Do objective moral values exist?

boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Fri Jan 12, 2024 10:11 am That is, while you feel – today – there are bases for comparison (Good vs Evil), there is evidence they are Subjective to an Age, not defined by a God, nor by others.
For you to simply claim you know they exist is just wrong.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1140081#p1140081

boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Fri Jan 19, 2024 10:09 am1. It is illegal to rape someone in most countries/cultures, and there are overriding rational reasons not to rape someone (the harm it causes), therefore it’s wrong
2. It ought to be illegal to torture babies, there are overriding rational reasons not to torture babies, therefore it is wrong
3. No, it is illegal to commit genocide, therefore they ought to be brought to justice. Also, there was no rational reason for them to commit genocide, and there are rational reasons to prosecute those who do it.
4. Depends, but that’s a personal decision that has the potential to harm someone, but seems to be a larger symptom of the relationship. I wouldn’t do it myself, but I feel no grand compunction to not do it if my marriage was failing, hadn’t seen my wife in years, etc.
5. Depends. Legally, it is generally wrong to steal from people , however, our legal system seems to allow that if you steal enough money to hire good lawyers, it appears to be legally acceptable. As for all stealing, all the time – I am sure there are good cases. For example, is it okay for someone to steal the key to the room they’ve been locked in by a kidnapper? Oh, right, you don’t want questions and nuance…
6. Legally, it is wrong to murder someone – it’s the definition of murder: “the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.”
7. I have no idea. I wasn’t there and I don’t know the situation.

There are two cases to be addressed. One is those that are against the judicial laws and another against internal values.

For judicial laws, why would they exist universally? If one country considered them to be acceptable, would that be OK?

For internal values, why ought they be considered to be wrong? If another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?

Let me ask you a more critical question:

What is the defining feature of an OMV? It can’t be universal agreement, as we know OMVs are democratically decided. What is ONE OMV, and how do you know it’s an OMV?

I believe in moral realism, which states that morals are independent of humans. Morals exist, even before humans started to exist. So morals are not decided by humans.

As for examples of OMV, that is what I’ve been presenting.

One would assume that if there is an OMV, it would not have universal agreement. For example, not all people think the 10Cs are real, yet, a Christian might try to argue that they are OMVs but the nature of them being expressed by Moses.

I assume you meant OMV would have universal agreement.

As for the Ten Commandments, I actually do not believe it is any laws or commandments (including the Bible) that is our source of objective moral values. Rather, they are built into us as humans. So everyone would have a sense of OMV, even if they’ve never been exposed to things like the Decalogue. What the Decalogue does do is codify some of the objective moral values into a written form.

As for universal agreement, let’s take slavery as an example. It was only recently in human history that slavery has been outlawed. So, prior to that, slavery was universally practiced and accepted. Does that mean slavery was morally right in the past?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1140615#p1140615

boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Sat Jan 20, 2024 1:24 pm

For judicial laws, why would they exist universally? If one country considered them to be acceptable, would that be OK?

OK according to whom? The country, the individuals those laws favor, God, me, you? I’m really not sure we are getting anywhere if you can’t recognize the problem with this line of thinking.

Question is why would such judicial laws be similar for all countries? If one country said it’s acceptable to kill all Jews, why should that be considered wrong?

All morals are subjective until they are proven to be Objective: what distinguishes an OMV?

Why not the opposite? All morals are objective until they are proven to be subjective.

Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures. Subjective morals would be limited to a particular time or culture or society.

What is it about OMVs that you can list?

Another diversionary tactic. We are talking about ethics, not physics.

For internal values, why ought they be considered to be wrong? If another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?

They are wrong to you, to your family, group, clan, State, country, etc.

You didn’t answer my question. Again, if another person held a differing value, why would they be considered to be wrong?

I’d offer that harm is the measure, but I know you disagree with that, which makes me worried for our future if Theists continue to develop our moral values.

More baseless opinions and personal accusations.

But, IMO, there are no OMVs and that we Moral Agents must put in the hard work to navigate the cold, uncaring universe the best we can.

If everything is subjective, then really there is no right and wrong moral behavior. Ultimately, what is considered right for one person can be considered wrong for another. What would be the factor is simply what the majority holds or something with authority dictates.

I believe in moral realism, which states that morals are independent of humans. Morals exist, even before humans started to exist. So morals are not decided by humans.

Cutting in front of the kid is wrong, even if there are no humans? Even if the kid is chatting with the cashier, and you are trying to buy life saving medicine for your child?

Seems it’s absurd to me to consider anything absolutely wrong unless you make it situational.

You were the one that continually brought up arguments for moral realism. What do you think moral realism is?

I assume you meant OMV would have universal agreement.

Even with Universal agreement, that doesn’t mean there are OMVs (it was universally agreed that human sacrifice was considered moral, or infanticide, slavery, rape, etc.

Right, universal agreement by itself does not mean it is objective. But if something is objective, it must have universal agreement.

My point is, one would expect an OMV to be obvious even if people didn’t accept it.

I’m not so sure. If someone doesn’t accept it, how could it then be obvious? If it was obvious, shouldn’t they accept it?

Like it wasn’t legal for a white and black person to marry: Maybe that’s exactly what God wanted, but people disagreed – but we’d all look at the law and say, “But it’s the law – God’s law – Universal Law – Objective.”

More spurious claims. Where does it say in the Bible a white and black person can not marry?

Like, if you try to cut in front of a kid at a store while trying to by a life-saving inhaler for your child, the universe simply stops you.

What you’re suggesting is a universe that would be impossible to do anything morally wrong?

As for universal agreement, let’s take slavery as an example. It was only recently in human history that slavery has been outlawed. So, prior to that, slavery was universally practiced and accepted. Does that mean slavery was morally right in the past?

Again, according to who? The Law? The slave? A person who didn’t like slavery? God? The Universe?

Why keep on asking these things? All these questions are directed to you and simply asking for your position.

The best case I would make is that it was clear that it harms people, so if we tie morality to harm – yes, it was always wrong.

Then you’re applying objective morality to say slavery is wrong since it was universally practiced and accepted in the past.

I’d love to know what measure you use? That God says so? I haven’t heard God speak. Is he going to go on tour soon so we can see what he thinks?

What is the source of my morality? Ultimately God. God created all humans with a sense of morality. God also gave the Bible to codify proper behavior. It is summed up in the two greatest commandments.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1140705#p1140705

boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Sun Jan 21, 2024 2:31 pm

I will repeat:
You can’t know if God exists.
You can’t know if God is a moral agent capable of policing morals.
You can’t know if God would lay down Objective moral laws.

Repeating claims doesn’t make it any more convincing.

Also, how do you know God does not exist? Especially in light of the fact I’ve produced numerous arguments for the existence of God, yet there has not been a single rational argument to support no gods existing.

Why throw out “policing morals”? Nobody has been talking about that.

God being the source of objective morality is the only viable explanation on the table. It is entirely reasonable to then accept that explanation.

“Atheist philosopher J. L. Mackie accepted that, if objective moral truths existed, they would warrant a supernatural explanation.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_morality

You can’t even name one Objective Moral Law that we’d agree on – despite the fact that you (occasionally) agree that agreement doesn’t mean a moral value is Objective or not.

You don’t agree the items I listed are objective? If not, do you agree they are subjective?

I’m shocked you tried to define OMVs this late in the game (“Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures.”) As if that wasn’t what I was already addressing! I know that!

If you knew, then why did you ask, “what distinguishes an OMV?”

As for objective moral applying universally, I’ve already mentioned it in my argument for the objective morality of Christianity:

otseng wrote: ↑Sat Dec 23, 2023 9:22 am Objective morality would have to apply to all people at all times at all locations. Since God is the creator of all and above time and he is the source of morality and goodness, then the morality instilled in us as image bearers of God would make it objective.

This would even be true before any religious texts have been written (like the Torah). People would have an objective sense of morality before any followers wrote any books.

So which ones have applied to all times and cultures?

Look at your statement:
“Again, what distinguishes objective moral values is they apply universally to all times and cultures.”

So which ones have applied to all times and cultures?

That’s why I’ve presented my list, multiple times actually. If OMV do not exist, then what you’re saying is everything I listed must be subjective. Do you agree they are all subjective (according to you)?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1140772#p1140772

boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Thu Jan 25, 2024 8:59 am Read through this, as it sums up our conversation nicely:
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meta … OOpeQueArg

Here is an interesting admission:

What has always been attractive about Moorean non-naturalism is its capacity to combine the continuity and the difference into a coherent picture. There is room, at least, to account for moral thought’s continuity with other thought by emphasizing that it is all a matter of attributing properties (albeit different properties) to things; and there is room too for locating the distinctive nature of moral thought in the putatively authoritative standing of the properties attributed. Of course, leaving room for an account is not the same as actually providing one, and Moore himself does not actually offer much at all by way of an explanation of the normative authority (as we might call it) of moral properties. In any case, what has always been troubling about Moore’s view is that the coherent picture that emerges seems to presuppose (i) the existence of metaphysically dubious properties that fall outside the causal nexus and, so, are such that (ii) it would be a complete mystery how we could ever reliably learn anything about them, if they were to exist. Moore, and the intuitionists who followed him, work in various ways to address these concerns. Error theorists, in contrast, hold that the coherent picture painted by Moore is, at least roughly, the right account of what moral thought and talk involves, but they go on to argue that the metaphysically and epistemically troubling implications of that picture properly undermine its credibility. They argue that we have compelling reasons to reject moral thought, at least to the extent Moore was right about what moral thought presupposes.[12] That is of course compatible with thinking that we should use the same language meaning something different by it, or replacing it altogether with some other way of thinking and speaking.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/meta … OOpeQueArg

It admits a non-naturalistic explanation of morals is coherent. And by implication naturalistic explanations are non-coherent. But why is a non-naturalistic view rejected? Only because of its implications. This is a fallacious line of reasoning and an indication one is not willing to go where logic leads, but an explanation is rejected only because it does not fit their worldview.

But the Is-Ought problem exists for you too. If God “is”, why “ought” we accept God’s moral authority just because it “is”?

The “is” in the “is-ought problem” only applies to the properties of the natural world, so the problem does not exist for theists.

That’s why I’ve been asking you what property an OMV has.

The property an OMV has is its universal applicability. The source of OMV is God, not in any “property” of the universe.

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141113#p1141113

boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Sat Jan 27, 2024 10:08 am Murder is a legal term. It causes you problems: which country’s laws are the right ones? It’s legal to kill gay people, babies, commit honor killing, in some countries.

You were referring to God and the Bible, not the laws of a country. “It applies to God, too? Thou Shall not Kill? I think you have a tough row to hoe on that position. ”

The difference between murder and kill is murder is a subset of killing. There is justifiable killing (such as capital punishment) and unjustifiable killing (such as premeditated murder).

So, you’ll have to retreat to: It’s not up to Man’s law, it’s up to God’s Law. And round and round we go – since God clearly calls for the killing of many things, and it’s not clear what isn’t legal or illegal according to God’s Law.

The Torah was given to the Israelites as their set of laws. So, it didn’t matter what the laws of the other nations were.

As for the Decalogue, I’ve argued for its importance in Ten Commandments and case law.

God could consider all forms of killing “Good”, he could relish in it.

No, God does not “relish” in the death of anyone.

You only presume your God is Good because you don’t want to worship a monster, but you can’t know if God is a monster.

This is what this entire topic is addressing. And so far, I’ve failed to see any argument from skeptics that hold up to scrutiny.

If it’s non-natural and not from God, then where did it come from?

Somewhere else? That’s not my fight. I disagree with this direction since there is nothing to anchor it in the world we know.
Moore is simply presupposing that morals are objective – as the article points out, as I’m sure you saw.

You were the one that brought up the article so why is it not your fight?

I’ll give him credit at least for having a position that the non-natural world can exist.

Can it?

Are you disagreeing with Moore?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141254#p1141254

boatsnguitars wrote: ↑Sun Jan 28, 2024 9:07 amI am pointing out that different States have different laws.
In some States, capital punishment is illegal. Why won’t you address this problem?

I don’t see this as a problem or even relevant. What is your line of logic?

Right, you retreat to “It’s God’s Law.” Which means killing gay people, witches, workers on the Sabbath are all legal; aka Good.

I’m not claiming those instances are objectively good, but they would be subjective. During the time of the OT, it was how it was laid down for the Israelites. Not everything that was laid down applies universally.

Especially considering how you haven’t addressed the main problem I posed above, or, you seem to avoid the hard questions posed to your moral position.

Throwing out irrelevant questions and saying I’m not addressing them does nothing to challenge my position.

That’s what a book says about God, have you verified it with God?
He may relish in killing – after all, everything living dies in his Creation. You quoting a book doesn’t give me much confidence that you know how to debate.

You made an unsupported assertion and I challenged it and backed it up with the evidence of the Bible. How exactly can one know about the characteristics of the Christian God apart from the Bible? You might not believe the Bible, but you have to at least accept that is how God is portrayed in the Bible.

So, if you claim God “relishes” killing people, you’ll need to back it up with evidence otherwise it’s just more unsupported opinions.

“The Bhagavad Gita says….!”
“Dianetics says….!”

Come on, man, that’s not a debate.

If we’re debating Hinduism or Scientology, then those would be relevant. Otherwise, they are not.

Not sure what to call a thing that calls for the killing of men, women, livestock and children other than a Monster. Wouldn’t you agree?

I’ve already addressed it in Genocide summary argument.

It’s not my fight to make the case for the non-natural. You are welcome to make the case, as you seem to be the one who believes in it.

I’ve been making a case for it with morality. Here even your source admits the non-natural is the only coherent explanation for morality.

What we see with naturalism and morality is incoherency. We see this across the board with skeptics trying to believe in both morality and naturalism. This means it is not a rational position to hold both morality and naturalism.

Do you believe in it for no reason?

Who’s the one believing in something for no reason? What’s your reason for believing in naturalism?

I’ll give him credit at least for having a position that the non-natural world can exist.

Can it?

Are you disagreeing with Moore?

Do you agree with Moore? (Note that I asked you a direct question, and you answered with an answer after you made the direct claim I was questioning. I take this as avoidance on your part.)

Of course I believe the non-natural world exists and I agree with Moore a non-natural explanation best accounts for morality. Now your turn. Do you disagree with Moore?

https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1141330#p1141330