For those that doubt OMV's exist

[Rostos]

Yes, those are all factual claims. All of those things are morally wrong by definition.

What definition? The one invented by man kind?

Furthermore the definition of moral right and wrong is not arbitrary; it is not a matter of personal preference or even group preference; it has been determined by human social evolution.

Which humans? ISIS? Al Qada? Nazi Germany?

Broadly across time and cultures the fundamental principle of morality has been defined as the principle of reciprocity. That principle can be formulated in many ways, but it all boils down to the idea that if you want your wellbeing to be respected by others then rationally, you are obliged to respect the wellbeing of others. One formulation of this is the golden rule.

Again, this is nothing but a man made invention of how they like to act, or a preference.

Since no sane person would wish to be raped or murdered or discriminated on because of some superficial characteristic such as race, all of those actions are morally wrong by definition. And that is a fact.

So you are still grounding it in preferences/desires...not in fact of the act itself.

[Rostos]

No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

Did you have a rebuttal?

[Rostos]

No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

That's what he does: ask questions over and over that have been answered hundreds of times before. I don't think I've ever actually seen him have a legitimate discussion with someone.

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

[bruce culver]

No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

That's what he does: ask questions over and over that have been answered hundreds of times before. I don't think I've ever actually seen him have a legitimate discussion with someone.

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

They exist as facts about the ontologically subjective social construct called morality.

Does the United States of America have objective existence. Yes, the land exists, but it existed before there was U.S.A. and will exist even if the USA ceases to exists, so the USA is not the land. Yes, the people exist, but the people in the USA are changing all the time. So, no the USA does not, or least large parts of what make the USA the USA exist only in our minds. Yet you can make factually true or false statements about the USA. The USA has 50 states. The USA has a representative government. The USA is a little over 200 years old, etc.

Moral facts are like those kind of facts they are facts about human morality which is ontologically subjective, but epistemically objective in a way analogous to the way the USA is also.

[aleph naught]

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

Easy: Moral facts are self-evident, and God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil. Do you have a response?

It's easy to defend moral realism, and it's easy to defend atheism. Just take the conjunction of the two, then.

[Rostos]

No just expressing a preference.

Right, so if i come into your house, tie you up, rape your partner in front of you, then torture your family in front of you, then finally kill you.......i haven't done anything actually wrong...

Is this correct?

Your profile says you've been here 6 years. Is this as far as your understanding of morals has developed?
I'm not trying to be rude, but I find that your question seems woefully tone deaf; as if you are trying to get a different response than an irenic one.

Perhaps we can have a discussion: can you clarify what you mean by "wrong"?

That's what he does: ask questions over and over that have been answered hundreds of times before. I don't think I've ever actually seen him have a legitimate discussion with someone.

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

They exist as facts about the ontologically subjective social construct called morality.

Thats like saying it is a fact that there are people who believe the earth is flat. And so what?

Does the United States of America have objective existence. Yes, the land exists, but it existed before there was U.S.A. and will exist even if the USA ceases to exists, so the USA is not the land. Yes, the people exist, but the people in the USA are changing all the time. So, no the USA does not, or least large parts of what make the USA the USA exist only in our minds. Yet you can make factually true or false statements about the USA. The USA has 50 states. The USA has a representative government. The USA is a little over 200 years old, etc.

What on earth are you saying here? Are you saying that inventions become facts?


Moral facts are like those kind of facts they are facts about human morality which is ontologically subjective, but epistemically objective in a way analogous to the way the USA is also.

This is the most confused statement i have ever seen in my life.

Again, are you saying that inventions become facts?

Therefore a society that believes it is good to take homosexuals to a top of a building, blind fold them and throw them off...does that make it right what they are doing?

I mean, it is a fact that this is a societies morality, does that make it right??

[Rostos]

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

Easy: Moral facts are self-evident, and God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil. Do you have a response?

It's easy to defend moral realism, and it's easy to defend atheism. Just take the conjunction of the two, then.

I agree moral facts are self evident. The question is, what are moral facts doing existing in a godless world? Where are they grounded?

The problem of evil is actually an argument for Gods existence. In the absence of God, there is no such thing as evil.

[aleph naught]

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

Easy: Moral facts are self-evident, and God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil. Do you have a response?

It's easy to defend moral realism, and it's easy to defend atheism. Just take the conjunction of the two, then.

I agree moral facts are self evident. The question is, what are moral facts doing existing in a godless world? Where are they grounded?

Moral properties are identical to natural properties, probably.

The problem of evil is actually an argument for Gods existence. In the absence of God, there is no such thing as evil.

You keep saying that, but you've never been able to explain why it's true.

[Rostos]

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

Easy: Moral facts are self-evident, and God doesn't exist due to the problem of evil. Do you have a response?

It's easy to defend moral realism, and it's easy to defend atheism. Just take the conjunction of the two, then.

I agree moral facts are self evident. The question is, what are moral facts doing existing in a godless world? Where are they grounded?

Moral properties are identical to natural properties, probably.

Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

The problem of evil is actually an argument for Gods existence. In the absence of God, there is no such thing as evil.

You keep saying that, but you've never been able to explain why it's true.

Lets clear up the previous argument then we will discuss this more.

[aleph naught]

Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

[Rostos]

Can you give me an analogy please. Doesnt have to be about morality.

Just as the property of being water is identical to some property relating to hydrogen and oxygen particles, the property of being good is identical to some property related to the promotion of creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent.

Under naturalism, why is creaturely welfare, equality and respect for consent good?

Remember,  for this to be objective, it must be good regardless of  any humans opinion, preference and desire.

[bruce culver]

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

They exist as facts about the ontologically subjective social construct called morality.

Thats like saying it is a fact that there are people who believe the earth is flat. And so what?[/quote]

And so that is what morality is, no more, no less. You can try and pretend that they are somehow ontologically objective, but you might as well believe the earth is flat.

Does the United States of America have objective existence. Yes, the land exists, but it existed before there was U.S.A. and will exist even if the USA ceases to exists, so the USA is not the land. Yes, the people exist, but the people in the USA are changing all the time. So, no the USA does not, or least large parts of what make the USA the USA exist only in our minds. Yet you can make factually true or false statements about the USA. The USA has 50 states. The USA has a representative government. The USA is a little over 200 years old, etc.

What on earth are you saying here? Are you saying that inventions become facts?

Yes, of course inventions can become facts. Are you saying there are no facts about the United States?

Moral facts are like those kind of facts they are facts about human morality which is ontologically subjective, but epistemically objective in a way analogous to the way the USA is also.

This is the most confused statement i have ever seen in my life.

Again, are you saying that inventions become facts?

Yes, I am and my statement is not even the least bit confused. You are the one who is confused. Please tell me how moral values can be mind-independent. You can't and you never will be able to because they are mind-dependent. You just won't admit it, because then the whole pretense of the MA falls hard.

Therefore a society that believes it is good to take homosexuals to a top of a building, blind fold them and throw them off...does that make it right what they are doing?

I mean, it is a fact that this is a societies morality, does that make it right??[/b]

No, I think they are objectively wrong to do that, and here is why. It's not that muslim society doesn't have the principle of reciprocity. Every society has it necessarily as a matter of social evolutionary imperative, and it is the fundamental principle of morality universally. Every society also has rules for what constitutes justification for violating the principle, but those vary quite a bit. However, those justifications can be evaluated in non moral terms to see if they are sensible or not. I think a very good case could be made that homosexuality doesn't cause any harm to society that would justify such a punishment for it. It would be very hard to prove that, but that doesn't mean there is not a fact of the matter.

But I never said that my view of morality is capable of solving every moral dilemma or giving a black and white answer to every moral question. But then neither can divine command theory either. In fact, you bring up muslims killing gays, but the Bible says that homosexual behavior should be punishable by death also. If morality is determined by God and the Bible is God's word, why are the muslims not right to kill gays? It's actually easier to answer on my view than on divine command theory.

[Rostos]

You ever going to defend how moral facts exist in a godless world?

They exist as facts about the ontologically subjective social construct called morality.

Thats like saying it is a fact that there are people who believe the earth is flat. And so what?

And so that is what morality is, no more, no less. You can try and pretend that they are somehow ontologically objective, but you might as well believe the earth is flat.

Dont you get it? Under your way it is nothing more than a group of people making up a definition. It has no grounding outside the human mind.

It is no different to a flat earth society, they just define the earth as being flat.

Does the United States of America have objective existence. Yes, the land exists, but it existed before there was U.S.A. and will exist even if the USA ceases to exists, so the USA is not the land. Yes, the people exist, but the people in the USA are changing all the time. So, no the USA does not, or least large parts of what make the USA the USA exist only in our minds. Yet you can make factually true or false statements about the USA. The USA has 50 states. The USA has a representative government. The USA is a little over 200 years old, etc.

What on earth are you saying here? Are you saying that inventions become facts?

Yes, of course inventions can become facts. Are you saying there are no facts about the United States?

Consider this.

Rostos believes big foot exists.

It is a fact that Rostos believes big foot exists.

Does that make it a fact that big foot exists?

Moral facts are like those kind of facts they are facts about human morality which is ontologically subjective, but epistemically objective in a way analogous to the way the USA is also.

This is the most confused statement i have ever seen in my life.

Again, are you saying that inventions become facts?

Yes, I am and my statement is not even the least bit confused. You are the one who is confused. Please tell me how moral values can be mind-independent. You can't and you never will be able to because they are mind-dependent. You just won't admit it, because then the whole pretense of the MA falls hard.

So therefore under your world view, morality is merely a man made invention. Is that correct?

Therefore a society that believes it is good to take homosexuals to a top of a building, blind fold them and throw them off...does that make it right what they are doing?

I mean, it is a fact that this is a societies morality, does that make it right??[/b]

No, I think they are objectively wrong to do that, and here is why. It's not that muslim society doesn't have the principle of reciprocity. Every society has it necessarily as a matter of social evolutionary imperative, and it is the fundamental principle of morality universally. Every society also has rules for what constitutes justification for violating the principle, but those vary quite a bit. However, those justifications can be evaluated in non moral terms to see if they are sensible or not. I think a very good case could be made that homosexuality doesn't cause any harm to society that would justify such a punishment for it. It would be very hard to prove that, but that doesn't mean there is not a fact of the matter.

You are importing standards here such as reciprocity, justification. I dont see why in a naturalistic world how these are objective.

But I never said that my view of morality is capable of solving every moral dilemma or giving a black and white answer to every moral question. But then neither can divine command theory either. In fact, you bring up muslims killing gays, but the Bible says that homosexual behavior should be punishable by death also. If morality is determined by God and the Bible is God's word, why are the muslims not right to kill gays? It's actually easier to answer on my view than on divine command theory.

It doesnt have to solve every dilemma. You just have to show 1. The bible doesnt advocate moral absolutes, rather objective morality.

The OT passages for homosexuality regarding punishment no longer apply and havent fr 2000 odd years.
[/quote]

[bruce culver]

Dont you get it? Under your way it is nothing more than a group of people making up a definition. It has no grounding outside the human mind.

It is no different to a flat earth society, they just define the earth as being flat.

The flat earth society believe something about an ontologically objective fact and they are wrong. That is quite different than people believing an ontologically subjective but epistemically objective fact.

And morality is not just a definition made up by a group of people on a whim. It was determined by something that transcends any individual or any group, i.e., social evolutionary imperative. That is what it is grounded in, not in personal opinion or even fashion.  If a human society thought it fashionable to murder that wouln't make it morally right, and that society probably would not survive long.

Consider this.

Rostos believes big foot exists.

It is a fact that Rostos believes big foot exists.

Does that make it a fact that big foot exists?

Of course not, but that is a bad analogy. I already gave you much better analogy: I believe the United States exists. Of course, it doesn't exist because I believe it does, but neither does it exist ontologically objectively. It exist as a social construct. But as such there are epistemically objective facts about it. Moral facts are not exactly the same as that, but pretty similar. That killing people for fun is morally wrong is an epistemically objective fact based on a social evolutionary determined social construct called morality, with a fundamental principle, i.e., reciprocity.

So therefore under your world view, morality is merely a man made invention. Is that correct?

Not really. I mean human morality is to some extent man made, but other social species also have societies that apply the principle of reciprocity, though they of course can't articulate it in language the way we can. Again it is a matter of social evolutionary imperative not personal opinion or even fashion, at least not at the fundamental level

You are importing standards here such as reciprocity, justification. I don't see why in a naturalistic world how these are objective.

.

They are only objective in the epistemic sense that they are not a matter of opinion or fashion. They are not mind-independent though. They are ontically subjective (mind-dependent)

It doesnt have to solve every dilemma. You just have to show 1. The bible doesnt advocate moral absolutes, rather objective morality.

The OT passages for homosexuality regarding punishment no longer apply and havent fr 2000 odd years.

Not sure what you mean by I have to show 1.  What I have to show to defeat the moral argument is that there is nothing incoherent about moral truths (or even just apparent moral truths) on naturalistic assumptions.

Of course, that doesn't prove morality isn't God given, just that the moral argument doesn't show that they are.

[Rostos]

Dont you get it? Under your way it is nothing more than a group of people making up a definition. It has no grounding outside the human mind.

It is no different to a flat earth society, they just define the earth as being flat.

The flat earth society believe something about an ontologically objective fact and they are wrong. That is quite different than people believing an ontologically subjective but epistemically objective fact.

And morality is not just a definition made up by a group of people on a whim. It was determined by something that transcends any individual or any group, i.e., social evolutionary imperative. That is what it is grounded in, not in personal opinion or even fashion.  If a human society thought it fashionable to murder that wouln't make it morally right, and that society probably would not survive long.

They are wrong because we can COMPARE there beliefs to the FACT itself which exists outside there mind/preference.

What is this fact for morality under naturalism? You keep referring to socio evolutionary, how does that make it objective?

One group/society has evolved such that it is a custom to eat there neighbor, another group/society has evolved  such as to love there neighbor. Which group is right/wrong? Under evolution, morality was adopted because it has survival advantages, how on earth does it make morality objective?

If you rewind the evolution clock back and start again, another species could have arisen where things like rape was considered good.

Consider this.

Rostos believes big foot exists.

It is a fact that Rostos believes big foot exists.

Does that make it a fact that big foot exists?

Of course not, but that is a bad analogy. I already gave you much better analogy: I believe the United States exists. Of course, it doesn't exist because I believe it does, but neither does it exist ontologically objectively. It exist as a social construct. But as such there are epistemically objective facts about it. Moral facts are not exactly the same as that, but pretty similar. That killing people for fun is morally wrong is an epistemically objective fact based on a social evolutionary determined social construct called morality, with a fundamental principle, i.e., reciprocity.

This is nonsense. ISIS have a different social construct to others, Al Qada as well....Who is right/wrong?

So therefore under your world view, morality is merely a man made invention. Is that correct?

Not really. I mean human morality is to some extent man made, but other social species also have societies that apply the principle of reciprocity, though they of course can't articulate it in language the way we can. Again it is a matter of social evolutionary imperative not personal opinion or even fashion, at least not at the fundamental level

A society/group believe the earth is flat, for whatever reason. It is a fact that these people believe the earth is flat. This is just something that they agreed upon for whatever reason.

This group is wrong. They are ONLY wrong because we can compare there beliefs/opinion to the fact itself which exists outside there opinion/preference.

Now you seem to be saying, a group/society has a morality for example where it is based on reciprocity. And this came about via the socio evolutionary process. Now, it is a fact that this groups morality is based on reciprocity which came about via the socio evolutionary process. But how on earth does that make morality for this group objective? How does it make things like reciprocity good? How does it make it wrong if one doesnt reciprocite?

You seem to be saying that evolution is the law giver to some degree. Evolution/biology is morally neutral and selects traits to be adventagous for the fight for survival. Thats all it is. In a naturalistic world, surviving is neither objectively good or objectively right, it just is.

Again, if we rewind the clock then we could have easily been a creature where things like rape were deemed to be good/right.

All you seem to be doing is grounding morality in the socio evolutionary process, but again, this process is neither good or right, it just is, its not the way it ought to be.

You are importing standards here such as reciprocity, justification. I don't see why in a naturalistic world how these are objective.

.

They are only objective in the epistemic sense that they are not a matter of opinion or fashion. They are not mind-independent though. They are ontically subjective (mind-dependent)

WHAT? How on earth does it make good or right?

It doesnt have to solve every dilemma. You just have to show 1. The bible doesnt advocate moral absolutes, rather objective morality.

The OT passages for homosexuality regarding punishment no longer apply and havent fr 2000 odd years.

Not sure what you mean by I have to show 1.  What I have to show to defeat the moral argument is that there is nothing incoherent about moral truths (or even just apparent moral truths) on naturalistic assumptions.

Of course, that doesn't prove morality isn't God given, just that the moral argument doesn't show that they are.

They do, because moral facts are PRESCRIPTIONS, not descriptions. You appeal to the socio evolutoinary process. This process is a DESCRIPTION, not a prescription. Prescriptions come from minds/intelligence.