Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Author: MagicAintReal

Posts

Total: 438
#151
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Logical-Master
PRO R4: (1) Free will exists and CON has failed to provide any framework that accounts for free will without God[moot, off-topic, quantum physics is the standard answer]. (2) CON’ case is crushed by moral paradoxes[that are not solved in any way by adding a god to the mix]. In the pollution example, the long term harm outweighs the short term benefits (which CON concedes)[PRO just argued in FAVOR of the homeostatic principle]. In the rape example, one has to conclude that raping a comatose person is perfectly moral in CON’s worldview [putting words in CON's mouth, strawman] since cels do not care if you are finding pleasure in an act that causes physical trauma (i.e. people enjoying trauma involved BDSM practices)[categorically leaps from the good of the planet to the good of individual cells with zero justification]. (3) CON’s philosophy applies to all life, so eating vegetables or fruits can be immoral[except that fruit specifically is only able to perform its function of spreading seeds if it is eaten]. A moral framework must allow for some exploitation of the environment[no examples of how a god fixes this], but CON’s case permits no such thing[overstatement, leap to conclusion, appeal to ignorance]. (4) Objective moral facts must transcend human boundaries and necessarily the homeostasis of the cells[bald assertion, rampant speculation]; they must come from a transcendent mind and that mind is called God[bald assertion, zero examples].

CON R4: (1) Morality can be objective through homestatic principles [for example] and does not need God’s existence to work[bald assertion, weak argument]. (2) PRO’s failure to refute that the universe wasn’t created negates the resolution since God was agreed to be the creator of the universe and since this creator is what must exist for morality to be objective[appeal to ignorance, burden of proof fallacy, off-topic]. Pro has dropped this point and has therefore conceded[CON cannot speak for PRO]. (3) PRO failed to provide an example of a single moral action that could not be reduced to homeostasis (hahaha)[appeal to ignorance, PRO did not provide a single example of how a god automagically solves any moral dilemma]. 4) Driving cars and polluting the air isn’t an action towards someone else, but more of a cumaltive product of multiple varying behaviors not directed at anyone really, thus is not an issue of morality[weak argument against "the greater good"].

This was a fascinating debate and [poorly] reasoned by both sides. I didn’t [mind] the format, but that tends to be the case for most of the debates I see on this site. What I’d like to see debaters do is just follow a consistent 1,2,3,4/A,B,C,D format every round as that makes it a lot easier to follow arguments[agreed]. This debate wasn’t too shabby though.
#152
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
@David
@Logical-Master
PRO’s argument is premised on the idea that God just has to exist as you just can’t explain how objective moral facts (facts that transcend the universe itself, are commands and are accounted for by free will) come into place otherwise[bald assertions, every single one]. CON’s rebuttal is that nope, there is an alternative explanation and that explanation boils down to this little thing called homeostasis that regulates right and wrong based on the harm that may be caused[as a hypothetical alternative]. And so this debate was a back-and-forth[mostly PRO attacking and never defending] in determining whether morality was a divine command or an evolutionary construct of the physical universe that in CON’s words has “helped evolve the human species to better hunt, more quickly construct shelter and increase the overall security of the self and the society.”

First, in regards to the arguments about God existence, I did not consider them to be a kritik[perfecto]. My impression of this debate (based on the description) was that PRO was trying to prove God’s existence [by assertion only] and so it thus would have been appropriate to address CON’s point that God could not have created the universe[then we'd end up with just another "does god exist" debate]. There was nothing in the description about God’s existence not being in dispute, so I don’t buy the notion that CON is arguing a K[agreed, just sort of beside the point]. That being said, I feel CON made the mistake of not really challenging PRO’s position that free will necessitated God’s existence[off-topic, bald assertion]. CON’s basic response was “yeah, free will exist, but so what?” So all in all, I’m going to chalk the “God’s existence” as [off-topic] and leave it at that.

That leaves us with figuring out whether PRO’s “Objective Moral Facts transcend the universe and are commands that product of an intelligent mind” [bald assertions] beats CON’s “Everything boils down to homeostasis”[hypothetical example] contention. And all in all, when I weigh things equally, I have to give the edge to CON’s case here. PRO’s paradoxes and ‘Homeostasis principles apply to all life’ points were [weak] rebuttals in their own right and CON, admirable effort aside, was never able to overcome them[or even point out that god does not automagically solve those same dilemmas]. On the rape point, CON says that physical trauma is still involved, hence why raping a comatose victim would be immoral, but as PRO showed, physical trauma itself can be readily enjoyable during [conscious] sex[which is a CHOICE, but not a choice a comatose individual is able to make for themself]. On the pollution point, CON says that the immediate gain from cars exceeds the long term detriment[in certain examples, like rushing to the hospital], but as PRO showed, the long term detriment, if believed, is truly destructive[PRO proves the homeostatic principle by using it as an example][there is no moral command from any hypothetical god that solves the same problem]. As such, I look at CON’s arguments, and what it sounds like to me is not iron-clad objective morality, but subjective determinations he is making on a case-by-case basis. Human opinions if you will[and PRO demonstrates less than nothing, not a single argument that explains how god solves our moral problems]. And that’s the real weakness with CON’s[and PRO's] case. The whole “is hurting fruit/vegetables immoral” stuff didn’t really go anywhere, but that too really makes me question [PRO's] [utter lack of examples] in a way that I don’t feel he could’ve overcome.

Even though I find [CON’s] case more persuasive than [PRO's], there were some substantial weaknesses CON somewhat alluded to that really made me question his case and had CON pushed a little further, I might’ve ended up making it a [win] on convincing arguments. Particularly the idea that objective moral facts necessarily have to be commands. I get that that’s the conclusion PRO wants, but it felt like a pretty big assumption based on the way PRO presented the argument[agreed]. Same goes for why objective moral facts are infinite[incoherent nonsense]. At times, it kind of felt like PRO was saying this is the case because PRO says so[actually, the entire debate was filled with PRO's bald assertions and zero examples to support their case]. CON didn’t push back nearly as much as he needed to and was more focused on making the case the everything can be boiled down to homestasis principles[not comprehensive or convincing alone]. Granted, given that the BOP was equal, maybe that was his intention[PRO never even attempts to meet BOP].

Anyways, good job to both debaters, but I'm voting [for a tie]!
Topic's author
#153
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Probably could have just written your own RFD, no?
#154
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
I gather from your response that you assume freewill. That may have something to do with our disconnect. Until you can establish freewill there is no reason to accept that we make "choices". In any case you are using harm/wellbeing as your standard of morality which is fine but wether or not that us an objective standard it is only a subjective opinion that this standard is directly interchangeable with moral/immoral.
#155
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
I gather from your response that you assume determinism. That may have something to do with our disconnect. Until you can establish determinism there is no reason to accept that we don't make "choices".


This is the fundamental problem with the freewill/determinism debate. It is really an absurd argument.

What determines our choices?

We certainly have an experience of choice, even if what we choose is largely determined by prior and current experience.

You can choose to accept that you don't have any control. 





#156
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Objective morality makes as much (and as little) sense as 'objective prettiness' - for much the same reasons.

There is considerable agreement between people about who is pretty and who isn't, just as there is good agreement about what is moral and what isn't (not withstanding there are individuals with weird views on both!).

I can imagine a computer program that could scan a photo of a person and give them a 'prettiness score' that matches up well with most people's idea of prettiness.  We could call the computer's output the person's objective prettiness.

It would be much harder to write software that scans the CCTV video of a rape or of helping an old lady cross the road and correctly determines which act most people would class as 'moral' or 'immoral', but in a thought experiment we can do it!

But is the output of that program the 'objective morality' of the vidoed act it scans?  I bet most people would say no.  But if it's not that, what is 'objective morality'?





 




Topic's author
#157
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@secularmerlin
"I gather from your response that you assume freewill. That may have something to do with our disconnect. Until you can establish freewill there is no reason to accept that we make "choices". In any case you are using harm/wellbeing as your standard of morality which is fine but wether or not that us an objective standard it is only a subjective opinion that this standard is directly interchangeable with moral/immoral."
Are you able to hold your breath, avoid eating food, avoid drinking water, cause damage to your cells, fight falling asleep, and if desired, kill yourself?
Every deterministic physical law, fact of physiology, fact of biology, and fact of neurology is working against these actions, yet you can freely choose to do them...how?


Topic's author
#158
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
Objective morality makes as much (and as little) sense as 'objective prettiness' - for much the same reasons.
Except there are objective standards of prettiness to be used like facial symmetry and overall proportional body size ratios.
We can measure symmetry and proportion objectively.

There is considerable agreement between people about who is pretty and who isn't, just as there is good agreement about what is moral and what isn't (not withstanding there are individuals with weird views on both!). 
Right, having that symmetry standard is an objective way to measure prettiness.

I can imagine a computer program that could scan a photo of a person and give them a 'prettiness score' that matches up well with most people's idea of prettiness.  We could call the computer's output the person's objective prettiness.
Ok...proving my point here?

It would be much harder to write software that scans the CCTV video of a rape or of helping an old lady cross the road and correctly determines which act most people would class as 'moral' or 'immoral', but in a thought experiment we can do it!
I agree, because morality, unlike physical attractiveness, has non-physical variables when considering it and software on a camera, that detects physical things only, would not account for those non-physical variables.

But is the output of that program the 'objective morality' of the vidoed act it scans?  I bet most people would say no.  But if it's not that, what is 'objective morality'?
See above.


#159
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Except there are objective standards of prettiness to be used like facial symmetry and overall proportional body size ratios.
We can measure symmetry and proportion objectively.
We can indeed.  But when you see a pretty girl is that what you are doing?  I suggest that you (or of course I or anybody) don't actually know what objective criteria are used to evaluate prettiness.   The most important thing might be eye diameter to nose length ratio!

With morality it is - if anything - even less obvious what criteria we are using to come up with a 'morality score'.  It would be amaing if every human brain was identical and always agreed on how moral something is because even though any single factor might be objective (eg number of bones broken) the weight of each factor will vary from individual to individual.

In othe words no two people will agree on how moral or immoral in all cases.   Obective (ie viewer independent) morality can't exist.
 
Topic's author
#160
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
We can indeed.  But when you see a pretty girl is that what you are doing?
Yeah, I can even tell when other people will find that pretty girl attractive too.

 I suggest that you (or of course I or anybody) don't actually know what objective criteria are used to evaluate prettiness.   The most important thing might be eye diameter to nose length ratio!
Not knowing the objective criteria is irrelevant to whether or not you are inherently physically attracted to particular parameters.

With morality it is - if anything - even less obvious what criteria we are using to come up with a 'morality score'.
Actually it's more obvious, because with prettiness, you may not be pretty yourself, so you don't have an everyday representation in the mirror of pretty, but you do have a homeostatic body that is seeking to do what all other bodies are seeking to do and with this daily representation, recognizing others homeostasis being similar to yours and recognizing others' well being is second hand.

In othe words no two people will agree on how moral or immoral in all cases. 
Is it the case that there are objective facts, not moral, just objective facts that no two people will agree on in all cases?
Whether or not people agree on things is irrelevant to whether or not it's morally or factually correct.

#161
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Suppose I were to ask if morality - in your view - is like prettiness or like weight.

I don't know how much, say, Anjelina Jolie weighs but we can't disagree about it and both be right.
But we can disagree about about how pretty she is.

Which sort of thing is morality like - prettiness or weight?


Topic's author
#162
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
Suppose I were to ask if morality - in your view - is like prettiness or like weight.
Prettiness is a measure of physical beauty.
Weight is a measure of physical mass.
These are essentially only physical properties.

Morality is like neither, because it weighs both physical and conceptual properties.

I don't know how much, say, Anjelina Jolie weighs but we can't disagree about it and both be right.
Yes we can.
Weight fluctuates and so while you would have been wrong at one moment about her weight (you say it's higher than it really is) during your argument claiming her weight, she could easily eat a heavy meal and by the time you finished your argument declaring her weight, you could then be right, and while I was arguing about her weight with you, during my argument I'd be wrong, she could take a massive dump at the end of my sentence declaring her weight, and then I could be right. 

We can disagree about her weight and both be right because weight fluctuates.
A broken clock is right twice a day or something...

But we can disagree about about how pretty she is.
We can disagree about her numerical weight too.

Which sort of thing is morality like - prettiness or weight?
Neither.
#163
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Yes we can.
Weight fluctuates and so while you would have been wrong at one moment about her weight (you say it's higher than it really is) during your argument claiming her weight, she could easily eat a heavy meal and by the time you finished your argument declaring her weight, you could then be right, and while I was arguing about her weight with you, during my argument I'd be wrong, she could take a massive dump at the end of my sentence declaring her weight, and then I could be right. 
I thought we were having a constructive discussion about morality.  Silly, siliy me.
Topic's author
#164
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
Oh come on I was having fun, the discussion's still fine.
#165
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
Very well.  Huff over.

Well ,I think morality is like prettiness - or more like prettiness.  We know rape is bad the same way we know aj is pretty, ie without engaging much 9if any) higher thought.

Do you see why I doubt that morality can be objective?

#166
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
In other words no two people will agree on how moral [attractive] or immoral [unattractive] in all cases.   Obective (ie viewer independent) morality can't exist.
Most people assume pain is a perfectly objective measure of physical damage.

This is not the case.


Pain is relative to your experience and your unique individual perception of relative danger and importance.

It might be the case that our "moral intuition" functions exactly like our sense of pain.

It seems immediate and undeniable and there is a lot of agreement between individuals as to what is painful (immoral), but each one is different in important ways.
#167
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
Prettiness is a measure of physical beauty.
Not strictly speaking.  Prettiness depends a lot of context.  The clothing the person wears and their general attitude.  You'll notice that certain actors/actresses seem, in some roles to be more and in other roles to be much less attractive, even though they have exactly the same body.

Prettiness is not a purely physical property and is not rigorously defined and is therefore not scientifically quantifiable.

Weight is a measure of physical mass.
Weight is rigorously defined and is therefore scientifically quantifiable.

You are making a category error.

You are conflating Quanta (quantitative, scientific) and Qualia (qualitative, experiential).

1 + 1 = 2, therefore I love you.
#168
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
What determines our choices?
"NTURTTGgTS" = "Noumenon, The Ultimate Reality, The Truth, [G]god, The Source"

GOD DETERMINES OUR CHOICES.
#169
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
Probably could have just written your own RFD, no?
Why reinvent the wheel?

#170
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
Imagine a woman being morbidly obese, smelling like rotten cheese, acne all over her face, patchy and stringy hair, deep and raspy voice, a beard under her neck, has only two rotten front teeth, a giant and crooked nose, and ears that stick out of her hair. 

She is just as beautiful as Jessica alba.


Topic's author
#171
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
I think morality considers much more than just physical parameters, and so to me morality is like neither prettiness or weight.
Topic's author
#172
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Ok...
#173
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,052
3
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
3
3
3
-->
@3RU7AL

Prettiness is not a purely physical property and is not rigorously defined and is therefore not scientifically quantifiable.
Weight is rigorously defined and is therefore scientifically quantifiable.
You are making a category error.
You are conflating Quanta (quantitative, scientific) and Qualia (qualitative, experiential).
1 + 1 = 2, therefore I love you.
I think MAR gets that really... he was just being awkward.

So do you, 3R, think morality is in the 'prettiness-' or the 'weight-' class of properties?

Topic's author
#174
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
-->
@keithprosser
@3RU7AL
Ok, well one could make a prettiness judgment only based on physical parameters, but one could not do that with morality.
That's what I was pointing out, not that all instances of prettiness are physical, just that they could be exclusively physical.
Morality, not.

#175
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Fallaneze
Imagine a woman being morbidly obese, smelling like rotten cheese, acne all over her face, patchy and stringy hair, deep and raspy voice, a beard under her neck, has only two rotten front teeth, a giant and crooked nose, and ears that stick out of her hair. 
She is just as beautiful as Jessica alba.
Or even more beautiful.

That woman's husband and family might never choose to exchange her for "Jessica alba" if presented with that option.

Symmetry and athleticism do not account for a myriad of other factors, even strictly physical factors.

Are blue eyes always more attractive than green or brown or amber eyes?

Is red hair always more attractive than brown or blonde?

Are women always more attractive than men?

Are 30 year olds always more attractive than 50 year olds?

Are people from France always more attractive than people from Peru?

Are people with above average intelligence always more attractive than those of average intelligence?

Are famous people always more attractive than those you've never heard of?

We have a general (temporal, geographical, cultural) consensus on what is more attractive.

But consensus is not evidence of a hypothetical "objective standard".
#176
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Mopac
Cause and effect are readily demonstrable. Freewill less so. Until freewill can be established the default is cause and effect.
#177
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@MagicAintReal
The real question is not how it is why. Why would you do any of these things?
#178
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@keithprosser
So do you, 3R, think morality is in the 'prettiness-' or the 'weight-' class of properties?
Morality and prettiness, are Qualitative (qualia).

Not Quantitative (quanta).

Only items that can be scientifically measured are Quantitative.

Morality can not be scientifically measured.

Certain Qualitative concepts can sometimes be shoe-horned into a very strict explicit definition and only then Quantified scientifically.

However, those very strict explicit definitions (of Qualitative concepts) are necessarily ad-hoc and at best, consensus definitions and not strictly "objective" and only apply to the very specific context for which they were fabricated.
#179
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Well maybe never to exchange her and I'm sure they'd love her more, but they'd be irrational for seeing her as physically more beautiful. 

#180
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@MagicAintReal
Ok, well one could make a prettiness judgment only based on physical parameters, but one could not do that with morality.
That's what I was pointing out, not that all instances of prettiness are physical, just that they could be exclusively physical.
Morality, not.
Well, there is some physical aspect to morality.

I mean, the moral action is a physical act.