@Skikx On one hand you want to make moral value judgments like "Rape is a bad action" "I don't want my infant to be raped because it would hurt him/her moral value". But yet on the otherside of your mouth, your affirming moral relativism.
You have no transcendent anchor for these value judgments, and hence your lost in a sea of scoial-cultural relativism.
I never claimed to have a transcendent anchor. I didn't say I wouldn't want the moral value of my child to be hurt, I said I wouldn't want my child to be hurt. I only stated what I want people do and not to do, based on what I like, in what kind of world I would prefer to live in.
@Skikix But you are affirming as though rape is evil according to you. But on the otherside of your mouth your affirming moral relativism. You seem to contradict yourself. You don't have a foundation to make that value judgment. Moral realism is the default, and you the moral skeptic need to show why we can't trust our moral perceptions.
Juts to clarify, I define evil as something being objectively wrong. And thus I do not say that rape is evil. I just say I don't like it. And because I don't like it, I don't want it to happen. Shall I give a foundation for my personal preference, for my personal taste? It is the same reason as to why I like chocolate, partially genetics and partially my upbringing.
As for proof, how about the fact, that there are so many cultures with different moral standards. And why do moral values change over time? Why do they vary from individual to individual? If there was an objective morality, we should all know about it. How could it be objective otherwise?
Why would it be the default position? If you are asserting that there is objective morality, proof it.
@Skikix we experience objective moral values and duties through moral experience. Morlaity is empirically proven because we can regonize it. Do you really think that you can't recognize the difference between loving a child vs. Sexually abusing a child for example?
I can ( at least theoretically) love a child AND sexually abuse it.
All that is empirically proven, is that we experience something. And that experience is subjective. Just because you feel something is wrong, doesn't mean that it is absolutely and inherently wrong. Some people believe slavery is wrong, others don't. Some people can't stand seeing other people suffer and think it is wrong to let them suffer, other people even find joy in the suffering of others. If we take personal experience as objective proof, then both position would be objectively correct. Since they contradict each other, that claim must be false
Reality is real, that is what makes it reality. What part of it you experience, however, is subjective.
Take light for example. To be able to see light, it must be in a very specific wavelength. But there is light with much different wavelengths. Some of it we are able to see due to our technology. Our five senses are the best way we have to assess reality, but they are not perfect and more importantly, they are not objective. The way you see green is probably much different from the way I see green. And what green objectively is, is beyond our ability to see.
Add to that things like hallucinations, dreams, voices in your head, etc..
In short, what you experience is subjective to you and not necessarily objectively true.
Further, your five senses don't tell you anything about right or wrong. They don't make that judgement.
I said exactly the opposite. Reality is real, by definition. That, what is real, is reality. Whatever that may be. In other words, if it exists, it is real. It is part of reality. But not everything that exists can necessarily be experienced by us. On the other hand, not everything that we experience is necessarily real. And that of reality, that we experience, we experience in a subjective way. There are trillions of planets in the universe. Most of them have never been seen, nor otherwise experienced by us. We can only say that they exist, because of mathematics and probability.
If we now discover one of these planets, it doesn't poof into existence, the moment we spot it, it just has been existing without being experienced by us.
@Skikx Your argument that "well just because different cultures have different morals" Is not justification or warrant for thinking that morality is relative. Blind people can't see the physical world. Does that mean the physical world doesn't exist? Of course not that's absurd. We encounter morals just like we encounter physical objects through our five senes. So what if our senses are not perfect. That doesn't justify that morality is therefore relative and not objective.
@janetsanders733 I'm not willing to get into this with you again, but I have just one thing to say, which apparently you never picked up from our last discussion. Our senses do not impact our ability to determine what is right and wrong. Our ability to reason allows us to determine what is right and wrong.
"...Like we encounter physical objects trough our five senses." That is were you analogy with a blind person fails.
They still experience the world with their other four senses. Color would have been a better analogy.
Following your argument, you can --at best-- say that there is some kind of morality out there. But since our experience trough our senses is subject, then so would be our perception of said morality. Just like a blind person still experiences the physical world, but he doesn't see it. So even if there was, we could only assess it on a subjective basis.
But you still need to prove that there even is this kind of objective morality. And how exactly do we encounter it? Through our senses? How does seeing, hearing, smelling, tasting or touching something tell you anything about it's moral value?
@Skikx Experience is not subjective for we all see or sense the same thing. I said encounter it thorugh expierence. We find ourselves in certain situations that certain actions like raping a child is morally wrong, despite the rapist who carried it out. The rapist may think it's right, but that doesn't mean the action itself is right. The action itself exists indepndently.
Peter Cave a skeptic gives the following example:
"Whatever sceptical arguments may be brought against our belief that killing the innocent is morally wrong, we are more certain that the killing is morally wrong than that the argument is sound. . . . Torturing an innocent child for the sheer fun of it is morally wrong. Full stop."
You need to proivde some sort of defeater that shows why we can't trus our moral perceptions, but so far you haven't.
@Dvande28 I said that reason alone does not determine wrong or right. You need your senses and the ability to reason. Or in other words you need Science and Logic. You can't have one without the other.
You can't trust your moral perception to show you objective truth, because your moral perception is subjective to you.
If moral perceptions would show objective truth, then rape is objectively okay, because the rapist perceives it as okay.
And at the same time rape is objectively wrong, because you perceive it as wrong.
Your objective morality contradicts itself.
@Skikx Objective means independt of something. It doesn't matter what you and I think about rape. Rape would be still wrong if we both thought it was right. My moral perceptions are the same thing like my five senses. Everyone has moral perceptions and five senses. Thus giving them the ability to know right and wrong. So again, you haven't really shown how we can't trust our moral perceptions.
If we go by your logic, then we could say the same thing about the truth. There is no objective truth because it's relative to you.
Your logic is self-defeating and has no basis in reality. Moral relativsim is largely rejected by philosophers because of how absurd it is.
And you still haven't provided anything to prove that rape is objectively wrong.
First you say, we can trust our moral perception to tell us what is right and wrong. I provide with an example why you can't and you say it doesn't matter how we think about it. In the next sentence, you say again that we can trust our perception. Please make up your mind. If we can trust our moral perception to assess objective morality, so can the rapist. And the rapists perceives rape as a-okay. Therefore, objective morality would be contradicting itself.
If we can not trust our perception, how can you claim that there even is such a thing as objective morality. Either objective morality contradicts itself, or it is, at best,intangible.
@Skikx Then by your definition nothing reality is true or false. So your own statement is not objective because I could think something is true, while you could htink it's false. Your own logic self-defeats. Just because someone is hallucinating doesn't mean that we can't trust our moral perceptions. That's not a defeater. You need to show what makes our moral perceptions un-reliable or not accurate.
In case you haven't noticed, you already think something is true, while I think it is false. Otherwise we wouldn't have this discussion. Anyway, somebody having different morals standards than you is not a hallucination. I ask you again, how do you know which moral standards reflect objective morality and which don't?
If you can't answer that, my argument still stands. People have subjective and different moral standards, therefore these standards can not be used to assess any objective morality.
@Venusara, I believe that there is an objective reality. However, our ability to perceive this reality is limited. The only things that I am certain of is that I exist and that there is an objective truth. Further, I believe in things that are scientifically verifiable.
@Skikx And I'll answer for the 100th time through Moral experience, we come to know things are good and evil. Just like we come to know the earth is round through our five senses. The argument for moral relativism from moral diversity is not especially convincing as it stands. If the mere fact that people or groups disagree over some idea were enough to show that that idea has no objective truth value, there would be no objective truth about the age of the universe or the causes of autism or whether we exist or not.
You need to show how we can't trust our perceptions and you haven't. I have. If you want to debate me on this issue someday we can, but I'm just letting you know that your position is self-defeating and is rejected by modern day philosphy because of that.
The difference about these things is that they are scientifically verifiable. We accept it as truth, that the earth is round, because the vast majority of people (if not all, depending on how you see it) experiences it and it is the only explanation, that fits to all the other things that we, collectively, observe, without asserting anything that yet has to be proven or may be impossible to prove.
And you haven't proven in any way, why we can trust our moral perceptions. Two people witness the same event, one perceives it as wrong and the other perceives it right. How can you tell which of them is right and why can one trust his perception and the other can't?
It is not the same as with our five senses. Our senses just make observations. But morality is judging these observations.
@Skikx Even if we grant this distinction that these things are known through scientific observation, however, it is still doubtful that moral disagreement is a good reason for accepting moral relativism. After all, there is deep and apparently irresolvable disagreements in philosophy as well as morality. For instance, some philosophers think mental states such as pain or desire are just physical states; others deny this, and yet both camps are familiar with the evidence and reasons taken to support the opposing point of view. Should we say, then, that there is no objective truth about how mental states are related to the physical world? That seems deeply implausible. For that matter, many philosophers deny the moral relativist’s claim that moral truth is relative to what a given society believes.
Are you saying, they are abandoning their position, just so they can come to a consensus with the opposing side? If so, that doesn't have anything to do with finding the truth. Also, I never said that there is no objective truth ABOUT morality.
I just believe that the objective truth about morality is that there is no objective morality. You say there is an objective morality. This morality then had to been some kind of force that is present everywhere in the universe. A force that only affects the morality of sapient beings and is otherwise intangible. But even though this force is omnipresent, it is still possible for different people to have different morals and thus to be either unaffected or affected differently by this force. Even further, you say that the belief in this force is the default position, what i highly doubt, since we aren't born with moral values. The only proof you have for this force is moral experience and moral perception, which vary from individual to individual and only occur once you've got at least some basic morals standards.
It is not only much more implausible to believe in the existence of such force, than to believe in subjective morality, which is a much better explanation for the variations in moral standards. But this force is also of questionable relevance, since there is no telling if and how it actually affects an individuals moral values and has absolutely no effect beyond that.
@Skikxf No, they are abandoning moral relativism because it is false and not true. "Also, I never said that there is no objective truth ABOUT morality. I just believe that the objective truth about morality is that there is no objective morality." That's a self contradiction. Moral realism is true. Relativists believe their relativism on the basis of an argument that depends on the principle that if there is a certain kind of disagreement over some topic T, there is no objective truth about T. If that principle is true, the fact that there is such disagreement about your relativist conclusion implies that that conclusion is itself not objectively true, but only relatively so. So if this argument is good, then by your own standards you should not believe its conclusion is objectively true; or if you are entitled to believe its conclusion, it follows that the argument is not good.
First, a statement is true only if it represents things as they really are. The statement that I’m wearing blue socks is true only if I really am wearing socks, and they really are blue. The same general principle surely holds for moral statements. Suppose I say that suicide is immoral, yet that in objective reality there is no such thing as moral wrongness. That is, suppose that nothing that anyone does really is morally wrong, although some actions seem wrong to us. Then my assertion of immorality is simply false, for it attributes to certain acts a property that nothing has. It is like an assertion that my socks were made by Santa’s niece. Nothing has the property of being made by Santa’s neice, and any statement that represents my socks as having it is therefore false.
" "Also, I never said that there is no objective truth ABOUT morality. I just believe that the objective truth about morality is that there is no objective morality." That's a self contradiction." It isn't. If A doesn't exist, then the truth about A is, that it doesn't exist. And again, I do not say that objective morality doesn't exist, simply because people have different moral standards. But the fact is, people have different standards. That is the observation we make, to that you do agree, don't you? Now we need an explanation for that observation. Saying that morality is subjective and dependent on upbringing is the best explanation for that. It answers all related questions, without assuming anything unprovable, like an intangible force that injects us with moral values. "Suppose I say that suicide is immoral, yet that in objective reality there is no such thing as moral wrongness. That is, suppose that nothing that anyone does really is morally wrong, although some actions seem wrong to us. Then my assertion of immorality is simply false, for it attributes to certain acts a property that nothing has." And that is how it actually is. You are just asserting that there is this kind of force in the universe that gives us our morals. But as I stated in my previous post, if this force was to exist, it would be irrelevant to us, because we actually do have different moral standards. This force either has no influence, or its influence varies from one individual to another. Since this force is otherwise intangible, it is practically nonexistent. The only area that it supposedly affects, it actually doesn't affect, or, at best, it affects it in an immeasurable way. Alternatively you could say, that it is affected by us, as much as we affect it. And thus it is constantly changing, whenever we interact with it. But then it would be impossible to tell what is objectively correct and what not, because we couldn't tell in which state this force is. Either way, you're force of objective morality and its effects are immeasurable. And something which's effects can not be measured, doesn't have any effect at all.
I admit that I am presupposing an objectivist conception of truth, but what’s the alternative? Do we have any concept of truth that does not involve that kind of relation? To be sure, people sometimes say that a statement is true for one person but not another – meaning that the statement seemstrue to the first person but does not seem true to the second. But just as seeming gold is not a kind of gold, seeming truth is not a kind of truth. What is meant by this way of speaking (if anything), is simply belief. To say that it is true for some children that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole, if that means merely that to some children it seems true that he does, is really just a way of saying that they believe it. But believing doesn’t make it so. Similarly, if moral relativism is just the claim that what seems true of morality to some people (what they believe about morality) seems false to others, this is true but philosophically trivial, and consistent with objectivism about moral truth. It is also worth noting that, interpreted in this trivial way, moral relativism could not be supported by the argument from disagreement. The gist of that argument was that moral relativism is a good explanation of the moral disagreements we observe. Yet the claim that some moral statements seem true to some people and false to others merely restates the fact of moral disagreement that is supposedly explained by relativism, it cannot explain that fact. (Perhaps some things are self-explanatory, but not moral disagreement!)
My point is, if you want to affirm moral relativism, then you might as well affirm post-modernism because post-modernists do the same thing except with truth. They say that truth is relative to the individual because different people have different truths, and there is no such thing as absolute truth, excpet that statement is an absolute truth statement(Self-Defeating).
Just because there is an objective truth about morality, doesn't mean, that there is an objective morality. The fact that we have different moral standards, contradicts the idea of an omnipresent moral imposing force.
If there would be no absolute truth, the absolute truth would be that there is no absolute truth, which is self- contradictory. Therefore there is an absolute truth, since it is the only logical possibility. If there is no objective morality, then morality is subjective. There is no contradiction.
Morality can not be subjective the same way as the earth being round can't being subjective through Moral experience. If you can't agree on that, then I'm afraid wree at an Impass. Just because different cultures have different views, it does not logically follow that there is no objective moral values and duties.
Well I can't. We all experience the world as round, that is why wee say it is objectively round. If morality was objective, we would experience it as such. But we do not. Therefore it either isn't objective, or it is objectively irrelevant.
Take a baseball as an example. If you give it to the people and some of them experience it as a dice, some as flat and some don't experience it at all, how could you then justify to claim that the ball is objectively round?
Through your senses. THe same thing with morality thorugh your senses and your moral conscience, which everyone has. According to you, A Murder, Rapist, Pedophile, Child Abuser, etc. Is not really bad or evil.
And now were back at were we started... Your senses are not objective. Your moral conscience isn't objective. Even if there is some kind of objective morality out there, we can not assess it in the same way we can assess the physical world.
Think about temperature. When you've just taken a hot bath and then go into your living room, the room temperature feels relatively cold. If you've been out in the cold, the room temperature feels relatively warm. Some people might start freezing at 20°C/ 64°F, others at 18°C/ 60°F. It is the same temperature in both cases. And you experience it trough your senses. But it feels different, depending on the individual. Temperature we can measure objectively with the use of thermometers. But we can't measure morality in such a way.
Well, I never experienced, but from what I know, being raped, murdered or abused is very unpleasant. And I don't want unpleasant things to happen. Why don't I want unpleasant things to happen? Because I believe, it would be better for me and for everybody, if they did not happen. Why do I believe that? Because I was raised in such a way.
"Why don't I want unpleasant things to happen?""Because I believe, it would be better for me and for everybody, if they did not happen. Why do I believe that? Because I was raised in such a way."
But you see when you say things like that, your acting inconsistent with your position of Moral relativism. If you want to be consistent with your position of relativism. These things shouldn't "bother" you or "comfort". You should remain neutral and silent on this issue.
That is absolutely untrue. If I were saying we are unable to have any moral values, I would have to stay neutral and silent.
But I am saying that my moral values were shaped by my upbringing, and thus are unique to me.
A simple analogy: You are saying that taste is objective. Therefore bananas taste objectively good. Further, you are asserting that I have to have absolutely no taste at all and that everything must taste the same to me, that it must taste neutral, because I do not believe in objective taste. I say, that taste is subjective, and that is why some people just love bananas, some hate them and some eat them every now and then, but don't find them that delicious.
But your acting inconsistent with moral relativism. The definition of moral relativism is this: the notion that there are no moral truths, and thus “morals” are subjective preferences relative to individuals or societies.
If Moral relativism is true, then the Murder, Rapist, Child Abuser is not Moral/Immoral, and you would have to say "I don't know if what they did was right or wrong. "
The Problem is that you want to condemn their actions as wrong, but your not wiling to go the extra-mile and say it's absolutely wrong. You are thereby acting inconsistent with your position. If you want to remain consistent, then you shouldn't have an opinion on what they did as moral/immoral. You should be a-moral that is to say neutral.
First off, don't put a label on me and then blame me for being inconsistent with that label. If you think I am acting inconsistent to moral relativism, stop calling me a moral relativist. I am not advocating for any defined school of philosophy, but just my own opinion. Secondly, I am getting tired of repeating myself. I am not saying those actions are inherently wrong. I just say I don't like them. If you hit me in the face, i am going to be upset about it. That doesn't mean that I have to believe that there is some kind of force out there that condemns that action.
Also, subjective morals doesn't mean that you do not know if an action is right or wrong. I means that you do not believe that there even is such a thing as absolutely right and absolutely wrong. Rating something as right or wrong is always dependent on perspective. Without a perspective, right and wrong do no longer exist. And then you're action becomes neutral. Objectivity means Independence from any perspective. Therefore right and wrong cease to exist on an objective level. But I as a person, as an individual have a perspective. And from that perspective I can rate the actions I observe.
Well then your not a moral relativist, but a moral realist. The fact is it bothers you when you see rape, murder, child absue, etc. It shouldn't bother you because there are no moral truths. If there are no moral truths, then we wouldn't have a moral conscience. We would be a-moral. You wouldn't be able to recognize something as moral/immoral. In fact that is the position of moral relativism. Nothing is morally right or morally wrong. Everything is a-moral. Either you know something is right or wrong. Or you don't know.
This is the philosophical definition of moral relativism. That is what your affirming. If you don't believe that ther are moral truths, then you are a relativist. If you do believe there are moral truths, then your a realist.
It's just like Atheism and Agnsotcisim. Either you believe God does not exist. Or you don't know. But you can't be both an Atheist and Agnostic. Agnostics withold knowledge, but atheists assert knowledge for the non-existene of God.
We have a moral conscience, because we are taught to have one. If you raise a child to believe rape is bad, it will believe rape is bad. And the act of somebody raping someone will upset it. And your analogy with atheism/ agnosticism is wrong. You either are an atheist or a theist, but you can be an agnostic either way. You either belief in god or you don't. But you can affirm knowledge or the lack thereof either way. But that is a different topic.
No I was saying that some athiests like to call themselves "Agnostic Atheists", but that is a contradiction. For Atheism asserts knowledge "There is No God", while Agnosticism withholds knowledge "We can't know if there is a God or not". You either have knowledge or you don't.
We aren't taught to have a moral conscience? Where do you get an idea like that? That doesn't even make any sense. If we have a moral conscience then that imples a moral standard by which to differentiate between "good and evil" or right and wrong. But your trying to deny that.
Either there are moral truths or there aren't moral truths. Moral relativism or Moral realist. You can't be both. I hope I'm not sounding rude, I just want to be humble:D
@Stalin God made man to be in a relationship with him, but we broke it through our sin. Christ paid the punishemnt for us, so we may have eternal life. Believe in him as your Lord and Savior.
@dvande28 Because if there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver(God). When you imply that something is good or evil, you are saying that person has moral worth. But if there is no God we are not worth anything. Were nothing more than a collection of atoms. But if there is a God, then he has created man in his image and has given him rights, and moral value and worth. We are a reflection of his attributes.
@ Janetsanders733, Atheism, in general, doesn't assert knowledge. Atheism, first and foremost, is simply the lack of belief in any deities. In fact, I consider myself an agnostic atheist. I do claim to know whether there is no god, but neither do I believe that there is one.
Now, let me give you a quick explanation about the origin of morality. Morals are just rules regarding how to interact with others. And such rules, in a primitive way, can be seen in all social animals (you know, like wolves, deer, chimpanzees etc.). Why? Because they couldn't be social animals without such rules. But being social was beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint. Their chances of survival were much bigger in a group, than when they were alone. So they evolved to be responsive to such rules. They same goes for our ancestors. But as time progressed, our ancestors evolved in such a way, that they were getting much more intelligent and became able to think in complex and abstract ways. They used these new abilities and reformed their society. And to sustain this society, they needed, and thus created, new rules. Because they all believed these rules, they raised there children in such a way, that they would believe in these rules as well. These children then raised their children to believe such morals, and so on. Many different cultures arose independent from another and so did their rules. Since every person is raised slightly different and makes different experiences in life, we all have different moral values.
In short, morality is just a name given to a sociological phenomenon, which is founded on our instincts and our evolutionary history.
@Skikx That's the Genetic Fallacy which tries to falsify a belief based upon how it originated. Even if that were true that that doesn't mean belief in objective moral values are false. It would be like me saying to you "Your brought up in America, so your probably a Democrat". That may or may not be true about you, but that doesn't make the belief in Liberal Democracy False. You have to judge a belief based upon facts and evidences.
Atheism is the claim" there is no God". That is a knowledge claim just like "There is a God". If you don't believe that proposition to be true, then your not an atheist. Either you know God does not exist, or you withold knowledge. You can't be both. You really agnostic since you don't know.
Democracy is a good example, because democracy is just an idea, like morality. There is no democracy floating around the universe waiting for us to use it a a dorm of government. The same way there is no morality floating around that we could use. It is an idea. It originated in our minds (or in that of our ancestors) and it is dependent on them. Without minds thinking about morality, without upholding moral values, there is no morality. You talk about judging beliefs on facts and evidence. Evolution is a fact, different moral values are a fact. For an intangible force that dictates our moral standards, however, there is no evidence. The only evidence you have brought forward so far has been refuted several times. I am agnostic, because I do not KNOW if there is a god. I am atheistic, because I do not BELIEVE that there is a god.
Therefore, I am an agnostic atheist, or an atheist agnostic. Both is based upon facts and evidence. I have no evidence that proves the existence of a God, so I don't believe that it exists, and nothing that proves its nonexistence, so I can not claim to know if it exists.
@Skikx I am not arguing against evolution. I am arguing against Atheism. Second, I am simply saying that you can't judge a belief based upon how it originated. If I said"You were brought up to believe that 2+2=4" does that mean that 2+2 is not 4? Of course not. You would have give mathemtical proof. Animals aren't moral creatures we are. It seems like the entirety of your argument is that since Science can't prove, it is therefore false. Science can't prove everything. Science can't prove History, Logic, Mathematical Proofs, Forensics, Other minds other than my own,etc. Does that mean that these things are false and subjective? No. Your agnostic becuase you don't know I understand it plain and simple.
You want to base a belief on fact and evidence, which is good. We know how our brain evolved and to a great deal we know how it works. We know how morality originated. We know how it is affected by your environment, your mental state, your feelings,drugs etc.. We've got all these facts. And they all not only support subjective morality, they directly lead to it. They do not support the belief in an objective morality. They contradict it. You look at the facts and then draw a conclusion. You create a hypothesis that explains all the available evidence, without asserting anything that is not proven. If you can not create a hypothesis without asserting anything, you can not call your hypothesis a fact. Only when you have proof that that, which asserted is actually true. And subjective morality is the best explanation that we've got. Therefore it is only logical to believe it over any other hypothesis. Besides that, you do not understand atheism.
You either are a theist or you are not. You either believe in the existence of any deities , or you do not not. If you answer to the question "Do you believe in the existence of any deities?" is any other than "Yes.", you are not a theist. If you are not a theist, you are an atheist.
@Skikx I agree with you on atheism and theism. I am simply saying that Science only can't prove everything, that's where Philosophy comes in. Science answers the how. Philosophy answers the why. Even Sam Harris whose an atheist agrees that Morality is objective and he's a neuroscientist. The fact is science supports objective moral values and duties, but it alone can't explain them. That's where philosophy comes in and finishes it up.
If you want to deny objective moral values and duties because Science only can't explain them, then you might as well deny History, Philosophy, Mathematics, and Foresnsics because all these are not proven by the inductive method alone. In fact most of these require the deductive method.
Maybe I need to talk with Sam Harris then. Anyway, I am not saying that I deny anything, just because science alone can't explain it. I say that we need to look at the empirical evidence, what science does, and then draw a logical conclusion from that evidence. If the evidence is not enough to get to a clear answer, we have to look at all the possible answers and choose the one that makes the most sense, till we find more evidence. Alternatively, we can say we just don't have any answer at all. But we should not make a theory that ignores the scientific evidence and say it is true and that science simply can't explain everything. That would be illogical. We assess history trough the scientific method. We look at the evidence we find and then draw a conclusion about what happened in that time. Part of that is interpretation, yes, but these interpretations are based on probability and the knowledge we acquired from other evidence. Philosophy is just a way of thinking. There is nothing to deny. You may deny some philosophical ideas, we all do, it would be contradictory to accept all. But Philosophy is not a thing, just a word for thinking about things. Mathematics are abstract logic. Logic is also just an idea, a name given to the way we try to assess the world. The process of how we come to conclusions. And forensics is practically the same as history.
Philosophy is true just like Science, you can't have one without the other. You can't prove history using the inductive method. Science pre-supposes logic, to argue that it proves Logic would be circular reasoning. In Forensics You can't re-run an experiement to find out how the victim died. You have to deduce the evidence and come the most logical inference. All these subjects are just like Morality. You would have to deny them too if your going to deny morality because you can't use the inductive method alone to assess it.
The same thing with morality. You have to rely on empirical evidence we observe actions in reality, and with the ability to reason our moral consciene along with our senses we can come to the best conclusion that objective moral values and duties exist.
That's why I said you need to propose some sort of defeater or justification for thinking why our moral perceptions and senses are false. You tried to use the common arguement of evolution that moral relativists use by saying we came to believe in Objective moral values and duties because of evolution. However, this is the Genetic Fallacy which tries to falsify a belief based upon how it originated. If that were true, then even naturalism is false because it orignated from evolution. But as we can see, none of these arguments are sound and provide evidence that leads us to think our moral perceptions are false. I have given justification for thinking we can trust our moral perceptions.
I told you several times. If you say your morality is objective morality, because of your moral perception, then what is about somebody who has a different moral perception? You can't trust your senses and perception to show you objective truth, because they are unique to you. I know, this does not defeat the claim that there is some kind of objective morality. But it defeats the claim that we can know what objective morality is based on our perception. Person A believes murder to be okay, person B doesn't. Following your argument to trust our moral perception to show us objective morality, both would be right. Which would be self contradictory, therefore, we can not trust our subjective moral perception to show us objective morality.
Here are logical reasons why Moral relativism is false. P= Premise C= Conclusion
P1. Moral relativists claim that there are no absolute moral standards.
P2. The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard.
P3. To propose there are no absolute moral standards using an absolute moral standard is illogical.
C. Therefore, the relativist's claim "All moral standards are relative" is illogical.
P1. Torturing babies just for fun has been considered immoral throughout the world and throughout history.
P2. The existence of a universal and timeless standard implies there is probably an absolute standard.
C. Therefore, an absolute standard of morality probably exists.
You claim my argument is silly and absurd, but refuse to tell me why. Very mature. "The claim "All moral standards are relative" proposes an absolute moral standard." No, claiming there are no moral standards is not a moral standard itself. It is a truth claim. It is a statement about the existence of morality, not about what is good or bad. " Torturing babies just for fun has been considered immoral throughout the world and throughout history. " Proof that this has been the case for all human beings that ever existed. I'd argue, that a person that had fun torturing babies might not have considered this action to be immoral. "The existence of a universal and timeless standard implies there is probably an absolute standard." But you haven't proven this standard yet.
The argument "All morals are relative" is in itself a moral standard. Therefore it refutes itself. Just like the post-modernist who says that "There is no absolute truth" but that in of itself is an absolute truth. Morals apply to all humans, whether or not they think or feel it's right or wrong is irrelevant through moral experience. Prove that all humans observe the world is round. That's basically what your asking me, but with morality.
You can't say what someone did is wrong or right because when you do, your implying there is a standard of moral goodness. The fact that you find rape or murder "unpleasant" proves my point. You were supposed to say I don't know. But instead you affirmed that these actions are not good but bad. This imples a standard of 'right' and 'wrong'. I don't have to prove anything else since moral realism is the default position.
So if I say "I don't know" you're argument is refuted? Really? I just need to find somebody without morals and you give up your whole point? How is that so different than two people having different moral standards. That is simply ridiculous. Anyway, just because you say it is the default position, doesn't mean that you don't have to prove it. You are making the claim that objective morality exists. For that claim you need proof. When you say that you do not know whether morality is objective or subjective, then you don't need proof. Secondly, you obviously are either unwilling or unable to understand the difference between not liking something and saying it is objectively wrong. Lastly, you fail to explain how we are to trust our moral experience to show us what is objectively wrong or right, even though they are different for everybody. I have no further interest to debate this with you.
I already proved this like 100 times. I said through moral experience we can reach a Standard of right and wrong. Just like through our senses, we can reach a standard of true and false. You need to show why we can't trust our moral perceptions and so far you haven't.
You can't consistently hold moral relativism in the reality in which we live because deep down inside you know that some actions are "wrong" while others are"right". You have to say "I don't know" in order to be consistent with your position. Your just like the guy in this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlkn3d6FIzo.
It's self-defeating just like the Post-Modernist who says that "There is no absolute truth" Except the claim "There is no absolute truth" is a truth claim.
In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is, in either absolute or relative terms, omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible if placed i absolute terms. Attempts to show the contrary have traditionally been discussed under the heading of theodicy. A wide range of responses have been given to the problem of evil. These include the explanation that God's act of creation as expressed in the Pentateuch and God's act of judgment are the same act. God's condemnation of evil is believed to be executed and expressed in his created world; a judgment that is unstoppable due to God's all powerful, self-originated will; a constant and eternal judgment that becomes announced and communicated to other people on Judgment Day. In this explanation, God is viewed as good because his judgment of evil is a good judgment. Other explanations include the explanation of evil as the result of free will misused by God's creatures, the view that our suffering is required for personal and spiritual growth, and skepticism concerning the ability of humans to understand God's reasons for permitting the existence of evil. The idea that evil comes from a misuse of free will also might be incompatible with a deity who knows all future events and thereby eliminating our ability to 'do otherwise' in any situation, which in turn would eliminate the capacity for free will.
David Hume said, ""Is he [God] willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then is he impotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then is he malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Whence then is evil?"
@MacGreggor We aren't necessarily talking about the "Grounds" for good and evil. Whether we are arguing whether good and evil exist. Second Epicuris argument is very unsound. It assumes that God doesn't have good reasons for allowing evil and suffering. How do you know that God doesn't have good reasons for evil and suffering.
Second, atheists can't make moral value judgments unless they provide the "grounds" for making that moral value judgment. Otherwise they're acting inconsistent with their worldview.
@Janetsanders733 @Skikx asking proof for "evil exists, therefor God exists" is not denial of morality, same for evolution.
If you make a claim, then it is your duty to provide evidence, so that we can assess it, whether evidence supports the claim or not. @Janetsanders733 please prove existence of evil (examples are not proof), then how does it correlates to and proves existence of God.
PS. I am not denying morality or God, just asking for evidence as any rational person would do.
@tahirimanov Evil exists because we encounter it through our moral perceptions. Do you think that you can't tell the difference between sexually abusing a child vs. Loving a child for example? If you imply a moral law, then you must imply a moral law giver(God). Otherwise, you have no value or rights. On an atheist worldview, were just advanced primates and what Hitler or the pedophile or child abuser did is not realy "evil", but just part of evolution. It would just be survival of the fittiest.
If Moral relativism is true, then there would be no such thing as good or evil. These words wouldn't even exist. The problem is everyone recognizes something as good or evil, and to say otherwise is dishonest. You can't consistently hold moral relativism because everytime you make a moral value judgment like "Helping the poor is good" "Hitler was bad for his actions" "Homosexuals have the right to be married" no matter if you think it or say it out loud, your going against your position. If your a moral relativist, then you should at best say "I don't know".
No, I am not moral relativist. You have the point, but your argument is steal weak. The moral law can be determined through consensus, not necessarily by God. For example, three distinct person with distinct moral values, landed on isolated island (plane crash, or something else). For them to survive, they will make laws and values through consensus. Or if three babies landed on isolated island (by same mean), by the time they grow up, they will make laws and values through consensus, not from revelation, or holy book. What is the role of God in both situation.
Your misunderstanding the argument. I'm not saying that in order for atheists to know that morality is objective, they must believe in God. I am saying that without God or If there is no God, there would be no absolute standard of right and wrong. Objective morality wouldn't exist on an atheist worldview. These actions are just part of evolution.
Your using the old Euthyphro's dilemma here. It's Good because God is the good. God's nature is the unchanging standard by which objective moral values and duties flow from. I'm not sayiing there is some external goodness outside of God, but God himself = Good.
The Divine Command Theory is not arguing for a particular religion. It's simply aruging that there must be a God who exists in order for Objective moral values and duties to exist. It doesn't depend on any revelation of scripture.
@tahirimanov No because scripture is irrelevant to the Divine Command Theory. God by definition is the greatest maximall being possible, and therefore, the highest good. It follows then that he must be the absolute standard of right and wrong.
Asking which God in order to prove the Divine Command Theory is simply irrelevant to the arguement.
If you say all commandments of God is morally good, then it necessitates the question "where we can get it from?" If God revealed nothing or what He revealed was distorted then this theory is irrelevant and God cannot be source of morality.
@tahir imanov No it doesn't. It simply says that because objective moral values and duties exist through reality. In the reality in which we live we encounter moral/immoral actions. Therefore there is a standard of right and wrong. The question is not how do we know these exist. But where do they come from? God or evolution. If God does not exist, then objective mral values and duties wouldn't exist. They do exist, therefore God exists.
The logic is valid and follows through on the premises.
Morality couldn't have come form god because the civilizations that thrived years before Christ entered the plot point of our little movie called life, Plato and Aristotle were already talking about morality. Morality is ambiguous unless you are a Kantian.
@dvande28 No, and I explained it to you but you obviously ignored it. Euthphyro's dilemma is a false dichotomoy that is only argued by Internet atheists like yourself, but not by philosophers anymore. I split the horns of the dilemma by giving a third option which says that God is the Good. God himself is the standard. God=Good. His nature is the Goodness so his commands would reflect his nature, so it's not arbitrary. Moral values and duties are fulfilled if God exists.
On an atheist worldview, objective morality would be "arbitrary" because it serves no purpose. When you imply a moral duty, your implying an obligation. Where does that come from? It doesn't matter on an atheist worldview.
Euthphyro's dilemma is discussed in Philosophy usually in undergrad course like Logic, Ethics, and oh, what is this Morality. And how is it a false dichotomy? You have not one sound argument but meme and parroting your church's assessment or maybe even your concept of morality. At this point Janet you are acting like a silly school girl, and for what? You have been told numerous times if you belief morality exist because god exist then run with it. Stop torturing these poor kids with your false dichotomies. Again I ask, WHY is it so important you be right? Who really cares? What kind of smug satisfaction will you get when someone validates your theory? You already proved on other polls you a hypocrite and don't really have any morals, so, who are trying to impress? Daddy issues? You need to reel it in and stay off this topic, because you get totally irrational about it.
Dvade28 God and good are not seperate. You seem to think that God creates good. God is the good. When I say Good, I am referring to God. When I say God, I am referring to good. God himself is the absolute standard of goodness. It's who he is, in his nature. I think I've made my point. His commands reflect his nature, so there's nothing arbitrary.
Come on you two, don't keep poking the bear? You know what she is going to say. So why keep on challenging her. Come on give her break. She doesn't know any answer but what she already said a million times. She is a nice person, just linear I thinking. Surely you guys understand that.
@Janet that is a good question, I guess it is because you have made some very contributory comments on many issues I found astute and profound. I guess it's because I don't understand why you are pushing so hard for a black and white answer when there is none. I guess the phenomenon of you behavior, from a intelligent analytical observer has become like a desperate irrational person on psychosis and for what, I think? Can you not just accept this is not a yes, no, black white, positive or negative area and be happy with yourself and your beliefs? What is driving you so hard to confront people who are just as convinced the other way as you are and are making valid arguments while doing so. I will not bother you anymore since you find my knowledge subpar to yours. It is all the more a shame, I like your input and like commenting with you.
@janetsanders733 What we experience isn't necessarily all there is and what we think of as right and wrong isn't necessarily what everyone thinks of right and wrong, and if there is a sort of objective morality where people can agree on what's right and wrong that doesn't mean that any gods exist.
Evil and good do not exist. One sided with evil might be doing something for the good of themselves or someone else. And the same for good-- a good person could commit a crime for the sake of good. I find that the lines are blurred and they don't and shouldn't even seem to exist in the first place. There is not a boundary between good and evil. It is a mixture of two colors overlapping and creating more and more. Nonexistent.
@lovishmom - it is actually circular reasoning. How can you objectively prove evil exists? You can give two answers, first is evil exists because I see suffering, deaths and etc. around me, which makes it subjective, because for some people suffering, death and etc. is good thing, and second answer is evil is disobeying God, or not following His commandments and etc. which makes it circular.
@ tahir, let's define "evil" as a noun:
1 a: the fact of suffering, misfortune, and wrongdoing 
It's possible to have bad things happen to you or deem something objectively wrong. For example, don't be mean, don't be greedy, don't be rude, they're all legit and objective morals.
2: something that brings sorrow, distress, or calamity 
Committing genocide can make your victims' families sad, make living people around you worried they could be next, and get you a lot of enemies or cause chaos. The wrongness of genocide isn't subjective. If you think death is good, you probably don't value human life. It's easy to tell when suffering is good and when it isn't. If it's productive (e.G. You're training to be a soldier or a pro football player), it's good. If it isn't productive (someone is beating you up, for example,) then it's not good.
The existence of good and evil is defined by perception. As humans, scrambling to survive another day in our respective niche, it hold no value, but as people, we develop culture to live harmoniously in a way that is beneficial for all. That's how we define good and evil, not by what's best for the survival of the individual, but what's best for the collective of people.
Either good and evil exist as a subjective reality or... God does not exist, nothing we do has real significance, time will move on past humanity and the the fact that we did exist will not matter... Or the fact that we are here, that we are engaging in this debate, that we love each day is actually for a purpose and that purpose is for the greater good.
Good and evil are opposite ends of a concept. The concept being morality. You are basically asking if like and dislike exist. An action or object can be good or evil just as you can like or dislike it. A more relevant question would be, does morality exist.
We all have both inside of us, yes, even Reagan. I believe that nobody is/was 100% evil or 100% good, and I don't personally see divinity associated with either of them. If anything they're two parts of a whole, and divinity is associated with that whole. I believe that the idea that God is purely benevolent is a stupid notion, especially since he supposedly created us in his image, and that we are so easily corrupted by sin.
It is funny how at least 70% of the comments section is basically an argument against janetsanders733. However, my belief is that there isn't really such a thing as objectively 'right' and 'wrong'. It is just what we believe is our definition of right and wrong and what is right and wrong.
Alright, humans create definitions. If there is no god that means that humans just call 'bad things' happening to them in mass evil. Evil is just an explanation of things that most humans see as bad like tornados or super villains.