Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[Nakosis]

You've been exactly where I am? You refused to believe in Jesus because you knew your Jewish family and friends would reject you, and then you studied out both testaments and committed to trusting Jesus?

Yes, but is reverse order. However from a Jewish perspective the Christian concept of God seems pretty unsupportable.

I can understand the disdain many Jews have for Christianity.

 

[ArtieE]

As I suggested, we have different ideas of what "objective" means. Programming one's subjective values into software and having a computer regurgitate them for us is still subjectivity to me.

If an alien biologist came to study earth organisms he would note that they had evolved a survival instinct. He would also note that there are certain behaviors that lead to increased chances of survival and some behaviors that lead to decreased chances of survival. The objectively right way to act for an organism with a survival instinct is to act in such a way that it increases chances of survival. The alien biologist would note that humans call such acts moral/good/right.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If an alien biologist came to study earth organisms he would note that they had evolved a survival instinct. He would also note that there are certain behaviors that lead to increased chances of survival and some behaviors that lead to decreased chances of survival. The objectively right way to act for an organism with a survival instinct is to act in such a way that it increases chances of survival. The alien biologist would note that humans call such acts moral/good/right.

The alien biologist would see humans making value-laden subjective judgments. If they visited earth now, they would see multiple versions of such judgments.

If at some future time, mankind arrives at a consensus on these matters, still, the fundamental philosophical tenet with which they all or mostly agreed does not have an objective existence.

I found the following definition for objective. It's the one I've been using: "existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?" the definition of objective

 

[ArtieE]

The alien biologist would see humans making value-laden subjective judgments. If they visited earth now, they would see multiple versions of such judgments

So what? Of course he would. Never said otherwise. Nothing to do with what I was saying.

If at some future time, mankind arrives at a consensus on these matters, still, the fundamental philosophical tenet with which they all or mostly agreed does not have an objective existence.

The existence of species with a survival instinct is an objective fact. It is also an objective fact that some behaviors lead to increased chances of survival and some lead to decreased chances of survival of those species. Which is our basis for calling some acts moral/right/good/beneficial and some acts immoral/wrong/bad/detrimental.

I found the following definition for objective. It's the one I've been using: "existing independently of perception or an individual's conceptions: are there objective moral values?" the definition of objective

From an objective point of view some acts do lead to increased chances of survival, some lead to decreased chances of survival of a society or individuals or species, irrespective of your subjective opinion or conceptions. A moral person tries to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental for the survival and well-being of the society and individuals in it, because that is the objectively moral thing to do.

 

[Thumper]

So what? Of course he would. Never said otherwise. Nothing to do with what I was saying.The existence of species with a survival instinct is an objective fact. It is also an objective fact that some behaviors lead to increased chances of survival and some lead to decreased chances of survival of those species. Which is our basis for calling some acts moral/right/good/beneficial and some acts immoral/wrong/bad/detrimental.From an objective point of view some acts do lead to increased chances of survival, some lead to decreased chances of survival of a society or individuals or species, irrespective of your subjective opinion or conceptions. A moral person tries to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental for the survival and well-being of the society and individuals in it, because that is the objectively moral thing to do.

Are you 2 still arguing over what "is" is?

Oh, and "morals" are personal beliefs about what is and is not acceptable for them to do. This has nothing to do with society.

Ethics deal with actions within a group or culture.

 

[ArtieE]

Are you 2 still arguing over what "is" is?

Oh, and "morals" are personal beliefs about what is and is not acceptable for them to do. This has nothing to do with society.

Ethics deal with actions within a group or culture.

The Law Dictionary defines immoral as:
Contrary to good morals; Inconsistent with the rules and principles of morality which regard men as living in a community, and which are necessary for the public welfare, order, and decency.
What is IMMORAL? definition of IMMORAL (Black's Law Dictionary)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

.The existence of species with a survival instinct is an objective fact.

But their values are not.

It is also an objective fact that some behaviors lead to increased chances of survival and some lead to decreased chances of survival of those species. Which is our basis for calling some acts moral/right/good/beneficial and some acts immoral/wrong/bad/detrimental.From an objective point of view some acts do lead to increased chances of survival, some lead to decreased chances of survival of a society or individuals or species, irrespective of your subjective opinion or conceptions. A moral person tries to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental for the survival and well-being of the society and individuals in it, because that is the objectively moral thing to do.

Values are subjective.

 

[sayak83]

But their values are not.



Values are subjective.

Which of the values persist over generations may be objective. Those values that tend, on average, to increase the survival and flourishing of individuals holding them rather than the opposite. Thus there will be an objective sorting and selection of subjective values over time.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Which of the values persist over generations may be objective. Those values that tend, on average, to increase the survival and flourishing of individuals holding them rather than the opposite. Thus there will be an objective sorting and selection of subjective values over time.

Objective sorting is not objective morals.

 

[ArtieE]

Values are subjective.

"One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.

The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions."
Subjective Value

My values aren't subjectively based. I have an objective standard based on being a member of a species with an evolved survival instinct. In all circumstances do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of my society and the people in it. That increases chances of survival.

 

[Thumper]

"One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.

The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions."
Subjective Value

My values aren't subjectively based. I have an objective standard based on being a member of a species with an evolved survival instinct. In all circumstances do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of my society and the people in it. That increases chances of survival.

You're silly. Of course your morals are subjective. They are subject to the time and society you live in. 200 years ago in Europe your moral ideals would have been entirely different concerning witches, slavery, a woman's place in society, etc.

 

[ArtieE]

You're silly. Of course your morals are subjective. They are subject to the time and society you live in. 200 years ago in Europe your moral ideals would have been entirely different concerning witches, slavery, a woman's place in society, etc.

200 years ago the objectively moral thing to do would be to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of my society and the people in it just like today. People may have different subjective ideas about what the objectively moral thing to do is, but that doesn't change what the objectively moral thing to do actually is.

 

[ArtieE]

You're silly. Of course your morals are subjective. They are subject to the time and society you live in. 200 years ago in Europe your moral ideals would have been entirely different concerning witches, slavery, a woman's place in society, etc.

Did you read what I quoted? "The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality." Your subjective beliefs about what is right or wrong behavior doesn't determine what is right or wrong behavior. For a species with an evolved survival instinct the objectively right behavior is the one that increases chances of survival.

 

[sayak83]

Objective sorting is not objective morals.

Well, objective sorting implies that which, among the space of possible values, are actually widespread in the world is mind independent. I do not care for a label as long as this fact is recognized.

Of course values are mind dependent in a more fundamental sense. They are generated by minds and depend on minds for their existence. If sentient beings disappear, so does values.

 

[Thumper]

Did you read what I quoted? "The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality." Your subjective beliefs about what is right or wrong behavior doesn't determine what is right or wrong behavior. For a species with an evolved survival instinct the objectively right behavior is the one that increases chances of survival.

So you are arguing that the social behavior of Bonobos other primates can be interpreted as objective moral behavior. I'm okay with that. Not the description I would have first thought of, but whatever.

 

[Augustus]

For a species with an evolved survival instinct the objectively right behavior is the one that increases chances of survival.

Whose chance of survival though? This individual, the group or the species?

We also seem to have an evolved instinct for physical and psychological well being that can make us carry out actions that reduce our chances of survival, but potentially increase our physical or psychological well being (wealth, power, status, etc.)

Also, seeing as it involves making complex predictions potentially far into the future, whatever 'increases the chance of survival' is often not known and people can have vastly differing perspectives on this issue.

 

[ArtieE]

Whose chance of survival though? This individual, the group or the species?

Depends on the circumstances and whether the death of the individual is beneficial or detrimental to the survival of the group or species.

We also seem to have an evolved instinct for physical and psychological well being that can make us carry out actions that reduce our chances of survival, but potentially increase our physical or psychological well being (wealth, power, status, etc.

Evolution is still going on. If we had a time machine we could have looked a thousand years in the future and see which approach won.

Also, seeing as it involves making complex predictions potentially far into the future, whatever 'increases the chance of survival' is often not known and people can have vastly differing perspectives on this issue.

True.

 

[Augustus]

Depends on the circumstances and whether the death of the individual is beneficial or detrimental to the survival of the group or species.Evolution is still going on. If we had a time machine we could have looked a thousand years in the future and see which approach won.True.

How does it relate to objective morality though?

There used to be a law in the Ottoman Empire that when a new Emperor took power (after he won the right by force after his father's death) he was legally obliged to kill his brothers to prevent oppositional factions developing.

They also had an army and civil service made up of slaves taken from Christian families in the Balkans and converted to Islam and generally forbidden to marry. This was to stop rival power structures developing who could rival the ruler.

These were certainly good from the individual survival perspective, and also the group survival perspective. Most would consider them immoral though.

 

[ArtieE]

How does it relate to objective morality though?

There used to be a law in the Ottoman Empire that when a new Emperor took power (after he won the right by force after his father's death) he was legally obliged to kill his brothers to prevent oppositional factions developing.

They also had an army and civil service made up of slaves taken from Christian families in the Balkans and converted to Islam and generally forbidden to marry. This was to stop rival power structures developing who could rival the ruler.

These were certainly good from the individual survival perspective, and also the group survival perspective. Most would consider them immoral though.

You just have to try to do the moral thing, to pick the strategy you think would be most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of the society and the people. Of course we can't see into the future so people can have different opinions about what the objectively moral thing is.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

"One of the consequences of subjectivism is the belief that values are subjective. This means that values are whatever we choose to pursue and whatever we desire. It means there is no such thing as good or evil, except what you think is good or evil. If you believe something is evil, that's just your own personal preference. It is not, and cannot be, a statement about reality.

The idea of values being subjective is a denial of the need or possibility of morality. Since any values can be accepted without consequence, there is no guide to determine which values should be accepted. Since there is no objective moral standard, reason cannot be used to determine how one should act. Emotions are all that is left to make the decision, and subsequently, one is ruled by one's emotions."
Subjective Value

That's not an argument that values aren't subjective. And calling values subjective is not a "a denial of the need or possibility of morality."

It is also incorrect that reason cannot be used to determine how to act. Rational ethics is the application of reason to subjective values in an effort to make manifest whatever it is a society values. The American constitution embodies a set of values that contradict those in the Bible almost everywhere. Once, we implemented the Biblical values. People had to obey commandments, eschew blasphemy, dispose of their idols, respect the Sabbath, and to follow assorted dietary laws. Obedience, submission, and piety were the values most highly esteemed.

Today, Western culture has shifted its values, and uses reason to implement them. Today we value autonomy, freedom of speech, freedom of and from religion, etc..

The values, however remain subjective, and reason can be employed to try to create a society that embodies them. We didn't find those values out there. They have changed before and might change again both individually and collectively.

My values aren't subjectively based. I have an objective standard based on being a member of a species with an evolved survival instinct. In all circumstances do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental to the well-being and survival of my society and the people in it. That increases chances of survival.

I still don't understand how you can say that your values aren't subjective.