious, beyond our understanding Being just happens to have done all these cool things and, oh, is also the standard.

I am at a loss as to why you believe this is rational.

[The Tanager]

This is simply a bald, unsupported assertion. Surely you can see that, no? Why not Steve, or that bird over there, or germs, or planets, or Odin, or Sauron?

I have yet to see how you can assert that an - admitted by almost all Theists - unknowable, mysterious, beyond our understanding Being just happens to have done all these cool things and, oh, is also the standard.

I am at a loss as to why you believe this is rational.

I was simply responding to your question: “you aren’t going to propose that God is the standard are you?”. Yes, I am proposing that. Proposing that isn’t the same as defending it. I don’t remember if my reasoning ever came up in this thread or not, but if it has, it has been awhile. In my last post I wasn’t trying to defend it yet; I was just clarifying my view. But I will gladly share the reasons for my beliefs.

I think the first question is whether one believes there are objective moral values. This may be getting into what you were talking with otseng about. Do you believe there are objective moral values? Is it wrong to torture a little baby, for instance?

[boatsnguitars]

Is circumcision wrong? To me that is torturing a baby, but billions of people accept it as a divinely supported act.

Again, I will repeat what I Said to otseng: our common list of morals doesn't mean they are objective, only that we agree.

This why I keep saying Theists are the worst at understanding moral values. They think they need to find agreement on morals in order to show there are OMVs... then they change tactics. Its a well worn manipulation ploy: get people to get worried that SMVs mean anything goes, then have them agree somethings feel wrong... so that must prove OMVs.

Read what I said to otseng. Our list would be vastly different 6000 years, but 6000 year old Tanager would use the same method: we'd both agree slavery and infanticide was moral.

I hope you see your problem. You can't poll God. You don't know if there is a god, or if he created OMVs.

[The Tanager]

Is circumcision wrong? To me that is torturing a baby, but billions of people accept it as a divinely supported act.

Again, I will repeat what I Said to otseng: our common list of morals doesn't mean they are objective, only that we agree.

I agree that agreeing on a list doesn’t make it objective. My question is whether you think your list is objectively true or not. Is it just a description of your feelings or do you think you are correct that circumcision is torturing a baby (for instance)? Or do you think circumcision is akin to what kind of ice cream flavor we like (i.e., subjective)?

This why I keep saying Theists are the worst at understanding moral values. They think they need to find agreement on morals in order to show there are OMVs... then they change tactics. Its a well worn manipulation ploy: get people to get worried that SMVs mean anything goes, then have them agree somethings feel wrong... so that must prove OMVs.

I think two things are going on in this bit. One, agreement on morals throughout history is one piece of evidence pointing towards (but not with 100% certainty) OMVs. I don’t think our moral principles would change from 6000 years ago. I do think our application of those principles would change because of different beliefs about facts; but the moral principles are what theists point to being consistent. I don’t (and the theist thinkers I’m aware of don’t) change tactics after that. I think you are making a wrong jump in thought somewhere there.

Two, SMVs absolutely mean anything goes. Anything goes with ice cream flavors because what is good is subjectively true. Mint oreo ice cream is bad to me; good to my wife. If morals are like that, then absolutely anything goes. This doesn’t prove OMVs, it just usually proves that most people believe in OMVs.

Read what I said to otseng. Our list would be vastly different 6000 years, but 6000 year old Tanager would use the same method: we'd both agree slavery and infanticide was moral.

I hope you see your problem. You can't poll God. You don't know if there is a god, or if he created OMVs.

I’m not sure what you said to otseng or which post you are asking me to read. As to polling God, I don’t see why I need to poll God to talk about whether we believe in OMVs or not. This isn’t about finding the correct list, but what kind of list are we trying to make.

[boatsnguitars]

It's important you recognize the terrible flaw in your approach to morals.
You said agreement is part of the puzzle.

6000 years ago. Most people would think that slavery and infanticide are fine.

Now they are generally rejected.

In another 6000 years. Things may change yet again.

I seems to me that an entire society, to a person, could think eating dog is immoral, but it may be the only thing God considers a moral act.

You have completely avoided the crux of the topic: how would you know an OMV when you see it? Can't be agreement, so what is it?

[The Tanager]

It's important you recognize the terrible flaw in your approach to morals.
You said agreement is part of the puzzle.

6000 years ago. Most people would think that slavery and infanticide are fine.

Now they are generally rejected.

In another 6000 years. Things may change yet again.

I seems to me that an entire society, to a person, could think eating dog is immoral, but it may be the only thing God considers a moral act.

You have completely avoided the crux of the topic: how would you know an OMV when you see it? Can't be agreement, so what is it?

You’ve misunderstood. I said agreement on moral principle is part of the puzzle. Not agreement on rules built from applying those principles to facts about reality. Societies have universally agreed that it’s not okay to just kill anyone you want. They differ on beliefs about reality: human fetuses aren’t human, so you can end their life, no problem (for instance), or Jews and homosexuals and people with down syndrome aren’t humans, so it’s okay to end their life. Or that tribe attacked us, so it’s okay to kill them, but not our own tribe. A truly different morality at work would look different than any society that has ever existed.

Not only that, but there is also a universal human intuition that morality is objective. It’s only later that people become subjectivists and, even then, most of them don’t really act like subjectivists. Universal human intuitions are a good reason to believe in OMVs unless some rational defeater comes along, just like we ought to trust our common senses unless some rational defeater comes along to show that that water is actually a mirage.

[boatsnguitars]

It's important you recognize the terrible flaw in your approach to morals.
You said agreement is part of the puzzle.

6000 years ago. Most people would think that slavery and infanticide are fine.

Now they are generally rejected.

In another 6000 years. Things may change yet again.

I seems to me that an entire society, to a person, could think eating dog is immoral, but it may be the only thing God considers a moral act.

You have completely avoided the crux of the topic: how would you know an OMV when you see it? Can't be agreement, so what is it?

You’ve misunderstood. I said agreement on moral principle is part of the puzzle. Not agreement on rules built from applying those principles to facts about reality. Societies have universally agreed that it’s not okay to just kill anyone you want. They differ on beliefs about reality: human fetuses aren’t human, so you can end their life, no problem (for instance), or Jews and homosexuals and people with down syndrome aren’t humans, so it’s okay to end their life. Or that tribe attacked us, so it’s okay to kill them, but not our own tribe. A truly different morality at work would look different than any society that has ever existed.

Not only that, but there is also a universal human intuition that morality is objective. It’s only later that people become subjectivists and, even then, most of them don’t really act like subjectivists. Universal human intuitions are a good reason to believe in OMVs unless some rational defeater comes along, just like we ought to trust our common senses unless some rational defeater comes along to show that that water is actually a mirage.

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?

[boatsnguitars]

Also, I'll refer back to the OP: How do we know what is right or wrong?

Apparently, the OMV advocates are saying "we just know, even if we don't, but there is no way to know, even though OMVs exist..."

Isn't the truth - whether OMVs exist or not - that we agree on what is right or wrong for us, as a social species, then do the best we can to codify those things and provide laws and punishments or rewards for certain actions?


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."

[boatsnguitars]

It's important you recognize the terrible flaw in your approach to morals.
You said agreement is part of the puzzle.

6000 years ago. Most people would think that slavery and infanticide are fine.

Now they are generally rejected.

In another 6000 years. Things may change yet again.

I seems to me that an entire society, to a person, could think eating dog is immoral, but it may be the only thing God considers a moral act.

You have completely avoided the crux of the topic: how would you know an OMV when you see it? Can't be agreement, so what is it?

You’ve misunderstood. I said agreement on moral principle is part of the puzzle. Not agreement on rules built from applying those principles to facts about reality. Societies have universally agreed that it’s not okay to just kill anyone you want. They differ on beliefs about reality: human fetuses aren’t human, so you can end their life, no problem (for instance), or Jews and homosexuals and people with down syndrome aren’t humans, so it’s okay to end their life. Or that tribe attacked us, so it’s okay to kill them, but not our own tribe. A truly different morality at work would look different than any society that has ever existed.

Not only that, but there is also a universal human intuition that morality is objective. It’s only later that people become subjectivists and, even then, most of them don’t really act like subjectivists. Universal human intuitions are a good reason to believe in OMVs unless some rational defeater comes along, just like we ought to trust our common senses unless some rational defeater comes along to show that that water is actually a mirage.

And another thing!.... ahaha

You say one thing when "a truly different morality at work would look different than any society that has ever existed."

Then you claim we have good reason to rely on intuition guiding us - which has led to the morals you say are bad.

I think you need to really explore your own understanding of the issue and then outline it clearly for us so we can either agree or disagree.


and....

Let me provide an analogy to what Theists propose:

Aliens on Omicron 7 have established moral values for humans on Earth. There are 13 OMVs that we must adhere to, to be judged Good or Bad.

Prove me wrong.

[boatsnguitars]

Let's wrap this up, because there really isn't anything more to discuss:

Theists' Claims:
Divine Command Theory (DCT) asserts that moral values and duties are grounded in the commands of a divine being, usually God. According to this perspective, God's will serves as the ultimate foundation for morality, providing an objective and unchanging basis for ethical principles.

Challenges and Rebuttals:

Evidential Problem of Detecting Objective Moral Values:

Problem of Access: There is an inherent impossibility in accessing or discerning these objective moral values. If moral truths are rooted in God's commands, the challenge lies in how humans can reliably detect or interpret these commands, leading to skepticism about the objectivity of morality.

Religious Diversity: The existence of diverse religious traditions with conflicting moral doctrines raises questions about which set of divine commands is correct, adding complexity to the claim of objective morality based on God's will.

Embedded Moral Values in God's Character:
Arbitrary Nature: Many, including some theists, question the coherence of asserting that moral values are embedded in God's character. If God's nature determines what is morally good, this raises the Euthyphro Dilemma: Is something good because God wills it, or does God will it because it is inherently good? The former option risks arbitrariness, and the latter challenges God's sovereignty. Theists think word play removes this dilemma but it doesn't.

Ethical Implications: Accepting God as the source of moral values raises ethical questions regarding divine commandments that appear morally problematic. For instance, if a holy text contains morally troubling commands, adherents must grapple with the ethical implications of following such commands.

Declaration of God as Maker and Sovereign:

Problem of Sovereignty: Declaring God as the maker of humans and, consequently, sovereign over them raises concerns about autonomy. If God is the source of both human nature and morality, questions emerge regarding the compatibility of free will and the moral obligation to follow divine commands. If we were to make robots that feel, dream, hurt, love, and long for a good, long life, it would be wrong of us to dictate to them while saying they have Free Will - but only to the extent they don't annoy us by violating rules only known to us. Why is it wrong? Theists would say it isn't - hence the poor grasp of moral values and their connection to empathy and reduction of harm, which is more empirically validated than claim "God doesn't like it."

Ethical Implications: Accepting God as the sovereign maker of humans has ethical implications, potentially leading to moral determinism and undermining the concept of moral responsibility. It prompts inquiries into the nature of moral agency and the moral consequences of God's omnipotence. Isn't God held to the same moral standards, or are we held to God's standards? Are we to kill gay people because he says so, or is God not supposed to kill them, too? Which is it?

Functional Subjectivity Under Theism:
While theists claim an objective foundation for morality in God's commands, a practical challenge arises in discerning what God thinks or wills. The interpretation of divine commands is often mediated through human understanding, making moral values functionally subjective. This subjectivity stems from the inherent limitations of human comprehension in grasping the full scope of divine intentions, rendering the application of moral principles contingent on individual and cultural interpretations.

Deciding Right and Wrong:

Theists:

Reliance on Holy Texts: Theists generally rely on sacred scriptures or religious teachings to discern God's will and ethical guidelines. The authority of these texts is considered central to understanding what is deemed right or wrong.

Natural Law and Reason: Deists appeal to natural law or reason as a means of discerning moral principles. While they acknowledge a divine creator, they may not rely exclusively on holy texts, emphasizing the use of human faculties for moral discernment.

Secular Morality: Atheists typically base their moral frameworks on secular principles, such as empathy, reason, and societal consensus. They often reject divine commandments in favor of ethical systems developed without reference to a transcendent source.

Problem of Holy Texts' Reliability:
Interpretation Issues: The reliability of holy texts is a significant challenge, as interpretations can vary widely among individuals and religious sects. Disagreements over the intended meaning of sacred scriptures contribute to differing moral perspectives, even among adherents of the same faith.

Ambiguity and Contradictions: Holy texts contain ambiguous passages or contradictions (apparent or real), leading to divergent interpretations - as evidenced by the divergent interpretations. This ambiguity poses challenges for believers who seek moral guidance from these texts, as certainty about God's intentions becomes elusive. Yet, Theists seem to claim they can be certain - without any method for us to determine their subjective view is the objective truth.

The world operates as if morals are subjective. Theists can't tell us one, absolute, objective moral value that we'd recognize even if we didn't agree on it. (Since agreement isn't the measure, as morals have changed - as if they are subjective).

Theists are welcome - of course - to believe anything they wish, but if they think they are making any valid argument about moral values they are woefully mistaken.

The question is: by what standard do we say something is right or wrong:

Theists say: God, but I don't know what God thinks.
Atheists say: Reason and reduction of harm. Both exist and are empirically validated. While morals are ultimately subjective (or maybe not, but we can't know) we need something that works. Following various holy texts is not a workable pathway as evidenced by the last 10,000 years of religious strife over moral values.