What moral right does an atheist have?

[aaqucnaona]

Whom are you addressing this to? Me?

No, he was addressing me.

Btw, what exactly is your perspective on this issue?
I think morality is objective in the sense its encoded in our altruistic genes. Its subjective in humans as we can choose to act according to or agaisnt our morailty.

What do you think?

 

[Nasor]

I think it is self evident that raping a child isn't just socaily disadvantages; it is really and trully evil. It is not just a socail taboo; it is an abomination which exists not just in my subjective opinion, but rather it is evident in the very nature of the act itself.

Saying that something is "self evident" is not really an argument, but it is a popular strategy with people who are unable to provide any real support for their assertions.

Of course the evidence is not something that can be arrived at by inductive reasoning alone because moral truth has a meaning that is experential, and must be experienced by a personal nature inorder to know of it. Thus one can deny its existence while having knowledge of it and after a period of time induce ignorance of it; that is to say, dull ones senses and thus ones knowledge in regards to the objective meaning of that type of experience.

The idea that knowledge of objective moral truth cannot be arrived at by logic alone is not evidence against it, but rather human beings are required to be honest about their personal experiences which is ironically what one would expect given the existence and nature of objective moral truth; that is to say, they have to admit and be true to them selves about the fact that right and wrong really exists before their dignity as personal creatures can be fully fullfiled according to a standard of objective moral truth.

What ridiculous rubbish. You assert that morality is objective, but you admit that you can't provide any actual basis for this assertion; you merely say it is "self evident" and go on to say that anyone who disagrees with your unsubstantiated assertion is either mentally ill or willfully delusional. Your posts have the trappings of rational discourse, but they are really just a long-winded collection of fallacies, unsubstantiated assertions, and poorly-veiled ad hominems.

 

[aaqucnaona]

.

I think you and I agree on the question of morality, so I was wondering what your views are on this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hj9oB4zpHww

 

[Telemachus Rex]

These are not consistent hypotheticals, and thus cannot serve to demonstrate anything, as you are mixing a hypothetical (e.g. "(Suppose) God made a universe in which Jesus was the Son of God") with an actual (e.g. "Yet there are plenty of people who dispute that").

While I disagree with that criticism, okay fine, then "There could very well be people who would dispute that, and their existence and persistence creates no logical problems that renders their existence impossible."

If the Universe is made with inherent truths, it is impossible to reject them consistently and indefinitely; they can only be rejected out of ignorance or temporarily.

I agree. However what is to stop people from being wrong due to ignorance (of the inherent truth)? What is to stop them especially in the case where there is no objectively conclusive evidence for that truth? It's easy to imagine a universe with an objective truth that cannot be objectively ascertained. Let's say I am thinking of a number between 1 and 10. An instant after I inform you of this (but not the number itself), I accidentally, brutally, cut my head off while shaving. You might take a guess at what number I selected and if you feel you knew me well might even form a belief as to what number it was, but you are ignorant (through no fault of your own) of the true answer and have no obvious way to conclusively determine my selection.

In the face of that, you might hold you belief forever, whether it is erroneous or not.

If I were to ask you "Do you have free will?" you similarly might hold a belief about the answer, but even assuming there is an objectively correct answer, there is no known way of answering that question conclusively at present. If your belief happens to be incorrect, then surely irt is heldout of ignorance of the objective truth, but you could easily remain ignorant of that truth throughout your entire life (and possibly after...or before), along with the whole of humanity.

In the same way, if God secretly established that tapioca is the best favor of pudding, that could be said to make it objectively so. But the mind of God is, at present either inaccessible to mere mortals or at least no one claiming to have access is obviously correct in that assertion. So all claims to the mind of God on the Great Theological Pudding Question are subject to a dispute that seems like based on past experience to continue indefinitely. In that world, where God has made a thing so, but we have no obvious way on confirming or denying that, chocolate lovers might be forgiven for ignorantly asserting that chocolate is the beat pudding flavor. In any event, even if there can be no forgiveness, at least it seems as those people holding such a position could *exist* and if they did exist would likely hold the specific position based on subjective tastes.

As noted earlier, objective truths cannot be demonstrated to begin with, so this whole concern over convincing and becoming convinced is artificial.

If objective truths cannot be demonstrated in some fashion then the beliefs of people in the world would be indistinguishable from a world that had no objective truths. That was essentially the point I was making above when I launched into the fanciful pudding hypothetical, so I don't dispute that. Without the demonstration, people would be free to provide their own (often wrong) answers and, generally speaking, often it would be impossible to demonstrate that any given belief they hold in incorrect. Sometimes you could show that a given belief was incorrect without proving the correctness of the one objective truth, but quite often, especially when arguing issues of morality, it seems unlike that one could do that every time.

 

[wynn]

While I disagree with that criticism, okay fine, then "There could very well be people who would dispute that, and their existence and persistence creates no logical problems that renders their existence impossible."

No, still not a valid hypothetical, what you wrote above is essentially the same as the previous examples.

In a world where Jesus truly was the Son of God, we don't know whether there really could be people who dispute that; perhaps in such a world, it would be impossible for anyone to dispute Jesus.

We know that some people indeed dispute that Jesus is the Son of God. But we don't know whether this world is one in which Jesus is the Son of God.

I agree. However what is to stop people from being wrong due to ignorance (of the inherent truth)?

If the truth is inherent, it will become apparent.

What is to stop them especially in the case where there is no objectively conclusive evidence for that truth? It's easy to imagine a universe with an objective truth that cannot be objectively ascertained.

Not at all, unless you are working with a very subjective understanding of "objective."

In the same way, if God secretly established that tapioca is the best favor of pudding, that could be said to make it objectively so. But the mind of God is, at present either inaccessible to mere mortals or at least no one claiming to have access is obviously correct in that assertion. So all claims to the mind of God on the Great Theological Pudding Question are subject to a dispute that seems like based on past experience to continue indefinitely. In that world, where God has made a thing so, but we have no obvious way on confirming or denying that, chocolate lovers might be forgiven for ignorantly asserting that chocolate is the beat pudding flavor. In any event, even if there can be no forgiveness, at least it seems as those people holding such a position could *exist* and if they did exist would likely hold the specific position based on subjective tastes.

Such people could not exist.

One example of which we are reasonably sure to be an inherent fact of this world is that all human bodies require oxygen in order to function. Our bodies are made in such a manner that without oxygen, they cannot function. We humans have no choice about this. Deprive a body of all oxygen, and it doesn't function.

If a particular flavor of pudding would truly be inherently the right one, then, like in the oxygen example, it would be impossible to like any other flavor.

The dispute has always been about which specifics are inherent, and which ones aren't.

 

[Telemachus Rex]

The idea that knowledge of objective moral truth cannot be arrived at by logic alone is not evidence against it, but rather human beings are required to be honest about their personal experiences which is ironically what one would expect given the existence and nature of objective moral truth; that is to say, they have to admit and be true to them selves about the fact that right and wrong really exists before their dignity as personal creatures can be fully fullfiled according to a standard of objective moral truth.

But how do you distinguish between what is objective moral truth and what is strongly held cultural prescription? I have a strong aversion to slavery, cannibalism and incest to take a few examples, and if I were ignorant of the world and history I might very well assert that the immorality of slavery, cannibalism and incest are "self-evident" and I might believe that all men who are honest with themselves would agree (of they do not were perverse or mentally ill). While I still find it hard to comprehend the moral systems in which those things are accepted (even encouraged at times), I know they exist and are not the product of diseased minds.

OTOH, I can easily imagine circumstances where intentionally killing someone is perfectly fine, so the most I can say is that a prohibition on killing humans is a rule of thumb with so many situational exceptions (many of which are hotly disputed by others) that I don't think "Thou shalt not kill" is a self-evident statement of the moral principle. "Thou shalt not murder" is closer to the mark, but it too is riddled with various exceptions that many accept to varying degrees.

Then I must consider, I am a flawed being. If so many reasonable people from around the world and across history disagree with me on a great many moral questions, and even assuming there is an objective morality (that we mere humans obviously cannot easily ascertain), then the odds that my moral system is 100% correct in all respects and all other systems incorrect where ever the differ from mine, is virtually non-existent.

I will admit that I find it hard to construct a morally ambiguous scenario regarding child rape, but it's not entirely inconceivable. I'm reminded of a case in which a woman bit off a man's penis (while he was conscious). Under most circumstances, I think we'd agree that painfully mutilating a conscious human being is an evil act. Seems hard to ever justify such a thing, except in the case I am thinking of a robber put a gun to her head and told her he'd kill her if she didn't.

So the morality of her act at least, is dependent on the surrounding circumstance (at least to me, as I am no deontologist).

Or think of Rome. In Roman society they had the concept of the "pater familias" (typically the family patriarch) who had the authority to exile, kill or sell into slavery any member of his household for any reason (or no reason at all). Am I to conclude that "most" Romans (those that accepted the concept) were mentally ill? Perhaps it's just that they were all simply wicked and fighting against what they knew to be true (deep down)?

Curious and a happy "coincidence" that (measured by modern western ethical norms), this is the first time in all of human history when humanity has started to embrace morality in a big way. Even the Bible preaches the immoral message that slavery is acceptable and that slaves should submit to their masters as they do to the Lord. In the Old Testament God seems to clearly order the murders of non-combatant women and children (which suggests that in the Judeo-Christian tradition of the ancient middle east, those murders must not have been thought to be immoral). At one point 42 young boys (or young men, depending on the translation) sass God's prophet Elisha, for being bald, so Elisha curses them an God sends two she-bears to rip them apart, killing all of them. The just punishment for calling someone important "baldy" being death, apparently.

I think it's self-evident that, if that story were literally true (which I do not personally believe it to be) that God acted immorally. But I have to admit that I am judging the story by modern standards, and that at the time the authors of the story were operating under what no doubt was a very reasonable, but very different, moral framework.

So how can I take the position that anything I find to be "self-evident" (by which I think we mean "we feel really strongly that this is correct") is therefore, in fact, correct? I'm sure the writers a 2 Kings would feel it was "self-evident" that should be stoned to death for suggesting that God was acting immorally when He killed those 42 kids (or commanded the deaths on women and children).

 

[Telemachus Rex]

No, still not a valid hypothetical, what you wrote above is essentially the same as the previous examples.

It is valid hypothetical, you're just avoided the question. As proof, you managed to address it below.

In a world where Jesus truly was the Son of God, we don't know whether there really could be people who dispute that; perhaps in such a world, it would be impossible for anyone to dispute Jesus.

Yes, perhaps it would be impossible to deny it, and perhaps it wouldn't. The point I was addressing that you asserted that it would be impossible to deny an objective fact, but while you asserted that, you haven't even come close to justifying that assertion.

We know that some people indeed dispute that Jesus is the Son of God. But we don't know whether this world is one in which Jesus is the Son of God.

Exactly so. It might be an objective fact that Jesus is the Son of God, or it might be that he was not. *If* that were an objective truth, it is nonetheless clear that people can still find a basis satisfying to them (on a subjective basis) on which to dispute it. This was the very hypothetical that confused you the first time.

But you had said that if God made a certain thing an objective fact (originally the tapioca hypothetical), that it would not be possibly for anyone to believe anything to the contrary. You later qualified that by saying that if they did, their belief would be the result of ignorance or it would be temporary. (In fact, I think such a belief would always be the result of ignorance, even if it were temporary.)

If the truth is inherent, it will become apparent.

Over what time period? And what is your evidence for that assertion?

Such people could not exist.[/quote

Wait. Of course they could.

(1) Assume that Jesus is NOT the Son of God. Suppose that were an objective fact. Some people say He is (and they are wrong). Some say He is not (and they are right).

(2) Assume that Jesus IS the Son of God. Suppose that were an objective fact. Some people say He is (and they are right). Some say He is not (and they are wrong).

We are either living in universe (1) or universe (2). That it not an assumption, it is a logical necessity. In both universes there is an objective fact, and that objective fact is in dispute because the reality of that objective fact is not readily provable to people at large.

So, not only can such people exist, it is clear that they do in fact exist (unless everyone is in fact only a simulated person, see below).

One example of which we are reasonably sure to be an inherent fact of this world is that all human bodies require oxygen in order to function. Our bodies are made in such a manner that without oxygen, they cannot function. We humans have no choice about this. Deprive a body of all oxygen, and it doesn't function.

If a particular flavor of pudding would truly be inherently the right one, then, like in the oxygen example, it would be impossible to like any other flavor.

The dispute has always been about which specifics are inherent, and which ones aren't.

I'd suggest that's apples and oranges. I agree that SOME facts can be objectively and conclusively demonstrated. That the body needs oxygen is one potential fact in that category (although, philosophically speaking, we could be living a simulation or a dream (i.e the "Dream Argument"), in which case there is no "real" oxygen at all, just simulated oxygen, and the programmer manning the controls could conceivably reprogram the simulation so that we no longer need even the simulated oxygen). A better example of a fact in that category is that 1+1=2.

There are other statements, however, that are potentially true, but the truth or falsity of a given answer is also potentially unknowable. Suppose at the time of his death Shakespeare he was 167.34 cm tall. If he were, then his height at the moment of his death would be an inherent fact (quantum mechanics and the Dream Argument aside). BUT...we don't know it, and while it is possible that some centuries old letter from his wife or other family will turn up stating it, that is I think a very remote possibility. More likely, we will never know, the important point being that it is possible that we will never know.

Unless I accept your position that inherent truths ultimately become apparent (which I do not see the basis for), that would be a fact that is rendered potentially unknowable.

 

[wynn]

The point I was addressing that you asserted that it would be impossible to deny an objective fact, but while you asserted that, you haven't even come close to justifying that assertion.

It is a truism.
Truisms require no further justifcation.

*If* that were an objective truth, it is nonetheless clear that people can still find a basis satisfying to them (on a subjective basis) on which to dispute it.

If it is indeed objective, how could they possibly dispute it?

Over what time period? And what is your evidence for that assertion?

We're operating with truisms.

Such people could not exist.

Wait. Of course they could.

Then that which is presumed objective or inherent, is not objective or inherent.

(1) Assume that Jesus is NOT the Son of God. Suppose that were an objective fact. Some people say He is (and they are wrong). Some say He is not (and they are right).

(2) Assume that Jesus IS the Son of God. Suppose that were an objective fact. Some people say He is (and they are right). Some say He is not (and they are wrong).

We cannot suppose that; we do not know how those situations would work out.

I'd suggest that's apples and oranges. I agree that SOME facts can be objectively and conclusively demonstrated. That the body needs oxygen is one potential fact in that category (although, philosophically speaking, we could be living a simulation or a dream (i.e the "Dream Argument"), in which case there is no "real" oxygen at all, just simulated oxygen, and the programmer manning the controls could conceivably reprogram the simulation so that we no longer need even the simulated oxygen). A better example of a fact in that category is that 1+1=2.

This is just the argument from infinite regress; doesn't demonstrate anything useful.

Unless I accept your position that inherent truths ultimately become apparent (which I do not see the basis for)

They are inherent; of course they must become apparent at some point.

 

[Rav]

The idea that knowledge of objective moral truth cannot be arrived at by logic alone is not evidence against it, but rather human beings are required to be honest about their personal experiences which is ironically what one would expect given the existence and nature of objective moral truth; that is to say, they have to admit and be true to them selves about the fact that right and wrong really exists before their dignity as personal creatures can be fully fullfiled according to a standard of objective moral truth.

Morality can be explained as the result of the natural selection of traits that were beneficial to our survival as a species, which would necessarily include an aversion to behaviours that were detrimental to our survival as a species. Basic morality is obvious in this context, and more sophisticated "codes of conduct" are situational.

 

[Telemachus Rex]

Wynn:

I had hoped you were making a meaningful point that I was missing, but it now seems you either don't understand the discussion in the slightest, or you are just replying to bait me with nonsensical tripe.

It is a truism.
Truisms require no further justifcation.

It is not a truism, it's not even true unless you are defining the words in a way that does not comport with their dictionary definitions. In which case, please restate your point, but in standard English.

If it is indeed objective, how could they possibly dispute it?

Objective does *not* mean "known." Who fired shots at JFK in Dealey Plaza is a question that would have an objective answer. There is a limited, and definite, subset of people who pulled the trigger that day. Yet we don't 100% for certain who pulled the trigger (or triggers), and we have no way to verify the names of all those who did so. That we do not know the answer does not make the question, "Who shot JFK?" a matter of subjective opinion or determination.

You seem to be almost intentionally obtuse on this point.

We're operating with truisms.

Again, you will have to unpack your original statement, as it is not true that the truths always becomes apparent. If you truly think it is, then you are spectacularly wrong.

Even if one believes that, however, the question of how long it takes for the truth to come to light is a valid one since you are asserting (but definitely not convincing me) that it always occurs.

There is a truth behind the questions "Who shot JFK?" and "Does God exist?" We do not know what the true answers are, though (we have opinions certainly, with some evidence in support of our opinions, one hopes, but only a fool would say they had true certainty). There is no reason to believe that the objectively correct answers will necessarily ever become apparent. Merely stating that it is a "truism" that they will is simply absurd without support.

Then that which is presumed objective or inherent, is not objective or inherent.

More rhetorical nonsense. Please demonstrate how the question "Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God?" could possibly have a non-objective answer. Do you believe the existence of a deity could possibly be a subjective question? While I suppose I can imagine a universe in which that is true, I have never encountered a religion that views its own deity's (deities') as subjectively determined. Even if there is such a religion (eminently possible), Christianity is not that religion.

Those other religions would therefore presumably reject the notion of Jesus as a co-equal manifestation of God, and thus the question, "Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God?" would be answered "no." (An answer as to which they could be correct, or they could be incorrect, but certainly not an answer that is true is you subjectively believe it is true.)

We cannot suppose that; we do not know how those situations would work out.

You are unfamiliar with logic, apparently. Unless Jesus exists in a superposition of states where he is simultaneously both "God" and "not God" at the same time, it is necessarily that either he is *or* he isn't. It would be a remarkable assertion of course, to indicate that such questions are subject to a superposition, so (this being a science board) I would ask for what extraordinary proof you have that such a thing exists with respect to questions of that sort. (Stating that is is a truism is not extraordinary evidence, it's just a dodge.)

This is just the argument from infinite regress; doesn't demonstrate anything useful.

You would say that, since your argument is nonsensical, and making silly and illogical comments like this is all you can do to feebly "defend" your assertions. I think it's been demonstrated that your whole line of argument doesn't convey anything useful.

They are inherent; of course they must become apparent at some point.

So you say, but words are cheap. If you could defend that bald assertion, I think you would have by now.

I'm probably not going to respond to your follow up (unless you do add something that again causes the foolish optimist in me to feel like you make have a kernel of a valid point...in which case, like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, I may try again), but let me just say—as I fear you may be the sort of person who doesn't understand this—that you are the last to post doesn't suggest in any way that you got the better of the debate.

 

[wynn]

Wynn:

I had hoped you were making a meaningful point that I was missing, but it now seems you either don't understand the discussion in the slightest, or you are just replying to bait me with nonsensical tripe.



It is not a truism, it's not even true unless you are defining the words in a way that does not comport with their dictionary definitions. In which case, please restate your point, but in standard English.



Objective does *not* mean "known." Who fired shots at JFK in Dealey Plaza is a question that would have an objective answer. There is a limited, and definite, subset of people who pulled the trigger that day. Yet we don't 100% for certain who pulled the trigger (or triggers), and we have no way to verify the names of all those who did so. That we do not know the answer does not make the question, "Who shot JFK?" a matter of subjective opinion or determination.

You seem to be almost intentionally obtuse on this point.



Again, you will have to unpack your original statement, as it is not true that the truths always becomes apparent. If you truly think it is, then you are spectacularly wrong.

Even if one believes that, however, the question of how long it takes for the truth to come to light is a valid one since you are asserting (but definitely not convincing me) that it always occurs.

There is a truth behind the questions "Who shot JFK?" and "Does God exist?" We do not know what the true answers are, though (we have opinions certainly, with some evidence in support of our opinions, one hopes, but only a fool would say they had true certainty). There is no reason to believe that the objectively correct answers will necessarily ever become apparent. Merely stating that it is a "truism" that they will is simply absurd without support.



More rhetorical nonsense. Please demonstrate how the question "Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God?" could possibly have a non-objective answer. Do you believe the existence of a deity could possibly be a subjective question? While I suppose I can imagine a universe in which that is true, I have never encountered a religion that views its own deity's (deities') as subjectively determined. Even if there is such a religion (eminently possible), Christianity is not that religion.

Those other religions would therefore presumably reject the notion of Jesus as a co-equal manifestation of God, and thus the question, "Is Jesus the only begotten Son of God?" would be answered "no." (An answer as to which they could be correct, or they could be incorrect, but certainly not an answer that is true is you subjectively believe it is true.)




You are unfamiliar with logic, apparently. Unless Jesus exists in a superposition of states where he is simultaneously both "God" and "not God" at the same time, it is necessarily that either he is *or* he isn't. It would be a remarkable assertion of course, to indicate that such questions are subject to a superposition, so (this being a science board) I would ask for what extraordinary proof you have that such a thing exists with respect to questions of that sort. (Stating that is is a truism is not extraordinary evidence, it's just a dodge.)



You would say that, since your argument is nonsensical, and making silly and illogical comments like this is all you can do to feebly "defend" your assertions. I think it's been demonstrated that your whole line of argument doesn't convey anything useful.



So you say, but words are cheap. If you could defend that bald assertion, I think you would have by now.

I'm probably not going to respond to your follow up (unless you do add something that again causes the foolish optimist in me to feel like you make have a kernel of a valid point...in which case, like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football, I may try again), but let me just say—as I fear you may be the sort of person who doesn't understand this—that you are the last to post doesn't suggest in any way that you got the better of the debate.

I think you nowhere near as open to discussion as you assume yourself to be.

:shrug:

 

[river]

atheists have more moral rights than any religious group has

 

[Psyche]

While morality has no ultimate source in nature beyond that of the confines of the human skull, this does not mean that existence (objective reality) and experience (person-hood) are adversaries in a fixed game. The apparent meaninglessness of objective reality does not have to be the default answer, negating all pretenses of dignified explanatory potential that people have when they tell tall tales about good and evil. This is because the apparent dichotomy between the two is only a convenient illusion. Consider the experience of being at rest. Though objectively it can be understood that all bodies are in a state of constant motion, the experience of being at rest is something the mind must perform if it is to metabolize reality in a manner proper to the survival needs of the organism. One would simply go mad if he did not have the so-called illusion of rest with which to use as the ground of his being. Think of it as a figure/background gestalt sort of thing. Given all this, the sense of the universe at large being indifferent to human affairs is not incompatible with the existence of creative beings interested in teleological principles. Human beings just happen to be the organ with which the universe makes sense of itself.

This thing we call morality is just is a tool, used as the flag with which one plants himself in the psychological reality of human relationships. Our skepticism is understandable. The horrors inflicted on human beings are most often perpetrated in the name of morality as if such a thing was little more than a glorified blank check used to serve the interests of the pathological class. For this reason morality must be understood as the most dangerous tool ever invented by man, though it also has the potential to be the most liberating...

For a given theory of morality to make sense it must demonstrate internal consistency (ie: it cannot violate the law of non-contradiction). A moral rule that cannot be universalized is not a moral rule. It is just a pretense for power to assert itself. Given this understanding one can spot manipulation from miles away. Whenever a universal rule is presented (thou shalt not kill), simultaneously with an special exemption to that moral rule (god kills with impunity) you can be sure that someone or something nefarious is trying to hook it's slimy tentacles into you by disarming your rational defenses.This victimization is certainly the case when it comes to religion, which fails to provide a consistent methodology for understanding the moral landscape because it is all predicated on the argument from authority, which is a logical fallacy. Let me explain...

When it comes to the moral narratives of religion, and like minded hierarchical organizations, at root what is being asked is that a person outsource their understanding of reality to another being. The problem is that it doesn't matter how wise he may be, or even if he is the creator of reality itself. What you are being asked to do is surrender responsibility for your conclusions and behavior in the ultimate sense. You are being asked to embrace servitude to an entity that you readily admit is beyond comprehension. Therefor you are denying yourself your humanity, and being turned into an insignificant little pawn on the chessboard of an authority that is unaccountable by definition.

In light of this understanding, a more sensible and enlightened approach to questions of morality must be taken for humanity to progress past this crucial bottleneck period in our history. Religion has clearly failed. We do not need god to be good.

 

[wynn]

Religion has clearly failed. We do not need god to be good.

Which god, and for what kind of goodness?

 

[Mind Over Matter]

But how do you distinguish between what is objective moral truth and what is strongly held cultural prescription?

No action in the universe can be objectively good unless the action itself exists in reference to an absolute objective standard of Good. A thing is good in relation to something. If its merely good in relation to your "tastes" or cultural myths and opinions, then it is relative and subjective and most probably a purely pragmatic inference rather than something which proceeds from the knowledge of true good. If we want to know what is good, we cannot know by simply saying that people had an agreement about something in history. That people agree in general that murder is wrong, can simply be reflective of the practical fact that people don't want to die, rather than knowledge of some supreme law.

The question then becomes "by what standard is a thing objectively good".

Well we cannot say that its somebodies opinion, because opinions change and are relative to peoples needs and wants. An objective standard of good is like a mathematical truth in the sense that it never changes. It transcends subjective opinion and practical relations between objects. An objective standard of truth is something that is always true. It is an immutable truth. This is what we mean by objective moral truth. Therefore moral law in this context is not something that begins to exist or changes according to the tide of cultural relativism.

The moral quality of a things behavior is defined as good according to an absolute standard. Since the truth of that standard cannot begin to exist, its expression as a truth has to be intrinsic to the nature of an absolute standard of reality, since it, just like the laws that underlie mathematical truth, cannot just pop out of nothing. It has to be an expression of a timeless immutable reality that never changes and never begins to exist.

In other words, good is a "nature", not just an action, and that nature is the very "act of reality" itself in which contingent beings participate. In so far as we participate in that reality, it therefore follows that an action is wrong when a persons behavior is not in conformity in some way shape or form with the intrinsic nature of that which is the "act of reality" (good), hence evil. Good by definition is an expression of love and to love is to share the good of ones being. To not share the good of ones being would be a selfish act. I am evil if i do not respect your nature, because my not respecting it is selfish in so far as it does not fulfill your nature and therefore does not conform to the existential principle we call love.

Back to your question. We can distinguish between a cultural opinion and true objective moral good, by asking what is "good" by definition. Good is that which fulfills your potentiality, your existence, and your particular teleological nature. All these must be fulfilled in so far as they exist in relation to an absolute standard of love. To not fulfill these things would therefore be selfish in so far as the act of reality is love. Thus good is that which fulfills your nature and the nature of every body else in kind. We can know if a thing is good by applying the principle of love to natures and actions.

If i punch you in your face, i am not fulfilling the good of your nature. However context can change the moral quality of an action. For example, if i have no choice but to punch you in-order to stop you from killing somebody; the greater good of saving a persons life overrides my duty to not hurt you. Punching is not a good thing by itself, but in relation to saving somebodies life it is a necessity, and you are only morally responsible in relation to things you can control. For example if you didn't have to punch the person in the face, but did so anyway because it was an opportunity to give an analogous show of power, then this would be wrong even though you did it to save somebodies life. Similarly, God permits evil because he sees a greater good which makes potential suffering necessary. Thus even in objective morality, there a contextual relativism, but it is not absolute. The right action in any context is always that which is the greatest good, or rather that which brings the greatest fulfillment to the entities in question.

 

[Dywyddyr]

No action in the universe can be objectively good unless the action itself exists in reference to an absolute objective standard of Good. A thing is good in relation to something.

Correct.

The moral quality of a things behavior is defined as good according to an absolute standard.

And that "absolute standard" would be...?

cannot just pop out of nothing.

Repeated falsehood.

It has to be an expression of a timeless immutable reality that never changes and never begins to exist.

Supposition.

In other words, good is a "nature", not just an action, and that nature is the very "act of reality" itself in which contingent beings participate. In so far as we participate in that reality, it therefore follows that an action is wrong when a persons behavior is not in conformity in some way shape or form with the intrinsic nature of that which is the "act of reality" (good), hence evil. Good by definition is an expression of love and to love is to share the good of ones being. To not share the good of ones being would be a selfish act. I am evil if i do not respect your nature, because my not respecting it is selfish in so far as it does not fulfill your nature and therefore does not conform to the existential principle we call love.

Yeah, blah blah. What if it my nature to be an absolute bastard?

Back to your question. We can distinguish between a cultural opinion and true objective moral good, by asking what is "good" by definition. Good is that which fulfills your potentiality, your existence, and your particular teleological nature.

Uh, "teleological nature"? Please elucidate.
And the rest is supposition.

All these must be fulfilled in so far as they exist in relation to an absolute standard of love.

Please show that there is an "absolute standard of love".

The right action in any context is always that which is the greatest good, or rather that which brings the greatest fulfillment to the entities in question.

Which is itself subjective.


As usual you're so overtaken with zeal to "prove god exists" that you indulge in sloppy "thinking" and poor "logic".

 

[Arioch]

The concept of objective morality coming from god is internally inconsistent. If morality is objective then not only would it never change but it wouldn't change even if god wanted to. However if morality comes from god then whatever god wants to be moral is moral even if it contradicts his earlier moral statements, and thus morality would be subjective.

No matter how you slice it, objective morality(if it exists) can't come from god. Hence the OP is nothing more than a bunch of meaningless twaddle.

 

[Psyche]

Which god, and for what kind of goodness?

God can be conceived of in any number of ways depending on who you ask. When pressed the really interesting theists seem only to be offering unnecessary redefinitions of what already is (God is Love, God is Everything, God is the Unconscious) or are putting forward propositions that are not even subject to meaningful scrutiny (God is that which transcends human categories of understanding). However, my critique is directed mainly towards the Judeo-christian deity and all of the gods that have been traditionally worshiped throughout history. In fact, I would say that the idea of a moral authority is altogether is an anti-concept. For morality to be properly understood, it cannot simply be reduced to that of obedience to another being, or the internalization of the ideas set down by that being, or accepting the moral truths set up by that being of which he wired into the very fabric of the universe itself, as such an approach is merely tautological. Goodness as such can then be understood as that which is universally preferable to all people in all places. For instance, murdering an innocent person cannot be universally preferable because in the act of committing murder you are preventing that person from murdering you. And we are stuck at the stage of rationalization in place of all encompassing clarity. A moral theory can only be valid if it is arrived at through a process of honest observation and conceptualization. Failing that it is nothing more than an assemblage of local preferences masquerading as some higher truth, and of which at root nobody really understands anyway.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Look at the cruel nature. Look at the indifferent cosmos, glimmering with stars older than all your ancestors of all species on this planet. Plea and rest assured that the weather doesn't honour our morality. Reason with a lion that it should not eat a child and see what it does. Try telling a virus that it is immoral to take over the physical processes of another lifeform for its own good. Tell the cheetahs that they shouldnt wound and let their cubs play with a young gazelle, that they should show some mercy. Is is redemption or evil when hyenas kill and eat the cheetah's cubs? Its neither, its just the way things are.
And then, look at the people around you and be thankful to your ancestors, who made and designed laws and rules to keep humans above this cruel, dangerous and often fatal state of things.

If there is something objective, it surely isnt what we humans have in mind or would want it to be.

 

[wynn]

However, my critique is directed mainly towards the Judeo-christian deity and all of the gods that have been traditionally worshiped throughout history.

I hope you are aware what you are up against then!

In fact, I would say that the idea of a moral authority is altogether is an anti-concept. For morality to be properly understood, it cannot simply be reduced to that of obedience to another being, or the internalization of the ideas set down by that being, or accepting the moral truths set up by that being of which he wired into the very fabric of the universe itself, as such an approach is merely tautological.

I agree that the latter seems tautological. But if, as you say -

A moral theory can only be valid if it is arrived at through a process of honest observation and conceptualization.

then how can such a moral theory be arrived at "through a process of honest observation and conceptualization" - if not precisely because "that being wired into the very fabric of the universe itself /moral truths/"?

Unless moral truths are an inherent part of the Universe, there is nothing to honestly observe and conceptualize, and nothing to build a valid moral theory on.

Goodness as such can then be understood as that which is universally preferable to all people in all places.

This is a common-sense truism. No issue with such truisms, except for how they work out in practice:

For instance, murdering an innocent person cannot be universally preferable

This is abstractly true, of course, but in practice, it may be impossible to show that someone is innocent, or guilty.

That -

because in the act of committing murder you are preventing that person from murdering you.

is a notion typical for Western cultures.

But Eastern cultures tend to believe in karma and reincarnation: so for your example, the general karmic outlook is that if you murder someone, they'll come back to murder you in the next lifetime.