Objective moral values may exist. A god doesn't.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
"I say that moral values are objective and come from outside of us."
Read William Holding's Lord Of The Flies, you'll love it, I doubt you'll grasp the nuance of Holding's narrative, but I'm sure you'll bludgeon it into reinforcing your beliefs as you do to everything else. What you're describing though is an amoral automaton, a slave to supernatural superhuman controlling power, nothing bout such a person would be moral in any meaningful way.
Ditto what Nyar said.
I know God exists because I exist. God is life .devil is death. God is ways of life that lead two more happy peaceful days of life. the devil is ways that lead to pain and suffering then death .Satan is a sinner. Jesus is a saint .the Devil is evil. God is good. how do you view yourself more as an angel .or a demon .how do you see yourself good or evil .are you your own personal Jesus Christ. Lord ruler commander chief and savior of thy own self for being saved is a personal choice of the individual .you cannot be saved if you don't want to be saved. Are you your own personal enemy .which Satan is said to be each and every individual's Own Worst Enemy. how is that if you are not that individual. Satan is said to be many. and is a way that we see ourselves as sinners
You must not have read the op at all. Dismissed.
Kudos for even trying to read that vapid verbiage, the endless tautologies, execrable spelling & grammar, and the non-stop logical non-sequiturs made my eyeballs ache, It reads like the worst rap song ever.
"I know God exists because I exist. God is life, the Devil is death. God is ways of life that lead to happy peaceful days. The Devil has ways that lead to pain and suffering and then death..Satan is a sinner. Jesus is a saint.The Devil is evil. God is good. How do you view yourself? As an angel .or a demon? How do you see yourself? Good or evil? Are you your own personal Jesus Christ? Lord, ruler, commander, chief and saviour of thy own self? Being saved is a personal choice of the individual You cannot be saved if you don't want to be saved. Are you your own personal enemy? Satan is said to be every individual's own worst enemy. How is that if you are not that individual? Satan is said to be many. and is a way that we see ourselves as sinners."
The last two sentences are nonsensical. But there you go. Took me two minutes to edit into a readable but ridiculous post. No charge AB/Keith/billy.
Keith, just a piece of advice...
1. No trolling
2. No spamming
3. No unrelated topics
@Keith and AG
For the last fucking time....PROVE IT!!!!!
Prove that there is a god and this god dictates morality. You can't. You never will. Morality is subjective and always has been. Each society dictates morality EVEN IF THE SOCIETY IS A SOCIETY OF ONE!
Oh, and BTW QUIT FUCKING PROSELYTIZING!
Oh the correlation between "Keith" and the dark side of AB is just so....coincidental?
Check your blood pressure please really no creator and all that you are surrounded by is creation in this world so perfectly set up please really you exist but nothing created you you're here but nothing birthed you exist but nothing created you everything has meaning and purpose in this world there ain't nothing that's not needed even our names have meaning I looked mine up it's spot-on your belief your belief system is seriously flawed your created you're here but nothing created you okay pal okay I will yield to your Infinite Wisdom why and how are you here now repeat what you said for the last f****** time scientifically prove to me that there is no creator you cannot can you
I hear you, Flamenca, and a universally agreed code of moral conduct that all humans follow and live by MUST be something we aspire to, but that won't make it objective, it will still be a subjective conclusion, reached by consensus. Our laws are reached by consensus, too. They're not objective. That's why we have good laws - and fucking ridiculous, harmful laws. :-)
I also agree that the notion of "wellbeing" is fuzzy, but it's an issue of definition. We need to define it - again by consensus- in real terms. Not just human wellbeing, but everything else's wellbeing, too.
The most common example of objective morality we're given is it's wrong to kill, but then you bump heads with the Trolley Problem and it all falls apart.
I think I know where Sam Harris supporters get caught up. A distinction must be made between the individual and the collective. An individual's moral values may indeed be objective. Based on facts and evidence. And on an individual level most of us are objective, mostly, in that way (referring to freethinkers ). But morality, such that we are talking about (from the argument from morality) is collective. It refers to the relationships between agents within a population and how they interact with others... How morality is as a whole. As soon as you have two or more agents there are two or more objective moral standards. Each one will have a personal preference for different values... Ultimately making the collective morality subjective. That's why there are different views about right and wrong and why it can change over time.
Without this distinction we might talk past each other. It also can be noted that if at first one means objective morality(collective) and then procedes to make the case for an object system of determining morals for the individual they are committing what is known as an equivocation fallacy.
In summary. Objective moral values on the sense that most of us are talking about do not exist.
I've read you all: @ZeffD, @Mykcob4, @Algebe, @Nyar, @Sushi, about your disagreements... especially @Aposteriori, since this thread precisely tried to contrast one of the main ideas in his thread " A brief attack on the moral argument", with which most atheists agree, and I'd say, in general, I also do: In the OP I agree about the subjective and changeable character of morals, but I knew that Sam Harris sets this particular idea of the possibility of creating moral systems based on more humanistic values via scientifical methods, an idea that at first sight, I liked, since it's about time to discharge some stupid morals inherited by religion, yet I was aware of being a difficult point of view to defend.
@Aposteriori, in this: "I think I know where Sam...", hints some interesting ideas, that made me reconsider (though not discharge entirely) Harris' idea...
1. @Aposteriori: You're totally right about the need to be careful when we are referring to individual morals and to collective ones, and I could have committed equivocation fallacy... And yes, @Algebe, if they changed they can't be called "objective", and moral changes, especially individual morals, through life experiences or by application of critical thinking.
2. I said that what it's made through objective means, should be called objective... but then again, these means are a product of subjective choices, so in fact, they are subjective... I hope I'm making sense. I'm trying to concede that I was wrong when I called objective the product of this imagined collection of morals chosen since it has such a strong subjective component. And how you rebutted about the piece of art example was quite good.
Anyways, I find this question fascinating, and I'll probably come back with this issue (reviewed and thought carefully) again in a few weeks.
P.S.I loved @CyberLN and @Algebe's idea of making the Laws of Robotic for humans... What a challenge.
Your concession is accepted. Very good, Flamenca. I enjoy your challenges. You bring the philosophy back to the argument. And you are able to recognize when you agree on the losing side... I commend that quality. That is what separates us from theists. Flamenca, you have come a long way. You will be an unstoppable force in debate. And I'm not just saying this because on this point I am correct, and because i recognize that you are able to understand that when you are wrong or is not a bad thing... It means that from here on out you will be right.
I look forward to future exchanges.
@Aposteriori: I commend that quality. I commend that quality as well, and one must teach by example. Btw that's not the first time at the least that I admit having changed my mind about something...At least for the time being: As I said, it's not over. Thanks for your words anyway.
"..objective moral values already exist, since we have legal systems.."
But some laws are bad, especially where western style democracy is weak or authoritarianism is strong.
@ZeffD: "But some laws are bad"
Every law should have a sunset clause. At the end of say 10 years, every law should automatically become invalid unless the representative assembly of the day votes for its continuance.
Every law should also be known by the name of the politician that proposed it, so they can be held accountable at the ballot box for any problems that arise.
And tell me where did the idea from democracy come from but of course the Judea-Christian teachings and doctrines if you study democracy it derives from these things I just listed. that`s why I state over and over in these post that there are moral objective values that we adhere to if we want to live in a just society, We must practice these moral codes if you want to be successful.
"And tell me where did the idea from democracy come from but of course the Judea-Christian teachings and doctrines if you study democracy it derives from these things I just listed. " @AB
And tell me, where do you get your historical facts??? Not only that the word "democracy" itself is GREEK: δημοκρατία.... so you forget about Athenian democracy -and other tries before that!
Attributing democracy a Judeo-Christian origin can only come from ignorance. No offense intended.
The Judeo-Christian religious doctrine is diametrically opposed to democracy! It's all about totalitarian dictatorship. What world do you live in?
Is that why Judeo-Christians fight for the unborn especially in this month of January As you may be aware the year is 1973 and the supreme court of the land had come down with a decision for Abortion rights. Every year since then anti abortion advocates march on Washington.to voice there displeasure. What would you call that if not democracy in action.As Christians support voting for politicians and in many other offices in the USA this is a perfect example of democracy in action. So I don`t know how you say there is judeo-Christians diametrically opposed to it.
You're talking about how the USA is now. Not Judeo-Christian values. We, secular people, had to drag you kicking and screaming from the dark ages to get you to be just a little more civilized. You only participate in the democracy now because you have no choice. If you had it your way no one would have a say about anything. Your cult leader's word would be the law of the land. Complete with blasphemy laws and female subjugation and no religious freedom or freedom of speech or science. God is the law and fuck what you think... Those are Judeo-Christian values as laid down by the tanakh and the bible. Be jew/Christian or die. I've read it all and I hear the contempt from the mouths of the leaders today. Democracy and anyone who spoke about it would be stoned to death. Go tell your lies to a congregation where they want to hear them.
@AB: "Is that why Judeo-Christians fight for the unborn especially in this month of January"
I don't get what's so special about January, but anyways, Judeo-Christians fight against women's freedom of choice on our own bodies . It's evil, twisted and deeply anti-democratic.
@AB: "So I don`t know how you say there is judeo-Christians diametrically opposed to it."
Well, I do know. Read again the above statement and @AUnum's (freaking amazin') answer.
How can you be for equality and human rights for all but defend a women right to having an abortion. to do with her body what she seems fit. How contradictory of you here. where is that unborn babes rights who is defending the baby. how terrible to even consider such a thing be humanly done to a potential baby and child. I`ll tell you but you may not like to here this women who subject themselves to abortion no matter in what term of pregnancy are murders. pain and simple in my book, I value life and all that goes with it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
@AB "How can you be for equality and human rights for all but defend a women right to having an abortion."
How can be I for equality and human rights and defend a human right? Ahem.
To force a woman to carry on with pregnancy is what's evil. For the woman and for the future human, born in such unfortunate circumstance.
And to discuss abortion, feel free to open your own thread instead of hijacking mine, when you clearly haven't shown any interested in following the OP at any moment, to answer to the proposed questions.
@Nyar re: AB
agnostic believer - ...women who subject themselves to abortion no matter in what term of pregnancy are murders. [plain] and simple...
agnostic believer - ...if that child has birth defects then they should terminate that fetus. why make the child come into this world disadvantaged in one way or another.i think in the long run you help society in this way.
AB's anti women's rights but all for eugenics? There's a shock!
"How can you be for equality and human rights for all but defend a women right to having an abortion. "
Obviously because women are humans, and as you say it is her right, what a truly asinine question.
If a teenager could only survive with a kidney from it's mother and she declined to provide one, would you insist the law strapped her down and removed it against her will? If you would then you have an odd idea of human rights, and if you wouldn't then how can you insist the law forces women to use their bodies against their wishes, in order to preserve the life of a blastocyst or undeveloped foetus that isn't conscious and can feel no pain as it doesn;t have a fully developed central nervous system?
"who is defending the baby"
It's not a baby, and the law attaches rights to the developing foetus. In fact countries where abortions are illegal have far higher rates of terminations, though of course there are many factors at play.
" how terrible to even consider such a thing be humanly done to a potential baby and child."
It's not a potential baby, since an abortion can only be carried out prior to the stage of development where a foetus would be viable without the mothers body.
" I`ll tell you but you may not like to here this women who subject themselves to abortion no matter in what term of pregnancy are murders. pain and simple in my book, "
Well here are some facts you may not like to HEAR (ffs). Murder is a legal term, and the law does not agree with the asinine claim that a developing blastocyst is a fully formed human life, so your hysterical hyperbole is quite simply wrong. It's become quite clear to me that thinking is just not your forte, and you prefer to be an ill informed reactionary, defiantly stamping his foot at the world, and all the terrifying changes that baffle you. Perhaps this is why you find ancient archaic superstitions comforting.
Please explain to me how it is soooooo morally okay for YOU (or anybody else) to judge what any individual does to his/her own body? Seems to me you are trying to play God. Did He delegate some of His "Judgment Responsibilities" to you to help free up some of his schedule? And even IF there is a God sitting up there ticking off good and bad deeds done by individuals, a woman STILL has the right to do whatever she wants with her own body. And if what she does happens to offend God (IF he even exists), then according to YOUR OWN BELIEFS, whatever she does is between her and God, and you have no say in the matter whatsoever. Now, you have every right to think and believe whatever you want. You DO NOT, however, have any rights whatsoever to force others to follow your thoughts and beliefs just because what they think/believe may offend your delicate sensibilities.
Here's an article from February 12, 1879, detailing abortion in New York City. Why do you want to return to that time when women died?