Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Author: MagicAintReal ,

Posts

Total: 438
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @MagicAintReal
I think the basis of the debate is flawed.

I would suggest that 'morality' resembles 'free will' and 'colour' in that it seems like they exist but on deeper analysis they disappear.   That  is to say the premise of the debate is flawed because morality does not exist - it only appears to exist.

What exists is an instictive faulty in human brains to estimate the upside and downside of options.   If we estimate something to be more up than down we get the subective feeling it is 'good' or 'right', and vice versa.

MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
--> @keithprosser
So, not gonna vote?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @MagicAintReal
@virtuoso

I don't really vote unless I am called upon as a judge for the debate but I disagree with the first and second premises. I'm not sure objective morality exists and even if it does I'm not certain how that points to any god(s) necessarily existing.
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
--> @secularmerlin
Ok, I'm calling on you as a judge...go for it.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @MagicAintReal
Im afraid that is a descision that must be made at the outset of the debate.
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @MagicAintReal
Morality is completely subjective.
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @MagicAintReal
Are votes for who is right or who makes the best case?   In a formal debate a good debater should win 'night is day' against a bad debater. 

It seems to me formal debating is a game for people who want to be shysters and con-men when they grow up. 
MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
--> @keithprosser
lol...maybe, but I'm all grown up
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @MagicAintReal
I'm sure its fun for those that like it - like amateur dramatics or dressing up as a klingon.  I'm not interseted in debating for its own sake.   i am into bouncing ideas around - sadly that happens about 0.1% of the time even in the forums.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,827
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @MagicAintReal
PRO fails to give even a single example of some moral command (OMF) that might (necessarily) supposedly come from a god.

MagicAintReal
MagicAintReal's avatar
Debates: 12
Posts: 258
1
3
7
MagicAintReal's avatar
MagicAintReal
1
3
7
--> @3RU7AL
you should vote and express these thoughts.
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
It depends on how you define objective morality. If there are things that one ought to do irrespective of anyone's input, then yes. If by objective morality you mean the ability to define an objective standard of our choosing, and then compare behavior to that standard, then no.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Fallaneze
And what is an example of something that one should do irrespective of anyone's input?
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @secularmerlin
Be compassionate, honest, responsible, humble, etc.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Fallaneze
Without necessarily disagreeing why should we do those things?
keithprosser
keithprosser's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,053
2
3
3
keithprosser's avatar
keithprosser
2
3
3
--> @secularmerlin
And what is an example of something that one should do irrespective of anyone's input?
I don't know what 'irrespective of anyone's input' means, but as it's 'irrespective' we can ignore it and just say;

And what is an example of something that one should do?
Its hard to come up with something that one should do under all and every circumstance and situation.   The closest I can get is 'miminise harm'.
 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @keithprosser
And without necessarily disagreeing why should we minimize harm?
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @secularmerlin
Because it's true. How do I know? Innate knowledge.

Well why should we seek truth? Doesn't truth lead us to perfection, the highest ideal?
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Fallaneze
If that knowledge were innate we would not have to teach children to be compassionate or honest. I think you mean that they are learned behaviors. As for knowledge leading to perfection you would have to be clearer about what you mean by perfection. Now let's try that again. Let's focus on just one of these qualities. Why should we be honest?
Fallaneze
Fallaneze's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 948
2
2
5
Fallaneze's avatar
Fallaneze
2
2
5
--> @secularmerlin
Innate knowledge does not entail full awareness. We're imperfectly rational, especially as children. This means that reinforcement and guidance is helpful. Children sometimes naturally act compassionately and honestly.

Why should we be honest? It allows us to accurately share how much we know and strengthens our moral character. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Fallaneze
Children sometimes naturally act compassionately and honestly.
And often they do not. They lack empathy. Children are very self absorbed people.
It allows us to accurately share how much we know
Yes but why is this desirable?
strengthens our moral character. 
What constitutes moral character may be largely subjective. This is a qualified statement not a quantifiable one. Moral character cannot be measured in the way one measures the temperature.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 6,230
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
--> @Fallaneze
Let us try a thought experiment. Let us say a man with a gun knocks on your door and says he is here to kill your best friend Gary (a kind but hypothetical person) Gary is in your kitchen. The man asks if ypu know where to find Gary. Should you be honest or lie?
disgusted
disgusted's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,959
2
3
3
disgusted's avatar
disgusted
2
3
3
--> @Fallaneze
Be compassionate, honest, responsible, humble, etc.

All traits that are learned, not innate.

3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 9,827
3
4
8
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
8
--> @Fallaneze
It depends on how you define objective morality.
Objective morality would necessarily be a natural law, like gravity, that applies equally to all beings, including a dog, a sheep, and a rhinoceros and a martian.