Right, Wrong, and Moral.................

[Tom_in_CA]

Please define what YOU MEAN by truly objectively wrong.............

Uh, the definition of this is self-evident, but here goes : The difference between something that is objectively wrong, versus subjectively wrong, is this :

If it is OBJECTIVELY wrong, then that determination is OUTSIDE of what anyone or any society thinks. It doesn't matter what people vote on, or decide, or what-their-culture or society (the collective "we") thinks. It is still wrong. So for example, if we can agree that 2 + 2 = 4, then it WON'T matter how many people (the "we") that think that 2 + 2 = 5. They would simply be wrong. Because we have an outside objective scoring card which tells us an objective truth that: 2 + 2 = 4 .

But if it's SUBJECTIVELY wrong (your view), then the scoring card of right vs wrong is derived from the collective "we". The morals are subject to the individuals involved. THEY decide (your view) whether or not a moral is good or bad.

And so to apply this to our conversation : You repeatedly say that society (the collective "we") decide what is morally good or morally bad. Hence subjective to the society's vote, so-to-speak. But then oddly, you turn right around and point your finger at various historical atrocities, and call them "bad". And it is clear that you are meaning that in an objective sense, not subjective sense. As if you *really* mean truly "bad" and "wrong". However, to be consistent with your own relativism view, you'd have to say it's only your or your current society's particular view. And that it wasn't wrong for those past people, since their society decided/voted differently. You can't mean they were objectively wrong, since you don't believe morals are objective in the first place. You can only say you don't prefer what they did, not that they were truly "wrong".

Do you understand now ?

..... When I say that something is wrong it should be obvious why base on ALLLLLLLL I have shared about the reasons for the whys...........

Sure. But that's only talking about YOU. Perhaps Hitler and Stalin, and their societies (their collective "we") didn't/don't share your view. Sure, you have your "reasons". But guess what ? : They had their "reasons" that they felt were "obvious" too. So the most you can say is that you don't prefer their actions. Not that it was "wrong" in any objective sense.

.... the very concept of right and wrong exist because of PEOPLE assigning meaning to them..........

Yup. That's your view that morals (rights and wrongs) are subjective to people (the collective "we"). And yup, that's exactly what various past historical societies have done. And that's exactly why you can't look back through history and say any of them were "wrong" .

.... Once a system is adopted, objective assessment (e.i. this is right or that is wrong) can be made from that arbitrary/subjective point. Quite simple..........

Wow, so let me see if I understand this quote from you : Once a system (a collective societal "we") adopts an assessment (like that murder and rape is wrong), THEN that subjective assessment BECOMES objective. Is that what you are saying ? And that , presto, they can now point their finger at another historic time period or another continent/society, and say "You were/are wrong", and you/they can now mean that in an objective sense. Have I understood you correctly ? And if so, then Tom_in_CA can not deny Truth-OT the ability to call another person's moral objectively wrong, therefore. So in other words, you DO retain the right to look back at the Nazi system, and say "they were objectively wrong to do what they did ". Have I understood you correctly ?

If so, there are several problems with this. For starters, you have simply redefined the meaning of "subjective" to become "objective" . On your view, it magically BECOMES objective, the moment it reaches majority vote of a collective "we". But notice that decision was still subject to the individual subjective votes of the "we". So by mere definition it is NOT objective. Ok ? And Here's another problem with your re-definition :

If you were back in 1840, anywhere on earth, perhaps slavery and racism would have been common-place. It was just the accepted norm for most peoples (even blacks enslaved each other) . So therefore, on-your-view, that position, that slavery was ok, would be an objective truth. Since it was the definition of the collective world-wide "we" that decides and agreed that slavery was ok. However, now we are in the present year 2020. And if you took a collective vote of the entire world, the vote, today, would no doubt be that slavery is morally wrong and bad. Eh ?

So in that case, you can't have two contradicting "objective" standards. Slavery can not be wrong and right, at the same way . That violates the law of non-contradiction : Law of noncontradiction - Wikipedia So who was right ? The people in 1840 ? Or the people today ? They can not both be objectively right, yet contradict each other. One of them has to be wrong. And other example: Is gay-bashing ok ? There are strict Islamic countries that practice that today. So on your view, since it passed their majority collective-we vote, then it's an objective truth that gay-bashing is ok. However, that is NOT going to be the vote result , if you polled some other countries. Hence you have a contradiction. Hence it's subjective, and never magically became "objective". See ?

Thus your view is failing the test drive. And you can not simply announce that when you say someone else, or some other society or era is/was "wrong", that you mean that objectively. Unless, of course, you DID believe that morals are objective. Yet the problem is , you are repeatedly saying that morals are subjective, not objective. Therefore you have no ability to wag your finger at past atrocities and call them truly "wrong". You can only mean that subjectively, on your view.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sounds like you're being stubborn to ....

I don't mean to be stubborn. I truly do want to give you my thoughts on how we humans ground morality. But put yourself in my shoes : This would be a little like two chefs discussing how to make meatloaf. One of the chefs brings 2 pounds of dogsh#t . The other chef objects and says "Wait, that's dogsh#t. The recipe calls for ground beef, not dogsh#t. But the first chef insists that his dogsh#t is, in fact , ground beef". So in that case don't you think the two of them ought to clear up the difference between dogsh#t and ground beef first, BEFORE they start discussing how much salt to add ?

So too is it with this discussion. You already have a "grounding" for morality. So what the heck difference will it make that I give you my notions ? When you ALREADY see-no-problem with your grounding ? Then it really won't matter how compelling my theories are, when you can simply retreat back to a position that you seem-to-think is surviving the test drives. If I can't show you (which I feel has been point-blank evidence) that your car crashed in the test drive, then so too will you summarily dismiss any other groundings. In other words, I feel like you are ignoring point blank evidence so far, and thus I can only suspect that the same logical dance will go on when I give you my world-view stance.

.... I have yet to see you demonstrate how my description of how humans develop what we deem good and bad and how we apply moral judgments based on those things fail. That's why we stand at an impasse.

I will try again. Here's how your method of how-we-derive good and bad fails :

Because in the very next breaths, you list things that are "bad" that other people, societies, and/or eras have done. And when you're saying "bad", you are clearly meaning that in an objective sense. EVEN though those people voted on it, agreed on it, etc... Hence on your view therefore, those things WEREN'T "bad". Since it was their collective "we". But strangely, you point your finger back in history, or across the ocean, and proclaim them "bad".

So here's how you can rescue your view : Since you already acknowledged in post, long-ago, that the Nazi's could decide their moral code (ie.: that you can't say they were "wrong"), then so too should you extend this same logic to everything else. Ie.: You would need to say, for example, when you see someone torturing a baby kitten, that when you say "That's wrong", that you would add : "But that's only my individual opinion, so you can disregard what I'm saying".

And you can not march in protests against Trump or any other policy that the USA has collectively voted on. Since, by your definition, *you* would be the immoral one for protesting the system. And you can't look at Iran and say that their gay-bashing policies are wrong. You would need to add "but that's just my opinion, and it's not wrong for them".

 

[Tom_in_CA]

It's not the collective we that was the problem but rather the fact that within the collective we of humanity there has been splintering causing the 'we' to become 'us' and 'them' where 'they' are not like 'us'. That becomes the rationalized justification groups of people considering themselves as the 'us' group use to do bad things to the 'thems'.

Score one for Truth-OT. I was wondering when you'd chime in with this. The notion (If I'm understanding you correctly) goes like this : It is wrong for the theist to point to individual societies , like Nazi Germany, or Iran gay-bashing, or Jim crow laws, etc.... as examples of collective "we's". Since, let's be honest : In the case of Nazi Germany, in the early days of the mid 1930s, even though Hitler had a few European allies (Italy, etc...), yet .... let's be honest, if they had taken a vote of the ENTIRE WORLD, that the whole earth would NOT have been anti-Semitic.

Therefore it's intellectually dis-honest of Tom_in_CA to point to these outlier fluke examples. Since they did not represent a larger world-wide vote. Eh ? There are ALWAYS fluke outlier people who think torturing kittens is ok. There are ALWAYS fluke outlier examples of singular countries, or singular deep-south states, that voted to do things we now feel were "wrong". So it is unfair to study the "fluke outliers". You need to study the entire earth (if it were theoretically possible to poll the entire earth), and then THAT is the moral code we can whimsically call "objective".

Have I understood you correctly ? And to add more fuel to the fire, and allow you to do some more fist-pumps, let's be perfectly honest : If it were possible to poll the entire earth, I agree that murder, rape, theft, etc... would all get a "no" vote. So at first blush, this seems to save your sinking ship. Eh ? This seems to reverse the car-crash-test of your views. Eh ?

Before I address this, let me get your answer first, before I address this. For now, I want to let you relish in this and do a few more fist pumps :)

And ... gee, do you think I might be setting you up for a trap ? :) Answer this first, and then I'll proceed to address it.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Sometimes its difficult to know right from wrong. ....

Hey there Matt, thanx for chiming in. Truth-OT has been a very good sport. Very fascinating discussion.

As for your first paragraph here : Lots to un-pack. And one thing I think all of us need to be aware of (when it comes to subjective vs objective) is to differentiate minor nuances. For example: Some cultures (like France) greet each other with a kiss (yes, even men to men !) . Other cultures, like Japan, greet each other with a bow. And still other cultures, like the USA, shake hands. So would this prove "subjective morals" ? No. Because notice in EACH CASE, there is a bigger picture of "Greet each other with a polite gesture". The "gesture" might vary from culture to culture, but the bigger picture moral rule of being polite upon-meeting another, is seemingly objective.

So when we go to discuss morals , we need to differentiate big picture versus minor nuances of playing-those-out.

As for the Old Testament's seemingly harsh punishments , there is a great book I recommend : "Is God a Moral Monster ?" : https://www.amazon.com/God-Moral-Monster-Making-Testament/dp/0801072751

This is more of an in-house debate for theists. Ie.: how do we handle these passages, that seem to endorse stoning for minor offenses, etc.... And is or isn't there a difference for our current church-age era (versus back then when it was a theocracy for a single nation getting those rules). The reason I say it's an "in-house " issue, that Christians can and do discuss, is that it's folly to go over this with an atheist or agnostic . Here's why :

How in the world can a theist discuss those passages with an atheist, when the atheist DOESN'T EVEN BELIEVE IN GOD IN THE FIRST PLACE ? What I mean is : Even when the theist apologist shows an acceptable light on them (which I'm not going into now) to show how they are explainable, yet it DOES NO GOOD. Because it's not "proving God exists". It's merely proving that there's not an internal contradiction on our end. But why the heck does the atheist care if there is no internal contradiction on our end ? I could develop a great story line about the tooth fairy, and how it *could* in fact get into your house to put that quarter under your pillow, that might withstand all logical scrutiny. But wait, that only assumes the tooth fairy exists IN THE FIRST PLACE !

At *best*, here's what the atheist can do, when he's trying to try the "problem of evil" or the "atrocities recorded in the Bible" type arguments: He needs to preface these seeming-contradictions , by prefacing with the following disclaimer : "On your view..." .... and "hence you have an internal contradiction". But the moment he goes to claim that God was unjust for these seemingly capricious acts in the Old Testament, is the moment he has : A) Just implied there is a God in the first place, and B) Has chosen a moral action that he now calls "evil" or "bad". Yet the only scoring card the atheist has to call upon, is evolution and social contract. Hence nothing is really "wrong". I mean, it wasn't "wrong" back then, so what the heck is the atheist griping about ?

So if the atheist is going to be "boutique" and phrase his objection carefully, he needs to preface it by noting that this is a contradiction on the theist's end. And here's where it gets interesting : Once that atheist acknowledges it's a contradiction on the theist's end" (but not the larger world view of the atheist), then presto: The Theist can then call in all sorts of assumptions on their end. For example : If you now cite the Bible, to clear up and complement other passages, the atheist can not cry 'foul' and say that it's circular reasoning (to cite the Bible). Since, of course, he's pre-acknowledged that it's an in-house contradiction on OUR end :) Or if we start with an assumption that God exists, he CAN'T change the conversation/debate to "does God exist", since that was never the point of the question IN THE FIRST PLACE.

As for the rest of what you wrote : Let's see how truth-OT responds ! :) For example, your Tulsa example : That is not far-fetched. Because it wasn't in our too far-gone history that Jim Crow laws existed (as recently as 1963 I think ?). My dad grew up in the deep south , and 1) wasn't a racist, yet 2) never saw anything wrong with the separate waiting rooms and drinking fountains, when he was a kid in the 1950s. It was just the "norm" back then, and he/they never gave it a moment's thought. It wasn't till he married my mom (from CA where such things didn't exist) that he began to see "gee, I guess this isn't the norm" .

HOWEVER : Truth-OT could try to say: "This wasn't taking a vote of the entire USA". Or "This isn't/wasn't taking a vote of the entire world" . And as you can see, if you're following this, I've thrown out this carrot for him :) There might be a "trap" by Tom_in_CA. But first, I'm waiting for him to acknowledge his position (once he gets done with his fist pumps for the seemingly first-blush-admission on my end). Shall he take the bait ? We shall see :)

 

[Philip James]

Hello Tom and TOT,

I have been following your discussion with interest. Hope you don't mind me chiming in...

In the case of Nazi Germany, in the early days of the mid 1930s, even though Hitler had a few European allies (Italy, etc...), yet .... let's be honest, if they had taken a vote of the ENTIRE WORLD, that the whole earth would NOT have been anti-Semitic.

The whole earth maybe not, but I would suggest that a majority of it might have been...

I live among other persons that have feelings and we must coexist.

Why must we coexist? Is that some kind of objective moral standard?

Following up on above... Many people think the state of Israel should not exist, and must be destroyed.. If you polled the UN, how many do you think would 'vote' for its dissolution?

If they did, would it be morally right to enforce such a vote? If not, why not?

Peace!

 

[Truth OT]

I hope you do not agree with that definition? Far to subjective. If a population of some area (Tulsa?) decides that black people in their city are bad, and it is good to shoot them, does that make it good? They view their behavior as 'good', "desired", and "approved of".

Hi Matt,

The definition of good being simplified to that which is generally desirable for human people may have more meet on its bones. In the Black Wall Street example above, as well as any involving mass murder, rape, enslavement, and the like, we must not act as if the "they" who wish to inflict bad things on others are human beings that humans hold to the standards humans create based on things humans find good (safety, fairness, appreciation, etc.). So if the portion of the human population decides that doing something bad is good, they have not exempted themselves from the judgment of the entirety of the human population collectively as it pertains to how we determine what is in fact good or bad. Because we coexist, we are held accountable by and to our fellow humans. That said, we can reasonably conclude that were we to engage in acts that we would find wrong if perpetrated against us, then we are held to that same standard of accountability when acting towards other groups.

Humans will never identify anything but a subjective moral code.

I AGREE! Morality, because it involves agency, is subject to the perspective of its arbiter thus making it subjective. That's the case whether the arbiter is man or deity.

 

[Truth OT]

Why must we coexist? Is that some kind of objective moral standard?

I'd imagine your question is actually 'why must we coexist peacefully'? If that is the question, then the answer is that we do not have to do so. However, not doing so has negative consequences for virtually everyone's health, safety, enjoyment, etc. because although we don't have to coexist peacefully, we MUST share this world with each other.
We develop moral standards for human coexistence so we both individually and collectively can prosper, live in peace, enjoy life, explore our passions, be safe and healthy, etc. The recognition that we have things we deem good that we'd like more of as well as things we deem ill we'd like to lessen or eliminate and the fact that we share our reality with other beings that are our peers with the same types of desires prompts us to act in accordance with what is deemed as good and against what is regarded as bad when dealing with other people.

Following up on above... Many people think the state of Israel should not exist, and must be destroyed.. If you polled the UN, how many do you think would 'vote' for its dissolution?

If they did, would it be morally right to enforce such a vote? If not, why not?

I live in the state of Texas and so does most of my family. Would I want the state of Texas to be destroyed? Of course not! So, because I understand as a human being that the destruction of MY state would be a bad thing, I can determine logically that destroying another state with inhabitants just as human as I am would be bad as well. Human morality 101.

 

[Truth OT]

Truth-OT could try to say: "This wasn't taking a vote of the entire USA". Or "This isn't/wasn't taking a vote of the entire world"

Where did ToT ever invoke the need to "vote?" Are you trying to be slick again by adding in things that were never mentioned, you rascal?

At *best*, here's what the atheist can do, when he's trying to try the "problem of evil" or the "atrocities recorded in the Bible" type arguments: He needs to preface these seeming-contradictions , by prefacing with the following disclaimer : "On your view..." .... and "hence you have an internal contradiction". But the moment he goes to claim that God was unjust for these seemingly capricious acts in the Old Testament, is the moment he has : A) Just implied there is a God in the first place, and B) Has chosen a moral action that he now calls "evil" or "bad". Yet the only scoring card the atheist has to call upon, is evolution and social contract.

You choose to ignore the fact that by the necessity of us HAVING TO SHARE A REALITY WITH ONE ANOTHER, a social contract that dictates acceptable behavior is real all you want, that doesn't make it not so. It's demonstrable.
A person can say the actions recorded in the Bible attributed to its god are evil because people have a human framework by which humans determine what is good or what is bad, particularly when it comes to how humans gets treated.

 

[Philip James]

I'd imagine your question is actually 'why must we coexist peacefully'? If that is the question, then the answer is that we do not have to do so.

we MUST share this world with each other.

And here is another must. Why must we share? If my family has amassed wealth and prosperity and is living well, must we suffer a little so that others might suffer less?

You now have 2 'musts' albeit releated..

We must coexist
We must share this world with each other.

Are these objective morals that apply no matter how popular opinion, and especially opinion of those who wield power changes?

Who judges when they have been breached?

Peace!

 

[Tom_in_CA]

.... The whole earth maybe not, but I would suggest that a majority of it might have been.......

Oh I want SSEEoooo hard to reply to this. But I can't. It would divulge my next hand of cards to T.O.T. . Assuming he holds to -the-whole world, over all-the-Eons, as being the collective "we" that he speaks of. Versus looking at an outlier fluke state, or nation, or era. So I have to bite my tongue and not respond to you. [Spoiler alert : Am I setting a trap ? Will T.O.T. take the bait ? haha ]

..... Why must we coexist? Is that some kind of objective moral standard? ....

Bingo Philip ! Whenever the atheist tries to ground morals in evolution and social contract, he INVARIABLY starts pointing to things like our general desire to "co-exist" and "reduce suffering", etc..... But in-doing so, he fails to realize that he JUST SMUGGLED an objective moral standard in through the back door. And as clear as this "cheating " is, he will still stubbornly hold on to subjective relative morals. It is absolutely amazing !

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Hi Matt,

The definition of good being simplified to that which is generally desirable for human people may have more meet on its bones....

And what do you do if a group of people or entire nation or continent, feel that it is "generally desirable" to kill you and take your stuff ?

.... we must not act as if the "they" who wish to inflict bad things on others are human beings that humans hold to the standards humans create based on things humans find good (safety, fairness, appreciation, etc.). ...

Woah woah woah, there you go again T.O.T. : Smuggling various objective moralities in through the back door again ! Don't you see it ?? Notice your term "we must not" (in bold above, in your quote). That implies a morally objective obligation that we "ought" to do.

Do you mean that subjectively or objectively ? If you mean that objectively, then presto, you DO believe in objective moral absolutes. And if so : Welcome to our side !! But if you mean that subjectively, then perhaps some other people groups don't agree with you. Perhaps they voted differently to kill you and take your stuff . Same for "safety", and "fairness" and "appreciation", etc.... Did you mean that objectively or subjectively ? If you mean that was all subjective, fine then, it's only your opinion, and no one else "ought" or "should" or "has to do" those things. Unless their particular culture votes on them and codifies them into laws, then sure, THEN we could say they "ought" to do them (like obeying a speed limit, etc...). But on the other hand, if that culture or society (like Nazi Germany or Jim Crow law southern states) doesn't see it that way, then there is no more "ought" that applies there, to go by your T.O.T. standard. Because on your view, there is no "ought" or "should" or "must not". It's left up to personal individual society's whims, on your take of things.

.... So if the portion of the human population decides that doing something bad is good, they have not exempted themselves from the judgment of the entirety of the human population collectively as it pertains to how we determine what is in fact good or bad. ....

Wait, aren't you seeing the internal errors of this statement ? You are speaking of "bad" and "good" (in bold above) AS IF THERE WERE AN OBJECTIVE MORAL SCORING CARD TO DETERMINE THE STATUS . However, then you bend over backwards insisting there IS NO objective moral scoring card. Don't you see how you contradict yourself in your very next breaths each time ??

And who is the "we" (in bold above) ? What country ? What era ? Since when is it whatever and whoever T.O.T. says ? Why can't it be what Pol Pot or Stalin said, and their countries and eras ? (after all, those covered GIANT SWATHS of the earth's population, at those times, eh ?) . To which you will probably answer: "Because Pol Pot and Stalin were wrong for what they did". Right ? Then presto, you DO believe in objective moral standards, so why don't you just give up and join our side ?

But I bet you won't. Because you know full-well it will jeopardize your agnosticism. So you will continue to live in this blaring contradiction, that is very plainly spelled out to you here. Right ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

I'd imagine your question is actually 'why must we coexist peacefully'? If that is the question, then the answer is that we do not have to do so. However, not doing so has negative consequences for virtually everyone's health, safety, enjoyment, etc. because although we don't have to coexist peacefully, we MUST share this world with each other.
We develop moral standards for human coexistence so we both individually and collectively can prosper, live in peace, enjoy life, explore our passions, be safe and healthy, etc. The recognition that we have things we deem good that we'd like more of as well as things we deem ill we'd like to lessen or eliminate and the fact that we share our reality with other beings that are our peers with the same types of desires prompts us to act in accordance with what is deemed as good and against what is regarded as bad when dealing with other people.



I live in the state of Texas and so does most of my family. Would I want the state of Texas to be destroyed? Of course not! So, because I understand as a human being that the destruction of MY state would be a bad thing, I can determine logically that destroying another state with inhabitants just as human as I am would be bad as well. Human morality 101.

I love ya like a brother T.O.T. So here's a homework task for you : Go through your above quote, and find all the objective moral "oughts" that you list. Ie.: things that we "should" and "ought" to do. [hint, I put a bunch of them in bold]

And then ask yourself : Did you mean those objectively or subjectively ? If you mean subjectively (which you will HAVE to say, lest you admit that there is objective morals), then : Why should we do those various things ? They wouldn't be "oughts", they'd only be "preferences" that T.O.T. prefers, and perhaps his state of Texas happens to currently like. But perhaps another culture or society or era didn't think like T.O.T.'s Texas. Ok ? Like "living in peace" and "prospering" and "coexisting", etc... ? You keep speaking in objective terms, of things we "ought to do", yet in the very next breaths turn right around and deny that there are any objective moral absolutes. It is simply amazing that you're not seeing it.

And btw : If I kill you and take your stuff, then I can co-exist just fine. Sometimes being nice (ie.: co-existing) is NOT the best way to "get your genes into the next generation". Sometimes you or I can "get ahead" by NOT being "nice". Haven't you heard the old addage of "nice guys finish last" ? So if it's all about getting our genes into the next generation (since material evolution is your only game in town), then : Going to war with your neighboring country, and taking their stuff, can be a GREAT way to "get ahead" and prosper. Rape, on that view, would be a good way to get your genes into the next generation, eh ?

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Where did ToT ever invoke the need to "vote?" Are you trying to be slick again by adding in things that were never mentioned, you rascal?....

T.O.T. What is this perpetual "we" that you keep referring to ? And it's a fair question that you , perhaps, didn't ever use the word "vote". I was using that for sake-of-space. Because what the heck else does "we" refer to ? But you're right , that it need not be a "vote", per se. It could just be an unspoken "given". I mean, because back in cave man days, and days before ballot boxes and codified written laws, then sure : These "agreed upon morals" could just be grunts back and forth between cave-men. Right ? So please don't get lost in the word "vote".

I was only using that to refer to the collective "we" that YOU keep referring to. Whether that's consensus view comes by actual "vote", or grunts, or just unspoken mutually unspoken agreed upon cultural things, is irrelevant . It's still the collective "we" that you keep referring to, that makes up our moral scoring card.

.... a social contract that dictates acceptable behavior is real all you want, that doesn't make it not so. It's demonstrable.
A person can say the actions recorded in the Bible attributed to its god are evil because people have a human framework by which humans determine what is good or what is bad, particularly when it comes to how humans gets treated.

Couple of things to clear up here : I am not denying the existence of "social contracts". Sure, we develop city halls to lay-down community rules. We develop constitutions to found countries. We make deals with our neighbors to agree not to let our dogs poop on each other's lawns. Those are all social contracts. So if I gave the impression that "social contracts don't exist" or "social contracts are a bad idea and every one of our behavioral notions should come from somewhere else, as if social contracts were *bad* ", then I repent of that notion. I certainly agree that social contracts exist. What I am referring to, and what we are talking about HERE, is : Is there an adjudicating outside objective reference point , that we can turn to, to adjudicate between conflicting contradicting social contracts. On your view, there is not. There is nothing to adjudicate. Therefore, when someone else's "social contract" conflicts with yours, then the most you can say is "I don't like it". Not : "They're wrong".


And as far as the actions recorded in the Bible (like that mean bully God wiping out everyone in a flood, or condoning a war to wipe out a population, blah blah), then refer to what I said in post #25. I would LOVE to talk about those things with you. However, since you don't believe in God, in the first place, then why the heck would we be discussing what this non-existent being did or said, if he doesn't exist IN THE FIRST PLACE ? It would make utterly no sense. Like discussing what coat size santa claus wears, and how he fits down the chimney, when .... wait .... there's no such thing as Santa in the first place. The best you could do is to carefully preface your question, by pointing out that it's an internal contradiction on the theist's end. But again, this would be folly and a rabbit trail red herring. Because EVEN WHEN THE THEIST CAN SUCCESSFULLY SHOW YOU HOW THERE'S NO internal contradiction (ie.: there were logical things, that even *you* might agree were called-for), then at the end of the day, what will this result in ? NOTHING AT ALL. Ie.: it doesn't prove God exists to you. It would, to further the Santa illustration, only prove what size coat the fictitious character wears, and how he could conceivably fit down chimneys. It would not prove Santa. Therefore I have no desire to enter into a futile conversation, UNTIL we've settled the first discussion first. Namely: Are morals absolute or subjective . Once we finish that (when you've seen your pickle of a test drive contradictions), then I promise to address the old testament wars stuff. Ok ?

And BTW : Here's a little help for your side: Why don't you just go ahead and say "absolute morals do exist". And then in the next breath, you can deny that they come from God. Ok ? Believe it or not many leading atheists do JUST THAT. Because they see the failure of the test drive of subjective/relative morals. Ya wanna take the bait , and change sides, and agree to objective moral absolutes ? Or do I have a trap set ? :)

 

[Tom_in_CA]

And here is another must. Why must we share? If my family has amassed wealth and prosperity and is living well, must we suffer a little so that others might suffer less?

You now have 2 'musts' albeit releated..

We must coexist
We must share this world with each other.

Are these objective morals that apply no matter how popular opinion, and especially opinion of those who wield power changes?
.....

Philip, you are a breath of fresh air. You brilliantly show the inevitable contradictions that the moral relativist faces . No sooner does he pound the table insisting that morals are subjectively relative, then in the next breath he lists off a list of things that people "ought to do" and "must do". How do they not see the contradiction ? I dunno.

 

[Truth OT]

And here is another must. Why must we share? If my family has amassed wealth and prosperity and is living well, must we suffer a little so that others might suffer less?

Isolation would be the only reason why would think people wouldn't have to share. Aside from being isolated, we are forced to share space and that mandates a degree of cooperation that entails respecting the humanity of other humans less our own ability to increase the good is lessened.

You now have 2 'musts' albeit releated..

We must coexist
We must share this world with each other.

Are these objective morals that apply no matter how popular opinion, and especially opinion of those who wield power changes?

Who judges when they have been breached?

Objective morals, not exactly. Morals based on human nature, most definitely. Who holds power doesn't much affect how humans are as it relates to desiring good and wanting to minimize the bad. That standard is one developed by humans based on our humanity.

 

[Truth OT]

Whenever the atheist tries to ground morals in evolution and social contract,

Human morals aren't grounded in the social contract. They are grounded in our humanity and the fact that humans share a reality with other humans gives rise to the aforementioned social contract.

he INVARIABLY starts pointing to things like our general desire to "co-exist" and "reduce suffering", etc..... But in-doing so, he fails to realize that he JUST SMUGGLED an objective moral standard in through the back door. And as clear as this "cheating " is, he will still stubbornly hold on to subjective relative morals. It is absolutely amazing !

Coexisting is not so much a desire as it is a requirement of being a human being on Earth. It is all but impossible NOT to coexist. Human morality is relative to the fact that is it centered on and developed by humanity.

And what do you do if a group of people or entire nation or continent, feel that it is "generally desirable" to kill you and take your stuff ?

I'd submit that this question is not realistic and reflects how the point has been missed. It's not about a conscious decision about 'what I like'. It's about what we are, HUMANS. We develop what we consider human morality based on what some would describe as our natural human inclinations coupled with the fact that we recognize that we share a world with other human beings with feelings as well. It is not in our nature as humans to want to be killed and desire to have our stuff taken, so we will not see those things as good.

A question I wrestle with is that of if human morality is based on human nature and human nature is observable, testable, and can be verified as being whatever it is; does that then make human morality in settings where multiple human agents exist together objective?

 

[Truth OT]

I love ya like a brother T.O.T. So here's a homework task for you : Go through your above quote, and find all the objective moral "oughts" that you list. Ie.: things that we "should" and "ought" to do. [hint, I put a bunch of them in bold]

And then ask yourself : Did you mean those objectively or subjectively ? If you mean subjectively (which you will HAVE to say, lest you admit that there is objective morals), then : Why should we do those various things ? They wouldn't be "oughts"

Why are you equating something you should do with "an objective moral ought?" What is an objective moral ought anyway?
When I say what someone should or should not do, what mechanism am I using outside of my own preference to make that determination is what I hear you asking. Additionally, you are asserting that if I am appealing to a mechanism outside of myself, then that mechanism must be considered objective (at least as it relates to being able to determine what is or is not moral in human to human interactions).

- The mechanism I appeal to is our humanity, and what that entails as it relates to our desires especially as it pertains to what we want (described by the word good) and do not want (described by the work bad) to happen to us.
- I may be forced to admit that our nature has objective components

 

[Truth OT]

T.O.T. What is this perpetual "we" that you keep referring to ?

Human beings

What I am referring to, and what we are talking about HERE, is : Is there an adjudicating outside objective reference point , that we can turn to, to adjudicate between conflicting contradicting social contracts.

We appeal to our humanity (nature) and the fact that we are forced to share a reality to adjudicate human affairs of morality.

 

[Tom_in_CA]

....Isolation would be the only reason why would think people wouldn't have to share. Aside from being isolated, we are forced to share space and that mandates a degree of cooperation that entails respecting the humanity of other humans less our own ability to increase the good is lessened....

T.O.T., notice your use of the words "have to" (in bold above) . And the use of the word "forced". And the moral implications of the word "share" and "cooperation" and "respecting", etc..... Do you mean all that in a subjective/relative sense ? Or in an objective sense ? :/

Tsk tsk , there you go again, smuggling in objective moral "oughts", even though you vehemently try to say that morals are subjective/relative. When are you going to see that you contradict yourself in your very next breaths ? :/

Objective morals, not exactly. Morals based on human nature, most definitely. Who holds power doesn't much affect how humans are as it relates to desiring good and wanting to minimize the bad. That standard is one developed by humans based on our humanity. ....

Note the bold text above in your quote "Human". Ok, which human(s) ? You ? Me ? Hitler ? Mother Teresa ? Pol Pot ? Stalin ? They are "humans" and "humanity" too, after all.

And if you say "you, me, and mother Teresa" ('cuz we're generally likable nice people), then guess what ? You've just subscribed to an objective moral principle, which allows you to differentiate between Mother Teresa and Hitler. So: Welcome to our side !! We're all waiting with anticipation for you to announce that morals are objective, not subjective. You breathe it in every breath, so when are you just going to come clean and admit it ??

 

[Tom_in_CA]

Human morals aren't grounded in the social contract. They are grounded in our humanity .....

For pete's sake, what is the difference between "social contract" and "we" and "humanity" ? I'm using them interchangeably. For pete's sake, you KNOW what I/we are talking about, so why are you trying to divert the heat off of yourself by playing with semantics ? You know full well what we/I am/are talking about.

If you prefer the word "humanity" over "social contract", FINE !! Either way : It's subjective based on the majority of the "we" and "humanity" (society, culture, "we"), according to you. So the point remains the same . It has just generally been referred to as a "social contract". Even though, technically, no one has necessarily written it down on a legal "contract". But you know full well what we are referring to .

..... Coexisting is not so much a desire as it is a requirement of being a human being on Earth. It is all but impossible NOT to coexist. .....

Wait wait wait : Did I just hear you say "requirement" ? As in ... HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ? As in a moral obligation that someone would be "wrong" to violate ?? SAY IT ISN'T SO ! If so, WELCOME TO OUR SIDE !! You have just acknowledged moral absolutes !! Agreed ? :)

And BTW, it's not "impossible" to go against "co-existing". I can kill you, and take your stuff, and EXIST JUST FINE ! In fact, sometimes NOT "co-existing" is the best way to survive. I can get ahead by lying, stealing, killing, etc.... So why be a nice guy, if I have a better chance of getting my genes into the next generation by killing others in wars, to expand my borders, have more kids, eat better food, etc.... ? Why the heck should you or I give our $$ to some charity that feeds the poor, if by keeping the $ for ourselves it allows us more prosperity, more kids, longer life, etc.... ?

..... I'd submit that this question is not realistic ....

Not realistic ? I would/could agree with you if I had no *real* names and *real* events in history, to show that they are VERY MUCH INDEED "REALISTIC". Did you think I just made up the name "Hitler" ? (yet no such dude and no Nazi party ever actually existed). Did I just make up the name Pol Pot (but he's fictitious ?). If it were true that these countries, persons, eras, didn't exist (and were just hypotheticals that never actually occurred in history), THEN YES: It would "not be realistic". But I got news for ya T.O.T. : They are not made up. Re-read your history books dude.

..... A question I wrestle with is that of if human morality is based on human nature and human nature is observable, testable, and can be verified as being whatever it is; does that then make human morality in settings where multiple human agents exist together objective?

Not tracking you on this one. Can you elaborate ? Specifically as-to-how it plays into our conversation. Thanx.