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]

Sure, but my point was the level of agreement is to be expected due to this built in morality I spoke of.

Why? If morality is subjective and people have different options, then why shouldn’t we expect people to choose different options? Not just in general, but also in this specific case.

So why prefer one philosophical position over the other when they have the same empirical appearance?

Because empirical appearance isn’t the only thing one considers. Experience and logic tells us that hard materials will do a better job at hammering in nails than soft material. Therefore, if one’s purpose is to hammer in nails, they will make the physical nature of the tool hard rather than soft.

That's right, when I say food taste is subjective, I'm not simply expressing my specific food preference but making a broader statement about all food preferences. When I say vanilla is tasty, I am simply expressing their specific food preference but not making a broader statement about all food preferences. I am still left wondering why my answer didn't satisfy, nor do I see what this has to do with consistency re: morality vs food.

Because when you say “moral taste is subjective” you revert to simply expressing your specific moral preference instead of making a broader statement about all food preferences. That is what you say moral subjectivism is…expressing your specific moral preference.

[Bust Nak]

Why? If morality is subjective and people have different options, then why shouldn’t we expect people to choose different options? Not just in general, but also in this specific case.

Simple, we are wired that way by our biology, and since we are very similar but not identical copies of each other, we do get some people choosing different options.

Because empirical appearance isn’t the only thing one considers. Experience and logic tells us that hard materials will do a better job at hammering in nails than soft material. Therefore, if one’s purpose is to hammer in nails, they will make the physical nature of the tool hard rather than soft.

Yeah, but that doesn't indicated that purpose affects the physical nature of the tool. For all you can tell, it's our physical activity that affects the physical nature of the tool.

Because when you say “moral taste is subjective” you revert to simply expressing your specific moral preference instead of making a broader statement about all food preferences. That is what you say moral subjectivism is…expressing your specific moral preference.

I've never said nor implied such a thing. Perhaps you are thinking of the times I said subjectivism enables me to express my specific moral preference, that since there is no objective standard to appeal to, my personal subjective standard becomes relevant. That is a broader statement about all preferences, and not an expression of my own preference.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #578]

If so, then the statement you made, has no impact on whatever is the truth.
I think the statement is untrue, but it may be because we have different definitions of what beingness requires in order for it to be "beingness".

Either you are claiming that all beings are necessarily sentient or you are not claiming that. Could you clarify which of those you are claiming? If the second, then I grant you the same. If the first, then you’ve gone beyond that into a positive claim that needs support.

I asked you if you thought all beings necessarily sentient and you replied that you saw no reason why they must be.
What makes you reason that?

Subjective consciousnesses create objective realities. We create stories. We invent new machines. Those are objective realities that come about because of choices from subjective consciousnesses. Why can’t something like human morality be an objective reality created by a subjective consciousness?

I have no problem accepting that human morality is a thing invented and used by human consciousness when expressed into objective reality through the human instrument.

Re the OP example, with the question "How do we know what is right, and what is wrong?" the author writes that they think it is wrong to be a herbivore or a carnivore or an omnivore, or a parasite.

How does the author know whether they are right or wrong about what they think?

Do we get our hints from objective nature (since that is what is being judged by the author as being "wrong") or do we simply accept that it is not wrong?
Or do we also accept that it is not right either, because objectively to judge nature either/or, is overstepping and so moralistic judgments which derive from human consciousness are actually what is wrong...so the problem isn't with objective reality, but with how human morality imposes itself onto objective reality and declares aspects of it "right" and other aspects of it "wrong"?

So the question is - does objective morality actually exist...not as something which human consciousness creates and can then point to as say that it does, but as something which exists even if human consciousness didn't?

[William]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #577]

It was objective fact that a tsunami wiped out hundreds of thousands of people.

True.

That was not a subjective experience for them or their families.

False

It was an objective experience.

No. It is still subjective, as is all experience had by those who consciously experience objective reality.

We can experience objective facts.

True.

We have enough in common that lends us to similar experiences re objective reality.

We have enough in common that lends us to similar subjective experiences.

Subjective experience is how we are able to react to objective reality (which also includes the risk of dying) and the ability to subjectively manage ourselves so that we avoid untimely death, where possible.

[The Tanager]

Simple, we are wired that way by our biology, and since we are very similar but not identical copies of each other, we do get some people choosing different options.

You were just saying agreement was to be expected because of the built in morality of the language, but now you talk of expecting disagreement. Which is it?

Yeah, but that doesn't indicated that purpose affects the physical nature of the tool. For all you can tell, it's our physical activity that affects the physical nature of the tool.

Why doesn’t it? Why wouldn’t the purpose of hammering nails affect what one builds the hammer out of? If one wanted to make a squeaky sound, they’d use a different material. If one wanted to soften someone’s landing, they’d use a softer material in their product.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “our physical activity” affecting the nature of the tool.

I've never said nor implied such a thing. Perhaps you are thinking of the times I said subjectivism enables me to express my specific moral preference, that since there is no objective standard to appeal to, my personal subjective standard becomes relevant. That is a broader statement about all preferences, and not an expression of my own preference.

Why would your personal preference become relevant if we aren’t talking about an individual’s personal preference? If we were, as an objectivist, I would do the exact same thing. My objectivism and your non-objectivism on that issue is irrelevant because it’s a different question. But I’ve said this a million ways and you’ve said what you’ve said a million ways, so this doesn’t get us any new ground.

[The Tanager]

Either you are claiming that all beings are necessarily sentient or you are not claiming that. Could you clarify which of those you are claiming? If the second, then I grant you the same. If the first, then you’ve gone beyond that into a positive claim that needs support.

I asked you if you thought all beings necessarily sentient and you replied that you saw no reason why they must be.
What makes you reason that?

Because there is no logical contradiction in beings not being sentient. Now, can you please answer my question to clarify your thoughts here? Are you claiming all beings are necessarily sentient or not?

I have no problem accepting that human morality is a thing invented and used by human consciousness when expressed into objective reality through the human instrument.

…

So the question is - does objective morality actually exist...not as something which human consciousness creates and can then point to as say that it does, but as something which exists even if human consciousness didn't?

Yes, that is the question. You’ve claimed it can’t exist; that morality must be subjective. I think my response shows that consciousness can create objective realities. I’m not talking about human consciousness and morality at this point, just the more general principle of consciousness creating an objective reality. I don’t understand why you don’t think that can happen.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #586]

What makes you reason that?

Because there is no logical contradiction in beings not being sentient.

Okay.

Are you claiming all beings are necessarily sentient or not?

There is no logical contradiction in all beings being sentient.

Perhaps we need to each supply our premise for thinking differently about this.

So the question is - does objective morality actually exist...not as something which human consciousness creates and can then point to as say that it does, but as something which exists even if human consciousness didn't?

Yes, that is the question. You’ve claimed it can’t exist; that morality must be subjective.

There is no logical contradiction in the observation that human morality must be subjective.

I think my response shows that consciousness can create objective realities.

The focus is on whether human/planetary morality is an objective reality, which is why I mentioned what the OP author asked and thought and made observations and asked questions re that.
I see you snipped that bit. Why?

I’m not talking about human consciousness and morality at this point, just the more general principle of consciousness creating an objective reality.

Where would you like to go with that, re "non-human" consciousness and morality being objective reality?

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to boatsnguitars in post #577]

It was objective fact that a tsunami wiped out hundreds of thousands of people.

True.

That was not a subjective experience for them or their families.

False

It was an objective experience.

No. It is still subjective, as is all experience had by those who consciously experience objective reality.

We can experience objective facts.

True.

We have enough in common that lends us to similar experiences re objective reality.

We have enough in common that lends us to similar subjective experiences.

Subjective experience is how we are able to react to objective reality (which also includes the risk of dying) and the ability to subjectively manage ourselves so that we avoid untimely death, where possible.

Are you suggesting that when an atom hits another atom, or a certain chemical reacts with another chemical, it's subjective? Because my point is that when the water hit those people, the H2O interacted with the atoms and chemicals in their bodies and brains the same way. They may have had different thoughts, but they had - objectively - the same experience of pain, force, drowning, etc.

Because if they didn't , you are suggesting a rock on a beach has a different interaction than another rock on the beach with the H20 hits it. To me, I don't see how you can suggest the experiences are completely - must be completely different (must be subjective) - when there are objective facts occurring.

Yes, I agree there are some inherently subjective experiences, and those are the things we usually highlight, but again. our highway system is built on the fact that we all - pretty much - have the same experiences.

[Bust Nak]

You were just saying agreement was to be expected because of the built in morality of the language, but now you talk of expecting disagreement. Which is it?

Both, I spoke of level of agreement - morality is mostly universal but not quite universal, just like food taste.

Why doesn’t it? Why wouldn’t the purpose of hammering nails affect what one builds the hammer out of?

Because purpose is in all your head and can affect only you and nothing else.

If one wanted to make a squeaky sound, they’d use a different material. If one wanted to soften someone’s landing, they’d use a softer material in their product.

And I’m not sure what you mean by “our physical activity” affecting the nature of the tool.

The act of making a squeaky hammer, affected the material used. The act of making a soft landing pad, affected the material used.

Why would your personal preference become relevant if we aren’t talking about an individual’s personal preference?

I told you why: because there is no objective standard to appeal to, so we can do whatever we feel like.

If we were, as an objectivist, I would do the exact same thing.

I wouldn't. I would appeal to the objective standard. Who cares what anyone's opinion is when it comes to the shape of the Earth. I don't, I just appeal to it's actual physical shape.

My objectivism and your non-objectivism on that issue is irrelevant because it’s a different question. But I’ve said this a million ways and you’ve said what you’ve said a million ways, so this doesn’t get us any new ground.

Irrelevant or not, the fact is still this: I've never said nor implied moral subjectivism is expressing my specific moral preference. Every time I said moral is subjective, I was making a broad statement about all moral preferences, without expressing of my own preference. "Food taste is subjective" and "vanilla is best" are very different statement, and the same goes for morality. I've never conflated "morality is subjective" with "child abuse is immoral" despite you making the same accusation in a million ways.

[boatsnguitars]

[Replying to Compassionist in post #1]

If atheism is true, there is no right or wrong, at least not in any helpful sense. For instance, if you like pistachio flavored ice cream, it isn't helpful to call your tastes "wrong". Morality would be the same. Even trying to judge the action by the harm/help it creates won't work because there are so many different ideas of what is harmful and helpful, again putting harm/help on the level of ice cream flavor you like.

Every time I open this thread, this is the post I see - and I am continually reminded how wrong it is.

Only under Atheism can Morals be useful. Under Theism, we can never know what is Right or Wrong because we can't ask God.

Under atheism, we can agree on moral values - in a useful sense - and use them to govern society.

Critics might say, "But under Atheism, you can allow killing babies, or allowing slavery." But it could be true under Theism, too. In fact, the Bible condones killing babies and slavery.

We still have not heard God's opinion on the issues, so it's still not helpful.

However, under atheism, we can at least agree that morals is a complicated issue we have to solve ourselves - and come up with a useful framework.

Which is what society has done.