Objective Morality?

enviousintheeverafter · Sun Aug 23, 2015 2:37 pm

It is often claimed that objective morality only exists if God does- that without God, there is no basis for claiming that morality is objective, that anything like objective moral facts or duties exist. Of course, for this argument to have any force, it needs to be true, or probably true, that objective morality does in fact exist.

So does it? Why think there are such things as objective moral facts or duties?

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 10:58 am

Artie wrote: We wouldn't have survived as a species if we killed each others offspring. Hence immoral.

Lions managed fine. You are still not answering my question.

It is morally wrong of you to post nonsense because I disapprove of you posting nonsense.

Appeal to ridicule noted. Demonstrate how it is nonsense first.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:24 pm

Bust Nak wrote:
Artie wrote:We wouldn't have survived as a species if we killed each others offspring. Hence immoral.
Lions managed fine. You are still not answering my question.
Then rephrase the question so it makes sense.
It is morally wrong of you to post nonsense because I disapprove of you posting nonsense.
Appeal to ridicule noted. Demonstrate how it is nonsense first.
OK. I give in to your superior logic. Everything you approve of is moral, everything you disapprove of is immoral. That sounds suspiciously like the God in the Bible though... Do you have a God complex? Did you get his permission to take over?

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:38 pm

Artie wrote: Then rephrase the question so it makes sense.

Do you affirm or deny the following statement:

"IF the murdering rivals strategy was evolutionary beneficial for us as a species THEN it follows that murdering rivals would be moral?"

Responds along the lines of "murdering rivals strategy is not more beneficial to us," does not answer the question. An analogy: "Would you kill your son if God commanded you so?" is not answer by "God hasn't command such a thing." Does that make more sense?

OK. I give in to your superior logic. Everything you approve of is moral, everything you disapprove of is immoral. That sounds suspiciously like the God in the Bible though... Do you have a God complex? Did you get his permission to take over?

Yet another appeal to ridicule noted. To answer your questions: No, I do not have a God complex. No supernatural powers or special permission is required to judge good and evil, all you need is to be is a moral agent.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:46 pm

Bust Nak wrote:Responds along the lines of "murdering rivals strategy is not more beneficial to us," does not answer the question. An analogy: "Would you kill your son if God commanded you so?" is not answer by "God hasn't command such a thing." Does that make more sense?

No, sorry.

Yet another appeal to ridicule noted. To answer your questions: No, I do not have a God complex. No supernatural powers or special permission is required to judge good and evil, all you need is to be is a moral agent.

Then as a moral agent I judge you to be immoral for no reason other than I like to and that makes you immoral.

Bust Nak · Post by **Bust Nak** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 1:59 pm

Artie wrote:No, sorry.

Give me something to work with, do you think "God hasn't command me to kill my son" answers the question "would you kill your son if God commanded you to?"

Then as a moral agent I judge you to be immoral for no reason other than I like to and that makes you immoral.

An ironic statement to make after you urge me to seek professional help. Then again I don't believe you at all - you don't really think I am immoral.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:09 pm

Bust Nak wrote:An ironic statement to make after you urge me to seek professional help. Then again I don't believe you at all - you don't really think I am immoral.

You are immoral if I say you are. It is immoral of you to keep making the statements you make because I say it is. It is moral of me to call you immoral because I say so. I am really starting to like your way of thinking.

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 2:31 pm

[Replying to Artie]

Okay, objective morality would assert that you ought to treat people nicely.

In order to assert this, there must be logical reasons for doing so.

Your reason was that if you don't treat people nicely and instead take advantage of them, then in the long run you will suffer.

But the past has shown this to not be true. Back when slavery was around in America, the slaves suffered greatly while the plantation owners lived comfortably for their whole lives.

Things eventually changed, but there were numerous generations of plantation owners who benefited from taking advantage of their slaves.

What logical objective reason can you give in this situation for why the slave owners ought not to have taken advantage of their slaves. They benefited by doing so and they got away with it during their lifetime. So they didn't see any negative consequences as a result.

What's the objective logical reason why they shouldn't have taken advantage of slaves?

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 3:44 pm

jgh7 wrote:What logical objective reason can you give in this situation for why the slave owners ought not to have taken advantage of their slaves. They benefited by doing so and they got away with it during their lifetime. So they didn't see any negative consequences as a result.

What's the objective logical reason why they shouldn't have taken advantage of slaves?

The objective logical reason why people generally shouldn't take advantage of each other is that people generally don't want to be taken advantage of with the negative consequences that entails. That a small minority manages to take advantage of others without suffering negative consequences doesn't change that taking advantage of others in general has negative consequences and should be avoided by all.

jgh7 · Post by **jgh7** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 4:39 pm

[Replying to Artie]

Are you saying that objective morality applies to everyone except the small minority of people who can get away with violating it?

It's not quite objective anymore if that's the case.

Artie · Post by **Artie** » Thu Oct 22, 2015 5:18 pm

jgh7 wrote: [Replying to Artie]

Are you saying that objective morality applies to everyone except the small minority of people who can get away with violating it?

Objective morality applies to everyone even though some get away with violating it. If everyone in a population follow the objective morality most benefit even though a few who don't also benefit. Just a question of which tactic is statistically most beneficial for the most people.