Atheism Cannot Rationally Explain Morals.

What makes something good or bad if not our descriptions? Do you think things have inherent properties of goodness and badness that exist outside of our descriptions of them? Ooh, two ACTUALLYs on that one... so I'll assume you mean "objective". So no, our descriptions don't add objective properties to the things.But that's not what you asked about. You asked if our descriptions add MEANING to those things. Meaning is not objective, it is subjective, and our descriptions do add subjective meanings to things.So your question has been answered, but now you are asking a different, and nonsensical, question. That's moving the goalpost. I contend that they do. For example, you can assault someone, that's a thing. But before we came around and described it and codified it, something like aggrevated assault wasn't a thing yet. And aggrivated assauly has more to it, that is something subjective was added to the behavior, that makes it more than just assault.Before our conception of such a thing it did not exist. We agree that humans don't create objective moralities, I've been arguing that they are subjective. Subjectively right or wrong is ACTUALLY right or wrong despite not being objective.You're just going on and on about objective moralities and objective reality and completely ignoring all the points about subjectivity that people are bringing up. Your conclusions don't logically follow from your premises, and your premises are incorrect anyways.You're just making up this whole "must be objective" to be ACTUAL reality nonsense and you're placing yourself on a slippery slope to solipsism all in the effort to discount subjective moralities as not being real so you can claim that a naturalistic approach cannot have a morality at all.Sorry, but your argument is ineffective and your conclusion is incorrect. Even that is wrong. You don't need to know absolutely anything to speculate about what you observe reality to be. That too, is even wrong. We are doomed to witness reality through our subjective lenses and we cannot even know if reality is the real thing or not. Well, that is your conclusion that you are trying to argue for. But it is wrong, and you haven't provided a valid argument to conclude it.I agree that the conclusion, itself, is simple. It just doesn't reflect reality - we know there are subjective moralities. They're abundant, and they change over time.Plus, you have yet to show us an objective morality that stands up to argument. What is the meaning of another life form that humans have not assigned to it?Can you give an example? Well it doesn't. Can you explain it better than you have been? This would be a great place to provide an argument why. Wow, that doesn't even make sense and yields no conclusion. What are you talking about? You simply assume your conclusion and re-state it with no argument to back it up. You don't even get around to concluding an objective morality, you just outright deny the subjective one. Links or it didn't happen. So wrong. Not even close.But this is getting pretty laborsome to keep explaining the same things over and over to you again, all while you just go on repeating your same refuted and nonsensical conclusions without any valid arguments to back them up.I'm loosing interest... Even that, is just complete nonsense. Sorry, but you just aren't making sense and I feel like I'm wasting my time.Take this load of crap for an example of why I'm going to stop trying:

Ah, that old phoney - conscience :-) The universal get out of jail card.The first time I tripped over the argument was with the Catholic position on birth control. The Vatican ruled it out. Flat wrong. An absolute. If the intention is to avoid having a baby, it's a sin. Intention = conscience = 'what's in your heart'.But they came up against the modern Western populous who basically told them to take a hike and totally ignored this 'mortal sin' that would condemn them to hell for all eternity. So the Catholic church faced with a total revolt rolled over decided that it's a matter of conscience and if people truly believed it was ok, then it was ok.Meawhile it was still a mortal sin for the poor bloody Africans and millions died and are dying from AIDS for lack of condom use.You see, what's in people's 'hearts' varies between people, education levels, cultures and times.Eating people is wrong, but only if you're not a cannibal. Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.

But you’re missing the point. You are taking your view and the views of others and finding them not to be in agreement of what constitutes sin. Some things are pretty obvious and there really isn’t much disagreement over the belief that someone’s actions are based on greed and about looking after their desires at the expense of others. Many things as you point out though, are a lot more ambiguous and we just do our best.I mentioned earlier Paul’s 1st letter to the Corinithians Chap 4 . He says this:

quote:

---

2 Now it is required that those who have been given a trust must prove faithful.
3 I care very little if I am judged by you or by any human court; indeed, I do not even judge myself.
4 My conscience is clear, but that does not make me innocent. It is the Lord who judges me.
5 Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.

---

Neither of us are able to actually able to see inside the hearts of others and we can’t even be sure of our own motives. As humans we are going to disagree on the right actions in given circumstances. Secularists will disagree with each other, Christians will disagree with each other, and so on for any group you want to mention.In the end what God wants is hearts that love sacrificially and we are called to do our best to sort that out in our lives knowing that others won’t always agree. On faith I do ultimately trust that God is a god of perfect justice and that perfect justice will prevail. He will balance out the heart of someone like myself who grew up in a loving environment as well as someone who grew up in a cold or even abusive environment.

You could use simple reasoning. Or you could read my words where I explicitly state this over and over again. Why are you repeating this?In my view, there is only one kind of morality. It's a subjectively morality. Therefore actual morality is in my head, your head etc.But yes, adultery is not intrinsically immoral. It does not have the objective property of 'immorality'. It is not immoral in any sense other than the one in which people think it is immoral. Any minute now you are going to stop repeating this, and move on to what you think the problem is. 'Establish' subjective morality? I have no idea what that means. There is no objective way an apple tastes, but there is a subjective way an apple tastes. There is no objectively superior musician, but some people prefer one musician over another. I'm afraid not. You repeating my position back to me in your own words over and over again is not my fault. Nor is it my fault when you get it wrong. You haven't actually demonstrated any hopeless circles except for the one you insist we take. Correct. This is your thread - you're supposed to be showing how I'm wrong. I think this is probably true, yes. And if you could show that to be true, you win the argument. And I reject your idea of morals and prefer to use a useful one that describes the ethics in human behaviour.No matter how much equivocation you want to play, behavioural strategies exist. Opinions exist. Opinions about behavioural strategies exist. Behavioural strategies both evolve and are learned. The one informing or constraining the other. Instead of trying to reword my position in a silly way, you should probably deal with my actual argument which would involve reading and understanding it. So far you understand that subjective morality is not objective morality. You just need to understand where subjective moralities come from in my position - rather than relying on over-simplification to the point of strawmanning my position.So, in my position, where do subjective moralities come from? I've said it often enough, this should be an easy one. I mean that in the same way you mean it.You think the statement 'stealing is wrong' is an objectively true statement, right? That its true regardless of anybody's opinion about the matter, right? It's true in the same way 'the sky is blue' or 'this apple weighs 420g' or any other factual statement might be true.I don't. It's not difficult. So, arguments about why you have misrepresented me aside - what's the problem? Stealing: The taking of property from one person without consent.Hrm, seems you are wrong. Stealing is a verb, it can be defined whether or not I think it is objectively wrong or not. No, it wouldn't. If you are stealing something you are stealing something, whether it is considered morally right by someone else or not. The word 'stealing' is not a moral. The idea that 'stealing is always wrong' is a moral. I happen to disagree with that moral. You happen to agree with it. That's subjectivity. We all do. And none of us is right. Just like I get to decide if the apple tastes good, and you get to decide if the apple tastes bad. Just like you get to decide if Beethoven is the best while I get to decide if Mozart is. Neither of us is right, we all get to make our own decisions. How many times have I explained this now? Try harder. There is no actually right or wrong. That's my position. I've never tried to demonstrate that one thing is objectively right or wrong, I've been telling you I reject that position entirely! Nope. Please try harder. What I actually demonstrated was how cooperative behaviours can evolve. These behaviours, I said, could be called 'nice' or 'forgiving' as useful names given the nature of that behaviour.It doesn't have to be objectively morally good for this to happen.
It just needs to be an optimal strategy in certain cases and that behaviour can evolve.Whether we think of the behaviour as good or not, is up to us. The behaviours still exist, and can evolve; our thoughts about those behaviours exist and can come from our evolved brain and learning.This is the position you need to tackle, not your strawman version. Cooperative strategies can exist without minds.
Our opinion of whether they are moral or not cannot. This is your problem Dawn. I know my position, and I can recognize when someone has it wrong. You still seem to think your understanding of my position is better than my understanding. This is insanity. When I tell you that what you said is not my view, given that my words are your only access to my view, this should be taken seriously. Instead you choose to disregard my words and argue against your own version of me.I did not 'equate killing a person with some irrelevant decision as to whether, some composer is the best '. I do not think they are equal. To say I do think they are equal is to misrepresent my view that they are not equal. It's not difficult stuff this, honestly. I think I've been most kind to you regarding your grammatical problems and limited vocabulary. I assume English is not your first language, or perhaps you have a thought disorder. Neither is a reflection on your personally so I try not to be insulting about it. However, if you want to sink deeper into the quagmire of mean-spiritedness I will call you out on it each time. Nope. You misrepresented my opinion, I was correcting it. You said 'Immutable rules with subjective moralities ....' My asserting my opinion that I don't think rules have subjective moralities is me demonstrating what my opinion is. Get my views right before you try to refute them. This does not follow at all.Rules govern our evolution, our biology. What we can think, how we think; how we behave. They do not have moralities, but they can result in strategies of behaviour and they can result in things having opinions about those behaviours.Our formulation of behavioural rules derives from the 'rules' of nature that are not formulated by minds. The laws of physics, chemistry and biology. Those rules constrain us, but they also result in evolution which creates us and our behaviours, and our opinions about those behaviours (ie., moralities). True, but then the word 'murder' contains moral implications in it. The question is - what counts as murder (ie., immoral killing). That's where the subjectivity comes in. It becomes a judgement call. Agreed. I however think that 'this killing is immoral' cannot be said to be objectively true or false. Only subjectively can this assessment be made. This is a philosophical debate Dawn. But no. My position is that objective facts lead to subjective beings who have subjective opinions about things, including what is moral and what is immoral. You've clearly asserted it, the work of demonstration remains to done. Not just my imaginings, no. It is based on objective things such as my brain and my environment. As I've said repeatedly. Again - get my position right or you can't even attempt to refute it! Nope. This is the thread where you need to disprove my position, since I am an atheist and you claim I cannot do that which I claim I can. So you need to prove that I cannot do it. I only show you that in principle I can to give you a clearer idea what your target is. You still keep missing it. Agreed. It's not intended to. But all you've done is assert your beliefs about objective morality without demonstrating it in any rational way. If that's all you have, you aren't in a position to refute my position. I have no idea what you mean by 'rules have moralities'. People have moralities, how do rules have them? Do rules get together and say 'ooh, you shouldn't have a rule against running at a pool, that's immoral'? Do they say 'you shouldn't have rules about rules, that's too meta and thus immoral'? You are certain of this. Yet you neglect to show how you are certain of this. I can justify my certainty in the mass of an apple by weighing it. I can justify my certainty in the length of a Mozart concerto by timing it. How have you justified your certainty in the immorality of the theft? What if the person who tasked you take the $20,000 had stolen it from the person who requires surgery? What if they had gained it from criminals in exchange for assassination? Is keeping a criminal in stolen or blood money really moral when it could be used to preserve life, instead of enabling the taking of it?

I'm not missing the point of the thread which is about moral absolutes which it seems we agree on. So not agreeing on what constitutes sin is the entire point - if we all have differing 'hearts' on these issues, then morality is not absolute.Then it gets to be real fun. If the 'heart' of Jack the Ripper was true to itself, and believed that slicing and dicing prostitutes in the East End of London was the right thing to do, then your god has to accept that it's ok. I happens to agree with him - intent is was counts - but it's not ok is it? Certainly not in Dawn's world.

I may be splitting hairs here, but I would say that there is such a thing as absolute morality in the Christian sense in that we are called to have hearts that love sacrificially. Ultimately it isn’t about our actions or our doctrine but about our hearts. If we have hearts that love the self even at the expense of others then that is absolute immorality. If we have hearts which love sacrificially, (which nobody is going to attain perfectly in this life), then that is absolute morality. Let’s set aside mental illness, which may have been the case for Jack, and look at his actions. The most likely motive that we can see for his actions was that he took pleasure in killing and the prostitutes were soft targets. Possibly he felt that the world was a better place without them but that completely goes against everything that Jesus taught. In either case I think that as a Christian I can judge his actions to be absolutely wrong.However, as to his absolute morality I would certainly form the opinion that his actions absolutely immoral, but, that is only my opinion, I will leave it to God to judge his sense of morality which is his heart. (Personally I don’t think it looks good for him. )

That's just meaningless preachy drivel. The thing is that neither you nor I could do, or would want to do, what Jack did. There's a reason for that - it's the way his brain is set-up. It's not a disease or illness it's a design flaw. His brain worked in different ways to ours - by definition.He can't be doing wrong in the terms of your god's definition because he didn't see it as wrong, pychopaths don't, they can't. They know that society thinks it's wrong but it's not wrong in their 'hearts'. (I hate that term, it's wet, whooly and entirely inaccurate.)Yet we can say it's absolutely wrong, diagreeing with your God.

Well I've answered it several times, here we go again. Just like there are objective facts in reality, there are are objective morals that exist in the infinite character of God. Hence the expression thou shalt not kill is absolute inside that context. There may be designations within that context of murder, like the purpose of sanctuary cites that God set up. But ultimately God decides whether a murder has been committed against his principle. So I don't need to know everything to know that absolute morality can and does exist. Just like I don't need to know everything to know objective facts exist and subjective imaginations in the human mind against those objective factsSince it is clear conscience exists and consciouness is the vehicle for that reality, exclusive subjective morality, is not consistent with either reason or reality, as I have demonstrated in this thread, without fear of contradiction If it isn't subjective morality its not an option, due to the fact that it would be a logical contradiction in the context of a purely naturalistic enviornmentDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Your descriptions of making something good or bad can by nature only have application to you. Why in the world is this so hard for you too see. If your definition of good is to kill and eat an animal for your consumption, how is that good or Helpful to the animal. IOWS it should be clear, even to someone as simple as yourself, that your definition of good is so subjective and relativistic it literally makes no rational sense,and for all intents and purposes does not really exist.Good in some form would therefore have to exist outside yourself in an objective reality, for it to be actual GOOD. You trying to describe what is actually in reality Good is nothing more than your imaginations, per the description I just gave Only in your mind, as per the description I just gave and a million more I could provide Do you see how your examples give away the fact that you alleged meanings are nothing more that your human perceptions. Did you assault the chicken when you rung his neck then consumed him. Good can't only have meaning only in a human context, because if it does, then it's not Actual good, it's just your imaginations. Reality and reason don't care about your perceptions. If you want to imagine your are good or bad, then go ahead. Reason and reality don't actually allow it, as per my exampleSo no your meanings don't add anything except to your perceptions. No its not as I have just demonstrated. Just like subjective ideas need objective facts, subjective morality needs objective morality, to be actually real. My examples destroy your arguments. Is it possible to assault a chicken and it be GOOD for both the chicken and you, at the same time. Maybe you can explain that. You may believe you have an actual morality but reason and reality don't allow it, as I have demonstrated without fear of rebutal I never lose interest, it is very interesting watching someone that believes they ACTUALLY IN REALITY, have in reality, something that reason and reality won't actually allow. Namely, that which is Actually Good, bad, right wrong, moral or immoral. Common sense should alone tells you this, but sometimes it's necessary to set it out logically. Consistency should be a big part of reasoning out what reason and reality will allow.Secondly, it should be obvious to any thinking person that if numerous people can have imaginations on what they indivually percieve as right or wrong on any given topic, this immediately disqualifies it as actually having the quality of Actual good or bad, in reality. Only a person not paying any attention at all, could not see this simple fact. You seem to not be paying attention.So if 15 different people have exclusively different ideas on what is good on a specific item of human behavior, what is our criteria for deciding which one is actually good, right, wrong, etc? If we say the are all good that is nonsensical. If we say a few are RIGHT, how did we come to that conxlusion. Do the same conclusions we reach here apply to our friends in the animal kingdom, you know those other sentient beings.Only a tyro, in elementary thinking, could not see how imaginations don't actually qualify as ACTUAL right or wrong, actually good or bad in reality. Your free to imagine anything you want, it doesn't actually make human behavior good or bad. Your just imaging that it does. Which for all intents and purposes makes a person simplistic beyond imagination Ok. Thanks for your participation.Dawn Bertot

That is not an example of absolute morality but only common thuggery. It is only a description of the playground bully.

I can't speak for what catholics believe only to point out they have some vary good philosophers in Catholic history. I guess you didn't pick up on your obvious irony here. Being an Atheist, a person void of ACTUAL morality and any hope of demonstrating it logically and rationally, YOU are condemning thier behavior, when you don't even have a platform from which to speak morally. I'm assuming you enjoy a basket of murdered chicken occasionally correct? Why is that those that require Christians to be completely logical and rational cannot do that themselves. They complan that we are simplistic and not rational. Why would you ascribe mental illness to Jack the ripper. Maybe he was just acting acting out of some anger or some other emotion. But here's where the rational part comes into play.In a purely naturalistic enviornment Jack's actions would be no different than you running down the chicken to ring his neck. You are just imagining his actions as Wrong and yours as somehow moral.Here's a question. What mental moral principle allows you to kill and eat the chicken, without any feeling of guilt and or immorality. I dont suppose you will answer this question in rational form, but if you wish give it a try. For good to be actually good it has to come from a source outside the human mindDawn BertotEdited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.

Why would i need to move on to what the problem is when it's right here. Adultery cannot be actually wrong in reality, if it's only in sense which people think it's immoral. That s called imagination Modulous not Actual immorality. If numerous people have numerous views on the very same subject, ie adultery as right or wrong, then that's nothing real just a bunch of imaginations.You have yet to set out logically why this is not the case. If you are agreeing with me, then it would follow you are incorrect? But Modulous you are shooting yourself in the foot, with your own words. The objective to your subjective taste, is taste itself. So if there is an subjective taste it is predicated by an actual thing called taste correct. Same with music.So how will you have a subjective morality without an actual existent objective morality. If everything we see and know subjectively is predicated by the objective, why would you assume your subjective is not. But it should be obvious that if we are speaking in purely naturalistic terms, then , just the varying imaginations of humans would disqualify it as anything than more than an imaginationSo where is the objective in reality to make your subjective a realityYou are comparing oranges with apples,, no pun intended. You know instinctively that stealing is wrong and lying is wrong. You know this by that which was put there by God. However, you know also instinctively that preference is not category of right and wrong, but just a preference. This same information was put there by an infinite objective being. I just did. Fortunately my concepts of morals are reason and reality based, yours are imaginations and perceptions Arguing that subjective morals coming from and evolved brain and a sense of behavioral cooperating in nature is not the same as demonstrating that subjective morality exists in reality. The same natural process that gave you this alleged morality, should help you demonstrate and set out in a rational way that it actually exists. That's not happening. Perhaps more evolution of your brain is required.Hold on for this very obvious irony that I think you are missing. It's ironic that you claim that your subjective morals come from natural processes, because, Now Watch. The very subjective morals you claim came from that process DON'T APPLY to those poor creatures. Now that's an irony or inconsistent, isn't it. Perhaps again more evolution of the brain is required to make sense of you doctrineYes Modulous I understand what you are arguing,from your ilustrations, it's just that they make no rational sense in reality. But to be fair to me and the audience, please just put your best line or argument from that material out and we will see if I haven't responded to it in a rational way.mean that in the same way you mean it. Oh well we should all close up shop because some guy from England has decided that the statement, stealing is wrong is not an objectively true statement. Of course I believe it's an objectively true statement, that's my position in this whole context. Logically and rationally stealing would have no meaning, if the there was no standard by which to measure it. That's called situation ethics. There is no such animal. You are faced with the horrible conclusion that every person and every persons imaginations about what stealing might be, Could ACTUALLY BE CORRECT, or incorrect at the same timeModulous, factual statements are always true if they are factual. That would make them an objective reality. Things exist, is an actual factual objective reality. My perceptions of how and why may be Wong or misguided, but it doesn't change the reality.So when I have an omnipotent, omniscient, morally absolute being saying thou shalt not steal, then that statement is an objectively true statement. There could be no instance where it becomes right or moral. My imaginations to the contrary. Lying is always wrong because it is against or in opposition to the absolute truth. Other wise the statement, thou shalt not lie or bare false witness has no meaning in realityAside from this usage in a purely naturalistic existence it can have no actual existence, if it is just a product of everyone's imaginations, as to what constitutes stealing. A whole bunch of different views on the same topic don't make it a reality, it makes it a joke. We can witness non cooperative strategies in nature as well, if i wish to describe them as such, that doesn't make them wrong or bad, just junk happening. Your OPINIONS about them being moral or immoral are just that, opinions. Nothing more. Oh well wait we could call them imaginations, right Really!!!!!!!!!!!!? so what would it be like here if you guys here werent meanspirited? Worse? Wow.But by all means, we can all grow and learn as we go along, as long as you are willing to do the same correct. But it sounds as if you are stuck on yourself, but I could be wrong. But by all means proceed, no one likes laughing at himself more than me. And this is,I maintain and have seen no evidence to the contrary, is a logical impossibility. You can't get ethics or morals from biological processes, that aren't going to be anything but irrational, inconsistent subjective, relative and therefore nothing more than imaginations. An imagination of stealing something will never be stealing, in a purely naturalistic enviorment, who's main tenet is survival of the fittestIf it's possible to establish somethings rationally, then we should be able to establish that subjective morals are something more than imaginations. Since they are steeped in the irrational and hopelessly inconsistent, then it would follow they don't actually exist, correct? For something to be irrational, then there must exist the rational correct? So no objective morality, then logically no subjective morality. That makes perfect sense. Well this is just dishonest. Don't mean to be unkind, but I have done it more than a few times. You disagreeing is not the same as proving I haven't atleast set it out in a rational wayDawn Bertot

If you have enough time to write other posts you have enough time to answer YES or NO, so that should mean only Unwilling to answer ...EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Yeah, I just wish that you would have participated. Instead, you just repeated the same old refuted nonsense over and over again.It's too bad you were unable to move the discussion forward in any way.From the OP until now, your point been the same: morality must be objective and it cannot be subjective.Unfortunately for you, you have been able to convince exactly nobody, and you've been unable to provide a valid argument for your case.In spite of repeated attempts to make progress in the discussion, you have simply repeated your same position in different words - and trashing the English language in the process. Oh look, you're talking about being objective... again.You've totally missed the opportunity to talk about subjective morality. Sigh. Yeah, it's like I am talking about subjective things rather than objective things Wow, cool. Another convoluted way of saying that morality must be objective and it cannot be subjective.It would have been a lot cooler if you would have provided an argument for why that is the case rather than just repeatedly asserting it over and over again.Oh well, its apparent that you are unable. This thread failed. Have a nice day.

I had a discussion in the pub last week that I'd like to bounce off the
EVC crew.It is my belief that there is such a thing as universal taboos.I used a example of a Neanderthal stalking a female and copulating with her by force.Those who I was having this discussion with contended that the concept of "Rape" has yet to be invented therefore rape did not exist.
Nor does rape exist in the animal world.I believe just because there were yet any "laws"against it or that the word itself was not yet uttered, prehistoric rape existed. I could be wrong, but that's just how I see things.This speaks to the subjective nature of morality verses a unwritten code of what seems to be universal taboos and a quasi-objective morality.Thoughts anyone?Edited by 1.61803, : grammer