Zero Probability of Evolution. Atheism wrong?

[Thermos aquaticus]

No. A moral action is a right action. An immoral action is a wrong action.

That's circular.

To do what's moral is to do what is most beneficial and/or least detrimental for the well-being and survival of the society and the people in it.

What is most beneficial or least detrimental for society is based on subjective human opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's circular.



What is most beneficial or least detrimental for society is based on subjective human opinion.

I would say that what is thought to be beneficial or detrimental for society is based upon subjective human opinion. But as we advance we learn what has not worked in the past and as a result our morals improve if one goes by the "least harm, most freedom" criteria. Many things thought to be "moral" in the past are now thought to be immoral due to the consequences of those actions. The Bible finds very little harm in slavery and a book that can tell you not to wear polyester can't tell you that a human owning another human is wrong. We have learned from our past actions that their is harm in slavery.

Morals have to be subjective, that does not mean that there is no an objective improvement in them over the years if one bases that improvement upon a reasonable goal.

 

[Audie]

I don't see why that would need to be true. First, a morality derived from God could be based on the subjective opinions of God. Second, God could conform the morality he teaches so that it meets up with the subjective morality humans guide their lives by. IOW, God could be teaching humans how to be better humans.

I think coming from god is what defines it as objective?

Well, who knows. A Christian, I will never be.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I would say that what is thought to be beneficial or detrimental for society is based upon subjective human opinion. But as we advance we learn what has not worked in the past and as a result our morals improve if one goes by the "least harm, most freedom" criteria. Many things thought to be "moral" in the past are now thought to be immoral due to the consequences of those actions. The Bible finds very little harm in slavery and a book that can tell you not to wear polyester can't tell you that a human owning another human is wrong. We have learned from our past actions that their is harm in slavery.

Morals have to be subjective, that does not mean that there is no an objective improvement in them over the years if one bases that improvement upon a reasonable goal.

Why do you say that slavery causes harm? Is it because it robs a person of personal freedoms? If so, it is based on the wants and needs of humans which makes it subjective. Is it based on the human need to avoid confinement and pain? Again, those are human wants and needs.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

I think coming from god is what defines it as objective?

No. An objective morality must be derived independently of the person or deity putting forth the morality. It doesn't become any less subjective just because it is a deity saying how humans should behave.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think coming from god is what defines it as objective?

Well, who knows. A Christian, I will never be.

Since even what a god decides seems to be arbitrary even that is not objective. Slavery good, polyester bad is just one such example. Though there may be some merit in the polyester claim:

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why do you say that slavery causes harm? Is it because it robs a person of personal freedoms? If so, it is based on the wants and needs of humans which makes it subjective. Is it based on the human need to avoid confinement and pain? Again, those are human wants and needs.

Yes, it is subjective. I admitted that. But when one bases morality on a least harm approach then upon that basis it is objectively better, but there will always be quite a bit of subjectivity to any moral decision. That morals are subjective is a good thing. It allows us to improve our moral behavior over time.

Relying on an "objective morality" only mires one in past errors.

 

[Audie]

Since even what a god decides seems to be arbitrary even that is not objective. Slavery good, polyester bad is just one such example. Though there may be some merit in the polyester claim:

Nonsense. Objective is define as that with comes from god.

 

[Audie]

No. An objective morality must be derived independently of the person or deity putting forth the morality. It doesn't become any less subjective just because it is a deity saying how humans should behave.

Nope.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Nonsense. Objective is define as that with comes from god.

It is incorrectly defined by some as that which comes from God. There is nothing stopping a deity from using its own subjective opinions to form a moral code.

 

[Audie]

It is incorrectly defined by some as that which comes from God. There is nothing stopping a deity from using its own subjective opinions to form a moral code.

Right or wrong it is the only objective anyone is gonna get. If we can come up with a god that is.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Yes, it is subjective. I admitted that. But when one bases morality on a least harm approach then upon that basis it is objectively better, but there will always be quite a bit of subjectivity to any moral decision. That morals are subjective is a good thing. It allows us to improve our moral behavior over time.

Relying on an "objective morality" only mires one in past errors.

Even then, it is subjective opinion as to what action causes the least harm. It's not as if harm is measured in definable units. Trying to take something subjective and make it objective seems to be a difficult if not impossible task.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Right or wrong it is the only objective anyone is gonna get. If we can come up with a god that is.

You are once again assuming that moral commands given by God are objective by the mere fact that they are commanded by God. That's not how objectivity works. God could say that the Earth is a square, but that wouldn't make it an objective fact.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. Objective is define as that with comes from god.

I see that you could not refute my Polyester argument. Checkmate atheist!

 

[ArtieE]

That's like asking what if black were white. The majority don't think raping little girls for fun is moral, so that is why it is immoral.

But if the majority did think raping little girls for fun was moral, it would be moral?

At one time, almost everyone thought that the Sun moved about the Earth. However, the objective fact was that the Earth moves about the Sun. Even if every human believed the Sun moved about the Earth it still wouldn't change that objective fact. That is how objectivity works. It is independent of what humans believe.

Therefore, if morality is objective then you should be able to point to something that is moral even though all humans believed it to be immoral. You should be able to derive morality without ever referencing the opinions of humans. From what I have seen, no one is able to do that.

So let's say 50% of humans believe raping little girls for fun is right, and 50% believe it's wrong. Would it be moral or immoral? 51 -49? 60 - 40? 70 - 30?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But if the majority did think raping little girls for fun was moral, it would be moral?

If people were made of flour they would be loaves of bread.

 

[ArtieE]

That's circular.

Moral and right are synonyms. Immoral and wrong are synonyms.

What is most beneficial or least detrimental for society is based on subjective human opinion.

So if everybody had a different and contradictory subjective opinion about what is most beneficial or least detrimental for society they would all be right?

 

[ArtieE]

If people were made of flour they would be loaves of bread.

"But if the majority did think raping little girls for fun was moral, it would be moral?"

Yes or no?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

"But if the majority did think raping little girls for fun was moral, it would be moral?"

Yes or no?

If people were made of flour, would they be loaves of bread? Yes/no?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Morality is defined as the ability to distinguish between good and bad actions. What are good and bad actions is grounded in evolution and natural selection not in subjective opinions.

Going back to your question and the quote in this reply, if the majority of people thought raping little girls was moral then it would be objectively correct since it would be the product of evolution and natural selection. Is this correct?