Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Author: MagicAintReal

Posts

Total: 438
#31
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
Your "homeostatic principle" is interesting but it would seem to have the logical consequence of elevating pure repetition and "stasis" as the ultimate good and vilifying any type of change whatsoever.
#32
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Who said anything about access to shotguns or police? You are are adding to the hypothetical my friends and that is not how a thought experiment works. You haven't answered the basic question you have side stepped so let's just boil this down to basics. Is it moral to tell the truth if it results in someone getting hurt or killed? Is it immoral to lie if it saves someone from being hurt or killed?
Filling in gaps in knowledge is desirable because it makes you smarter. 
Not smarter just more knowledgeable. That is just a semantics distinction however and it doesn't matter the question is why is that desirable and is desirable the same thing as moral?
Moral wrongs are always a disconformity to a certain will or disposition 
That sounds exactly like a subjective standard.
#33
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Not if the will or dipsosition is immutable. 

No, it is not moral to tell the truth if it gets an innocent person killed. You can remain honest without answering their demands.
Topic's author
#34
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
I don't see it that way, homeostasis is naturally a regulatory effect; dealing with changes is its bread and butter.
#35
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Not if the will or dipsosition is immutable. 
I don't see how that would change the fact that the standard was the subjective opinion of this "immutable wull" even if such a will had been demonstrated.
No, it is not moral to tell the truth if it gets an innocent person killed. You can remain honest without answering their demands
We are half way there. It is not by your own admission always moral to tell the truth. Now for the second part which you would most like to side step. Is it immoral to lie if it is the ONLY way to save someone from getting hurt or killed?
#36
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Subjective means based on opinion. Objective means based on fact. If the standard is immutable, it's based on fact. 

I didn't say it was always moral to tell the truth.

I'd say it is the lesser of the two evils. I would consider it the more moral choice but neither choice is "moral."
#37
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
I'd say it is the lesser of the two evils. I would consider it the more moral choice but neither choice is "moral."
How is that preference fundamentally distinguishable from your favorite color?

#38
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
I don't see it that way, homeostasis is naturally a regulatory effect; dealing with changes is its bread and butter.
Ok, so "the homeostatic principle" promotes change?

Please explain.
Topic's author
#39
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok, so "the homeostatic principle" promotes change?

Please explain.
Well, the whole point of the homeostatic principle is to work toward the maintenance of homeostasis.
Well, as the earth changes, so do the pressures put on people to survive.
We must necessarily promote change in our behaviors to allow for our homeostasis to regulate the external changes such as the varying pressures experienced by humans on earth.

#40
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
...to regulate the external changes...
So to manage with as little change as possible (necessary) under the circumstances.

Topic's author
#41
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Yeah sort of.
Any way, I think we all strive for homeostasis, no?

#42
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
Yeah sort of.
Any way, I think we all strive for homeostasis, no?
Only those who value contentment strive to maintain it.

Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.
Topic's author
#43
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Here's to striving for contentment.
#44
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
There can be no objectivity without God.

How can there be objectivity without Ultimate Reality?


That's ridiculous.

#45
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
If morality depends on god then if there was no god then there would be no difference between murder and giving to charity.

But I would say there is a big difference between murder and giving to charity whether god exists or not!   Ergo, morality does not depend on God.

#46
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You must have missed this or did you deliberately run away because your claim was unsupprtable.
--> @Fallaneze
Be compassionate, honest, responsible, humble, etc.

All traits that are learned, not innate.


Topic's author
#47
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
I would agree.
#48
mustardness
mustardness's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,979
2
2
3
mustardness's avatar
mustardness
2
2
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Here's to striving for contentment.
Fuller believed the natural state ---contentment--   of Universe/God was the speed-of-radiation, and that interfering frequencies gets in the way and retards the natural state of Universe.

.."what we have is interfering and non-interfering patterns operating in pure principle".....{ R. B Fuller }

..:"what we have is moderation/modification of angle and frrequency".....{ R. B Fuller }

Morality is a human based, metaphysical-1 mind/intellect/conceptual principle, not a cosmic/Universe/God principle/law.

Morality is consistent with the actions associated with the integrity of the communitarian.

If contentment is bliss, then bliss can be interpretated as the speed-of-radiation and that is approximately 700 million mile per hour ---670,616,629 mph---
#49
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
Subjective means based on opinion. Objective means based on fact. If the standard is immutable, it's based on fact. 

I didn't say it was always moral to tell the truth.

I'd say it is the lesser of the two evils. I would consider it the more moral choice but neither choice is "moral."
Sorry I just have missed this post because I was not tagged though it is clearly addressed to me. Tell me how do you objectively determine the lesser of two evils? What non subjective standard do we use?
#50
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
What standard are you using to determine that neither is moral?

#51
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@secularmerlin
We can rationally identify moral behavior from immoral behavior. Certain situations are more black and white while others are in more of a gray area. Whether our moral conclusions are rational or irrational is not wholly subjective. That, if true, confirms moral realism. Believing that there is no such thing as moral progress, a moral highground, making incorrect moral judgements, etc. contradicts all of the evidence we have, both rationally and empirically. "Punishing an innocent person is morally good" is more irrational than saying "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla." Thus, we can see that moral judgements are not wholly opinion-based.
#52
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
We can rationally identify moral behavior...
So, no god (book of holy laws) needed?
#53
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Nope. 
#54
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
"Punishing an innocent person is morally good" is more irrational than saying "chocolate ice cream is better than vanilla."
First, that is not a legitimate comparison. Morality requires an action to occur or be conceived for it to apply. "Chocolate is better than vanilla" is not an action.
Second, you still need a standard upon which to base any moral claim. Punishing an innocent person is unjust so you must first agree that justice is morally good. We tend to think of justice as axiomatically good and injustice as axiomatically bad as you have, but it is still a standard that has been accepted for thousands of years. Without that standard, you could not make that statement.

#55
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@TwoMan
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that morality requires an action to occur or be conceived for it to apply. Having good intentions or a compassionate disposition can coherently be considered morally good 

 "Chocolate is better than vanilla" is a purported truth but it's opinion-based. I'm interesting in evaluating whether any moral statements are factually true.

We don't need to build a moral framework before we can determine whether actions or principles are moral or immoral. Sometimes we immediately know whether something is moral or immoral through intuition.

Perhaps it's an axiom because it's based on fact?







#56
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@Fallaneze
I'm not sure what you mean when you say that morality requires an action to occur or be conceived for it to apply. Having good intentions or a compassionate disposition can coherently be considered morally good 
Having good intentions or a compassionate heart can't be determined without an action to occur or be conceived. How do you know if someone's intentions are good if they don't take part in some action first or at least indicate a preference for some action? How do you know if someone is compassionate if they do not act in a compassionate way or indicate a preference for a compassionate act? 

As far as whether moral statements can be factually true, I still believe that the answer can only be yes when using a predetermined standard. "Punishing an innocent person is bad" is a fact only as it pertains to the standard that "justice is good". Without that standard, the statement is an opinion.

I agree that, in practice, we use intuition in the way you describe but I don't think that intuition is actually a basis for facts.
#57
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fallaneze
You still have not told me what non subjective standard we are using to make judgements like innocent or guilty. Please kindly present this standard or we may be at an impasse. Without a mutually agreed upon standard we may as well be talking about which is the better icecream.
#58
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
what non subjective standard we are using to make judgements like innocent or guilty.
Those are objective terms. Someone either did or did not commit an illegal act. It is the act itself that requires a standard. That standard, being created by people, is inherently subjective but can then be used objectively to determine good and bad. In other words, after creating a standard, an action either does or does not violate that standard. Some actions are more difficult to determine if they violate the standard. That's what our judicial system is for.
#59
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@TwoMan
Then we are actually discussing what is legal not what is moral... unless they always coincide without exception. I am more than prepared to accept that we can make objective statements based on subjective standards but that is not  the same as a claim that morality itself is objective. 
#60
TwoMan
TwoMan's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 379
1
2
3
TwoMan's avatar
TwoMan
1
2
3
-->
@secularmerlin
Then we are actually discussing what is legal not what is moral... unless they always coincide without exception.
I'm sure there are situations that are technically legal but still immoral. For the most part, laws are a way of defining and enforcing morality.

Like you, I don't believe that morality itself is objective.