How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?

[Compassionist]

How do we know what is right, and what is wrong? For example, I think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite. I think all living things should be autotrophs. I think only autotrophs are good and the rest are evil. However, I am not certain that my thoughts are right. Can herbivores, carnivores, omnivores, and parasites become autotrophs at will? If so, why don't they? If they can't become autotrophs at will, is it really their fault that they are not autotrophs?

[The Tanager]

I was just wanting to make sure that you don't think some minds are unable to intentionally think. It appears that you wouldn't argue it that way, so take from that, that if the planet had a mind, then you understand that this means that the planet could be thought of as abusive?

If this is correct, can you provide some reasons as to why this is so, and further to that say whether you think all forms of abuse are indeed "wrong".

Because if the planet has a mind, it could have moral free will and, in that, choose actions that cause intentional and unneeded harm to others (i.e., abuse). I do think all forms of abuse are wrong.

I don't think morality (as in actually understanding what is right and wrong) can be an objective feature (a real object which can be pointed to) of reality because if it were, then we should be able to point to such as evidence of what is right and wrong, and we (humans) would not need to disagree.

Since there doesn't appear to be such an object, and since we humans collectively disagree on what is right or wrong, I conclude that no mind - including the creator's - has organized matter to show any object which we can call an example of right or wrong, that everyone could therefore agree to and know without doubt what is right from what is wrong

Objective morality is not about everyone agreeing to something and knowing without doubts (for even the things you call “objects”), but we are so far apart on what phrases like “an objective feature of reality” mean that I don’t see how we can move forward in this discussion.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #621]

Because if the planet has a mind, it could have moral free will and, in that, choose actions that cause intentional and unneeded harm to others (i.e., abuse).

Part of the reason I went with the suggestion "Intentional Thinking Agent" is because it covers all intention rather than just moral/immoral-based intention. It, in effect is saying "intentional use of one's will" and also means we don't have to be distracted by what "free" means.

Let's say that the planet is an object used by an Intentional Thinking Agent. This means that the agent is a mind and has intentions and the ability to make those intentions happen.
Why - if the planet were an object housing Intentional Thinking Agent - you would think of this agent as abusive?

I do think all forms of abuse are wrong.

What about unintentional abuse or necessary abuse?

Objective morality is not about everyone agreeing to something and knowing without doubts (for even the things you call “objects”), but we are so far apart on what phrases like “an objective feature of reality” mean that I don’t see how we can move forward in this discussion.

I have said that I can identify no such moral object. One way we can move forward is for you to give an example of what a moral object is, since you claim it exists.
I think you might be saying that an example of a moral object is "not abusing children", but maybe you are not saying that, so if you are saying that, please confirm this is what you are meaning and we can move forward re that.

[The Tanager]

Because if the planet has a mind, it could have moral free will and, in that, choose actions that cause intentional and unneeded harm to others (i.e., abuse).

Part of the reason I went with the suggestion "Intentional Thinking Agent" is because it covers all intention rather than just moral/immoral-based intention. It, in effect is saying "intentional use of one's will" and also means we don't have to be distracted by what "free" means.

Let's say that the planet is an object used by an Intentional Thinking Agent. This means that the agent is a mind and has intentions and the ability to make those intentions happen.
Why - if the planet were an object housing Intentional Thinking Agent - you would think of this agent as abusive?

Notice the bolded part above. It COULD. It could choose actions that are abusive. If the planet is an object used by an ITA, this ITA COULD have abusive intentions and make those intentions happen. It COULD; it wouldn’t have to.

What about unintentional abuse or necessary abuse?

Since I defined abuse as “causing intentional and unneeded harm to others,” ‘unintentional abuse’ or ‘necessary abuse’ would be illogical concepts. If you share your different definition of abuse, I might be able to distinguish how I feel about intentional abuse versus unintentional abuse or necessary abuse versus unneeded abuse.

I have said that I can identify no such moral object. One way we can move forward is for you to give an example of what a moral object is, since you claim it exists.
I think you might be saying that an example of a moral object is "not abusing children", but maybe you are not saying that, so if you are saying that, please confirm this is what you are meaning and we can move forward re that.

But your definition of ‘object/objective’ rules out morality as an objective feature of reality because I agree that they aren’t physical things. Your definition, then, begs the question we disagree on here. I see no reason to agree with your definition. Progress could be made if you gave me good reasons to agree with your definition, but you haven't seemed to want to do that (or didn't realize I've asked you for that at times).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #623]

Because if the planet has a mind, it could have moral free will and, in that, choose actions that cause intentional and unneeded harm to others (i.e., abuse).

Let's say that the planet is an object used by an Intentional Thinking Agent. This means that the agent is a mind and has intentions and the ability to make those intentions happen.
Why - if the planet were an object housing Intentional Thinking Agent - you would think of this agent as abusive?

Notice the bolded part above. It COULD. It could choose actions that are abusive. If the planet is an object used by an ITA, this ITA COULD have abusive intentions and make those intentions happen. It COULD; it wouldn’t have to.

When I first asked you re the concept of the planet having a mind, "Would this then mean that the planet could be thought of as abusive?" you answered "Yes, if it is a moral agent."
Now you have switched your thinking to "maybe" (it could) rather than a definitive "yes".
Can you explain your reason for changing your mind about that?

Since now you think it COULD be thought of as abusive, can you give reasons about the planets activity you think COULD mean the planet COULD be regarded as abusive?

I have said that I can identify no such moral object. One way we can move forward is for you to give an example of what a moral object is, since you claim it exists.
I think you might be saying that an example of a moral object is "not abusing children", but maybe you are not saying that, so if you are saying that, please confirm this is what you are meaning and we can move forward re that.

But your definition of ‘object/objective’ rules out morality as an objective feature of reality because I agree that they aren’t physical things.

You agree that morality is not an objective thing BECAUSE of my definition?

Are you saying there that my definition is suitable re the evidence?

I see no reason to agree with your definition.

You made a claim that morality is an object. You were asked to provide a supporting example of such a moral object. You were not asked to provide a definition of morality, since no one is arguing what morality means. You were not asked to agree with anyone else's definition. You were asked to support your claim that a moral object exists by presenting an example.

Progress could be made if you gave me good reasons to agree with your definition, but you haven't seemed to want to do that (or didn't realize I've asked you for that at times).

To add to what I wrote above, it is not important to me weather you agree with anyone else's definition of morality. I just want you to support your claim that a moral is an object, or if you cannot do so, then withdraw your claim.

[The Tanager]

When I first asked you re the concept of the planet having a mind, "Would this then mean that the planet could be thought of as abusive?" you answered "Yes, if it is a moral agent."
Now you have switched your thinking to "maybe" (it could) rather than a definitive "yes".
Can you explain your reason for changing your mind about that?

I can explain it in the same way that I can explain why I stopped beating my wife. I never beat my wife in the first place, just like I never gave a definitive yes to your question in the first place. Look at the bolded word above. You asked me if the planet COULD be thought of as abusive. And I answered “Yes, if it is a moral agent, then it could be thought of as abusive”. How would it be thought of as abusive? As I later said: if it made abusive choices.

Since now you think it COULD be thought of as abusive, can you give reasons about the planets activity you think COULD mean the planet COULD be regarded as abusive?

I don’t think the planet is an ITA, so I don’t think it is or even could be abusive.

You agree that morality is not an objective thing BECAUSE of my definition?

Are you saying there that my definition is suitable re the evidence?

No, I’m saying morality can’t be objective if your definition of ‘objective’ is true. And I don’t think your definition is suitable. I’ve seen no reasonable evidence for your definition being suitable.

You made a claim that morality is an object. You were asked to provide a supporting example of such a moral object. You were not asked to provide a definition of morality, since no one is arguing what morality means. You were not asked to agree with anyone else's definition. You were asked to support your claim that a moral object exists by presenting an example.

To add to what I wrote above, it is not important to me weather you agree with anyone else's definition of morality. I just want you to support your claim that a moral is an object, or if you cannot do so, then withdraw your claim.

I’m not talking about our definitions of morality, but of object/objective. I made a claim that morality is an objective truth. I mean one thing by “objective truth” and you mean another thing.

You are asking me to provide an example of a moral object by what YOU mean, which is a definition that I do not agree with or see any reason to agree with. I cannot provide an example of a moral object that fits your definition of ‘object’ because you have defined it in such a way that such a thing cannot logically exist.

I can’t withdraw a claim I never made. If you want the discussion to move forward with your definition of ‘objective,’ then you are going to need to support that definition. As it stands right now, we simply agree that morals aren’t physical things. That doesn’t settle the ‘objective’ question unless you can prove your definition of ‘objective’ is the correct one.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #625]

I don’t think the planet is an ITA, so I don’t think it is or even could be abusive.

I am not asking you if you think the planet is ITA or not. I am asking you that if it were, then would you think of it as an abusive entity. You replied that it could be and I now ask you to say why/what about it would give you that impression.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #625]

I can’t withdraw a claim I never made.

What did you mean then, when you wrote the following?

"I’m only saying that if God exists, morality could be objective and that if atheism is true, then morality would not be objective. I’ve shared why I think atheism can’t give us objective morality."

In that you are implying that supernaturalism can "give us objective morality" and so you - being a supernaturalist - were asked to provide an example.

Or is this another case of using the word "COULD" to say that - in this claim - "God COULD exist, if morality is objective"?

Also - why are you using the word "could" for one and "would" for the other?

[The Tanager]

I am not asking you if you think the planet is ITA or not. I am asking you that if it were, then would you think of it as an abusive entity. You replied that it could be and I now ask you to say why/what about it would give you that impression.

It depends on what its actions are. I don’t think it has actions. How about you tell me what you think it’s actions are and I’ll tell you if I think those actions are abusive or not.

What did you mean then, when you wrote the following?

"I’m only saying that if God exists, morality could be objective and that if atheism is true, then morality would not be objective. I’ve shared why I think atheism can’t give us objective morality."

In that you are implying that supernaturalism can "give us objective morality" and so you - being a supernaturalist - were asked to provide an example.

Yes, but when I say “morality is objective” I mean one thing and when you hear “morality is objective” you mean a different thing. You hear “morality is organized matter,” right? And, so, you are contesting the claim that morality is organized matter, right? You want me to provide an example of morality as organized matter. But I never made that claim. I don’t think morality is organized matter and, so, why should I provide an example of morality as organized matter? I said “morality is objective,” which I don’t think is the same thing as “morality is organized matter”. That was my claim.

Or is this another case of using the word "COULD" to say that - in this claim - "God COULD exist, if morality is objective"?

Also - why are you using the word "could" for one and "would" for the other?

Because those words are fitting in each context.

In one, if the planet were an ITA, then it COULD be either (1) abusive or (2) non-abusive in its intentions/actions.

In one of the others, if God (i.e. encompassing all forms of theism as possibilities) exists, then morality COULD be either (1) objective or (2) subjective.

In the remaining one, if an atheistic worldview is true (any form I’m aware of) morality could only (i.e., WOULD) be (1) subjective.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #628]

I am not asking you if you think the planet is ITA or not. I am asking you that if it were, then would you think of it as an abusive entity. You replied that it could be and I now ask you to say why/what about it would give you that impression.

It depends on what its actions are. I don’t think it has actions. How about you tell me what you think it’s actions are and I’ll tell you if I think those actions are abusive or not.

I will give one such overall action. It creates life forms which are imbued with consciousness (ITA).

I said “morality is objective,” which I don’t think is the same thing as “morality is organized matter”. That was my claim.

Do you want folk to understand your arguments? If so, why protest about giving examples as to what you are meaning?

In one of the others, if God (i.e. encompassing all forms of theism as possibilities) exists, then morality COULD be either (1) objective or (2) subjective.

So you are saying something could be, not that it is?

Doesn't the claim here signify that IF God exists, THEN one should be able to show and example of (1) as well as (2)? Otherwise, what is the difference between supernaturalist and materialist positions, other than "ifs"?

[The Tanager]

I will give one such overall action. It creates life forms which are imbued with consciousness (ITA).

That is not an abusive action.

Do you want folk to understand your arguments? If so, why protest about giving examples as to what you are meaning?

I did give an example. I said “children should not be abused” is an objective feature of reality. But you don’t think it is (because it’s not organized matter) and so you ask for an example of morality that can be pointed to as organized matter. I can’t. And I don’t see any problem in not being able to do that because you’ve given me no good reason to think objective features of reality must be organized matter. I don’t know how else to clarify my argument to you.