Morality and Atheism

[zgoldsmith23]

It wouldn't be any more objective. Because omnipotence doesn't mean being able to rewrite all and any rules of nature and logic at will - it means only full capacity to follow those rules. Whether this capacity is realized in "God" or not is an open question.

All powerful doesn't mean domain over that which was created (pending, of course, that "god" did create nature)? Sure would seem like it.

To give moral commands, "God" has to show first that He is good. (Like, not Satan pretending to be Him, or something). Which means - there is "good" and "not-good" quite apart from His Divine Authority.

Are we going by the Judeo-Christian standard? Because "god" is omnibenevolent, too.

All metaphors are poor. Lower middle class at best. There was a discussion on that topic recently, on another thread:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/philosophical-discussions/152228-free-4.html (my two cents: #38).

Yours was EXTRA lower class.

 

[Cyrylek]

No, actually, omnipotence means being all-powerful, which includes defining the rules.

Common mistake. (I may be an atheist now, but a decade of Catholicism did leave some residue) St. Aquinas wrote about it at length. And C.S.Lewis wrote about it in simple, modern language (from The Problem of Pain):

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense".

 

[Harshaw]

Common mistake. (I may be an atheist now, but a decade of Catholicism did leave some residue) St. Aquinas wrote about it at length. And C.S.Lewis wrote about it in simple, modern language (from The Problem of Pain):

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense".

Then Lewis was wrong. :shrug: I didn't know he was the ultimate authority on what a word means, anyway.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Common mistake. (I may be an atheist now, but a decade of Catholicism did leave some residue) St. Aquinas wrote about it at length. And C.S.Lewis wrote about it in simple, modern language (from The Problem of Pain):

"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense".

It's intrinsically possible that he could change the rules of that which was created.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Then Lewis was wrong. :shrug: I didn't know he was the ultimate authority on what a word means, anyway.

Of course! You didn't know? If it'll help my argument, they are always the ultimate authority.

 

[Harshaw]

It's intrinsically possible that he could change the rules of that which was created.

If you change the rules, what was impossible then becomes possible. Not really a huge leap.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

If you change the rules, what was impossible then becomes possible. Not really a huge leap.

Agreed. Well, for some, it appears to be a huge mental leap.

 

[Cyrylek]

Yours was EXTRA lower class.

Actually, it was not mine. "Zombian" is an accepted term among neuropsychologists and philosophers discussing the issue. See, for example:

Dr. Klemm, in Advances in Cognitive Psychology (2010) vol 6, page 48: Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so simple

 

[Paschendale]

The objective reality doesn't cause those sensations. There is nothing, nothing, objective about the color green. that is not an opinion statement, it is a fact.

That's entirely untrue. Green is a consistent range of wavelengths of light. Various gasses allow certain wavelengths to pass through them more effectively than others. The gasses that make up our atmosphere tend to reflect blue light, that is, light with a wavelength between 450 and 495 nm. Colors are not subjective at all. Our eyes may malfunction and tell our brains the wrong information, but the light reflecting off of an object does not change based on our perception.

Much the same way, our morality is based on our biology. We seek to avoid harming each other. We seek to avoid damaging social bonds. Bonds that we developed through our evolution, as cooperative, social behavior contributed to our survival. Empathy and cooperation are part of our human nature. Fear is, too. Hence, moral quandaries. Morality comes from our physical, temporal, human existence, and it does not vary (much) from person to person. Whether we adhere to it, and how it manifests in our actions differ. But the underlying biology that informs it does not.

Actually, I cannot. A morality stemming from a "higher power" never could be objective. The "higher power" tells you to do this, and not to do that, or else. No explanations. Pure subjectivity of the Big Bully (in reality - of his priestly "interpreters")

Spot on. Might does not make right.

 

[Cyrylek]

Then Lewis was wrong. :shrug: I didn't know he was the ultimate authority on what a word means, anyway.

Omnipotence can mean "mashed potatoes", if you want it to mean "mashed potatoes". Words are just words. But in the context of a deep, developed, sophisticated religious tradition - like that of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England Lewis belonged to - it means something in particular, not whatever you please.

 

[Harshaw]

Omnipotence can mean "mashed potatoes", if you want to mean "mashed potatoes". Words are just words. But in the context of deep, developed, sophisticated religious tradition - like that of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England Lewis belonged to - it means something in particular, not whatever you please.

I don't "please" anything; it's the standard definition of the word -- "all-powerful."

 

[Tucker Case]

That's entirely untrue. Green is a consistent range of wavelengths of light.

No it isn't. Green is the way your eyes interpret a specific set of wavelengths. I'm not making this up, this is established color science.

 

[Paschendale]

No it isn't. Green is the way your eyes interpret a specific set of wavelengths. I'm not making this up, this is established color science.

Now we're into semantics. Green, for the purposes of my argument, is the name given to the specific range of wavelengths. The presence of a person who is red/green colorblind, for example, does not alter this. The absence of all eyes capable of differentiating light wavelengths does not alter this. Eyes are not necessary for light to hold specific properties.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

Actually, it was not mine. "Zombian" is an accepted term among neuropsychologists and philosophers discussing the issue. See, for example:

Dr. Klemm, in Advances in Cognitive Psychology (2010) vol 6, page 48: Free will debates: Simple experiments are not so simple

I don't know about your source, but a philosophical zombie is usually a term used for behavior of something that would be indistinguishable from that of a human. A philosophical zombie is used to describe that which lacks consciousness or sentience.

 

[Cyrylek]

A philosophical zombie is used to describe that which lacks consciousness or sentience.

A creature lacking free will lacks sentience for all practical purposes. At best, it has a passive observer present inside, while all its actions are determined by outside impulses processed on the subconscious level and hard-wired instincts.

 

[Tucker Case]

Now we're into semantics. Green, for the purposes of my argument, is the name given to the specific range of wavelengths.

That isn't what it is, though. It is the name given to how we perceive certain wavelengths. Thousands of optical illusions exist which prove this.

You are making a factually incorrect statement. It is not semantics to correct that statement.

 

[Cyrylek]

I don't know about your source.

Click on the link, and you will know. Unless, of course, you lack free will, and clicking on the link is not a part of your programming

 

[zgoldsmith23]

A creature lacking free will lacks sentience for all practical purposes. At best, it has a passive observer present inside, while all its actions are determined by outside impulses processed on the subconscious level and hard-wired instincts.

This isn't "for all practical purposes." Is the person (why creature?) capable of feeling?

 

[Cyrylek]

This isn't "for all practical purposes." Is the person (why creature?) capable of feeling?

A worm is capable of feeling. Doesn't make it a person.

Sensations passing through a passive, volition-free mind do not make this mind any different from that mind, or any mindless object, for that matter.

Even to simply pay attention and prioritize, to select more valuable sensations worthy of being committed to memory, you have to engage volition, to make choices.

 

[zgoldsmith23]

A worm is capable of feeling. Doesn't make it a person.

This will turn in to an argument about "what is personhood and what characteristics define it?" That seems less than exciting right now.

Sensations passing through a passive, volition-free mind do not make this mind any different from that mind, or any mindless object, for that matter.

?

Even to simply pay attention and prioritize, to select more valuable sensations worthy of being committed to memory, you have to engage volition, to make choices.

Not if it's, for example, instinctual.

 

[RGacky3]

The objective reality doesn't cause those sensations. There is nothing, nothing, objective about the color green. that is not an opinion statement, it is a fact.

Yes but what you see as Green are light waves that exist objectively, independantly of whether people see them or not, or are you a metaphysical idealist?

What an incredibly stupid argument to support your logical position.

Now, for ****s and giggles, do you base your assumption that you possess common sense on common sense as well?

If you believe that you should'nt trust your perception without a defeater, then what is it you can trust? I mean why do you believe there is a past? Or an outside material world?

False. you cannot base your reasoning on something that cannot be perceived or understood.

Then why do you say you can base morality on reasoning?

OK if that's what you want to believe. The response is "so?"

It's not what I wnat to believe its the logical outcome of your theory.

The "so" is that nothing is ever actually wrong.

Your arguments are confusing the two terms by treating them as interchangeable.

Explain what is wrong with my argument and what changes ...

Society is saying you "should or should not" do something by granting the government the ability to regulate that behavior. If you ask "why does this law exist" the answer is invariably "Because society believes that such and such behavior should not occur".

Laws exist to prevent or motivate behaviors. If one sees it as important to prevent or motivate a behavior, it means they beleive that the behavior should not or should be engaged in.

Yeah ....

I have clearly indicated that both possibilities exist. It has only been you who has said that only one possibility exists. I'm not the one making an absolute claim.

No, not both possibilities exist, morality under your worldview CANNOT be anything more than just personal preferance, you can't calim that morality can be (unlike ice cream preference) reasoned, because reason requires some sort of objective reality to form premises, any "reasoning" you can make about morality can equally me made about "ice cream flavors."

That is no different than morality. Morality is our subjective interpretations about objective reality. If I stab someone in the face with a sword, that is the objective reality. People then interpret that behavior as either "good" or "bad", much like how we interpret a temperature as cold or hot.

You do not have any problem with the arbitrary aspects of the temperature scale we utilize, so why do you have a problem with any aspect of morality being arbitrary. Does the fact that a "degree Fahrenheit" is a totally arbitrary measure of thermal energy that is only agreed upon by convention make it a 100% arbitrary measure of thermal energy?

But the guy getting stabbed in the fact is no more good or bad than anything else, not at all, however, 10 degrees IS objectively colder than 20 degrees ... There is an objective reality which you can appeal to, not so with the sword happening.

Thats the point, no matter what the actual measure is, there is a fact of the matter, of what is warmer and what is colder and how much, there IS NO fact of the matter on what is good and what is bad.

Nonsense. You do it everyday.

Yeah ... people do it, because people appeal to an objective morality, that's why you are not consistant with you're philosophy, if there were no objective morality it's impossible to reason out morality, because it requires an objective base.

Give me an example of moral reasoning that doesn't assume objective morality, it's impossible, under your position it cannot happen any more than you can reason out that vanilla ice cream is the best.

Here's an example of a subjective premise "I believe that what is "good" or "bad" is determined by it's effect on overall happiness". (the "I believe" is often left out of these opinion statements to give the illusion that it is objective truth, but that illusion is pure mental masturbation)

That subjective opinion is an objective reality about the individual who holds that opinion. And it is that particular subjective opinion upon which the entire ethical theory of Utilitarianism is based. From there, you make determinations ABOUT reality. The ethical theory is based on a subjective opinion, though.

Once that subjective opinion becomes that individual's objective reality, it becomes the assumed prima facie premise in all of their logical arguments.

The fact that theorists have chosen to exclude the "I believe" portion of their premises has no bearing on the subjective nature of those premises. It is no more based on reality than saying 1 degree of temperature is based on reality. It is something which is either accepted by convention or it is not accepted by convention. (there's the whole "agreed upon by society" thing popping back into play).

"I believe what is good and bad is determined by it's effect on overhall hapiness" ASSUMES that good and bad are objective ... Its like saying "I believe what is warm and cold is determined by friction." You're using the term "good" and "bad" as properties of an action, i.e. something an action can have, in itself, that assumes objectivity.

The base here is you're arbitrary opinion, I can say "I believe what is good and bad is whatever action causes more diarreah" and that moral starting point is JUST AS VALID as the utalitarian one, because there IS NO objective fact of the matter, so any starting point is valid, thus all reasoning is pointless, since the starting point is arbitrary.

Nonsense. Objective reality shows us that people formulate opinions upon a foundation of ignorance all the time. I was perfectly capable of having an opinion, as evdienced by the fact that I had an opinion.

Are you now rejecting objective reality in favor of your own opinion that I could not have an opinion? Seems incredibly stupid, given your stance here.

Sure, but you're opinion wasn't warrented, and you're error was in formulating the opinion, not the opinion itself.

Both statements "I love that food" and "I hate that food" are equally wrong until you actually taste the food.

The premise "I believe that what is "good" or "bad" is determined by it's effect on overall happiness" is either true or it is not true in reality. :shrug:

But you're claiming a beleif on objective reality, you're using the terms "good" and "bad" as if they are properties of actions. Your saying I believe that A is B if A does C.

That assumes that B is a property, and by definition properties are objective.

There's the problem, then. If your goal is to have valid logical arguments, it should make a difference.

You have to explain why I use the terms wrong and how it invalidates my argument.

I refuse to accept your absurdly asinine claims about my argument, but that doesn't necessarily mean I refuse to accept the logical outcomes of my argument. I fully accept th elogicaloutcomes of my argument. I also fully accept the fact that you are not competent to determine those outcomes.

You havn't shown how the claim that a moral statement is fundementally the same as a statement on tastiness is wrong.

They are both 100% arbitrary, and they are both 100% subjective, they both are not based on any objective reality that can be measured in any relevant way.

So how are they different?

False. Just because you can say nonsense like this doesn't mean you should. Think before speaking. In this case, think about the fact that animals that are not capable of reason, or categorizing language and vice versa, are perfectly capable of perception. Even an amoeba is capable of perception. So perception is certainly something without "reason, or categorizing or language and vise versa" and not nothing without them.

A. Many animals are capable of reason.
B. perception exists's without reason but it cannot be used as a basis of knowlege without reason.

 

[Tucker Case]

Yes but what you see as Green are light waves that exist objectively, independantly of whether people see them or not, or are you a metaphysical idealist?

So? Most light waves are unobservable. I'm not talking about light waves, I'm talking about green.

If you believe that you should'nt trust your perception without a defeater, then what is it you can trust?

You should always assume that perceptions may be illusion, because they often are.

I mean why do you believe there is a past?

Who said I believe there is a past? I believe that there is only the ever changing now. We call the old, no-longer extant "now" the past, but it is not something that exists. It is what we call that which has ceased to exist.

Or an outside material world?

I have no other alternative but to believe in it. I am incapable of not believing in it. Perhaps I am wrong, though, and it is all a product of my mind. I have no way of knowing that it isn't real, so I behave under the assumption that it is.

Then why do you say you can base morality on reasoning?

Because you can perceive or understand your own beliefs.

It's not what I wnat to believe its the logical outcome of your theory.

you're still doing logic wrong, then.

The "so" is that nothing is ever actually wrong.

It's actually wrong from a subjective perspective, but there's no such thing as "objectively" wrong. If you are using the word "actually" in lieu of "objectively, then I repeat "So?"

Explain what is wrong with my argument and what changes ...

Your argument claims that logic is based on objective reality, when logic is about reality. that falsifies your premises.

Yeah ....

So laws are shared morality. :shrug:

No, not both possibilities exist, morality under your worldview CANNOT be anything more than just personal preferance, you can't calim that morality can be (unlike ice cream preference) reasoned, because reason requires some sort of objective reality to form premises, any "reasoning" you can make about morality can equally me made about "ice cream flavors."

False.

But the guy getting stabbed in the fact is no more good or bad than anything else, not at all, however, 10 degrees IS objectively colder than 20 degrees ... There is an objective reality which you can appeal to, not so with the sword happening.

Colder is a subjective term. Less energetic, sure, but not colder.

And being stabbed is different from not being stabbed in the same way that 10 degrees is different from 20 degrees.

Thats the point, no matter what the actual measure is, there is a fact of the matter, of what is warmer and what is colder and how much, there IS NO fact of the matter on what is good and what is bad.

And there is no "fact of the matter" when it comes to longitude or time, but we still use that as a functional measure, one that most people would not consider "meaningless and arbitrary".

Yeah ... people do it, because people appeal to an objective morality

correction: They pretend to appeal to an objective morality. You cannot appeal to that which you cannot perceive or understand.

that's why you are not consistant with you're philosophy, if there were no objective morality it's impossible to reason out morality, because it requires an objective base.

False.

Give me an example of moral reasoning that doesn't assume objective morality

My own moral reasoning doesn't assume objective morality. You seem to have the bizarre, and utterly illogical, notion that assuming an objective morality exists somehow magically turns that morality into something objective. It doesn't. To even suggest that it doe sis absurd.

it's impossible

False.

under your position it cannot happen any more than you can reason out that vanilla ice cream is the best.

Ah, a pure demonstration that you have failed miserably to comprehend my position in any way shape or form.

"I believe what is good and bad is determined by it's effect on overhall hapiness" ASSUMES that good and bad are objective

So? Assuming that it is objective doesn't make it objective. It's absurd that you think it does.

The base here is you're arbitrary opinion, I can say "I believe what is good and bad is whatever action causes more diarreah" and that moral starting point is JUST AS VALID as the utalitarian one, because there IS NO objective fact of the matter, so any starting point is valid, thus all reasoning is pointless, since the starting point is arbitrary.

It's only valid if the premise you are using is true. DO you believe that "what is good and bad is whatever action causes more diarreah"? If not, then it is invalid logic.

It's strange that you think you can make claims about my logic while being ignorant of what logical validity is.

Both statements "I love that food" and "I hate that food" are equally wrong until you actually taste the food.

I tasted the food before forming the opinions.

But you're claiming a beleif on objective reality, you're using the terms "good" and "bad" as if they are properties of actions. Your saying I believe that A is B if A does C.

So? The "I believe" is what makes it subjective?

That assumes that B is a property, and by definition properties are objective.

False. Where did you get that absurd idea from? If I say something is Ugly, I am stating that Ugly is a property it has. I am in no way trying to pretend that that is objective, though.

UYou don't understand teh definition of property if you think that it is, by definition, objective.

You have to explain why I use the terms wrong and how it invalidates my argument.

I have. I have no way of making you understand it, though. you have to do that on your own.

You havn't shown how the claim that a moral statement is fundementally the same as a statement on tastiness is wrong.

False.

They are both 100% arbitrary, and they are both 100% subjective, they both are not based on any objective reality that can be measured in any relevant way.

Again, you confuse base don with about. Fail.

So how are they different?

You can go back and try to understand the answers that have been given before. I'm not about to continually restate them over and over again simply because you are incapable of comprehending them.

A. Many animals are capable of reason.

Oh, did you ask them?

B. perception exists's without reason

That's all you needed to say. You can certainly pretend to be right immediately after you admit to being wrong, but it's asinine to do so.

 

[RGacky3]

So? Most light waves are unobservable. I'm not talking about light waves, I'm talking about green.

Yes, and green is the sensation CAUSED by light waves which are measurable objectively.

You should always assume that perceptions may be illusion, because they often are.

Do you actually live like that?

Who said I believe there is a past? I believe that there is only the ever changing now. We call the old, no-longer extant "now" the past, but it is not something that exists. It is what we call that which has ceased to exist.

Yeah, but given your perceptions not being reliable, the whole of everything could have poped into existance 5 seconds ago, just because you're perceptions make it seam like they didn't what reason do you have to deny it, unless you follow the maxim that you trust your perceptions unless you have a reason not to.

Because you can perceive or understand your own beliefs.

... ok-

you're still doing logic wrong, then.

Obviously not, since you havn't showed how.

It's actually wrong from a subjective perspective, but there's no such thing as "objectively" wrong. If you are using the word "actually" in lieu of "objectively, then I repeat "So?"

ok, so it's "wrong" from a subjective perspective, but you saying "this is wrong" is just as arbitrary and meaningless as saying "ice cream is delicious," if you're willing to accept that, thats fine.

Your argument claims that logic is based on objective reality, when logic is about reality. that falsifies your premises.

Oh, no, it's about reality but also based on reality, in order to logically deduce something you must have premises that are true, and for the deduction to work they have to be true objectively.

So laws are shared morality. :shrug:

No they arn't, they are seperate things all together.

False.

Then show me how it's possible.

Colder is a subjective term. Less energetic, sure, but not colder.

And being stabbed is different from not being stabbed in the same way that 10 degrees is different from 20 degrees.

No it isn't subjective, you can measure OBJECTIVELY whether or not something will be colder than something else, whether the objective reality will be experienced as colder subjectively.

No it isn't, because there is nothing in being stabbed that you can measure to decide whether or not it is good or bad, there is with degrees of heat.

And there is no "fact of the matter" when it comes to longitude or time, but we still use that as a functional measure, one that most people would not consider "meaningless and arbitrary".

Yes there is actually, you can have an objective passing of time, cosmic time is what physists call it, you also have relative time, which is still objective since it's measurable.

correction: They pretend to appeal to an objective morality. You cannot appeal to that which you cannot perceive or understand.

YOu absolutely can, before people understood how heat was created they could appeal to the objective reality of whether or not something is hotter or colder.

My own moral reasoning doesn't assume objective morality. You seem to have the bizarre, and utterly illogical, notion that assuming an objective morality exists somehow magically turns that morality into something objective. It doesn't. To even suggest that it doe sis absurd.

You cannot reason on something which has no premises which are objective, otherwise all the reasoning is nonsense, saying "I believe such and such is moral" and then reasoning from there, isn't reasoning out morality, its deciding arbitrarily what your personal preferance is, and then reasoning from there, the "morality" has already been chosen before the reasoning. If you want to base morality in reason, you need REASONS for thinking something is good or bad, and that requires premises which are objective.

So? Assuming that it is objective doesn't make it objective. It's absurd that you think it does.

What I'm saying is assuming that it is objective shows that everyone percieves it as such, and unless we have a reason to believe it isn't, why should we assume it isn't, and infact in your own personal life you also assume it's objective.

It's only valid if the premise you are using is true. DO you believe that "what is good and bad is whatever action causes more diarreah"? If not, then it is invalid logic.

It's strange that you think you can make claims about my logic while being ignorant of what logical validity is.

You're not basing morality on reason, you're basic morality on a arbitrary personal preferance and then reasoning from there .... you're using A in the premis of an argument, which you're trying to use to establish A. Learn Logic.

I tasted the food before forming the opinions.

Not with the example you gave.

So? The "I believe" is what makes it subjective?

And it's also what makes it nothing more than a personal preferance and arbitrary, there is no way to falsify that "belief."

But here is what I want you to do.

What fundemental difference is there between saying "I believe killing is wrong," and "I believe vanilla ice cream is good." This is what i've been trying to drive at the whole time, and you've been just ignoring.

 

[Tucker Case]

Yes, and green is the sensation CAUSED by light waves which are measurable objectively.

False. Green is CAUSED by our eyes and brain. There is nothing intrinsic about the wavelengths that cause us to perceive them as green. It is a biological adaptation that proved to be beneficial to us to be able to differentiate between certain wavelengths on a very small portion of the light spectrum.

Objectively speaking, light is light, whether it is in what we call the infrared spectrum or if it is in what we call the visible spectrum. "Green" does not exist outside of our minds.

Do you actually live like that?

Of course. I learned that my perceptions were "flawed" at a young age due to my color-blindness. I also learned this is true for everyone, though. I never take the arrogant and inaccurate stance that my perception is objectively "true" until proven otherwise. I realize fully that my perceptions are only a subjective interpretation of reality. Ironically, that allows me to understand the actual objective truth about reality. The objective truth is not "This object is blue", it is "This object reflects light which I subjectively perceive to be blue". The light which is perceived is not even an intrinsic characteristic of the object. It is the light which the object "rejects". If I were to assume that my perceptions were objectively true, I would always remain ignorant of the objective truth about the object and the light it reflects.

I live my life knowing that the objective truth is that I perceive reality as I perceive it. I don't just wait for a defeater to exist, I realize a defeater almost always exists, it merely requires a search to discover it.

Yeah, but given your perceptions not being reliable, the whole of everything could have poped into existance 5 seconds ago, just because you're perceptions make it seam like they didn't what reason do you have to deny it, unless you follow the maxim that you trust your perceptions unless you have a reason not to.

I know that the objective truth is that my perceptions are my subjective interpretations of reality. I have no other option but to exist within my subjective interpretation of reality, but I am always searching for the truth behind the illusion, though. If the truth was that the whole of everything popped into existence five "seconds" ago, I would be able to discover that truth if it were possible for me to discover it because I constantly question my own perceptions.

To explain, most people think that the objective truth about light light is that it is something they can see. If they enter a room where they cannot perceive light, they make the silly assumption, based on "common sense" that the room has no light in it. That is only their subjective truth, though. The objective truth is that there is light in that room. They are unable to perceive it. So because they made the silly decision to trust their perceptions implicitly without question, they came to the wrong conclusion about the objective reality.

But, because they cannot perceive the infrared light, they must live within their subjective reality, flawed as that reality may be. Thus, they will turn on a light which casts light in a spectrum that they can perceive in order to interact with the objective reality.

... ok-

and if your primary premise is a subjective belief (which is the case in every moral argument), you can reason about something that you can perceive and understand.

Obviously not, since you havn't showed how.

Much like the infrared light example, simply because you are unable to perceive or understand that it is present does not mean it isn't present.

ok, so it's "wrong" from a subjective perspective, but you saying "this is wrong" is just as arbitrary and meaningless as saying "ice cream is delicious," if you're willing to accept that, thats fine.

I'm not saying that it is just as arbitrary as "Ice cream is delicious", because that is simply your misuse of th eword arbitrary. I have always said that everything in existence is objectively meaningless, though. Why wouldn't it be? It's silly to think that objective reality has meaning.

Oh, no, it's about reality but also based on reality, in order to logically deduce something you must have premises that are true, and for the deduction to work they have to be true objectively.

And if you really do subjectively believe that good equals maximal happiness, it is objectively true that you believe that. It is not, however, objectively true that good = maximal happiness. That is merely your subjective belief.

Ergo, since all moral codes are based on a subjective belief, all moral codes are inehrently subjective. Even those that pretend to be objective.

No they arn't, they are seperate things all together.

False.

Then show me how it's possible.

I have, you have simply failed to understand it. I did it in this post. Did you spot it?

No it isn't subjective, you can measure OBJECTIVELY whether or not something will be colder than something else, whether the objective reality will be experienced as colder subjectively.

Colder doesn't exist objectively. Temperature is actually a measure of thermal energy. there is only "more energetic" and "less energetic" in an objective sense. We subjectively interpret the objective reality of a lower thermal energy state as "colder". A piece of steel, however, experiences it as a decrease in energy. When you refuse to use the objective language in your arguments, you prove my case.

No it isn't, because there is nothing in being stabbed that you can measure to decide whether or not it is good or bad, there is with degrees of heat.

There are tons of things about being stabbed that can be measured which can be used to define the parameters of one's subjective definition of "good" and "bad". It's effect on happiness, for example. Pain is another one. These subjective sensations are no different than green.

Yes there is actually, you can have an objective passing of time, cosmic time is what physists call it, you also have relative time, which is still objective since it's measurable.

Cosmic time is a hypothetical construct. It doesn't exist anywhere. It's rather like sea level. Useful in a practical sense for calculation purposes, but not something which is "real" and observable.

YOu absolutely can, before people understood how heat was created they could appeal to the objective reality of whether or not something is hotter or colder.

There is no objective reality of "colder" or "hotter". That is our subjective interpretation (via experience) of the objective reality that their is more/less thermal energy. We feel heat, much like we feel pain. It is a product of chemicals signals inside of our body transmitted electrically. That feeling is where we derive our concept of "cold" and "hot". If we did not have the particular mechanisms involved, we would not experience heat and cold. Our inability to experience the changes in thermal energy, however, would not alter the objective reality that changes in thermal energy occur. We would be capable of building equipment to measure these changes, much like we build equipment to measure light which is outside of the visible spectrum.

You cannot reason on something which has no premises which are objective

Who is arguing that no premises are objective?

otherwise all the reasoning is nonsense, saying "I believe such and such is moral" and then reasoning from there

That's what occurs, regardless if someone is under the delusional idea that they are not doing it.

What I'm saying is assuming that it is objective shows that everyone percieves it as such

That is a subjective belief, not objective fact. It is actually a false belief as well, because you assuming it is objective doesn't even come remotely close to showing that everyone perceives it as such. That's just some pure nonsense you made up.

and unless we have a reason to believe it isn't, why should we assume it isn't

Because all of the evidence which does exists has shown us that our perceptions of reality are inaccurate depictions of reality.

and infact in your own personal life you also assume it's objective.

No, I don't. I actually understand the objective fact that my subjective perception of reality is not an accurate reflection of the objective reality. I do NOT make the stupid assumption that my subjective reality is objectively accurate. I live my life in full knowledge of that, and I am in no way impeded by that.

You're not basing morality on reason, you're basic morality on a arbitrary personal preferance and then reasoning from there

Not just me, everybody. But that doesn't change the fact that it is based on reason. It's not arbitrarily decided each time. Rules exist which people employ to pass their judgements. That the rules are arbitrary has no bearing on the final judgements not being arbitrary.

.... you're using A in the premis of an argument, which you're trying to use to establish A.

For ****s sake. :roll:

Premise 1: I believe that that which is good (A) is that which increases overall happiness (B)

Premise 2: Chocolate cake (C) is something which increases overall happiness (B).

Conclusion: Therefore I believe that chocolate cake (C) is good (A)

The above would be both logically valid and logically sound if I were a Utilitarian. The truth of the conclusion is entailed by the truth of the premises. Learn logic, or stop pretending to know what you are talking about. It's just getting retarded now.

Not with the example you gave.

Nonsense. Stop pretending to know what you are talking about.

And it's also what makes it nothing more than a personal preferance and arbitrary, there is no way to falsify that "belief."

The belief is arbitrary, the moral code which develops from that belief, however, is not. It's the exact opposite of arbitrary.

But here is what I want you to do.

What fundemental difference is there between saying "I believe killing is wrong," and "I believe vanilla ice cream is good." This is what i've been trying to drive at the whole time, and you've been just ignoring.

As I have said repeatedly, the "I believe killing is wrong" comment is usualy (but not always) based on some sort of reasoning, whereas the "I believe vanilla ice cream is good" comment is usually (but not always, as I showed a subjective moral argument for chocolate cake being good above) based on nothing more than the personal enjoyment of a physical sensation.

I have not been ignoring your question, you have been dutifully rejecting the answer every time I have given it.

 

[Mr. Invisible]

To begin, this is my first post and I might as well share my particular views before I begin.
I am an atheist in the sense of personal gods but I have yet to make up my mind about an all pervasive force in the universe that can not be defined. But, this discussion is not about whether or not atheism is right or wrong. In fact, I would like the mention of gods, deities, or anything else of that nature to not come up here.
Secondly, I hold that morality is a construct of society and relative.

So, without holding off the topic further...

Atheism and morality. Because of the lack of a higher "law", can we say that there is an objective morality?

If there is not an objective morality, can we sustain that cultural morality is a valid basis for morality?
If there is an objective morality, where does it come from? (I will debate against this, but I would like to see arguments for it).
If you hold that not only is there not an objective morality, but that relative morality is irrelevant, please expand on your topic.
If you hold a fourth stance, please explain.

Nihilists, Solipsists, and other hyper-radical or non-falsifiable philosophical viewpoints need not respond.

You talk about "objective morality," however, to begin to even start this conversation, we must first have an agreed upon definition of what morality is. For that, let's go to the Standford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which defines morality as "descriptively to refer to some codes of conduct put forward by a society or, some other group, such as a religion/accepted by an individual for her own behavior or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons."

Now, you are referring to "objective morality," thus, I would assume you are really discussing the latter morality, normative morality. Now, seeing as how humanity can- and has- used rationality to hammer out a moral code, as can be seen through the laws of societies all over the world, specifically within the nation-state, then the answer is yes, there is an objective morality to some extent. However, the individual interpretations of that objective morality are subjective, especially in the sense of the judges who are interpreting that objective morality that we call law.