wiploc wrote:
otseng wrote:
Yes, to be totally consistent in a secular worldview, there can be no such thing as objective evil.In case people misunderstand me, I’m not saying that objective evil does not exist in a religious worldview.I’ve never understood this, and I’ve never gotten a theist to explain it. What does evil have to do with theism?
Why, if objective evil is possible with gods, isn’t it also possible without gods?
Why, if it’s impossible without gods, isn’t it also impossible with gods?
Let’s refer to your definition of evil:
wiploc wrote: I took a Western Civilization class in which evil was defined as the sources of unhappiness, or, by extension, unhappiness itself.
That works. And it works just as well in the secular world.
I’m willing to listen to an explanation of why this kind of evil isn’t “objective,” but I can’t think of any such explanation myself.
Is unhappiness objective? If not, then neither would be evil, according to your definition.
Happiness is only relative to a person (or group of people). But it cannot be extended to everybody. Divine Insight pointed this out in post 316.
wiploc wrote: No. If something actually causes unhappiness, then it is by definition evil. No subjectivity there.
We are categorizing two types of evil: objective and subjective. People are free to think that what causes unhappiness is evil, but that would be subjective evil, not objective evil. It could be evil for one person, but not evil for another.
With objective evil, something can be considered evil and it is independent of what people think. Everybody in the world might even think it makes them happy, but it can still be considered evil. This would only make sense in a world where objective evil exists.
Going back to your question of why is objective evil only possible with gods? In order for something to be considered objectively evil, it must be regarded as evil independent of social customs, human preferences, or societal norms. It must be regarded as evil from a non-human point of view. The only possible way that I know of for something to be considered objective evil is to be defined by a non-human that can claim authority over us. This would be god.
In an atheistic worldview, there is no non-human that has authority over people. There is nothing that can be a foundation for calling anything objectively evil.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675130#p675130
wiploc wrote: We’re after your explanation, so we’ll have to let you set the definition. There’s no point in asking me to guess what definitions you want to use.
So, in answer to your question, I’m happy to accept whichever answer you prefer.
Objective evil would be something that would be considered universally evil. It does not matter what people thought about it (even if people thought it was acceptable); it would be still be evil. For example, exterminating innocent people in the gas chambers would be evil (even if the people doing it thinks it is acceptable). Or another example, forced sterilization of people who do not consent to being sterilized would be evil (even if it is approved of by the Supreme Court).
Subjective evil is considered evil that is dependent on a person, group, society. It doesn’t apply universally. Things can be evil at one time, and then be considered good at another time. It all depends on what society accepts at that time. For example, at one time it was considered really bad to date/marry interracially. Now, it’s not considered bad.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=675871#p675871
wiploc wrote:
otseng wrote:
wiploc wrote: We’re after your explanation, so we’ll have to let you set the definition. There’s no point in asking me to guess what definitions you want to use.
So, in answer to your question, I’m happy to accept whichever answer you prefer.
Objective evil would be something that would be considered universally evil.
This confuses me. It would have to be considered evil to be objective? I thought the test of objectivity was that it didn’t matter what people thought.
You’re placing too much emphasis on considered. Let me rephrase it. Objective evil is something that is universally evil.
Can we have exceptions, like “Thou shalt not kill, except in self defense?”
I think “You shall not murder” is a better translation.
As for exceptions, I do not think there would be any for things considered to be objective evil.
And you seem to be saying that (if there was a god) the Holocaust would be only subjectively evil because only one country did it.
Right now, I’m not even introducing god into the equation yet. I’m just trying to define objective and subjective evil.
Are you saying that if god said to rape your daughters on Tuesdays, that would be subjectively good, but if he said to do it every day then would be objective because the application is universal?
Again, I’m not even mentioning about god yet.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=676292#p676292
Divine Insight wrote: Morality is nothing more than a subjective opinion. It’s entirely an invention of mankind.
From the atheistic perspective, yes, I agree.
I want to push this a little farther. If morality is just subjective opinion, should the term morality even be used at all? Morality implies that there is something that a person ought to do (ought to do the right thing). But, if there’s really no right thing to do, except for one’s subjective opinion, then why should another ought to do it?
We do not normally speak of morality in regards to personal opinions. “You are bad if you do not listen to classical music. You are evil if you like the color yellow. You are righteous if you only listen to the Beatles. You are sinning if you like spicy food.”
So, I would think that the term morality (if it implies any oughtness, evil, good) makes no sense in an atheistic perspective.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=678301#p678301
wiploc wrote: I sometimes like to define morality as “that which we ought to do.” You wrote that “the definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it.”So perhaps subjective morality would be things that you ought to do, depending on what you think about it?
If so, then, yes, they are different.
OK, good.
I’d like you to tell me now why objective morality depends on a god.Let’s assume that “the definition of objective morality is that people ought to do some things, regardless of what they themselves think about it.”
The question is where does this “ought” come from? It cannot come from themselves, since it doesn’t matter what they think about it.
I don’t see how an ought can come from somewhere.
If the “ought” exists, then it must come from somewhere.
So when you say that objective morality is true regardless of what anybody thinks about it, that gives me pause. Can there be an obligation to do something that benefits nobody? If nobody wants you to do X—if it benefits nobody—then what is the point?
I personally do not think that morality has no benefits. It might not be beneficial in the short-term to be moral, but it would be beneficial in the long-term.
It’s like saying, “You ought to do X, but there is no reason to do X.”
Objective morality would not depend on providing reasons why one should do X.
So, what or who defines what people ought to do? It would have to come from some authority that defines what people ought to do.I don’t see what authority has to do with it.
Authority is some person or thing that has the right to tell someone else what one ought to do. For example, my boss has the right to tell me at work what I ought to program. However, a person who is not a boss over me does not have the right to tell me what I ought to do.
This authority would have the intrinsic right to determine what everybody should do and would span all cultures and all of human history.I don’t see how that could be.
Then where else could objective morality come from?
This assumes a fact not in evidence. If a god, say Jehovah, existed, how would he get authority over us? George Carlin used to say, “I have just as much authority as the Pope—I just don’t have as many people who believe it.” How would a god have more authority than George Carlin?
God is the ultimate creator. George Carlin is not.
The invention of the class seems to me arbitrary, and the inclusion of your god in that class seems to me arbitrary.
Not applying a rule to just a class would be arbitrary. Do you mean the same rules should apply to everything?
The big bang seems obvious. I don’t know how anybody can not believe in it. But, it’s not at all obvious that nothing preceded the big bang. I went onto campus about ten years ago, and asked a cosmologist what the scientific consensus on this issue is. He said, “Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang. Nobody knows what happened before the big bang.”So it is my understanding that there is no scientific consensus that nothing preceded the big bang. Therefore I see no linkage between believing in the big bang and believing that the universe began to exist.
Could it be that they avoid the issue because they don’t like to leave room for God?
If the universe is everything, god would be creating himself along with everything else. You can see how that gives me pause.
Only naturalism would assume the universe is everything. Supernaturalism does not posit that the universe is everything.
– If X existed at time T, and didn’t exist before time T, then X began.So, if that’s our definition of a beginning, then the rest of the universe (the non-god part) began.
OK, good.
But god (assuming he exists at all) began too. Neither god nor the rest of the universe existed before there was time.
If god was bound by our space-time, yes. But nobody is saying that god is bound by our space-time. Rather, what is claimed is that god created space-time.
An infinite regress is uncomfortable, anti-intuitive.
OK, good, we agree that an infinite regress is uncomfortable and anti-intuitive.
But the same is true of a beginning. We don’t like it.
Atheists might not like a beginning. Theists have no problems with it.
“OK, then what is the natural world?Since I don’t believe in magic: Everything that exists.
Hypothetically speaking, if God does exist, would the natural world then include God?
That would depend on the details of the particular hypothetical. But, if you want me to assume we’re talking about a supernatural god who is not part of the natural world, I can do that.
So, the natural world is our universe and everything outside our universe except God?
So, if we go with my preferred definition (universe = everything) then, no there is nothing other than the universe.If you mean universe is “all of reality”, I would say that’s an arbitrary definition for universe.
It seems the normal definition to me, but we don’t have to use it. We can use any definition that will get us to your explanation of why gods are necessary for objective morality.
This wasn’t in regards to objective morality, but in regards to what is science.
Sometimes we talk about “pocket universes,” or use other language to make it clear that we’re using “universe” in a special less-than-everything way. You may be intending that when you talk about “our universe.”Yes, I’m talking about “our universe”. Do you believe other universes exist?
No. I don’t have an opinion. Bertrand Russell wrote that when the experts don’t agree on a topic, the layman does well to not have an opinion.
Oh, come now, it’s OK to have an opinion, even when experts don’t agree.
Another reason it’s not special pleading is because if our universe is eternal, then there would not be a cause for it.I confess that I’ve never been comfortable with that claim.
The claim has fallen out of favor, so there’s no need to really entertain it. But, my point is that here is an example of a non-God scenario where there is no need to have a cause. So, it disproves the assertion that a God scenario is special pleading.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=680762#p680762
wiploc wrote: Perhaps an example would help. If the bear charges, you ought to go back inside and shut the door. Where did that ought “come from”?
That wouldn’t be a good example. Moral goodness or evil wouldn’t apply here.
My question is why ought we comply with a morality that does not have any benefit. You can’t answer that question by saying that this non-beneficial morality just happens to be beneficial after all.
Ultimately, we should do what is right simply because that is what we are expected to do.
You should do it even though there is no reason to do it. You should do it for no reason. There is no reason you should do it.
I never said there is no reason to do it. I said it’s not necessary to provide a reason for people to do what is morally right.
How does a god get the right to tell us what to do? Where would such a right “come from”?
Any creator has rights over its creation.
I’m the owner and creator of this forum. It is within my right to create the rules and to tell people what to do on this forum. I also don’t need to tell anyone why the rules are there or what benefit they will have if they follow the rules. People need to follow the rules just because I say so.
And, as near as I can tell, you’re saying that objective morality is the kind that there is no reason to go along with, no reason to comply with. As near as I can tell, that’s the same as saying it doesn’t exist.
Never said that.
To elaborate on the forum example. The forum rules are like the objective morality. It doesn’t matter what people think the rules should be. (As a matter of fact, some seem to think that they can just abide by their own rules here.) I have my own reasons for the rules, but I don’t need to give reasons why people need to follow the rules. People are expected to do the right thing and follow the rules.
A counterexample is YouTube. There are no rules on how people should act when people post comments. People have their own opinions, but it would be subjective. One cannot enforce another to abide by their own rules.
What is it about being a god that gives you authority?
Because I created this forum, I have authority here. Because God created the universe, God has authority over the universe.
But since you’re saying that objective rules have all their exceptions baked in, then, yes.
Depends on what you mean by exceptions.
The rules on this forum applies to a special class of people – those who participate on this forum. Does that mean the exception is built-in so that it doesn’t apply to members of another forum?
Unless you’re going to assume that all scientific opinion results from bias.
Believe it or not, scientists can be biased.
You argued like you were going to get your justification from science, but when science doesn’t agree with you, you dismiss it as biased.
Nobody is totally correct in all things. One needs to decide for themselves based on reasoning and evidence what is correct.
That still doesn’t explain why you believe that people who believe in the big bang should believe in a finite universe.Do you have a justification for that claim?
I believe there’s more justification for this than an infinite universe.
If god was bound by our space-time, yes. But nobody is saying that god is bound by our space-time. Rather, what is claimed is that god created space-time.You said you know of a single definition of “begun” that has god unbegun but the rest of the universe begun. Simply refusing to apply the definition to your god doesn’t suffice.
If God created space-time, there is no “begun” for God, unless one posits God living in a different space-time.
If theists have no problem with a beginning of the universe, they aren’t paying attention.
OK, then, I’m listening… go on.
You defined “our universe” as only extending back to the big bang. I don’t know what happened before the big bang; so therefore I don’t know whether—if anything happened at all—it was natural.
If you don’t know if there’s other universes, then wouldn’t it be reasonable to believe that no other universe exist?
Sometimes we talk about “pocket universes,” or use other language to make it clear that we’re using “universe” in a special less-than-everything way. You may be intending that when you talk about “our universe.”Yes, I’m talking about “our universe”. Do you believe other universes exist?
No. I don’t have an opinion. Bertrand Russell wrote that when the experts don’t agree on a topic, the layman does well to not have an opinion.
Oh, come now, it’s OK to have an opinion, even when experts don’t agree.
Stipulated: It’s okay to have an opinion.
But I don’t have one anyway. I have no information about the topic, no information to base an opinion on, and therefore no opinion.
Then why even bring up “pocket universes” or saying that my intention was talking about “our” universe?
I still don’t get it. Why wouldn’t something need a cause just because it didn’t have a beginning? That seems to me an absolutely arbitrary claim. As such, it doesn’t disprove anything.
It’s not an arbitrary claim. Cosmologists used to believe that the universe was eternal just so they wouldn’t have to have a cause for the universe.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=680951#p680951
wiploc wrote:otseng wrote:Divine Insight wrote: And if there is supposedly some “objective morality” exactly WHERE are we supposed to find this objective morality?I’m not specifying where it should come from.
Then why were you asking me where it comes from?
All I’m saying is that God can account for objective morality. I’m not stating (for now at least) that the Bible is the source of objective morality (which is what Divine Insight was driving at).
You implied that we don’t need God for objective morality. So I ask you where it should then come from if not God.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=680954#p680954
Haven wrote: Rights are socially constructed (and therefore not objective — it’s pointless to speak of rights from the standpoint of the universe; they don’t exist).
Yes, some rights are socially constructed. I’m not denying that. But, not all rights are.
You have authority because you are able to maintain it by force and the threat of force (in this case, banning those who disagree with your rules).
I can do whatever I want on this forum, even without a show of force. For example, I can simply shut down this forum. Nobody can really say to me, “Hey, that’s not right for you to do that.” Well, people might not like it, but it is within my rights to do it since I created and own the forum.
But, let me ask, is the only reason you obey the rules here because of the threat of banishment? I hope that would not be the case for most people. Why should people follow the rules then? I hope because simply it’s the right thing to do.
It’s not a natural right or a feature of the universe, but a display of raw power. “Might makes right,” if you will.
I would disagree that force is justification for rights. I said being a creator, not force, gives rights over the creation.
Here’s another example. What gives me rights over my children? Force? No. It’s that I was part of procreating them. I don’t have any rights over any other children because I did not procreate them. What if I demonstrate force over other children? Will that give me rights over them? No.
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=681228#p681228
Wait a minute, do you believe objective morality exists?
Murder leads to non-survival (death) so we call murder immoral.
Murder does not lead to the death of the murderer, just the victims. So, the murderer survives through natural selection. So, evolution favors the murderers. Why would then murder be immoral and not moral from an evolutionary point of view?
https://debatingchristianity.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=681241#p681241