Can Morality Be Objective Without God?

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

12.11.2018 03:35PM

2

5

12.11.2018 03:35PM

Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true so all we need to do is determine which position is more rational than the other. Moral realism is the view that moral statements can be factually true and moral non-realism is the view that they cannot be. If moral non-realism were true, then none of these statements could be factually true:

(1) moral progress possible.

(2) there can be a moral highground

(3) people's moral judgments can be incorrect

(4) in the case of two competing moral views on something, one person can be more right than the other.

(5) compassion is moral and cruelty is immoral

(5) fairness is moral and unfairness is immoral

(6) killing another person without sufficient justification is morally wrong

(7) punishing an innocent person is morally wrong

(8) raping an infant is morally wrong

(9) moral discussions are not a 0 sum exercise

(10) cowardice is of bad moral character and courage is of good moral character.

Based on aggregate trends in human behavior, throughout human history, none of these statements are indicated to be opinion-based truths. No justice system on earth, for instance, adheres to the principle punishing innocent people is morally good. Yet, moral non-realists would have you believe that this absurd conclusion, if it were accepted as true by someone, is just as rationally warranted as the opposite - that punishing innocent people is morally wrong.

So in short, the weight of the evidence (rationally, empirically, and prima facie intuition) strongly favors moral realism. In addition, moral realism is the prevailing view amongst academia and the public so in order to override the status quo, you must prevent a strong case to overcome that as well as all of the evidence in favor of realism. Until then, realism is the more rational position.

#122

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 03:39PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 03:39PM

-->

@MagicAintReal

The body maintains homeostasis whether you value contentment or not.
Your body values contentment.

Only if you are able to maintain normal serotonin levels.

Those who have very little and those who have more than enough are often driven by something far beyond the simple desire to maintain their current status.
Not really.
Both of those types of people, whether they strive for materialistic products or not, are inherently trying to survive on the cellular level and this is universal.

So are you suggesting a moral principle or merely a biological principle?

And if you are suggesting a moral principle, please explain how it applies to those who have very little and those who have more than enough.

Topic's author

#123

Debates: 12

Posts: 258

1

3

7

12.11.2018 03:46PM

1

3

7

12.11.2018 03:46PM

-->

@3RU7AL

So are you suggesting a moral principle or merely a biological principle?

I'm saying the two are inextricably linked.

And if you are suggesting a moral principle, please explain how it applies to those who have very little and those who have more than enough.

Those who have very little cannot survive in temperatures below a certain point, without food, and without water.
Those who have more than enough cannot survive in temperatures below a certain point, without food, and without water.

Both of these types of people can behave towards others.
Both of these types of people can consider others' strive to maintain homeostasis to be universal with respects to actions towards homeostatic others.

Both of these types of people can determine morality objectively with this principle.

#124

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 03:55PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 03:55PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true [false choice/false tautology] so all we need to do is determine which position is more rational than the other [if you say so]. Moral realism is the view that moral statements can be factually true and moral non-realism is the view that they cannot be [these are not the only two options, you neglect to mention consensus morality]. If moral non-realism were true, then none of these statements could be factually true:

(1) moral progress [is] possible with consensus morality.

(2) there can be a moral highground with consensus morality.

(3) people's moral judgments can be incorrect with consensus morality.

(4) in the case of two competing moral views on something, one person can be more right than the other with consensus morality.

(5) compassion is moral and cruelty is immoral with consensus morality.

(5) fairness is moral and unfairness is immoral with consensus morality.

(6) killing another person without sufficient justification is morally wrong with consensus morality.

(7) punishing an innocent person is morally wrong with consensus morality.

(8) raping an infant is morally wrong with consensus morality.

(9) moral discussions are not a 0 sum exercise with consensus morality.

(10) cowardice is of bad moral character and courage is of good moral character with consensus morality.

Based on aggregate trends [in other words, CONSENSUS] in human behavior, throughout human history, none of these statements are indicated to be opinion-based truths [although they are not uniform or universal and many cultures for thousands of years and many even today commit what we would consider atrocities and yet they believe it is "the justice of the gods"]. No justice system on earth, for instance, adheres to the principle punishing innocent people is morally good [except for those that deport children to war zones]. Yet, moral non-realists [an absurd term] would have you believe that this absurd conclusion [of your own fabrication], if it were accepted as true by someone, is just as rationally warranted as the opposite - that punishing innocent people is morally wrong [not according to our current consensus].

So in short, the weight of the evidence (rationally, empirically, and prima facie intuition) strongly favors moral realism [given your ridiculous parameters and false choice]. In addition, moral realism is the prevailing view amongst academia and the public [CITATION NEEDED] so in order to override the status quo, you must prevent a strong case to overcome that as well as all of the evidence in favor of realism. Until then, realism is the more rational position [in your personal opinion].

Everyone believes in consensus morality. Everyone has always believed in consensus morality. From primal tribes to Roman cities to modern day.

Topic's author

#125

Debates: 12

Posts: 258

1

3

7

12.11.2018 04:18PM

1

3

7

12.11.2018 04:18PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Dude, I would love for you to vote on the debate, you can do it.

#126

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

12.11.2018 04:37PM

3

12.11.2018 04:37PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Dumb question, but what is 'consensus morality'?

Do you mean a set of arbitrary rules that a large marjority of people agree to abide by?

#127

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

https://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/robbins/CommonLawCivilLawTraditions.html

12.11.2018 04:43PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 04:43PM

-->

@keithprosser

Consensus is the basis of the modern legal code.

Laws (codified morality) apply strictly to territories.

What is legal (morally acceptable behavior) in Nevada may or may not be legal (morally acceptable behavior) in New York or Paris or Riyadh.

#128

Debates: 0

Posts: 3,052

3

12.11.2018 04:54PM

3

12.11.2018 04:54PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Ah, so you do mean "a set of arbitrary rules that a large majority of people agree to abide by".

That seems to imply that if there were no formal laws (on an isolated uncharted desert island say) I could kill you in cold blood but it wouldn't be immoral.

Re exists and real, I would say the way they are used is such that 'X exists' and 'X is real' convey exactly the same intuitive concept, but that concept cannot be defined (other than circularly).

#129

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 05:11PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 05:11PM

-->

@keithprosser

Ah, so you do mean "a set of arbitrary rules that a large majority of people agree to abide by".

Not necessarily "arbitrary", our "moral instincts" probably serve some evolutionary purpose, specifically allowing large numbers of humans to co-exist and cooperate. Morality is primarily social.

That seems to imply that if there were no formal laws (on an isolated uncharted desert island say) I could kill you in cold blood but it wouldn't be immoral.

If you thought it was worth the risk (of attempting and failing to kill) and you thought you would be better off, and you could live with any personal guilt or regret you might or might not feel afterwords, and there were no other people you would have to explain this to, then, take your best shot (a la Walking Dead). If you believe my survival diminishes your chances of survival, then I am automatically an "enemy combatant" and must be dealt with at such.

Re exists and real, I would say the way they are used is such that 'X exists' and 'X is real' convey exactly the same intuitive concept, but that concept cannot be defined (other than circularly).

Morality is "real", well, at least as "real" as "love" or any other purely qualitative concept.

In order for it to cross-the-line into the quantifiable (scientific), it must be explicitly defined to correlate with empirical data.

#130

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

12.11.2018 05:41PM

2

5

12.11.2018 05:41PM

-->

@3RU7AL

Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true by law of excluded middle.

"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion. You can have consensus on facts and that's why there's often consensus in the first place.

#131

Debates: 0

Posts: 315

1

2

3

12.11.2018 05:49PM

1

2

3

12.11.2018 05:49PM

-->

@Fallaneze

An 8 year old doesnt need to first go through an academic exercise where they build their moral foundation. It's intuitive. Why can't we know of facts using our intuition?

I contend that what you call intuition is actually learned behavior. Your proposition that it is morally wrong to punish an innocent person is a perfect example. Children are notorious for punishing innocent people in the form of bullying. An 8 year old child must be taught that it is wrong to do that which then serves as a moral standard from which to base all future action.

#132

Debates: 0

Posts: 315

1

2

3

12.11.2018 06:00PM

1

2

3

12.11.2018 06:00PM

-->

@Fallaneze

"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion.

Moral statements can be factually true but only when applied to an existing moral standard. "Consensus morality" exists because of existing moral standards created through learned behavior and possibly some amount of survival instinct.

#133

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 06:07PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 06:07PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Either moral realism or moral non-realism is true by law of excluded middle.

What you are saying is,"moral realism" is either true or false. Please provide a logically coherent definition of "moral realism".

Do you believe in "love realism" and "beauty realism" as well? What about "unicorn realism" and "big foot realism"?

Have you met Plato?

Either unicorn realism or unicorn non-realism is true by the law of excluded middle.

How do we know which one is true????????????

"Consensus morality" does not address whether moral statements are true based on fact or opinion. You can have consensus on facts and that's why there's often consensus in the first place.

Sure, but without an explicit, empirically verifiable standard, how do you know if we are more moral than our ancestors?

How do we know if we are more moral than our friends in Papua New Guinea?

Your personal overwhelming confidence in your own moral intuition is meaningless.

If "everyone followed the rules" we'd still be writing in ancient Latin. Languages evolve over time, just like morality. Proper grammar today is not the same as proper grammar a thousand years ago. It is based on consensus.

#134

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-moral-life-of-babies/

12.11.2018 06:25PM

2

5

12.11.2018 06:25PM

-->

@TwoMan

"Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things. Bloom answered questions recently from Mind Matters editor Gareth Cook. "

#135

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

12.11.2018 06:27PM

2

5

12.11.2018 06:27PM

-->

@TwoMan

Correct, in order for a moral statement to be factually true there must be an existing moral standard. The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required in order to decipher moral from immoral behavior. That comes naturally and intuitively on some things.

#136

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 06:51PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 06:51PM

-->

@Fallaneze

"Morality is not just something that people learn..."

No kidding, we have basic intuitions about our immediate family, just like dogs.

If morality was as simple as "be nice" then we would never have any disagreements.

HOwever, it is obviously more complicated than that.

The differences in moral (social/cultural) norms across time and geography are examples of learned behavior.

#137

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 06:52PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 06:52PM

-->

@Fallaneze

The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required...

A secret or unknown standard is functionally identical to no standard at all.

#138

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

12.11.2018 06:52PM

2

5

12.11.2018 06:52PM

A proposition is either true or not true. "Unicorns exist" is either true or not true.

Moral realism is the view that some moral statements (like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong") are factually true.

We can determine the morality of behaviors rationally. We don't need to reference a tangible, empirical object.

Intuition provides us with prima facie evidence. Raping infants seems truly evil, so unless and until you have evidence to show that our intuition is providing us with false information, we should accept the way it seems.

#139

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

12.11.2018 06:55PM

2

5

12.11.2018 06:55PM

-->

@3RU7AL

We needn't know why something seems wrong before it seems wrong

#140

Debates: 0

Posts: 315

1

2

3

12.11.2018 07:01PM

1

2

3

12.11.2018 07:01PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Correct, in order for a moral statement to be factually true there must be an existing moral standard. The caveat is that our awareness of that standard isn't required in order to decipher moral from immoral behavior. That comes naturally and intuitively on some things.

I would say very few things. While I'm not a psychologist, there are certainly lots of examples that, in part, refute Paul Bloom's theory. It sounds like he has forgotten what it's like to be a child. He seems to be saying that children "know" what is right but behave wrong anyway. Bullying is a very real and pervasive problem. Children steal other children's toys. I could go on and on. Compassion, empathy and a sense of fairness aren't worth much unless we are taught to value them.

#141

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 07:03PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 07:03PM

-->

@Fallaneze

We needn't know why something seems wrong before it seems wrong

Nobody ever suggested such a thing.

What we need to know are the coherent logical principles we can base our laws (codified morality) on.

Should a copyright expire after 59 years, as originally intended, or can it be renewed indefinitely(?).

Your moral intuition on such matters may be somewhat different than mine.

We agree on many things, that is not in dispute, but that alone merely proves consensus, it is the points that we disagree on that must be explicitly principled.

#142

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

12.11.2018 07:05PM

2

5

12.11.2018 07:05PM

-->

@3RU7AL

All you'd need is one moral statement that is factually true in order to affirm moral realism.

Is the principle "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" rationally equivalent to the principle that "punishing innocent people is morally good"?

#143

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

12.11.2018 07:06PM

2

5

12.11.2018 07:06PM

Consensus morality has no effect on whether moral statements are factually true or true only by opinion. If the consensus is aggregate and universal, this is actually a strong indicator of moral facts.

#144

Debates: 0

Posts: 315

1

2

3

12.11.2018 07:10PM

1

2

3

12.11.2018 07:10PM

-->

@Fallaneze

I can't think of any moral statement that is universal, meaning true for every human being.

#145

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 07:16PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 07:16PM

-->

@Fallaneze

A proposition is either true or not true. "Unicorns exist" is either true or not true.

Ok, but without seeing a unicorn (objective morality), can we say they definitely DON'T exist?

If there is no detectable standard, it doesn't seem to be conclusive.

Without a verifiable, empirical standard, you can't say a unicorn (objective morality) definitely DOES exist.

Moral realism is the view that some moral statements (like "punishing an innocent person is morally wrong") are factually true.

"Punishing an innocent person is morally wrong" is only axiomatically true. Many people believe (with their moral intuition) it is better to "err on the side of caution" and would rather lock-up all people who appear to be dangerous, regardless of their guilt or innocence (internment camps are just one of many examples).

We can determine the morality of behaviors rationally. We don't need to reference a tangible, empirical object.

You keep appealing to "moral intuition" and then turn right around and say "morality is rational". Which is it?

Intuition provides us with prima facie evidence. Raping infants seems truly evil, so unless and until you have evidence to show that our intuition is providing us with false information, we should accept the way it seems.

Atrocious atrocities are atrocious. We all agree.

This merely proves consensus. Nobody is asking for evidence of consensus.

We are asking for logically coherent principles that allow us to clearly adjudicate scenarios that are outside of our consensus.

#146

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 07:18PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 07:18PM

-->

@Fallaneze

Consensus morality has no effect on whether moral statements are factually true or true only by opinion.

Wait, consensus has nothing to do with facts?

If the consensus is aggregate and universal, this is actually a strong indicator of moral facts.

Now, suddenly, consensus is a strong indicator of facts?

Since when?

#147

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 07:21PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 07:21PM

-->

@Fallaneze

All you'd need is one moral statement that is factually true in order to affirm moral realism.

False.

You have merely confirmed consensus.

Affirming an intuition, like, "castor oil tastes bad to everybody", is perfectly pointless.

In order for your "objective morality" to be of any practical use whatsoever, it must be able to adjudicate divergent moral intuitions.

#148

Debates: 0

Posts: 948

2

5

12.11.2018 10:43PM

2

5

12.11.2018 10:43PM

-->

@3RU7AL

A unicorn is defined according to its physical characteristics. Morality is not defined by physical characteristics. Morality is abstract. Empiricism works on tangible things, like unicorns, but not on abstract stuff, like morality.

We don't need to prove moral realism. All we need to do is determine whether it's more rational than moral non-realism since one of the two must be true by law of excluded middle.

Having a moral principle be "axiomatically true" better evidences moral realism than non-realism.

Moral realism is both intuitive and rational. They needn't be mutually exclusive.

We would expect greater consensus on facts than on mere opinions. Rationality is not wholly subjective. Therefore, rationality is our independent epistemic standard.

No, consensus has no effect on facts. If we all agree it's cold, it doesn't change that the temperature is 70. If we all agree it's hot, it doesn't change that temperature is still 70. Our natural reaction to 70 degree weather, however, will not consist of sweating or shivering. Our behavior indicates, but has no hand in determining, the actual temperature.

All I need to do is point out that there are rational differences between opposite moral conclusions. You aren't irrational for preferring the taste of chocolate ice cream over vanilla or vice versa. You are irrational, however, if you believe that cruelty must be morally good and that compassion must be morally wrong. This shows that morality is embedded in rationality and rationality is not wholly subjective. Since rationality is not wholly subjective, therein lies our independent basis for arriving at the conclusion of the existence of moral facts.

#149

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9

12.11.2018 10:48PM

3

4

9

12.11.2018 10:48PM

-->

@MagicAintReal

@David

@Logical-Master

Shamelessly plagiarized [with modifications] from Logical-Master

-Both debaters have stipulated that objective moral facts exist.

PRO R1: (1) Objective moral facts transcend time, culture, place religious traditions, etc; these facts are always true regardless of the state of the universe [bald assertion, no examples, yet uncontested by CON]. (2) Objective moral facts are commands and commands [bald assertion, facts are not commands] must originate from an intelligent and competent mind [bald assertion, gravity is not a command and does not require a commander]. (3) Free will exist and objective moral facts cannot be accounted for without it [bald assertion, gravity does not require free will, why would any other objective fact require free will]. (4)Therefore, God must exist [non-sequitur, does not follow from premises].

CON R1: PRO is wrong because morality can be objective without necessitating the conclusion that God exist [just like gravity]. (1) Morality can be reduced to principles concerning the distinction between beneficial and detrimental actions with respect to humans and some extent to animals’ homeostasis (an organism’s maintenance of internal balance when dealing with external changes)[I believe this is just one possible example to show viability of concept]. (2) Morality is objective as long as its determination is independent of human opinion[applies to other animals or systems]. (3) Morality is determined based on facts about the homeostasis of others towards whom they are acting[subjective]. 4) Therefore, morality does not come from God, but rather homeostasis[reckless overstatement]

#150

Debates: 3

Posts: 13,791

3

4

9