Objjective morality?

Author: SkepticalOne
Religion
SirLancelot

Posts

Total: 94
#61
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Elliott
That Stalin, Mao and Hitler were able to kill so many people in justcouple of decades is largely down to the availability of modern technology.
No, the Christians had technology too at the time.


That Stalin attacked Christianity was down to Communism and politicisedantitheism.
No. Stalin was an atheist who rejected Christian values and destroyed them. Atheists always end up making society worse. There is no society that became better after rise in atheism. Atheist Communism is a product of atheism. Thinking that people can be happy if you give them factory and take away God is just another version of atheism. Its just trying to compensate for lack of spirituality.


In a 1928 speech Hitler said - "We tolerate no one inour ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity. Our movement isChristian."
Hitler also claimed to be a Socialist, a nazi, an aryan, a vegetarian, an animal rights supporter. He claimed everything which was supported by majority to gain their support. However, Hitler was not a Christian, obviously. He followed values which were atheist in nature. He praised himself, which is condemned in the Bible. He killed a lot of people and wanted to rule the world, which is also strongly condemned in the Bible. So he was an atheist manipulator, in the same way a priest who says "homosexuality is okay" is not a Christian but an atheist. You cannot have atheist values and still be a Christian. Bible defines Christian as someone who follows God's commands.
#62
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Elliott
my previous links related to a belief specifically in God with a capital G, which signifies the monotheistic God.
No. Your links were clearly talking about people who were highly religious. Do you know the difference between religious and highly religious?
#63
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
No. Your links were clearly talking about people who were highly religious. Do you know the difference between religious and highly religious?
That there may be levels of orthodoxy but I am not sure where you would draw the line.
#64
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@FLRW
An estimated 216,000 were victims of French clergy.
With the rise of atheism, there is always rise in rape. Christians have some bad people, but atheists are far worse.

Most of the rapists in France are atheists. Number of Christians decreased in the past 14 years, number of atheists tripled in the past 14 years, and the number of rape cases in France tripled in the past 14 years.
#65
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Elliott
That there may be levels of orthodoxy but I am not sure where you would draw the line.
Well, for a start, draw the line between atheists and believers.

Of course, being more religious is better, but we dont have an exact meassure of who is most religious. However, a simple "I am a believer" works for countries where Christianity is the main religion. Even better is if someone says "I am a Christian". It means it is more likely that those people obey the Bible more than the atheists do.
#66
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
Well arent we the skeptical one. 

.... 

Anyways, I heard this idea before. This seems to stem from a skeptical position that an objective morality could not exist without God because God is the only constant thing to exist in the universe. 

I could be wrong. There may be another god attribute or circumstance which feeds into the presence of objective motality. However that is what I heard of it. 

The claim looks at how morality may exist without God and comes to the conclusion that everything that would influence morality (i.e. science, evolution, sympathy, etc.) can change and/or does change - making morality subjective because morality never needs to stay the same. 

The claim also looks into how we express morality concepts like good vs. bad, coming to a conclusion that any given person demonstrates their ability to like or dislike a thing or event. 

Like when a kid says a food item is bad even though its edible. That kid is demonstrating what they like, not an actual objective condition about the food. 

What do you think would demonstrate the sentence (morality can not exist without God) as true?
#67
Elliott
Elliott's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 407
2
2
6
Elliott's avatar
Elliott
2
2
6
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, for a start, draw the line between atheists and believers.

Of course, being more religious is better, but we dont have an exact meassure of who is most religious. However, a simple "I am a believer" works for countries where Christianity is the main religion. Even better is if someone says "I am a Christian". It means it is more likely that those people obey the Bible more than the atheists do.
 You asked me if I know the difference between religious and highly religious, drawing a line between atheists and believers hardly explains that difference, as atheists are usually neither religious or highly religious. It would seem that you don’t know the answer either, so I will move on and I hope your beliefs give you fulfillment.
#68
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Elliott
You asked me if I know the difference between religious and highly religious
Yes. You posted a link that talks about highly religious while ignoring other religious people. Therefore, your link is invalid.


drawing a line between atheists and believers hardly explains that difference
It wasnt meant to explain the difference, but to point where you should look.


atheists are usually neither religious or highly religious
Which part of that sentence confuses you?
#69
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@Best.Korea
I believe you agree with me then, regarding my take on the thread's subject. 
Topic's author
#70
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
The claim looks at how morality may exist without God and comes to the conclusion that everything that would influence morality (i.e. science, evolution, sympathy, etc.) can change and/or does change - making morality subjective because morality never needs to stay the same. 
This is a non-sequitor. Something can be mutable AND objective. Eg. Objective reality

What do you think would demonstrate the sentence (morality can not exist without God) as true?
I don't know. Do you? 
Topic's author
#71
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What I am saying, is that every human being has a moral conscience, that a lines with everyone else's. 
Except it has been established that is not true. Ie. Sociopathy, mental issues, etc.

There are subjectively wrong things. 
There are subjectively right things.
What does this have to do with objective morality? It seems you went off the rails.

#72
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
Except it has been established that is not true. Ie. Sociopathy, mental issues, etc.
Choosing to do something bad, and having a conscience telling you not to do something is two completely different things. 

Sociopaths and people with mental issues do have a moral conscience, but have a weak one. Yet it still exists. They know right from wrong. They know that a right and a wrong exist.

Question: Is there a right and a wrong?
Are certain things right, and other things wrong. Yes or no?


What does this have to do with objective morality? It seems you went off the rails.
Morality mean right and wrong..............not the exact definition but you get it. 
#73
Best.Korea
Best.Korea's avatar
Debates: 357
Posts: 10,618
4
6
10
Best.Korea's avatar
Best.Korea
4
6
10
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I agree that morality is objective. It exists in the form of God's law. The violation of such law always results in diminishing number of humans, in diseases and diminished chances of survival.

Therefore, since the punishment for lack of such morality is objective, such morality too is objective.
#74
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
What is mutable?

No I do not know either. 
Topic's author
#75
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
Capable of change
#76
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Eh. I'd question whether or not sociopaths know right from wrong. Along with mental illnesses. Some humans pertain adult bodies but demonstrate mental age of 5. This is  way before age of reason. 
#77
hey-yo
hey-yo's avatar
Debates: 25
Posts: 382
1
2
4
hey-yo's avatar
hey-yo
1
2
4
-->
@SkepticalOne
How is something object and capable of change?
Topic's author
#78
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
What does this have to do with objective morality? It seems you went off the rails.
Morality mean right and wrong..............not the exact definition but you get it. 
Yes, I get what you're saying, but the point I'm making is regarding objective morality. 

There are subjectively wrong things. 

There are subjectively right things.
Subjectivity is the opposite of objectivity. I don't have any issue with your statement except that it doesn't address the subject of objective morality -at least, not in a way I understand. Please clarify or we can drop this part of the conversation. 
Topic's author
#79
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@hey-yo
Objective means external from the individual or existing independent from human opinions or perceptions (or in spite of them). This doesn't disallows change in any way.
#80
Sir.Lancelot
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Debates: 182
Posts: 807
4
6
9
Sir.Lancelot's avatar
Sir.Lancelot
4
6
9
-->
@SkepticalOne
Have I convinced you?
Topic's author
#81
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker
I see no reason to think Morality is any less objectively real than mathematics.
I thought I had responded to you already. Apologies.

While I agree with your statement, I wonder why is mathematics considered objective? It would not and could not exist without a mind. You seem to have a good grasp of this distinction, so maybe you can explain it to me! 🙂
Topic's author
#82
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Lol, no. I haven't read your arguments in the debate though, so there's still hope! 😄
#83
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@SkepticalOne



One of the greatest unresolved philosophical debates is the nature of mathematical truth, on the one hand we understand mathematics to be created by the mind, but on the other side of this, you have Eugene Wigner writing “The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences” which tells us that there’s got to be more to mathematics than that. 

Nevertheless, mathematics is a formal system of deductive logic, with axioms, formal procedures, and proofs, comprising a system that by definition, entails objectively verifiable mathematical truth.

But I want to add that the distinction you are making between “objective” and “could not exist without a mind” is a false dichotomy in this context.  Morality is about human conduct, it’s a matter of what we “ought to do”, to look for a definition of objective morality as a morality that is outside of, or independent of, the existence of human beings is meaningless, you can’t speak of what we “ought to do” without including humanity in the definition of objective.


Topic's author
#84
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker
you can’t speak of what we “ought to do” without including humanity in the definition of objective.
Agreed.
#85
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, I get what you're saying, but the point I'm making is regarding objective morality. 
Yes, and you're saying that you don't think morality is objective. 
I am saying it is. 

Topic's author
#86
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes, and you're saying that you don't think morality is objective. 
Or am I? 

I'm open to morality being objective. What I object to is objective morality needing a divine authority. The absence of a divine basis doesn't necessarily make morality subjective. If that's what you believe, we can address that.
#87
YouFound_Lxam
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 2,182
3
4
7
YouFound_Lxam's avatar
YouFound_Lxam
3
4
7
-->
@SkepticalOne
I'm open to morality being objective. What I object to is objective morality needing a divine authority
Couple questions then.
Who or what chose what was good and what was bad?
Where do you get your moral conscience from? And don't tell me our conscience evolved, because all other creatures besides humans don't have different levels of morality. 


Topic's author
#88
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Who or what chose what was good and what was bad? Where do you get your moral conscience from?
Why do you think someone or something (arbitrarily?) *chose* good and bad? I don't think that.

I think individuals who didn't conform to what we now consider good and bad (ie. were harmful to the population in someway) were outcast from primitive societies.  Essentially, primitive populations defined good and bad through their actions over time (regarding individuals detrimental to the cohesion of society) rather than their conscious decisions. Our conscience, which is part nature and and part nurture, is reliant on this legacy.


#89
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@SkepticalOne
Yes, and you're saying that you don't think morality is objective. 
Or am I? 

I'm open to morality being objective. What I object to is objective morality needing a divine authority. The absence of a divine basis doesn't necessarily make morality subjective. If that's what you believe, we can address that.

Thosewho claim objective morality must come from the mind of God, either don't know what "objective" means, or they are using the word objective to actually mean "absolute".   "Objective" is opposed to "subjective",  where "subjective" entails dependence on asubject, the view that morality depends on the will of God is justsubjectivism on a cosmic scale, it isn't objectivism.




Topic's author
#90
SkepticalOne
SkepticalOne's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 1,720
3
3
7
SkepticalOne's avatar
SkepticalOne
3
3
7
-->
@Sidewalker
will of God is justsubjectivism on a cosmic scale, it isn't objectivism.
Well said.